Is New Design - Frederick County Tap Water Safe? Quality Report

Water source: Surface water
Ownership: Local government
Counties served: Frederick

Compliance record

Formal violations the EPA has on file for this supplier. A health-based violation means a contaminant limit or a required treatment was breached; the rest are monitoring or reporting failures — still violations, but not a measured health risk.

health-based violations

violations on file

still open

Violation	Type	Status	Period
MR	Monitoring	Resolved	2023-04-01 → 2023-06-30
MR	Monitoring	Resolved	2023-04-01 → 2023-06-30
MR	Monitoring	Resolved	2023-04-01 → 2023-06-30
MR	Monitoring	Resolved	2023-04-01 → 2023-06-30
MR	Monitoring	Resolved	2023-04-01 → 2023-06-30
MR	Monitoring	Resolved	2023-04-01 → 2023-06-30
MR	Monitoring	Resolved	2023-04-01 → 2023-06-30
MR	Monitoring	Resolved	2023-04-01 → 2023-06-30
MR	Monitoring	Resolved	2016-01-01 → 2024-12-31
MR	Monitoring	Resolved	2016-01-01 → 2024-12-31

PFAS detected

PFAS are industrial “forever chemicals”. These are the EPA's latest nationwide test results (2023–2025).

Contaminant	Max	Detection rate	Period
Pfpea	0.0033 µg/L	1/4	2025

Other contaminants detected

Each bar shows the measured level as a share of the EPA limit: green is well under, amber is close to it, red is over. For lead and copper the limit applies to exactly the 90th-percentile figure shown, so red there means a real exceedance. For everything else the limit applies to a running annual average while the figure is the 95th percentile of this system's samples — over 100% is worth reading, but is not by itself a violation. Where a single sample came in higher than that percentile, it is noted under the bar. Formal violations are listed separately.

Contaminant	Level vs EPA limit	Detection rate	Source	Period
TTHM	86.45 µg/L 108% of the EPA limit, at the 95th percentile of samples — 80 µg/L worst single sample: 120 µg/L	331/331	SYR4	2012–2019
Total Haloacetic Acids (HAA5)	40.53 µg/L 68% of the EPA limit 60 µg/L worst single sample: 54.8 µg/L	328/328	SYR4	2012–2019
Chloroform	58.87 µg/L No EPA limit set worst single sample: 81.4 µg/L	255/255	SYR4	2012–2019
Bromodichloromethane	23.56 µg/L No EPA limit set worst single sample: 26.7 µg/L	245/245	SYR4	2012–2019
Dibromochloromethane	14.23 µg/L No EPA limit set worst single sample: 17.9 µg/L	235/236	SYR4	2012–2019
Trichloroacetic Acid	18.38 µg/L No EPA limit set worst single sample: 23.3 µg/L	233/233	SYR4	2012–2015
Dichloroacetic Acid	20.58 µg/L No EPA limit set worst single sample: 26.8 µg/L	232/232	SYR4	2012–2015
Dibromoacetic Acid	3.9 µg/L No EPA limit set worst single sample: 4.9 µg/L	188/217	SYR4	2012–2015
Bromoform	2.15 µg/L No EPA limit set worst single sample: 2.8 µg/L	111/235	SYR4	2012–2019
Monochloroacetic Acid	4.3 µg/L No EPA limit set worst single sample: 4.4 µg/L	32/235	SYR4	2012–2015
Nitrate	7200 µg/L 72% of the EPA limit 10000 µg/L	28/28	SYR4	2012–2018
Nitrate-Nitrite	7905 µg/L 79% of the EPA limit 10000 µg/L worst single sample: 8000 µg/L	20/20	SYR4	2015–2019
Fluoride	726 µg/L 18% of the EPA limit 4000 µg/L worst single sample: 760 µg/L	18/21	SYR4	2012–2019
Monobromoacetic Acid	1.63 µg/L No EPA limit set worst single sample: 1.8 µg/L	18/234	SYR4	2012–2015
Barium	87.7 µg/L 4.4% of the EPA limit 2000 µg/L worst single sample: 94 µg/L	15/23	SYR4	2012–2019
Lead	0.0030 mg/L 20% of the EPA limit 0.0150 mg/L	14/14	LCR	2019
Chromium	1 µg/L 1% of the EPA limit 100 µg/L	3/23	SYR4	2012–2019
Dalapon	2.22 µg/L 1.1% of the EPA limit 200 µg/L	1/13	SYR4	2012–2018

84 contaminants tested, none detected

1,1,1-Trichloroethane1,1,2-Trichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethylene1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE1,2-Dichloroethane1,2-Dichloropropane11Cl-PF3OUdS2,4,5-TP2,4-D4:2 Fts6:2 Fts8:2 Fts9Cl-PF3ONSAdonaAntimony, TotalArsenicAtrazineBhc-GammaBenzeneBenzo(A)PyreneBeryllium, TotalChlorobenzeneCadmiumCarbofuranCarbon TetrachlorideChlordaneDichloromethaneDi(2-ethylhexyl) AdipateDi(2-ethylhexyl) PhthalateDinosebEthylene DibromideEndrinEthylbenzeneGross Alpha, Excl. Radon And UGross Beta Particle ActivityHexachlorobenzeneHfpo-DaHeptachlorHeptachlor EpoxideHexachlorocyclopentadieneLassoMercuryMethoxychlorNetfosaaNfdhaNmefosaaOxamylPfbaPFBSPfdaPfdoaPfeesaPfhpaPfhpsPfhxaPFHXSPfmbaPfmpaPFNAPFOAPFOSPfpesPftaPftrdaPfunaPentachlorophenolPicloramSeleniumSimazineStyreneTetrachloroethyleneThallium, TotalTolueneTotal Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)ToxapheneTrichloroethyleneVinyl ChlorideXylenes, Totalcis-1,2-DichloroethyleneLithiumO-DichlorobenzeneP-Dichlorobenzenetrans-1,2-Dichloroethylene

Utility contact

Contact: BEARD, MICHAEL
Phone: 301-600-3409
Email: [email protected]

Frequently asked questions about New Design - Frederick County

Is New Design - Frederick County tap water safe to drink?

EPA monitoring detected 19 contaminants in New Design - Frederick County's water. A detection isn't the same as a violation — most levels are within federal limits. See each level and source above, and the utility's annual Consumer Confidence Report for its official compliance status.

What contaminants were detected in New Design - Frederick County's water?

EPA monitoring detected TTHM, Total Haloacetic Acids (HAA5), Chloroform, Bromodichloromethane, Dibromochloromethane, and others. The full list with the level and data source for each is above.

How many people does New Design - Frederick County serve?

New Design - Frederick County reports serving 74,911 people in Maryland, per its EPA record.

Has New Design - Frederick County had any water quality violations?

The EPA has 17 violations on file for New Design - Frederick County, of which 0 are health-based (a contaminant limit or required treatment was breached) and 0 remain open. The rest are monitoring or reporting failures.

Where does this data come from?

Every figure is official EPA drinking-water monitoring — the Lead & Copper Rule, the UCMR-5 nationwide testing program, and the EPA Six-Year Review — not our own testing. Each number is labelled with its source and period.