Every detection, compliance or corrective action monitoring program must use enough wells at appropriate locations and depths to yield uppermost-aquifer samples representing unaffected background (upgradient or, where upgradient cannot be determined, other representative wells), the quality of ground water passing the point of compliance, and to detect migration (one system may serve several units). Wells must be cased to keep bore-hole integrity, screened or packed where needed, with the annular space above the sampling depth sealed. The program must have consistent procedures for sample collection, preservation and shipment, analysis and chain of custody; appropriate and accurate methods; a ground-water surface elevation at each sampling; background and compliance data collected with a sample size suited to the statistical test (at least four independent samples per sequence, or an approved alternative); a statistical method specified in the permit per constituent and well (parametric ANOVA, rank ANOVA, tolerance or prediction intervals, control charts, or an approved alternative) meeting performance standards on distributions, Type I error of no less than 0.01 per well comparison and 0.05 experimentwise for multiple comparisons, approved control chart and interval parameters, treatment of non-detects and practical quantification limits, and seasonal, spatial and temporal variability. Monitoring data, with actual constituent levels, must be kept in the operating record and submitted as the permit specifies.
This control maps to 1 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.