Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) Implementation Guide

Systems cannot receive the prescribed treatment credit for any toolbox box option in §§ 141.717 through 141.720 if that toolbox option is included in a demonstration of performance study for which treatment credit is awarded. under this paragraph. SP O I/I o 5 K -

-------
— H ^-v
« Z H
O U z W
fc | ° K
z t- 5; w
U S j H ,
as O* o, <
tij U ^ OS
SO U
Q H 03
u.

1 ^
X S P"
1 w* «
H J ^ O
H - * 3
E H pa ^
W Z 3 "gp
< s z 2
H 3 f-
W5 U U
O w
s x
Z
O
H
U
j '
2i •
u :
£j
UJ
U.


SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT









1

I
s
f.












S
o
oo"
i^
^^
T^J-
—
CO3

The demonstration of performance study must follow a
state-approved protocol and must demonstrate the level of
Clyptosporidium reduction the treatment process will
achieve under the full range of expected operating
conditions for the system.

























X
o
So
r^
^^
^j-
—
iff)

Approval by the state must be in writing and may include
monitoring and treatment performance criteria that the
system must demonstrate and report on an ongoing basis tc
remain eligible for the treatment credit. The state may
designate such criteria where necessary to verify that the
conditions under which the demonstration of performance
credit was approved are maintained during routine
operation.




























H
z
U
Z
g
p-1
§
1 §141.719 ADDITIONAL FILTRATION TOOLBOX Co


























*&
oC
f^
^—
^"
—
c#>
<- ^
•S 13 2P ^^ ^
^ GJ) "O !—i ^-t *L> -G f-i
rt *c tJ) ^o "*~* "is
S"1 5 *"* "o QJ C^l ^3
 --H O . ,— , (L> c_> VD ~V5
P1^ &OQJ S w c3™K
S g>^^-2 ^^^t:
^5 "^^ i r\ • *—< ^ 	 J LL i* "
• id • *~j j_; t- crt ^^ QJ
vj ^"^ • ^^ O W3 cfl ^J J>
£ S *O ti * j_T fi c/a ^
£ "C ^H -^ C •— >-.
-,S §^ S, ^ g J £ ^
Q^ ^ O O O^ O "^3 O O-

























^H
rt
CT^
f^
_^
^j-
' — 1
C00

The Clyptosporidium treatment credit awarded to bag or
cartridge filters must be based on the removal efficiency
demonstrated during challenge testing that is conducted
according to the criteria in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(9)
of this section. A factor of safety equal to 1-log for

-------
5 H ^i
1 Z Hi
O W Z w i
<& 5 n u i
FT  U O !
O w i
S ^ i
z
0
H
f-
u !
_ i '
< *
w
D »
u ;
M
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
I
1
I



j
j
I

'



1


f
j

\
1




|



i


individual bag or cartridge filters and 0.5-log for bag or
cartridge filters in series must be applied to challenge
testing results to determine removal credit. Systems may
use results from challenge testing conducted prior to
January 5, 2006 if the prior testing was consistent with the
criteria specified in paragraphs (a)(2) through (9) of this
section.

























, 	 ,
(N
/C?
c£
r-
'
^-
«>
Challenge testing must be performed on full-scale bag or
cartridge filters, and the associated filter housing or
pressure vessel, that are identical in material and
construction to the filters and housings the system will use
for removal of Cryptosporidium. Bag or cartridge filters
must be challenge tested in the same configuration that the
system will use, either as individual filters or as a series
configuration of filters.

























r 	 ^
X
CS
ON"
r-
'
^4-
5.
Challenge testing must be conducted using
Cryptosporidium or a surrogate that is removed no more
efficiently than Cryptosporidium. The microorganism or
surrogate used during challenge testing is referred to as the
challenge particulate. The concentration of the challenge
particulate must be determined using a method capable of
discreetly quantifying the specific microorganism or
surrogate used in the test; gross measurements such as
turbidity may not be used.

-------
«- H ^-J,
2 z H :•-
O taj 3T UJ ? r
Z K < W '
M 3 j H '
&&£.<*
W H X PS
£ * S£"
52 S
to [.
w I
< £ 1
o - 25 II
£ J p? ° ll

U H S a!
W Z 3 ^
Slzl,
H 3 H
C3 U U <
O H r
s ^
O
H
t ' ^
-J S
•< ON
OS ' —
tu r--
o _;
Ui —


•'S &ii
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
The maximum feed water concentration that can be used
during a challenge test must be based on the detection lim
of the challenge particulate in the filtrate (i.e., filtrate
detection limit) and must be calculated using the followin;
equation: Maximum Feed Concentration = 1 x 104 x
(Filtrate Detection Limit)























v-i
C3
0T
^~
r^
—
2
iff)


Challenge testing must be conducted at the maximum
design fiow rate for the filter as specified by the
manufacturer.
























(L) OJ OJ j^
"S CJ 0^3,
S^ E S
E<+- 3 O
O p cj
-0 *; .3 0
1) C X *-
Igll
cq pi OJ 3
^J — ' U >,
r^ *^ c/3 p ^j
w 2 B « 1























p
03
ON'
^-^
r-
— 1
2]
^
c. o
flj te is
Removal efficiency of a filter must be determined from th
results of the challenge test and expressed in terms of log
removal values using the following equation:
LRV = LOG,0(Cf) - LOG,o(Cp)
where LRV = log removal value demonstrated during
challenge testing; Cf = the feed concentration measured
during the challenge test; and Cp = the filtrate concentratk
measured during the challenge test. In applying this
equation, the same units must be used for the feed and
filtrate concentrations. If the challenge particulate is not
detected in the filtrate, then the term Cp must be set equal
the detection limit.

-------
*' II
<*• Z "H* |l
O fad x W i!
g | o g 1
.5r _ 3 W
W » J H
« O1 S- 3
w w x K
O— o ^ w
UJ V.
u.
i? 5-
Z fc ft.
2 w ^
H J a ^

S P « S
w ^ 1 SS
w z a "^
S!zi
H 3 H
«3 (J y
O w
O

[
1
H

H ' ^
|-r f oo^
, } ^
^ fl °^
W P t"~-
0 I ^-
W Si ^f
I' -3 P OH ^
1 S i3 P & .-'
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Each filter tested must be challenged with the challenge
paniculate during three periods over the filtration cycle:
within two hours of start-up of a new filter; when the
pressure drop is between 45 and 55 percent of the termil
pressure drop; and at the end of the cycle after the pressi
drop has reached 100 percent of the terminal pressure dr
An LRV must be calculated for each of these challenge
periods for each filter tested. The LRV for the filter
(LRVfiiter) must be assigned the value of the minimum L
observed during the three challenge periods for that filte

^-^
^
'c?
oC
(C
^
1=
« 53
"5 _c
o W *- c
"*^ .. . GJ t^H tl> ^" QX)
El> <^H "!^ "^ ^
tn "- ^) *-< T '^
O "QJ O K^ ^ ^^ ^> t/5 (U
gO>C!Haj'~^ •"Is i>->.H
<3 § *j cstj^j'§-ia S'"
M
-------
H' ^
§ z P
O fa1 z w
£ § ° SB
L_ S Z ^
U 1 ^ H
D£ O* fc < .
U W X Di
fa .;_-&.
rQ u
W ^ c/3
fa1 i|

v- .23
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Systems receive Ciyptosporidium treatment credit for
membrane filtration that meets the criteria of this
paragraph. Membrane cartridge filters that meet the
definition of membrane filtration in § 141.2 are eligible fo
this credit. The level of treatment credit a system receives
equal to the lower of the values determined under
paragraph (b)0)(i) a°d (ii) of this section.

^
^5
x
_D
5C
r^
'
TI-
vn

The removal efficiency demonstrated during challenge
testing conducted under the conditions in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section.

^
5^
x
.0
ON
r-
'
•f
0>

The maximum removal efficiency that can be verified
through direct integrity testing used with the membrane
filtration process under the conditions in paragraph (b)(3)
of this section.

r7
X
X>
oC
[^
*
Tj-
ten
tZ 60
Challenge Testing. The membrane used by the system mu:
undergo challenge testing to evaluate removal efficiency,
and the system must report the results of challenge testing
to the state. Challenge testing must be conducted accordin
to the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (vii) of this
section. Systems may use data from challenge testing
conducted prior to January 5, 2006 if the prior testing was
consistent with the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through
(vii) of this section.

.0
(N

_C
at
r^
*
TJ-
w
0
Challenge testing must be conducted on either a full-scale
membrane module, identical in material and construction t
the membrane modules used in the system's treatment
facility, or a smaller-scale membrane module, identical in
material and similar in construction to the full-scale

-------
H ~ll
§ 2 Pi
O u z, w
L* ^ ^ &
W 3 J H
at O> £ <
u w x »
5 o """ w
^* U^ ^
a
*t 9-
T fin
o - ^
P J .£ O

i
|
|
i
i
j
i
^«i I
U H § ^ I
w z a z
< 1 z 2
H 3 H
C« u U

i
1
o SI
S I
1

H :
H '

U \\
-I !'
^
w
a -
U
U.
: OJ
• O H
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
module. A module is defined as the smallest component
a membrane unit in which a specific membrane surface a
is housed in a device with a filtrate outlet structure.

.cr
^;
c^l
^Z,
-^
o^
jZ!
*
•^-
£>
e e «
Challenge testing must be conducted using
Cryptosporidium oocysts or a surrogate that is removed i
more efficiently than Cryptosporidium oocysts. The
organism or surrogate used during challenge testing is
referred to as the challenge particulate. The concentratioi
of the challenge particulate, in both the feed and filtrate
water, must be determined using a method capable of
discretely quantifying the specific challenge particulate
used in the test; gross measurements such as turbidity m;
not be used.

:3
^;
Ci

^
5C
r-
'
^-
£,
^•a
The maximum feed water concentration that can be used
during a challenge test is based on the detection limit of
challenge particulate in the filtrate and must be determin
according to the following equation: Maximum Feed
Concentration = 3.16xl06 x (Filtrate Detection Limit)

^^
;—;
-------
O u 7 w ''
OS 2 n w
H 1 ° *
Tr J2 ^ UJ
w 3 j H
u u x *
b. * H < :;
u. . C- o.
S O U '
Q u 35
(**
1 *'
z £ $
2 w * -
5 £ «*3
^ P a * "
0 H s SS -
w z a -jg -
H 3 H
^ U U
O u
0
H
h-
0
<;
Of
U
O
u
u.
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT

T*
5^
X
oT

i —
~(
T^-
&
Removal efficiency of a membrane module must be
calculated from the challenge test results and expressed as a
log removal value according to the following equation:
LRV = LOG,o(Cf)-LOG,o(Cp)

.O :s
X X
X 2"
oC oC
^— r—4
t~~~~ r~~-
r_^ , *
^3" ^}~
s, s,
if i Ij^ ell ,i |g| il-sjl
•glg^^lS^l gg|^ss|«il Isl^H
•SlsStaoo^g, ^^|^^1^^IS ooSggl
_.[«^^^H->ip-aj2r Cs^1ll3li ^l-s|ssil = s.s a,>-g^s
§2^-§ga|S,S S|gB.llSS-g£s gg|2g:s
,iiucj-at£i- -= <— ' 2 -c co s?
ylil-sf^U islssi^jss^ 1S|§-^
||-Sl||.sg1 S 1 g>^ S K^^a^ g> SS|atsl
^^^^fliSd--^^ ^S— cua,o,±^o^5o--- ^^S^D^
">- JC r- c ^ -^— /- i^ Cy r" 7^ 1^ i— i flj (— ' (;— ' r" "— ' -^- en p— cc CL> »— ' r" ^
>o-5cx)oUoe H-acocot!c— S.-j=3 h~>-a:5£_c
Ci
-------
II z E
g g o S
H QS £ &
5^ •• ^ td
U 3 J H
PC o* P. <
W W X B
to Pi H •<
U. . C- s.
K Q H
W W 05
fa
U
^ I
2 w 3§
H J ^- O
S ^*
cj t^ 5 fC
FT ^ "
uJ Z UJ "^
5 1 z o
H U H
t« U U
O w i
S ^ 1
o

\
1
|
?
I
1
|

H i{
< I!
H (
0

K i
W
O
U
u.

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT

\
I

to verify Cryptosporidium removal capability. Productior
modules that do not meet the established QCRV are not
eligible for the treatment credit demonstrated during the
challenge test.

;^
>
- — -
S
£.
2
r--
. ^
^4-
a
4-^ ^ T3
CL) en (1J ^H
If a previously tested membrane is modified in a manner
that could change the removal efficiency of the membran<
or the applicability of the non-destructive performance te:
and associated QCRV, additional challenge testing to
demonstrate the removal efficiency of, and determine a m
QCRV for, the modified membrane must be conducted ar
submitted to the state.

- — -
X
,0,
2
t —
]
^-
5>
f^ *+*
Direct integrity testing. Systems must conduct direct
integrity testing in a manner that demonstrates a removal
efficiency equal to or greater than the removal credit
awarded to the membrane filtration process and meets the
requirements described in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v
of this section. A direct integrity test is defined as a
physical test applied to a membrane unit in order to ident
and isolate integrity breaches (i.e., one or more leaks that
could result in contamination of the filtrate).

• -H
- — -
C2-
•£-
2
[ -
, ;
^j-
£,
-a
The direct integrity test must be independently applied to
each membrane unit in service. A membrane unit is defin
as a group of membrane modules that share common
valving that allows the unit to be isolated from the rest of
the system for the purpose of integrity testing or other
maintenance.
f-x

J
e?
s
o
I

-------
•^ H ^
^^ LrJ ^ ^J
£ s o g
H § £ x
Z 1- < W
W => J H
os cx 5. <
w H x c=
u. as td •<
Uu . -_- PL,
X O LJ
O W 60
u.
u
5 s
Z CM °"
o - ^
H J -r O
•^ t— . P5 ^
t H ffl *
U Z 3 "^
51 zi
^ u u
O w
z
o
H
H
U
^
B!
U
Q
U
U.
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT

|
i-
1

^~
X
s
o-T
^-«
r —
*
^j.
^
e direct integrity method must have a resolution of 3
crometers or less, where resolution is defined as the size
the smallest integrity breach that contributes to a
ponse from the direct integrity test.
H 'S *o 8?

:S
it
X
oC
• — i
r-
'
^.j.
*>
e direct integrity test must have a sensitivity sufficient to
•ify the log treatment credit awarded to the membrane
ration process by the state, where sensitivity is defined
the maximum log removal value that can be reliably
ified by a direct integrity test. Sensitivity must be
ermined using the approach in either paragraph
(3)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section as applicable to the type
direct integrity test the system uses.
H > E 3 > -S S'o

<
fS"
X
§
5C
,_-l
1 — .
1 J
^H.
5.
r direct integrity tests that use an applied pressure or
:uum, the direct integrity test sensitivity must be
culated according to the following equation:
.VDIT = LOG,o(QP /(VCF X Qbreacll))
lere: LRVDIT = the sensitivity of the direct integrity
t; Qp = total design filtrate flow from the membrane unit;
•each = flow of water from an integrity breach associated
;h the smallest integrity test response that can be reliably
asured, and VCF = volumetric concentration factor. The
lumetric concentration factor is the ratio of the
;pended solids concentration on the high pressure side of
membrane relative to that in the feed water.
fi rrt """' On "^ ^ -£ • « ^ r*\ ^
~ ~

B
S
>£
§
O^

(•--.
^ 'A
^j.
£>
r direct integrity tests that use a particulate or molecular
rker, the direct integrity test sensitivity must be
culated according to the following equation:
VDIT = LOG,o(Cf)-LOGin(Cp)
lere: LRVDIT = the sensitivity of the direct integrity test;
H I "s 5 ^

-------
-f ~
« X H
0 w z w
g | 0 g
Z s < w
U 3 J H
a a 5. <
W W X K
fc os a •<
fc . ^ B-
•j" O t>J
Q u •
x
X
OS
r-~
_^
•^-
5i
>1
Systems must establish a control limit within the sensitivit;
limits of the direct integrity test that is indicative of an
integral membrane unit capable of meeting the removal
credit awarded, by the state.

x
x
ON
r^
, ;
^-
2>
r^-
If the result of a direct integrity test exceeds the control
limit established under paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section,
the system must remove the membrane unit from service.
Systems must conduct a direct integrity test to verify any
repairs, and may return the membrane unit to service only
the direct integrity test is within the established control
limit.

a-T
r-
, 't
^-
W

Systems must conduct direct integrity testing on each
membrane unit at a frequency of not less than once each
day that the membrane unit is in operation. The state may
approve less frequent testing, based on demonstrated
process reliability, the use of multiple barriers effective foi
Cryptosporidium, or reliable process safeguards.

^
X
cFT
r^
, \
^-
£>
-C
Indirect integrity monitoring. Systems must conduct
continuous indirect integrity monitoring on each membran
unit according to the criteria in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) throug
(v) of this section. Indirect integrity monitoring is defined
as monitoring some aspect of filtrate water quality that is
indicative of the removal of particulate matter. A system
that implements continuous direct integrity testing of
membrane units in accordance with the criteria in
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this section is not
-------
« f- ^
2 z H
O UJ 7 W l
02 § O w
H tf S M
Z — < W
W S j H
a: O* 5. < '
w w x oi ,
U. . S/ i. ((
so w i
Q w 55 if
^^ S
w *,
15 i >'"
H j -r o ..
< H * < '
u H 1 sS •' •
w § ""* "z
< s z 2 ;s
H 3 H ,!"
^ U Us
O w •
S ^
o
H
H
u
_
±
u
o
u
u.

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
subject to the requirements for continuous indirect integrity
monitoring. Systems must submit a monthly report to the
state summarizing all continuous indirect integrity
monitoring results triggering direct integrity testing and the
corrective action that was taken in each case.

^
S
S-
-O^
ON"
[^
'
•^j-
,„,
vr>
Unless the state approves an alternative parameter,
continuous indirect integrity monitoring must include
continuous filtrate turbidity monitoring.

o
X
S-
Ji
2
[^
'
T^J-
^^
<&
Continuous monitoring must be conducted at a frequency
of no less than once every 15 minutes.

•£
X
^
.o
s5
r^
'
^j-
. — ,
un
Continuous monitoring must be separately conducted on
each membrane unit.

^~~-
X
^t
.£_
o-T
^
, ;
^>
, — i
un
If indirect integrity monitoring includes turbidity and if the
filtrate turbidity readings are above 0. 1 5 NTU for a period
greater than 15 minutes (i.e., two consecutive 15-minute
readings above 0.15 NTU), direct integrity testing must
immediately be performed on the associated membrane unit
as specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this
section.

^
X
S-
.£_
2
f^
'(
^~
^^
un
If indirect integrity monitoring includes a state-approved
alternative parameter and if the alternative parameter
exceeds a state-approved control limit for a period greater
than 15 minutes, direct integrity testing must immediately
be performed on the associated membrane units as specified
in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this section.
-------

M
S
O
Pi
H
z

Pi
U
Li.
t^
a

z
o
P
•^
E-
1
1
G\
&,
~
O 1

(A 1
b I
"y \
o I
P i
u
u
1/5
0
U '
_j

U
O
U •
^ :

\ SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT

O
O^

f--
'
^-t-
&
*-^
Second stage filtration. Systems receive 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a separate second
stage of filtration that consists of sand, dual media, GAC,
or other fine grain media following granular media
filtration if the state approves. To be eligible for this cred:
the first stage of filtration must be preceded by a
coagulation step and both filtration stages must treat the
entire plant flow taken from a surface water or GWUDI
source. A cap, such as GAC, on a single stage of filtratior
is not eligible for this credit. The state must approve the
treatment credit based on an assessment of the design
characteristics of the filtration process.

S
ON"

r~~
'
^j-
£>

V3
00
1
K
O
"3
.5
"3

Tt
eligible to receive 2.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment cre<
for a slow sand filtration process that follows a separate

\ stage of filtration if both filtration stages treat entire plant

-a
a
p
o
u*

<2
i/l
£
5
C3
•4— '

\ disinfectant residual is present in the influent water to the

slow sand filtration process. The state must approve the
treatment credit based on an assessment of the design

c/i C
OJ O
characteristics of the filtration process. This paragraph do
not apply to treatment credit awarded to slow sand filtrati
used as a primary filtration process.
-------
O u z w
H § S ^
z — •< w

* u * i
£ a faj <
U. . — I-
5 § ^
u.
0 ^
15 i
H 3 .,- o
< H g <
- P « <
^ H ^ fl.
Id Z P "^
S|Z|
05 U U
O w
s
1
H
H

U
-J
• ._ H b "Kb
O "° tS 0 "5 ' 3 -p
Illllll
~ 'S ^-'g .1 o ^
~§ -s ~ ~Z o •* M
r CJ •— Q O ff C3
<^ g bi ~ 5 j= c
1 1 1 1 1 s 1
HfitH

^^
C^J
^^"
sS
o'
fN
r-
— ^
^-
s.
al disinfection segments in sequence
or each segment, where a disinfection
as a treatment unit process with a
:tant residual level and a liquid volume.
h, systems must add the
T values in each segment to determine
treatment plant.
£~ y c o s •"
y CJ ,S •- s 5 i_
1/5 1C .23 ex -~ o
||||||H
u u c « o 'S o
•J^ eS 6C o> C CT' U
c/3 S J^ £ ^) O •£

^ ^
.c_
o'
(N
t^
'
^4-
&
ine dioxide and ozone.
-<
O
"^j
^_
^
c^
^
"5
EC
u

r ,
^H
jx;
.0,
o'

r--
'
^-j-
S
ine dioxide and ozone. (1) Systems
poridium treatment credit listed in this
e corresponding chlorine dioxide CT
able water temperature, as described in
s section.
s s -s .a A
Bg"; j^ QJ^ C^- f) |
U g^ ^g OH O
||l||
f .> ^ ^ §>

^.^
(N

-^
o'
fN]
r~-
j
<^«-
s
~o
^ o o
-*-• £A XI 'J^
C r-1 P3 "Z3
l> tn cj f ,
S S =5 o
•S g cx^
0 C c? ^S
? -° -S "cx
1 § s I,
'C o « >-
o oj o g
Q^ in 3 CX
O . S (_) Xi
QJ QJ r-i O
-^ "S O O
*"* OJ N -rt '
v y> o „
.> H oo «
8 °-.S „'
1> O T3 u.
u 3 S 2
en >5 O jS
c S cx 2
lill
c^.s S s

-------
e^.
-. H ^
2 2 Hi
O uj z u; i
I
E s o e I
H § £ * I
z e 5 w
U & J H
as a 5- 3
W W X B
b Pi H <
i5 x ^ &• i
O— O U i
UJ VI i
to )
UJ
u ?r
z 2 £
o ^ ^
i— I W CM
H J j- 0
< H « <<
cEl*
u fc 2 o.
u z a >
< 1 z 2
H S PI
yj u u !
O w 1
S
I
|
1
1
I
1
1
i
I
I

i
i

i
i
I
i
1
|
||!
^f \
^
H i

{

C i '_
J 1 u
< 1 0
OS H (N
bJ || t-~
o 1 -;
e|s
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Site-specific study. The state may approve alternative
chlorine dioxide or ozone CT values to those listed in
paragraph (b) of this section on a site- specific basis. The
state must base this approval on a site-specific study a
system conducts that follows a state-approved protocol.

^ ^
2-
o'
(>l
r-
,_j
^t
S)
UV. Systems receive Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia,
and virus treatment credits for ultraviolet (UV) light
reactors by achieving the corresponding UV dose values
shown in paragraph (d)(l) of this section. Systems must
validate and monitor UV reactors as described in
paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section to demonstrate that
they are achieving a particular UV dose value for treatment
credit.

v^
^
T3^
C?

Reactor validation testing. Systems must use UV reactors
that have undergone validation testing to determine the
operating conditions under which the reactor delivers the
UV dose required in paragraph (d)(l) of this section (i.e.,
validated operating conditions). These operating conditions
must include flow rate, UV intensity as measured by a UV
sensor, and UV lamp status.
-------
«"• II
O w z u !l
£ S o S [
^* fjj p^. *™ g S
t™ f^ ^ ^^ ^ i
W 5 j H
pi O* o. •< (I
w w x as i
fc Pi uj < li
u« . O a. jj
5 § "1
U. ||
w ^ I
Z fc *M
2 W S 1!
H J _- O Jl
*£ H ™ < If
t H ffl * 1
u H s SS |
M z a ^ 1
H S Z ^
•< S 2 '
Hp H
<» U U
O u r
o
H ^
H S

U S
J 3,
*5 ' o"
K (N
U l~-
Q —
fe S)
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
When determining validated operating conditions, systems
must account for the following factors: UV absorbance of
the water; lamp fouling and aging; measurement
uncertainty of on-line sensors; UV dose distributions
arising from the velocity profiles through the reactor;
failure of UV lamps or other critical system components;
and inlet and outlet piping or channel configurations of the
UV reactor.

(^
X

X
"O
o"
rN
r-~
~
£>
Validation testing must include the following: Full scale
testing of a reactor that conforms uniformly to the UV
reactors used by the system and inactivation of a test
microorganism whose dose response characteristics have
been quantified with a low pressure mercury vapor lamp.

\~,
x
fN

"O
o"
(N
r-
^
Z>
The state may approve an alternative approach to validation
testing.

^,
x

x^
-o
o
fN
r^
— ;
<&>
Reactor monitoring. Systems must monitor their UV
reactors to determine if the reactors are operating within
validated conditions, as determined under paragraph (d)(2)
of this section. This monitoring must include UV intensity
as measured by a UV sensor, flow rate, lamp status, and
other parameters the state designates based on UV reactor
operation. Systems must verify the calibration of UV
sensors and must recalibrate sensors in accordance with a
protocol the state approves.

.0
x

x
T3
0
fN
r-
-:
£>
To receive treatment credit for UV light, systems must treat
at least 95 percent of the water delivered to the public
during each month by UV reactors operating within
validated conditions for the required UV dose, as described

-------
- H ^
5 z H
O E Z u
as g o S
H £ 5 <*=
K £? ^1 f**
y ^ j H
Q£ O* AN "^
w w x a
LL. Qg rvi -^
U. . ^. ft.
A Q U
M U t/3
U.
S ^
2 uf el
H J v- O
<< i— os <<
H •" w 2
C H as 5j
w z a -5:
S!zi
f- S H
O w

f'
' 'S
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
in paragraphs (d)(l) and (2) of this section. Systems mu
demonstrate compliance with this condition by the
monitoring required under paragraph
(d)(3)(i) of this section.

§141.721 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

«
~
r^
'
^T^-
^-
<£T>
£> 'rj
r*i & —
f^ 5 £ ^L.
** o y ~
— *~~ •=, o
^y. __' O r-
^ ^ w •
| o "= £T
•a « 2 '§
o *-i c
O . ~ -C GO
|5 ^ .S
i. u 1 I
O O en
— P " ^
2j ^ •£ "a
P 0 j>> W)
I 1 ? S
(U t« ~ • —
«5 -a ^ c
co 5 •£ E

^
(N

, \
^j-
— ^
un

Systems must report the use of uncovered finished wate
storage facilities to the state as described in § 141.714.

2
-------
— H ^
g Z H
g 1 0 |
^— £? ^ •*•
U S J H
OS O1 o, < *
W W X PS
U. Qi M -<
U. . C, p.
S P U
Q u c/3
fan
i
J
a '
O Of
x """ 3- r
2 w * f'
£ g gf | j|

I J LM ^5 i* 1 i
^* ~ *C PM i%
td Z 3 -5 If
h- U Z 5 1
< S 2 )
H U Hi!
^ U U
O w
s ^

z
O '
H
H
U

*f
Q-
w
p
U '
U.

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
§141.722 RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS

03
rNp
PN|
*~^
—
<&>
Systems must keep results from the initial round of source
water monitoring under § 14 1.701 (a) and the second round
of source water monitoring under § 141.701(b) until 3 years
after bin classification under § 141 .710 for filtered systems
or determination of the mean Cryptosporidiiim level under
§ 14 1 .7 1 0 for unflltered systems for the particular round of
monitoring.

^
JN"
(N
-;
, — i
W3
W\S
<-. OJ
^ U
^ s
*" 0
GJ -^^
'S ^
tn 13
° 'C |2
-(_j C^
c -s «
1 §£
0 C M
S s ^
a. o ri
Oj ai ^r
(D ^* ^^
^ U «X.
•*— ' ^ (^— (
P 0 BJ
^ o 'C
to ^j Oj
2 § '5
^ S OJ
>• -C

^
rT
p\j
— ;
— i
<&
Systems must keep the results of treatment monitoring
associated with microbial toolbox options under §§ 141.716
through 141.720 and with uncovered finished water
reservoirs under § 141.714, as applicable, for 3 years.

^f
0.
03

P
U
§

O
Pi
U
0.
>
w
>
3
>
01
H
Z
•<
C/J
Z
P
—
E

U
p
!/!
U
z,
U
U
r™
U
o
H
z
-------
sg p
OM -* Ld
w z "™"
£ S o S
H § £ *
z = ^ u
W S j H
a! O £ <
W W X Ps
to PS H <
ta . S- S.
SO W
C- UJ v:
u.
UJ
^ ^
Z fc ^
2 w ^
H J j- U
•< H * <
t H CD «
^^ ^ W ,^-1
u f- s SS
w z u> >
H U Z S
< s 2
H & f-
C« O U
O w
S
|
|

I
I
1
I
I

i:
i!
H P
"^ i iii
u '
j I e
< ! ^r
C£ ' (N
u , t-~-
01-
S ! -
li <#>
fi « fe
1 i- ° b
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
For the purposes of this section, a significant deficiency
includes a defect in design, operation, or maintenance, o
failure or malfunction of the sources, treatment, storage,
distribution system that EPA determines to be causing, c
has the potential for causing the introduction of
contamination into the water delivered to consumers.

o
m
(N
1—
^_ *
•sf
ctf>
% B
C -^ 4>
For sanitary surveys performed by EPA, systems must
respond in writing to significant deficiencies identified i;
sanitary survey reports no later than 45 days after receip
the report, indicating how and on what schedule the syst
will address significant deficiencies noted in the survey.

^
m
(N
t~-
'
Tt
c&>
-0 c«
C o —
Systems must correct significant deficiencies identified i
sanitary survey reports according to the schedule approv
by EPA, or if there is no approved schedule, according t
the schedule reported under paragraph (c) of this section
such deficiencies are within the control of the system.
-------
o
u
u
o
Q.
O.
VI ;

_
U
a
u
u.
s-
z
a
u
a:
u
<
oi
u
o
u
u-
u.
o
z
o

H
<

Z
a.

S
0
a.
cd
I

§142.14 RECORDS KEPT BY STATES

o^
03
(N
W

03
OH
O
en
.0
C/}
1
OH
OJ
O
03
1 .S2
en •"
.1 *°
< S

5\
03
(N
S.

Results of source water E. coli and Cryptosporidium
monitoring.

o?
03
^
£>

The bin classification after the initial and after the second
round of source water monitoring for each filtered system
as described in § 1 4 1 . 7 1 0 of this chapter.

o^
03
rs
5>

Any change in treatment requirements for filtered systems
due to watershed assessment during sanitary surveys, as
described in §141.71 l(d) of this chapter.

o^
03
fS
to,

The treatment processes or control measures that systems
use to meet their Cryptosporidium treatment requirements
under §141. 711 or §141.712 of this chapter.

'o\
3
fN
£>

°'S
*~" "^
If
(U So
^ C/l
-t— •
03 X
li
> M
S 2
o 2
"-1 en
"O tH
'3 I OH
CT ^ c^3
QJ £ *fj
t/) ' ^ .
QJ ^q~
c/) Q "~<
'^
-------
03
U \
P"
0
u
u
O
Pi
PH
G
Z
j
I
1
I
j
|
j
1
i
< I
C/3

-
0
o
OH
U
%
1

t/3 ||
U.
°
Z
o 1
H i
"^ if
^
&•
X
W
j|
0 |j
H ?
^ 1 i
0 j
^f U
* !
UJ I
O i;
U^ I
i ?.
U. If
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
1 §142.15 REPORTS BY STATES

^-,
S
CJ
>o
fN
•*
S)
Subpart W. The bin classification after the initial and after
the second round of source water monitoring for each
filtered system, as described in §141.710 of this chapter.

.3
G"
'cT
to
fN
•
Approve an alternative to the E. Coli levels that trigger
Cryptosporidium monitoring by filtered systems serving
fewer than 10,000 people, as described in § 141.701(a)(5).

fN
1?
^
fN
•3"
ctf>
Assess significant changes in the watershed and source
water as part of the sanitary survey process and determine
appropriate follow-up action for systems, as described in §
1 4 1.7 ll(d) of this chapter.
5b
O
r-
1

1
-------
Q ii
w i
U >i
O If
& if
CL, II
0 I
z U
|!l
o jl
w j!
H 1
•< 11
H p
tL. j
of!
z if
2 II
Z (j
B.
X
Z
o
H
H ^
U Ci
j G
^ ^
U ^
Q 9
w 2

J
c
•-H
M"^
f— O rS
1, ii
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUI
Approve watershed control programs for 1
treatment credit in the microbial toolbox, :
141. 716(a) of this chapter.

^
S
r^
Co"

fN
J
O
-o

3
1) "O
O (U
s *
^
1 «
•— C3
aj
Approve protocols for demonstration of pi
treatment credits in the. microbial toolbox,
§ 141. 718(c) of this chapter.

^~*.
X
d
vo

(N
2,

"O
u "
c S
'C ^
| «
* 3
-a
c. X
Approve protocols for alternative ozone a
dioxide CT values in the microbial toolbo
under § 141.720(c) of this chapter.

^ ^
X
c
S

fN
S

d
Q
* "
C3
"2
"5 c OJ
v- 13
2 §
03 "O
Approve an alternative approach to UV re
testing in the microbial toolbox, as allowe
141.720(d)(2)(iii) of this chapter.
IX
-------
This page intentionally left blank
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
A-72
August 2007
-------
Appendix B
Rule Requirements
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
767
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule;
Final Rule. Federal Register. January 14,
2002. 67 FR 1812. EPA 815-Z-02-001.
USEPA. 2002b. Process for Designing a
Watershed Initiative. 67 FR 36172, May
23, 2002.
USEPA. 2002c. Method 1103.1: Escherichia
coli (E. coli) In Water By Membrane
Filtration Using membrane-
Thermotolerant Escherichia coli Agar
(mTEC). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington,
DC. EPA-821-R-02-020.
USEPA. 2002d. Laboratory Quality
Assurance Evaluation Program for
Analysis of Cryptosporidium Under the
Safe Drinking Water Act; Agency
Information Collection: Proposed
Collection; Comment Request. Federal
Register: March 4, 2002. 67 FR 9731.
USEPA. 2003a. National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations: Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule;
Proposed Rule. 68 FR 47640, August 11.
2003.
USEPA. 2003b. Cuidelines Establishing Test
Procedures for the Analysis of
Pollutants: Analytical Methods for
Biological Pollutants in Ambient Water.
68 FR 43272, July 21, 2003.
USEPA. 2005a. Economic Analysis for the
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC. EPA-821-K-06-001.
USEPA. 20()5b. Occurrence and Exposure
Assessment for the Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington. DC. EPA-
821-R-06-002.
USEPA. 20()5c. Method 1622:
Cryptosporidium in Water by Filtration/
IMS/FA. EPA 815~R-05-00i.
USEPA. 2005(1. Method 1623:
Cryptosporidium and Ciardia in Water
by Filtration/IMS/FA. EPA 815-R-05-
002.
USEPA. 2005e. Valuing Time Losses Due to
Illness under the 1996 Amendments to
the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA Office
of Water. Prepared by IEC Consultants.
Wang, )., R. Song, and S. Hubbs. 2001.
Particle removal through riverbank
filtration process, in W. Julich and J.
Schubert, eds., Proceedings of the
Internation Riverbank Filtration
Conference, November 2—4, 2000,
Dusseldorf, Cermany, Internationale
Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wasserwork im
Rhcineinzugsgebiet.
Ware and Schaefer. 2005. The effects of time
and temperature on flow cytometry
enumerated live Cryptosporidium
parvum oocysts. Letters in Applied
Microbiology 41:385-389.
Yang, S., S.K. Benson, C. Du, and M.C.
Healey. 2000. Infection of
irnmunosuppressed C57BL/6N adult
mice with a single oocyst of
Cryptosporidium parvum. J Parasitol.
86(4):884-7.
Yates, R., K. Scott, J. Green, J. Bruno, and R.
De Leon. 1998. Using Aerobic Spores to
Evaluate Treatment Plant Performance.
Proceedings, Annual Conference of the
American Water Works Association,
Denver, CO.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9
Reporting and recordkeeping.

40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Indians-lands, Incorporation hy
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water
supply.
40 CFR Part 142
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Chemicals, Indians-lands, Radiation
protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water supply.
Dated: December 15, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
• For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, title 40 chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

PART 9—[AMENDED]

• 1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y;
15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671;
21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318,
1321, 1326, 1330. 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and
(e), 1361; Executive Order 11735. 38 FR
21243. 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42
U.S.C. 241, 242b. 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-
1, 300g-2,300g-3,300g-4,300g-5,300g-6,
300J-1, 300J-2, 300J-3, 300J-4, 300J-9, 1857
et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542,
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
• 2. In § 9.1 the table is amended as
follows:
• a. Under the heading "National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation" by adding entries in
numerical order for "§ 141.706-141.710,
141.713-141.714, 141.716-141.723".
• b. Under the heading "National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation" by removing entries
§142.15(c), 142.15(c)(6)-(7) and adding
entries in numerical order for
"142.14(a)(9), 142.15(c)(6), and
142.16(n)" as follows:

§9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
40 CFR citation
OMB control No.
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
141.706-141.710
141.713-141.714
141.716-141.723
2040-0266
2040-0266
2040-0266
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
142.14(a)(9)

142.15(c)(6)

142.16(n)
2040-0266

2040-0266

2040-0266
-------
768
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

• 3. The authority citation for Part 141
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-l, 30()g-2,
300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300J-4,
300J-9, and 300J-11.

• 4. Section 141.2 is amended by
adding, in alphabetical order,
definitions for "Bag filters", "Bank
filtration", "Cartridge filters", "Flowing
stream", "Lake/reservoir", "Membrane
filtration", "Plant intake",
"Presedimentation", and "Two-stage
lime softening", and revising the
definition for "Uncovered finished
water storage facility" to read as
follows:

§141.2 Definitions.
*****
Bag filters are pressure-driven
separation devices that remove
particulate matter larger than 1
micrometer using an engineered porous
filtration media. They are typically
constructed of a non-rigid, fabric
filtration media housed in a pressure
vessel in which the direction of flow is
from the inside of the bag to outside.
Bank filtration is a water treatment
process that uses a well to recover
surface water that has naturally
infiltrated into ground water through a
river bed or bank(s). Infiltration is
typically enhanced by the hydraulic
gradient imposed by a nearby pumping
water supply or other well(s).
*****
Cartridge filters are pressure-driven
separation devices that remove
particulate matter larger than 1
micrometer using an engineered porous
filtration media. They are typically
constructed as rigid or semi-rigid, self-
supporting filter elements housed in
pressure vessels in which flow is from
the outside of the cartridge to the inside.
*****
Flowing stream is a course of running
water flowing in a definite channel.
*****
Lake/reservoir refers to a natural or
man made basin or hollow on the
Earth's surface in which water collects
or is stored that may or may not have
a current or single direction of flow.
*****
Membrane filtration is a pressure or
vacuum driven separation process in
which particulate matter larger than 1
micrometer is rejected by an engineered
barrier, primarily through a size-
exclusion mechanism, and which has a
measurable removal efficiency of a
target organism that can be verified
through the application of a direct
integrity test. This definition includes
the common membrane technologies of
microfiltration, ultrafiltration,
nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis.
*****
Plant intake refers to the works or
structures at the head of a conduit
through which water is diverted from a
source (e.g., river or lake) into the
treatment plant.
*****
Presedimentation is a preliminary
treatment process used to remove
gravel, sand and other particulate
material from the source water through
settling before the water enters the
primary clarification and filtration
processes in a treatment plant.
*****
Two-stage lime softening is a process
in which chemical addition and
hardness precipitation occur in each of
two distinct unit clarification processes
in series prior to filtration.
Uncovered finished water storage
facility is a tank, reservoir, or other
facility used to store water that will
undergo no further treatment to reduce
microhial pathogens except residual
disinfection and is directly open to the
atmosphere.
*****
• 5. Snbpart Q of part 141 is amended
by adding § 141.211 to read as follows:

§ 141.211 Special notice for repeated
failure to conduct monitoring of the source
water for Cryptosporidium and for failure to
determine bin classification or mean
Cryptosporidium level.
(a) When IK the special notice for
repented failure to monitor to be given?
The owner or operator of a community
or non-community water system that is
required to monitor source water under
§ 141.701 must notify persons served by
the water system that monitoring has
not been completed as specified no later
than 30 days after the system has failed
to collect any 3 months of monitoring as
specified in § 141.701(c). The notice
must be repeated as specified in
§141.203(b).
(b) When is the special notice for
failure to determine bin classification or
mean Cryptosporidium level to be
given? The owner or operator of a
community or non-community water
system that is required to determine a
bin classification under § 141.710, or to
determine mean Cryptosporidium level
under § 141.712, must notify persons
served by the water system that the
determination has not been made as
required no later than 30 days after the
system has failed report the
determination as specified in
§ 141.710(e) or § 141.712(a),
respectively. The notice must be
repeated as specified in § 141.203(b).
The notice is not required if the system
is complying with a State-approved
schedule to address the violation.
(c) What is the form and manner of
the special notice? The form and
manner of the public notice must follow
the requirements for a Tier 2 public
notice prescribed in § 141.203(c). The
public notice must be presented as
required in § 141.205(c).
(d) What mandatory language must be
contained in the special notice? The
notice must contain the following
language, including the language
necessary to fill in the blanks.
(1) The special notice for repeated
failure to conduct monitoring must
contain the following language:
We are required to monitor the source of
your drinking water for Cryptosporidium.
Results of the monitoring are to be used to-
determine whether water treatment at the
(treatment plant name) is sufficient to
adequately remove Cryptosporidium from
your drinking water. We are required to
complete this monitoring and make this
determination by (required bin determination
date). We "did not monitor or test" or "did
not complete all monitoring or testing" on
schedule and, therefore, we may riot be able
to determine by the required date what
treatment modifications, if any, must be
made to ensure adequate Cryplosporidium
removal. Missing this deadline may, in turn,
jeopardize our ability to have the required
treatment modifications, if any, completed by
the deadline required, (date).
For more information, please call (name of
water system contact) of (name of water
system) at (phone number).

(2) The special notice for failure to
determine bin classification or mean
Cryptosporidium level must contain the
following language:
We are required to monitor the source of
your drinking water for Cryptosporidium in
order to determine by (date) whether water
treatment at the (treatment plant name) is
sufficient to adequately remove
Cryptosporidium from your drinking water.
We have not made this determination by the
required date. Our failure to do this may
jeopardize our ability to have the required
treatment modifications, if any, completed by
the required deadline of (date). For more
information, please call (name of water
system contact) of (name of water system) at
(phono number).

(3) Each special notice must also
include a description of what the system
is doing to correct the violation and
when the system expects to return to
compliance or resolve the situation.
• 6. Appendix A to Subpart Q of part
141 is amended by adding entry number
10 under LA. to read as follows:

Subpart Q—Public Notification of
Drinking Water Violations
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
769
APPENDIX A TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141—NPDWR VIOLATIONS AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING PUBLIC NOTICE
Contaminant
MCL/MRDL/TT violations2

Tier of
public notice Citation
required
Monitoring & testing procedure violations

Tier of
public notice Citation
required
I. Violations of National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations (NPDWR):3
A. Microbiological Contaminants
10. LT2ESWTR violations
141.710-141.720
222, 3 141.701-141.705 and 141.708-141.709.
1 Violations and other situations not listed in this table (e.g., failure to prepare Consumer Confidence Reports) do not require notice, unless
otherwise determined by the primary agency. Primacy agencies may, at their option, also require a more stringent public notice tier (e.g., Tier 1
instead of Tier 2 or Tier 2 instead of Tier 3) for specific violations and situations listed in this Appendix, as authorized under §141.202(a) and
§141.203(a).
2MCL—Maximum contaminant level, MRDL—Maximum residual disinfectant level, TT—Treatment technique.
3The term Violations of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) is used here to include violations of MCL, MRDL, treatment
technique, monitoring, and testing procedure requirements.

22 Failure to collect three or more samples for Cryptosporidium analysis is a Tier 2 violation requiring special notice as specified in §141.211.
All other monitoring and testing procedure violations are Tier 3.
• 7. Part 141 is amended by adding a
new subpart W to read as follows:

Subpart W—Enhanced Treatment for
Cryptosporidium

General Requirements
Sec.
141.700 General requirements.

Source Water Monitoring Requirements
141.701 Source water monitoring.
141.702 Sampling schedules.
141.703 Sampling locations.
141.704 Analytical methods.
141.705 Approved laboratories.
141.706 Reporting source water monitoring
results.
141.707 Grandfathering previously
collected data.

Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking
Requirements
141.708 Requirements when making a
significant change in disinfection
practice.
141.709 Developing the disinfection profile
and benchmark.

Treatment Technique Requirements
141.710 Bin classification for filtered
systems.
141.711 Filtered system additional
Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements.
141.712 Unfiltered system Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements.
141.713 Schedule for compliance with
Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements.
141.714 Requirements for uncovered
finished water storage facilities.

Requirements for Microbial Toolbox
Components
141.715 Microbial toolbox options for
meeting Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements.
141.716 Source toolbox components.
141.717 Pro-filtration treatment toolbox
components.
141.718 Treatment performance toolbox
components.
141.719 Additional filtration toolbox
components.
141.720 Inactivation toolbox components.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
141.721 Reporting requirements.
141.722 Recordkeeping requirements.
Requirements for Sanitary Surveys
Performed by EPA
141.723 Requirements to respond to
significant deficiencies identified in
sanitary surveys performed by E1JA.

Subpart W—Enhanced Treatment for
Cryptosporidium

General Requirements

§141.700 General requirements.
(a) The requirements of this subpart
W are national primary drinking water
regulations. The regulations in this
subpart establish or extend treatment
technique requirements in lieu of
maximum contaminant levels for
Cryptosporidium. These requirements
are in addition to requirements for
filtration and disinfection in subparts H,
P, and T of this part.
(b) Applicability. The requirements of
this subpart apply to all subpart H
systems, which are public water systems
supplied by a surface water source and
public water systems supplied by a
ground water source under the direct
influence of surface water.
(1) Wholesale systems, as defined in
§ 141.2, must comply with the
requirements of this subpart based on
the population of the largest system in
the combined distribution system.
(2) The requirements of this subpart
for filtered systems apply to systems
required by National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations to provide filtration
treatment, whether or not the system is
currently operating a filtration system.
(3) The requirements of this subpart
for unfiltered systems apply only to
unfiltered systems that timely met and
continue to meet the filtration
avoidance criteria in subparts H, P, and
T of this part, as applicable.
(c) Requirements. Systems subject to
this subpart must comply with the
following requirements:
(1) Systems must conduct an initial
and a second round of source water
monitoring for each plant that treats a
surface water or GWUDI source. This
monitoring may include sampling for
Cryptosporidium. E. coli, and turbidity
as described in §§ 141.701 through
141.706, to determine what level, if any,
of additional Cryptosporidium treatment
they must provide.
(2) Systems that plan to make a
significant change to their disinfection
practice must develop disinfection
profiles and calculate disinfection
benchmarks, as described in §§ 141.708
through 141.709.
(3) Filtered systems must determine
their Cryptosporidium treatment bin
classification as described in § 141.710
and provide additional treatment for
Cryptosporidium, if required, as
described in § 141.711. All unfiltered
systems must provide treatment for
Cryptosporidium as described in
§ 141.712. Filtered and unfiltered
systems must implement
Cryptosporidium treatment according to
the schedule in §141.713.
-------
770
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
(4) Systems with uncovered finished
water storage facilities must comply
with the requirements to cover the
facility or treat the discharge from the
facility as described in § 141.714.
(5) Systems required to provide
additional treatment for
Cryptosporidium must implement
microbial toolbox options that are
designed and operated as described in
§§141.715 through 141.720.
(6) Systems must comply with the
applicable recordkeeping and reporting
requirements described in §§ 141.721
through 141.722.
(7) Systems must address significant
deficiencies identified in sanitary
surveys performed by EPA as described
in §141.723.
Source Water Monitoring Requirements

§141.701 Source water monitoring.
(a) Initial round of source water
monitoring. Systems must conduct the
following monitoring on the schedule in
paragraph (c) of this section unless they
meet the monitoring exemption criteria
in paragraph (d) of this section.
(1) Filtered systems serving at least
10,000 people must sample their source
water for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and
turbidity at least monthly for 24 months.
(2) Unfiltered systems serving at least
10,000 people must sample their source
water for Cryptosporidium at least
monthly for 24 months.
(3)(i) Filtered systems serving fewer
than 10,000 people must sample their
source water for E. coli at least once
every two weeks for 12 months.
(ii) A filtered system serving fewer
than 10,000 people may avoid E. coli
monitoring if the system notifies the
State that it will monitor for
Cryptosporidium as described in
paragraph (a)(4) of this section. The
system must notify the State no later
than 3 months prior to the date the
system is otherwise required to start E.
coli monitoring under § 141.701(c).
(4) Filtered systems serving fewer
than 10,000 people must sample their
source water for Cryptosporidium at
least twice per month for 12 months or
at least monthly for 24 months if they
meet one of the following, based on
monitoring conducted under paragraph
(a)(3) of this section:
(i) For systems using lake/reservoir
sources, the annual mean E, coli
concentration is greater than 10 E. coli/
100 mL.
(ii) For systems using flowing stream
sources, the annual mean E. coli
concentration is greater than 50 E. coli/
100 mL.
(iii) The system does not conduct E.
coli monitoring as described in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(iv) Systems using ground water
under the direct influence of surface
water (GWUDI) must comply with the
requirements of paragraph (a)(4) of this
section based on the E. coli level that
applies to the nearest surface water
body. If no surface water body is nearby,
the system must comply based on the
requirements that apply to systems
using lake/reservoir sources.
(5) For filtered systems serving fewer
than 10,000 people, the State may
approve monitoring for an indicator
other than E. coli under paragraph (a)(3)
of this section. The State also may
approve an alternative to the E. coli
concentration in paragraph (a)(4)(i), (ii)
or (iv) of this section to trigger
Cryptosporidium monitoring. This
approval by the State must be provided
to the system in writing and must
include the basis for the State's
determination that the alternative
indicator and/or trigger level will
provide a more accurate identification
of whether a system will exceed the Bin
1 Cryptosporidium level in § 141.710.
(6) Unfiltered systems serving fewer
than 10,000 people must sample their
source water for Cryptosporidium at
least twice per month for 12 months or
at least monthly for 24 months.
(7) Systems may sample more
frequently than required under this
section if the sampling frequency is
evenly spaced throughout the
monitoring period.
(b) Second round of source water
monitoring. Systems must conduct a
second round of source water
monitoring that meets the requirements
for monitoring parameters, frequency,
and duration described in paragraph (a)
of this section, unless they meet the
monitoring exemption criteria in
paragraph (d) of this section. Systems
must conduct this monitoring on the
schedule in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Monitoring schedule. Systems
must begin the monitoring required in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section no
later than the month beginning with the
date listed in this table:
SOURCE WATER MONITORING STARTING DATES TABLE
Systems that serve . . .
Must begin the first round of source water
monitoring no later than the month
beginning . . .
And must begin the second round of source
water monitoring no later than the month be-
ginning . . .
(1) At least 100,000 people
(2) From 50,000 to 99,999 people
(i) October 1, 2006
(i) April 1,2007
(3) From 10,000 to 49,999 people | (i) April 1, 2008
(4) Fewer than 10,000 and monitor for E. coli3
(5) Fewer than 10,000 and monitor for
Cryptosporidium b.
(i) October 1, 2008
(i) April 1, 2010
(ii) April 1, 2015.
(ii) October 1,2015.
(ii) October 1, 2016.
(ii) October 1, 2017.
(ii) April 1,2019.
a Applies only to filtered systems.
b Applies to filtered systems that meet the conditions of paragraph (a)(4) of this section and unfiltered systems.
(d) Monitoring avoidance. (1) Filtered
systems are not required to conduct
source water monitoring under this
subpart if the system will provide a total
of at least 5.5-log of treatment for
Cryptosporidium, equivalent to meeting
the treatment requirements of Bin 4 in
§141.711.
(2) Unfiltered systems are not
required to conduct source water
monitoring under this subpart if the
system will provide a total of at least 3-
log Cryptosporidium inactivation,
equivalent to meeting the treatment
requirements for unfiltered systems
with a mean Cryptosporidium
concentration of greater than 0.01
oocysts/L in § 141.712.
(3) If a system chooses to provide the
level of treatment in paragraph (d)(l) or
(2) of this section, as applicable, rather
than start source water monitoring, the
system must notify the State in writing
no later than the date the system is
otherwise required to submit a sampling
schedule for monitoring under
§ 141.702. Alternatively, a system may
choose to stop sampling at any point
after it has initiated monitoring if it
notifies the State in writing that it will
provide this level of treatment. Systems
must install and operate technologies to
provide this level of treatment by the
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
771
applicable treatment compliance date in
§141.713.
(e) Plants operating only part of the
year. Systems with subpart H plants that
operate for only part of the year must
conduct source water monitoring in
accordance with this subpart, but with
the following modifications:
(1) Systems must sample their source
water only during the months that the
plant operates unless the State specifies
another monitoring period based on
plant operating practices.
(2) Systems with plants that operate
less than six months per year and that
monitor for Cryptosporidium must
collect at least six Cryptosporidium
samples per year during each of two
years of monitoring. Samples must be
evenly spaced throughout the period the
plant operates.
(f)(l) New sources. A system that
begins using a new source of surface
water or GWUDI after the system is
required to begin monitoring under
paragraph (c) of this section must
monitor the new source on a schedule
the State approves. Source water
monitoring must meet the requirements
of this subpart. The system must also
meet the bin classification and
Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements of§§ 141.710 and 141.711
or § 141.712, as applicable, for the new
source on a schedule the State approves.
(2) The requirements of § 141.701(1]
apply to subpart H systems that begin
operation after the monitoring start date
applicable to the system's size under
paragraph (c) of this section.
(3) The system must begin a second
round of source water monitoring no
later than 6 years following initial bin
classification under § 141.710 or
determination of the mean
Cryptosporidium level under § 141.712,
as applicable.
(g) Failure to collect any source water
sample required under this section in
accordance with the sampling schedule,
sampling location, analytical method,
approved laboratory, and reporting
requirements of §§ 141.702 through
141.706 is a monitoring violation.
(h) Grandfathering monitoring data.
Systems may use (grandfather)
monitoring data collected prior to the
applicable monitoring start date in
paragraph (c) of this section to meet the
initial source water monitoring
requirements in paragraph (a) of this
section. Grandfathered data may
substitute for an equivalent number of
months at the end of the monitoring
period. All data submitted under this
paragraph must meet the requirements
in §141.707.
§141.702 Sampling schedules.
(a) Systems required to conduct
source water monitoring under
§ 141.701 must submit a sampling
schedule that specifies the calendar
dates when the system will collect each
required sample.
(1) Systems must submit sampling
schedules no later than 3 months prior
to the applicable date listed in
§ 141.701(c) for each round of required
monitoring.
(2)(i) Systems serving at least 10,000
people must submit their sampling
schedule for the initial round of source
water monitoring under § 141.701(a) to
EPA electronically at https://
intranet.epa.gov/lt2/.
(ii) If a system is unable to submit the
sampling schedule electronically, the
system may use an alternative approach
for submitting the sampling schedule
that EPA approves.
(3) Systems serving fewer than 10,000
people must submit their sampling
schedules for the initial round of source
water monitoring § 141.701(a) to the
State.
(4) Systems must submit sampling
schedules for the second round of
source water monitoring § 141.7()l(b) to
the State.
(5) If EPA or the State does not
respond to a system regarding its
sampling schedule, the system must
sample at the reported schedule.
(b) Systems must collect samples
within two days before or two days after
the dates indicated in their sampling
schedule (i.e., within a five-day period
around the schedule date) unless one of
the conditions of paragraph (b)(l) or (2)
of this section applies.
(1) If an extreme condition or
situation exists that may pose danger to
the sample collector, or that cannot be
avoided and causes the system to be
unable to sample in the scheduled five-
day period, the system must sample as
close to the scheduled date as is feasible
unless the State approves an alternative
sampling date. The system must submit
an explanation for the delayed sampling
date to the State concurrent with the
shipment of the sample to the
laboratory.
(2)(i) If a system is unable to report a
valid analytical result for a scheduled
sampling date due to equipment failure,
loss of or damage to the sample, failure
to comply with the analytical method
requirements, including the quality
control requirements in § 141.704, or the
failure of an approved laboratory to
analyze the sample, then the system
must collect a replacement sample.
(ii) The system must collect the
replacement sample not later than 21
days after receiving information that an
analytical result cannot be reported for
the scheduled date unless the system
demonstrates that collecting a
replacement sample within this time
frame is not feasible or the State
approves an alternative resampling date.
The system must submit an explanation
for the delayed sampling date to the
State concurrent with the shipment of
the sample to the laboratory.
(c) Systems that fail to meet the
criteria of paragraph (b) of this section
for any source water sample required
under § 141.701 must revise their
sampling schedules to add dates for
collecting all missed samples. Systems
must submit the revised schedule to the
State for approval prior to when the
system begins collecting the missed
samples.

§ 141.703 Sampling locations.
(a) Systems required to conduct
source water monitoring under
§ 141.701 must collect samples for each
plant that treats a surface water or
GWUDI source. Where multiple plants
draw water from the same influent, such
as the same pipe or intake, the State
may approve one set of monitoring
results to be used to satisfy the
requirements of § 141.701 for all plants.
(b)(l) Systems must collect source
water samples prior to chemical
treatment, such as coagulants, oxidants
and disinfectants, unless the system
meets the condition of paragraph (b)(2)
of this section.
(2) The State may approve a system to
collect a source water sample after
chemical treatment. To grant this
approval, the State must determine that
collecting a sample prior to chemical
treatment is not feasible for the system
and that the chemical treatment is
unlikely to have a significant adverse
effect on the analysis of the sample.
(c) Systems that recycle filter
backwash water must collect source
water samples prior to the point of filter
backwash water addition.
(d) Bank filtration. (1) Systems that
receive Cryptosporidium treatment
credit for bank filtration under
§ 141.173(b) or § 141.552(a), as
applicable, must collect source water
samples in the surface water prior to
bank filtration.
(2) Systems that use bank filtration as
pretreatment to a filtration plant must
collect source water samples from the
well (i.e., after bank filtration). Use of
bank filtration during monitoring must
be consistent with routine operational
practice. Systems collecting samples
after a bank filtration process may not
receive treatment credit for the bank
filtration under § 141.717(c).
-------
772
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
(e) Multiple sources. Systems with
plants that use multiple water sources,
including multiple surface water
sources and blended surface water and
ground water sources, must collect
samples as specified in paragraph (e)(l)
or (2) of this section. The use of
multiple sources during monitoring
must be consistent with routine
operational practice.
(1) If a sampling tap is available
where the sources are combined prior to
treatment, systems must collect samples
from the tap.
(2) If a sampling tap where the
sources are combined prior to treatment
is not available, systems must collect
samples at each source near the intake
on the same day and must follow either
paragraph (e)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section
for sample analysis.
(i) Systems may composite samples
from each source into one sample prior
to analysis. The volume of sample from
each source must be weighted according
to the proportion of the source in the
total plant flow at the time the sample
is collected.
(ii) Systems may analyze samples
from each source separately and
calculate a weighted average of the
analysis results for each sampling date.
The weighted average must be
calculated by multiplying the analysis
result for each source by the fraction the
source contributed to total plant flow at
the time the sample was collected and
then summing these values.
(f) Additional Requirements. Systems
must submit a description of their
sampling location(s) to the State at the
same time as the sampling schedule
required under § 141.702. This
description must address the position of
the sampling location in relation to the
system's water source(s) and treatment
processes, including pretreatment,
points of chemical treatment, and filter
backwash recycle. If the State does not
respond to a system regarding sampling
location(s), the system must sample at
the reported location(s).

§ 141.704 Analytical methods.
(a) Cryptosporidium. Systems must
analyze for Cryptosporidium using
Method 1623: Cryptosporidium and
Giardia in Water by Filtration/IMS/FA,
2005, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-815-R-05-002
or Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in
Water by Filtration/IMS/FA, 2005,
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-815-R-05-001, which are
incorporated by reference. The Director
of the Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of
these methods online from http://
www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2
or from the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water, 1201
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC
20460 (Telephone: 800-426-4791). You
may inspect a copy at the Water Docket
in the EPA Docket Center, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington,
DC, (Telephone: 202-566-2426) or at
the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030,
or go to: http:/7www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
co de_of_federal_regula tion s/
ibr_locations.html.
(1) Systems must analyze at least a 10
L sample or a packed pellet volume of
at least 2 mL as generated by the
methods listed in paragraph (a) of this
section. Systems unable to process a 10
L sample must analyze as much sample
volume as can be filtered by two filters
approved by EPA for the methods listed
in paragraph (a) of this section, up to a
packed pellet volume of at least 2 mL.
(2)(i) Matrix spike (MS) samples, as
required by the methods in paragraph
(a) of this section, must be spiked and
filtered by a laboratory approved for
Cryptosporidium analysis under
§141.705.
(ii) If the volume of the MS sample is
greater than 10 L, the system may filter
all but 10 L of the MS sample in the
field, and ship the filtered sample and
the remaining 10 L of source water to
the laboratory. In this case, the
laboratory must spike the remaining 10
L of water and filter it through the filter
used to collect the balance of the sample
in the field.
(3) Flow cytometer-counted spiking
suspensions must be used for MS
samples and ongoing precision and
recovery (OPR) samples.
(b) E. co//. Systems must use methods
for enumeration of E. coli in source
water approved in § 136.3(a) of this title.
(1) The time from sample collection to
initiation of analysis may not exceed 30
hours unless the system meets the
condition of paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
(2) The State may approve on a case-
by-case basis the holding of an E. coli
sample for up to 48 hours between
sample collection and initiation of
analysis if the State determines that
analyzing an E. coli sample within 30
hours is not feasible. E. coli samples
held between 30 to 48 hours must be
analyzed by the Colilert reagent version
of Standard Method 9223B as listed in
§136.3(a) of this title.
(3) Systems must maintain samples
between 0°C and 10°C during storage
and transit to the laboratory.
(c) Turbidity. Systems must use
methods for turbidity measurement
approved in § 141.74(a)(l).

§ 141.705 Approved laboratories.
(a) Cryptosporidium. Systems must
have Cryptosporidium samples analyzed
by a laboratory that is approved under
EPA's Laboratory Quality Assurance
Evaluation Program for Analysis of
Cryptosporidium in Water or a
laboratory that has been certified for
Cryptosporidium analysis by an
equivalent State laboratory certification
program.
(b) E. coli. Any laboratory certified by
the EPA, the National Environmental
Laboratory Accreditation Conference or
the State for total coliform or fecal
coliform analysis under § 141.74 is
approved for E. coli analysis under this
subpart when the laboratory uses the
same technique for E. coli that the
laboratory uses for § 141.74.
(c) Turbidity. Measurements of
turbidity must be made by a party
approved by the State.

§ 141.706 Reporting source water
monitoring results.
(a) Systems must report results from
the source water monitoring required
under § 141.701 no later than 10 days
after the end of the first month
following the month when the sample is
collected.
(b)(l) All systems serving at least
10,000 people must report the results
from the initial source water monitoring
required under § 141.701(a) to EPA
electronically at https://
intranet.epa.gov/lt2/.
(2) If a system is unable to report
monitoring results electronically, the
system may use an alternative approach
for reporting monitoring results that
EPA approves.
(c) Systems serving fewer than 10,000
people must report results from the
initial source water monitoring required
under § 141.701(a) to the State.
(d) All systems must report results
from the second round of source water
monitoring required under § 141.701(b)
to the State.
(e) Systems must report the applicable
information in paragraphs (e)(l) and (2)
of this section for the source water
monitoring required under § 141.701.
(1) Systems must report the following
data elements for each Cryptosporidium
analysis:
Data element.
1. PWS ID.
2. Facility ID.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
773
Data element.

3. Sample collection date.
4. Sample type (field or matrix spike).
5. Sample volume filtered (L), to nearest 'A
L.
6. Was 100% of filtered volume examined.
7. Number of oocysts counted.

(i) For matrix spike samples, systems
must also report the sample volume
spiked and estimated number of oocysts
spiked. These data are not required for
field samples.
(ii) For samples in which less than 10
L is filtered or less than 100% of the
sample volume is examined, systems
must also report the number of filters
used and the packed pellet volume.
(iii) For samples in which less than
100% of sample volume is examined,
systems must also report the volume of
resuspended concentrate and volume of
this resuspension processed through
immunomagnetic separation.
(2) Systems must report the following
data elements for each E. coli analysis:

Data element.
I. I'VVS II).
2. l-'acility II).
;i. Sample collection (Into.
4. Analytical method number.
ri. Method type.
ii. Source Ivpn (Mowing stream, lake/reservoir,
CWIini).
7. i:. colil 1(11) ml,.
I). Tnrlmlily.1
1 Systems serving fewer than 10,000 people
thiil arc not required to monitor for turbidity
under *i 141.701 are not required to report
turbidity with their E. coli results.

§ 141.707 Grandfathering previously
collected data.
(a)(l) Systems may comply with the
initial source water monitoring
requirements of § 141.701(a) by
grandfathering sample results collected
before the system is required to begin
monitoring (i.e., previously collected
data). To be grandfathered, the sample
results and analysis must meet the
criteria in this section and the State
must approve.
(2) A filtered system may grandfather
Crvptosporidium samples to meet the
requirements of § 141.701(a) when the
system does not have corresponding E.
coli and turbidity samples. A system
that grandfathers Cryptosporidium
samples without E. coli and turbidity
samples is not required to collect E. coli
and turbidity samples when the system
completes the requirements for
Cryptosporidium monitoring under
§141.701(a).
(b) E. coli sample analysis. The
analysis of E. coli samples must meet
the analytical method and approved
laboratory requirements of §§ 141.704
through 141.705.
(c) Cryptosporidium sample analysis.
The analysis of Cryptosporidium
samples must meet the criteria in this
paragraph.
(1) Laboratories analyzed
Cryptosporidium samples using one of
the analytical methods in paragraphs
(c)(l)(i) through (vi) of this section,
which are incorporated by reference.
The Director of the Federal Register
approves this incorporation by reference
in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy
of these methods on-line from the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, 1201 Constitution Ave,
NW, Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone:
800-426-4791). You may inspect a copy
at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC, (Telephone: 202-566-
2426) or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030,
or go to: http://www.archives.gov/
federal_ register/code_of_federal_
regulations/'ibr_locations.html.
(i) Method 1623: Cryptosporidium
and Giardia in Water hy Filtration/IMS/
FA, 2005, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-815-R-05-002.
(ii) Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in
Water hy Filtration/IMS/FA, 2005,
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-815-R-05-001.
(iii) Method 1623: Cryptosporidium
and Giardia in Water hy Filtration/IMS/
FA, 2001, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-821-R-01-025.
(iv) Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in
Water hy Filtration/IMS/FA, 2001,
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-821—R-01-026.
(v) Method 1623: Cryptosporidium
and Giardia in Water by Filtration/IMS/
FA, 1999, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-821-R-99-006.
(vi) Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in
Water by Filtration/IMS/FA, 1999,
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-821-R-99-001.
(2) For each Cryptosporidium sample,
the laboratory analyzed at least 10 L of
sample or at least 2 mL of packed pellet
or as much volume as could be filtered
by 2 filters that EPA approved for the
methods listed in paragraph (c)(l) of
this section.
(d) Sampling location. The sampling
location must meet the conditions in
§141.703.
(e) Sampling frequency.
Cryptosporidium samples were
collected no less frequently than each
calendar month on a regular schedule,
beginning no earlier than January 1999.
Sample collection intervals may vary for
the conditions specified in
§ 141.702(b)(l) and (2) if the system
provides documentation of the
condition when reporting monitoring
results.
(1) The State may approve
grandfathering of previously collected
data where there are time gaps in the
sampling frequency if the system
conducts additional monitoring the
State specifies to ensure that the data
used to comply with the initial source
water monitoring requirements of
§141.701(a) are seasonally
representative and unbiased.
(2) Systems may grandfather
previously collected data where the
sampling frequency within each month
varied. If the Cryptosporidium sampling
frequency varied, systems must follow
the monthly averaging procedure in
§ 141.710(b)(5) or § 141.712(a)(3), as
applicable, when calculating the bin
classification for filtered systems or the
mean Cryptosporidium concentration
for unfiltered systems.
(f) Reporting monitoring results for
grandfathering. Systems that request to
grandfather previously collected
monitoring results must report the
following information by the applicable
dates listed in this paragraph. Systems
serving at least 10,000 people must
report this information to EPA unless
the State approves reporting to the State
rather than EPA. Systems serving fewer
than 10,000 people must report this
information to the State.
(1) Systems must report that they
intend to submit previously collected
monitoring results for grandfathering.
This report must specify the number of
previously collected results the system
will submit, the dates of the first and
last sample, and whether a system will
conduct additional source water
monitoring to meet the requirements of
§ 141.701(a). Systems must report this
information no later than the date the
sampling schedule under § 141.702 is
required.
(2) Systems must report previously
collected monitoring results for
grandfathering, along with the
associated documentation listed in
paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (iv) of this
section, no later than two months after
the applicable date listed in
§141.701(c).
(i) For each sample result, systems
must report the applicable data
elements in § 141.706.
(ii) Systems must certify that the
reported monitoring results include all
results the system generated during the
time period beginning with the first
reported result and ending with the
final reported result. This applies to
samples that were collected from the
-------
774
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
sampling location specified for source
water monitoring under this subpart,
not spiked, and analyzed using the
laboratory's routine process for the
analytical methods listed in this section.
(iii) Systems must certify that the
samples were representative of a plant's
source water(s) and the source water(s)
have not changed. Systems must report
a description of the sampling
location(s), which must address the
position of the sampling location in
relation to the system's water source(s)
and treatment processes, including
points of chemical addition and filter
backwash recycle.
(iv) For Cryptosporidium samples, the
laboratory or laboratories that analyzed
the samples must provide a letter
certifying that the quality control
criteria specified in the methods listed
in paragraph (c)(l) of this section were
met for each sample batch associated
with the reported results. Alternatively,
the laboratory may provide bench sheets
and sample examination report forms
for each field, matrix spike, IPR, OPR,
and method blank sample associated
with the reported results.
(g) If the State determines that a
previously collected data set submitted
for grandfathering was generated during
source water conditions that were not
normal for the system, such as a
drought, the State may disapprove the
data. Alternatively, the State may
approve the previously collected data if
the system reports additional source
water monitoring data, as determined by
the State, to ensure that the data set
used under § 141.710 or § 141.712
represents average source water
conditions for the system.
(h) If a system submits previously
collected data that fully meet the
number of samples required for initial
source water monitoring under
§141.701(a) and some of the data are
rejected due to not meeting the
requirements of this section, systems
must conduct additional monitoring to
replace rejected data on a schedule the
State approves. Systems are not required
to begin this additional monitoring until
two months after notification that data
have been rejected and additional
monitoring is necessary.

Disinfection Profiling and
Benchmarking Requirements

§141.708 Requirements when making a
significant change in disinfection practice.
(a) Following the completion of initial
source water monitoring under
§ 141.701(a), a system that plans to
make a significant change to its
disinfection practice, as defined in
paragraph (b) of this section, must
develop disinfection profiles and
calculate disinfection benchmarks for
Giardia lamblia and viruses as
described in § 141.709. Prior to
changing the disinfection practice, the
system must notify the State and must
include in this notice the information in
paragraphs (a)(l) through (3) of this
section.
(1) A completed disinfection profile
and disinfection benchmark for Giardia
lamblia and viruses as described in
§141.709.
(2) A description of the proposed
change in disinfection practice.
(3) An analysis of how the proposed
change will affect the current level of
disinfection.
(b) Significant changes to disinfection
practice are defined as follows:
(1) Changes to the point of
disinfection;
(2) Changes to the disinfectant(s) used
in the treatment plant;
(3) Changes to the disinfection
process; or
(4) Any other modification identified
by the State as a significant change to
disinfection practice.

§ 141.709 Developing the disinfection
profile and benchmark.
(a) Systems required to develop
disinfection profiles under § 141.708
must follow the requirements of this
section. Systems must monitor at least
weekly for a period of 12 consecutive
months to determine the total log
inactivation for Giardia lamblia and
viruses. If systems monitor more
frequently, the monitoring frequency
must be evenly spaced. Systems that
operate for fewer than 12 months per
year must monitor weekly during the
period of operation. Systems must
determine log inactivation for Giardia
lamblia through the entire plant, based
on CT99.9 values in Tables 1.1 through
1.6, 2.1 and 3.1 of §141.74(b) as
applicable. Systems must determine log
inactivation for viruses through the
entire treatment plant based on a
protocol approved by the State.
(b) Systems with a single point of
disinfectant application prior to the
entrance to the distribution system must
conduct the monitoring in paragraphs
(b)(l) through (4) of this section.
Systems with more than one point of
disinfectant application must conduct
the monitoring in paragraphs (b)(l)
through (4) of this section for each
disinfection segment. Systems must
monitor the parameters necessary to
determine the total inactivation ratio,
using analytical methods in § 141.74(a).
(1) For systems using a disinfectant
other than UV, the temperature of the
disinfected water must be measured at
each residual disinfectant concentration
sampling point during peak hourly flow
or at an alternative location approved by
the State.
(2) For systems using chlorine, the pH
of the disinfected water must be
measured at each chlorine residual
disinfectant concentration sampling
point during peak hourly flow or at an
alternative location approved by the
State.
(3) The disinfectant contact time(s) (t)
must be determined during peak hourly
flow.
(4) The residual disinfectant
concentration(s) (C) of the water before
or at the first customer and prior to each
additional point of disinfectant
application must be measured during
peak hourly flow.
(c) In lieu of conducting new
monitoring under paragraph (b) of this
section, systems may elect to meet the
requirements of paragraphs (c)(l) or (2)
of this section.
(1) Systems that have at least one year
of existing data that are substantially
equivalent to data collected under the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section may use these data to develop
disinfection profiles as specified in this
section if the system has neither made
a significant change to its treatment
practice nor changed sources since the
data were collected. Systems may
develop disinfection profiles using up to
three years of existing data.
(2) Systems may use disinfection
profile(s) developed under § 141.172 or
§§ 141.530 through 141.536 in lieu of
developing a new profile if the system
has neither made a significant change to
its treatment practice nor changed
sources since the profile was developed.
Systems that have not developed a virus
profile under § 141.172 or §§ 141.530
through 141.536 must develop a virus
profile using the same monitoring data
on which the Giardia lamblia profile is
based.
(d) Systems must calculate the total
inactivation ratio for Giardia lamblia as
specified in paragraphs (d)(l) through
(3) of this section.
(1) Systems using only one point of
disinfectant application may determine
the total inactivation ratio for the
disinfection segment based on either of
the methods in paragraph (d)(l)(i) or (ii)
of this section.
(i) Determine one inactivation ratio
(CTcalc/CT99 9) before or at the first
customer during peak hourly flow.
(ii) Determine successive CTcalc/
CTVj.y values, representing sequential
inactivation ratios, between the point of
disinfectant application and a point
before or at the first customer during
peak hourly flow. The system must
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
775
calculate the total inactivation ratio by
determining (CTcalc/CTWy) for each
sequence and then adding the (CTcalc/
0X99.9) values together to determine (S
(CTcalc/CTw.o)).
(2) Systems using more than one point
of disinfectant application before the
first customer must determine the CT
value of each disinfection segment
immediately prior to the next point of
disinfectant application, or for the final
segment, before or at the first customer,
during peak hourly flow. The (CTcalc/
CTw.q) value of each segment and (I
(CTcalc/CTgg.g)) must be calculated
using the method in paragraph (d)(l)(ii)
of this section.
(3) The system must determine the
total logs of inactivation by multiplying
the value calculated in paragraph (d)(l)
or (d)(2) of this section by 3.0.
(4) Systems must calculate the log of
inactivation for viruses using a protocol
approved by the State.
(e) Systems must use the procedures
specified in paragraphs (e)(l) and (2) of
this section to calculate a disinfection
benchmark.
(1) For each year of profiling data
collected and calculated under
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this
section, systems must determine the
lowest mean monthly level of both
Giardia lamblia and virus inactivation.
Systems must determine the mean
Giardia lamblia and virus inactivation
for each calendar month for each year of
profiling data by dividing the sum of
daily or weekly Giardia lamblia and
virus log inactivation by the number of
values calculated for that month.
(2) The disinfection benchmark is the
lowest monthly mean value (for systems
with one year of profiling data) or the
mean of the lowest monthly mean
values (for systems with more than one
year of profiling data) of Giardia lamblia
and virus log inactivation in each year
of profiling data.

Treatment Technique Requirements

§ 141.710 Bin classification for filtered
systems.
(a) Following completion of the initial
round of source water monitoring
required under § 141.701(a), filtered
systems must calculate an initial
Cryptosporidium bin concentration for
each plant for which monitoring was
required. Calculation of the bin
concentration must use the
Crvptosporidium results reported under
§ 141.70 1 (a) and must follow the
procedures in paragraphs (b)(l) through
(5) of this section.
{!))(!) For systems that collect a total
of at least 48 samples, the bin
concentration is equal to the arithmetic
moan of all sample concentrations.
(2) For systems that collect a total of
at least 24 samples, but not more than
47 samples, the bin concentration is
equal to the highest arithmetic mean of
all sample concentrations in any 12
consecutive months during which
Cryptosporidium samples were
collected.
(3) For systems that serve fewer than
10,000 people and monitor for
Cryptosporidium for only one year (i.e.,
collect 24 samples in 12 months), the
bin concentration is equal to the
arithmetic mean of all sample
concentrations.
(4) For systems with plants operating
only part of the year that monitor fewer
than 12 months per year under
§ 141.701(e), the bin concentration is
equal to the highest arithmetic mean of
all sample concentrations during any
year of Cryptosporidium monitoring.
(5) If the monthly Cryptosporidium
sampling frequency varies, systems
must first calculate a monthly average
for each month of monitoring. Systems
must then use these monthly average
concentrations, rather than individual
sample concentrations, in the applicable
calculation for bin classification in
paragraphs (b)(l) through (4) of this
section.
(c) Filtered systems must determine
their initial bin classification from the
following table and using the
Cryptosporidium bin concentration
calculated under paragraphs (a)-(b) of
this section:
BIN CLASSIFICATION TABLE FOR FILTERED SYSTEMS
For systems that are:
With a Cryptosporidium bin concentration of. . .1
The bin classification is
. . required to monitor for Cryptosporidium under
§141.701.
. . serving fewer than 10,000 people and NOT required
to monitor for Cryptosporidium under § 141.701(a)(4).
Cryptosporidium <0.075 oocyst/L
0.075 oocysts/L 3.0 oocysts/L
NA
Bin 1.

Bin 2.
Bin 3.
Bin 4.
Bin 1.
1 Based on calculations in paragraph (a) or (d) of this section, as applicable.
(d) Following completion of the
second round of source water
monitoring required under § 141.701 (b),
filtered systems must recalculate their
Cryptosporidium bin concentration
using the Cryptosporidium results
reported under §141.701(b) and
following the procedures in paragraphs
(b)(l) through (4) of this section.
Systems must then redetermine their
bin classification using this bin
concentration and the table in paragraph
(c) of this section.
(e)(l) Filtered systems must report
their initial bin classification under
paragraph (c) of this section to the State
for approval no later than 6 months after
the system is required to complete
initial source water monitoring based on
the schedule in § 141.701(c).
(2) Systems must report their bin
classification under paragraph (d) of this
section to the State for approval no later
than 6 months after the system is
required to complete the second round
of source water monitoring based on the
schedule in §141.701(c).
(3) The bin classification report to the
State must include a summary of source
water monitoring data and the
calculation procedure used to determine
bin classification.
(f) Failure to comply with the
conditions of paragraph (e) of this
section is a violation of the treatment
technique requirement.

§ 141.711 Filtered system additional
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements.

(a) Filtered systems must provide the
level of additional treatment for
Cryptosporidium specified in this
paragraph based on their bin
classification as determined under
§ 141.710 and according to the schedule
in §141.713.
-------
776
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
And the system uses the following filtration treatment in full compliance with subparts H, P, and T of this part (as applicable),
If the system
bin classifica-
tion is ...
Bin 1
Bin 2
Bin 3
Bin 4

Conventional filtration treat-
ment
(including softening)
No additional treatment
1 -log treatment
2-log treatment
2.5-loa treatment

Direct filtration
No additional treatment
1 5-log treatment
2 5-log treatment
3-loq treatment

Slow sand or diatomaceous
earth filtration
No additional treatment
1-log treatment
2-log treatment
2.5-loq treatment

Alternative filtration tech-
nologies
No additional treatment
(1)
(2)
(3)
1 As determined by the State such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 4.0-log.
2 As determined by the State such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 5.0-log.
3 As determined by the State such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 5.5-log.
(b)(l) Filtered systems must use one
or more of the treatment and
management options listed in § 141.715,
termed the microbial toolbox, to comply
with the additional Cryptosporidium
treatment required in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(2) Systems classified in Bin 3 and
Bin 4 must achieve at least 1-log of the
additional Cryptosporidium treatment
required under paragraph (a) of this
section using either one or a
combination of the following: bag filters,
bank filtration, cartridge filters, chlorine
dioxide, membranes, ozone, or UV, as
described in §§ 141.716 through
141.720.
(c) Failure by a system in any month
to achieve treatment credit by meeting
criteria in §§ 141.716 through 141.720
for microbial toolbox options that is at
least equal to the level of treatment
required in paragraph (a) of this section
is a violation of the treatment technique
requirement.
(d) If the State determines during a
sanitary survey or an equivalent source
water assessment that after a system
completed the monitoring conducted
under § 141.701(a) or § 141.701(b),
significant changes occurred in the
system's watershed that could lead to
increased contamination of the source
water by Cryptosporidium, the system
must take actions specified by the State
to address the contamination. These
actions may include additional source
water monitoring and/or implementing
microbial toolbox options listed in
§141.715.

§ 141.712 Unfiltered system
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements.
(a) Determination of mean
Cryptosporidium level. (1) Following
completion of the initial source water
monitoring required under § 141.701 (a),
unfiltered systems must calculate the
arithmetic mean of all Cryptosporidium
sample concentrations reported under
§ 141.701(a). Systems must report this
value to the State for approval no later
than 6 months after the month the
system is required to complete initial
source water monitoring based on the
schedule in § 141.701(c).
(2) Following completion of the
second round of source water
monitoring required under § 141.701(b),
unfiltered systems must calculate the
arithmetic mean of all Cryptosporidium
sample concentrations reported under
§ 141.701(b). Systems must report this
value to the State for approval no later
than 6 months after the month the
system is required to complete the
second round of source water
monitoring based on the schedule in
§141.701(c).
(3) If the monthly Cryptosporidium
sampling frequency varies, systems
must first calculate a monthly average
for each month of monitoring. Systems
must then use these monthly average
concentrations, rather than individual
sample concentrations, in the
calculation of the mean
Cryptosporidium level in paragraphs
(a)(l) or (2) of this section.
(4) The report to the State of the mean
Cryptosporidium levels calculated
under paragraphs (a)(l) and (2) of this
section must include a summary of the
source water monitoring data used for
the calculation.
(5) Failure to comply with the
conditions of paragraph (a) of this
section is a violation of the treatment
technique requirement.
(b) Cryptosporidium inactivation
requirements. Unfiltered systems must
provide the level of inactivation for
Cryptosporidium specified in this
paragraph, based on their mean
Cryptosporidium levels as determined
under paragraph (a) of this section and
according to the schedule in § 141.713.
(1) Unfiltered systems with a mean
Cryptosporidium level of 0.01 oocysts/L
or less must provide at least 2-log
Cryptosporidium inactivation.
(2) Unfiltered systems with a mean
Cryptosporidium level of greater than
0.01 oocysts/L must provide at least 3-
log Cryptosporidium inactivation.
(c) Inactivation treatment technology
requirements. Unfiltered systems must
use chlorine dioxide, ozone, or UV as
described in § 141.720 to meet the
Cryptosporidium inactivation
requirements of this section.
(1) Systems that use chlorine dioxide
or ozone and fail to achieve the
Cryptosporidium inactivation required
in paragraph (b) of this section on more
than one day in the calendar month are
in violation of the treatment technique
requirement.
(2) Systems that use UV light and fail
to achieve the Cryptosporidium
inactivation required in paragraph (b) of
this section by meeting the criteria in
§ 141.720(d)(3)(ii) are in violation of the
treatment technique requirement.
(d) Use of two disinfectants.
Unfiltered systems must meet the
combined Cryptosporidium inactivation
requirements of this section and Giardia
lamblia and virus inactivation
requirements of § 141.72(a) using a
minimum of two disinfectants, and each
of two disinfectants must separately
achieve the total inactivation required
for either Cryptosporidium, Giardia
lamblia, or viruses.

§ 141.713 Schedule for compliance with
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements.
(a) Following initial bin classification
under § 141.710(c), filtered systems
must provide the level of treatment for
Cryptosporidium required under
§ 141.711 according to the schedule in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Following initial determination of
the mean Cryptosporidium level under
§ 141.712(a)(l), unfiltered systems must
provide the level of treatment for
Cryptosporidium required under
§ 141.712 according to the schedule in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Cryptosporidium treatment
compliance dates.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
777
CRYPTOSPORIDIUM TREATMENT
COMPLIANCE DATES TABLE
Systems that serve
(1) At least 100,000
people.
(2) From 50,000 to
99,999 people.
(3) From 10,000 to
49,999 people.
(4) Fewer than
10,000 people.
Must comply with
Cryptosporidium treat-
ment requirements no
later than . . .a
(i) April 1, 2012.

(i) October 1, 2012.

(i) October 1, 2013.

(i) October 1, 2014.
"States may allow up to an additional two
years for complying with the treatment require-
ment for systems making capital
improvements.
(d) If the bin classification for a
filtered system changes following the
second round of source water
monitoring, as determined under
§ 141.710(d), the system must provide
the level of treatment for
Cryptosporidium required under
§ 141.711 on a schedule the State
approves.
(e) If the mean Cryptosporidium level
for an unfiltered system changes
following the second round of
monitoring, as determined under
§ 141.712(a)(2), and if the system must
provide a different level of
Cryptosporidium treatment under
§ 141.712 due to this change, the system
must meet this treatment requirement
on a schedule the State approves.

§141.714 Requirements for uncovered
finished water storage facilities.
(a) Systems using uncovered finished
water storage facilities must comply
with the conditions of this section.
(b) Systems must notify the State of
the use of each uncovered finished
water storage facility no later than April
1, 2008.
(c) Systems must meet the conditions
of paragraph (c)(l) or (2) of this section
for each uncovered finished water
storage facility or be in compliance with
a State-approved schedule to meet these
conditions no later than April 1, 2009.
(1) Systems must cover any uncovered
finished water storage facility.
(2) Systems must treat the discharge
from the uncovered finished water
storage facility to the distribution
system to achieve inactivation and/or
removal of at least 4-log virus, 3-log
Giardia lamblia, and 2-log
Cryptosporidium using a protocol
approved by the State.
(d) Failure to comply with the
requirements of this section is a
violation of the treatment technique
requirement.

Requirements for Microbial Toolbox
Components

§ 141.715 Microbial toolbox options for
meeting Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements.
(a)(l) Systems receive the treatment
credits listed in the table in paragraph
(b) of this section by meeting the
conditions for microbial toolbox options
described in §§ 141.716 through
141.720. Systems apply these treatment
credits to meet the treatment
requirements in § 141.711 or § 141.712,
as applicable.
(2) Unfiltered systems are eligible for
treatment credits for the microbial
toolbox options described in § 141.720
only.
(b) The following table summarizes
options in the microbial toolbox:
MICROBIAL TOOLBOX SUMMARY TABLE: OPTIONS, TREATMENT CREDITS AND CRITERIA
Toolbox Option
Cryptosporidium treatment credit with design and implementation criteria
Source Protection and Management Toolbox Options
(1) Watershed control program
(2) Alternative source/intake management
0.5-log credit for State-approved program comprising required elements, annual program sta-
tus report to State, and regular watershed survey. Unfiltered systems are not eligible for
credit. Specific criteria are in §141.716(a).
No prescribed credit. Systems may conduct simultaneous monitoring for treatment bin classi-
fication at alternative intake locations or under alternative intake management strategies.
Specific criteria are in §141.716(b).
Pre Filtration Toolbox Options
(3) Presedimentation basin with coagulation
(4) Two-stage lime softening
(5) Bank filtration
0.5-log credit during any month that presedimentation basins achieve a monthly mean reduc-
tion of 0.5-log or greater in turbidity or alternative State-approved performance criteria. To
be eligible, basins must be operated continuously with coagulant addition and all plant flow
must pass through basins. Specific criteria are in §141.717(a).
0.5-log credit for two-stage softening where chemical addition and hardness precipitation occur
in both stages. All plant flow must pass through both stages. Single-stage softening is cred-
ited as equivalent to conventional treatment. Specific criteria are in §141.717(b).
0.5-log credit for 25-foot setback; 1.0-log credit for 50-foot setback; aquifer must be unconsoli-
dated sand containing at least 10 percent fines; average turbidity in wells must be less than
1 NTU. Systems using wells followed by filtration when conducting source water monitoring
must sample the well to determine bin classification and are not eligible for additional credit.
Specific criteria are in §141.717(c).
Treatment Performance Toolbox Options
(6) Combined filter performance

(7) Individual filter performance .
(8) Demonstration of performance
0.5-log credit for combined filter effluent turbidity less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95
percent of measurements each month. Specific criteria are in § 141.718(a).
0.5-log credit (in addition to 0.5-log combined filter performance credit) if individual filter efflu-
ent turbidity is less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of samples each month
in each filter and is never greater than 0.3 NTU in two consecutive measurements in any fil-
ter. Specific criteria are in §141.718(b).
Credit awarded to unit process or treatment train based on a demonstration to the State with a
State- approved protocol. Specific criteria are in § 141.718(c).
-------
778
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
MICROBIAL TOOLBOX SUMMARY TABLE: OPTIONS, TREATMENT CREDITS AND CRITERIA—Continued
Toolbox Option
Cryptosporidium treatment credit with design and implementation criteria
Additional Filtration Toolbox Options
(9) Bag or cartridge filters (individual filters)

(10) Bag or cartridge filters (in series)

(11) Membrane filtration

(12) Second stage filtration

(13) Slow sand filters
Up to 2-log credit based on the removal efficiency demonstrated during challenge testing with
a 1.0-log factor of safety. Specific criteria are in §141.719(a).
Up to 2.5-log credit based on the removal efficiency demonstrated during challenge testing
with a 0.5-log factor of safety. Specific criteria are in § 141.719(a).
Log credit equivalent to removal efficiency demonstrated in challenge test for device if sup-
ported by direct integrity testing. Specific criteria are in §14L719(b).
0.5-log credit for second separate granular media filtration stage if treatment train includes co-
agulation prior to first filter. Specific criteria are in § 141.719(c)
2.5-log credit as a secondary filtration step; 3.0-log credit as a primary filtration process. No
prior chlorination for either option. Specific criteria are in §141.719(d).
Inactivation Toolbox Options
(14) Chlorine dioxide
(15) Ozone
(16) UV
Log credit based on measured CT in relation to CT table. Specific criteria in §141.720(b)
Log credit based on measured CT in relation to CT table. Specific criteria in §141.720(b).
Log credit based on validated UV dose in relation to UV dose table; reactor validation testing
required to establish UV dose and associated operating conditions. Specific criteria in
§141.720(d).
§ 141.716 Source toolbox components.
(a) Watershed control program.
Systems receive 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for
implementing a watershed control
program that meets the requirements of
this section.
(1) Systems that intend to apply for
the watershed control program credit
must notify the State of this intent no
later than two years prior to the
treatment compliance date applicable to
the system in § 141.713.
(2) Systems must submit to the State
a proposed watershed control plan no
later than one year before the applicable
treatment compliance date in § 141.713.
The State must approve the watershed
control plan for the system to receive
watershed control program treatment
credit. The watershed control plan must
include the elements in paragraphs
(a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Identification of an "area of
influence" outside of which the
likelihood of Cryptosporidium or fecal
contamination affecting the treatment
plant intake is not significant. This is
the area to be evaluated in future
watershed surveys under paragraph
(a)(5)(ii) of this section.
(ii) Identification of both potential
and actual sources of Cryptosporidium
contamination and an assessment of the
relative impact of these sources on the
system's source water quality.
(iii) An analysis of the effectiveness
and feasibility of control measures that
could reduce Cryptosporidium loading
from sources of contamination to the
system's source water.
(iv) A statement of goals and specific
actions the system will undertake to
reduce source water Cryptosporidium
levels. The plan must explain how the
actions are expected to contribute to
specific goals, identify watershed
partners and their roles, identify
resource requirements and
commitments, and include a schedule
for plan implementation with deadlines
lor completing specific actions
identified in the plan.
(3) Systems with existing watershed
control programs (i.e., programs in place
on January 5, 2006) are eligible to seek
this credit. Their watershed control
plans must meet the criteria in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section and must
specify ongoing and future actions that
will reduce source water
Cn'ptosporidium levels.
(4) It the State does not respond to a
system regarding approval of a
watershed control plan submitted under
this section and the system meets the
other requirements of this section, the
watershed control program will be
considered approved and 0.5 log
Cn'ptosporidium treatment credit will
be awarded unless and until the State
subsequently withdraws such approval.
(5) Systems must complete the actions
in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iii) of
this section to maintain the 0.5-log
credit.
(i) Submit an annual watershed
control program status report to the
State. The annual watershed control
program status report must describe the
system's implementation of the
approved plan and assess the adequacy
of the plan to meet its goals. It must
explain how the system is addressing
any shortcomings in plan
implementation, including those
previously identified by the State or as
the result of the watershed survey
conducted under paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of
this section. It must also describe any
significant changes that have occurred
in the watershed since the last
watershed sanitary survey. If a system
determines during implementation that
making a significant change to its
approved watershed control program is
necessary, the system must notify the
State prior to making any such changes.
If any change is likely to reduce the
level of source water protection, the
system must also list in its notification
the actions the system will take to
mitigate this effect.
(ii) Undergo a watershed sanitary
survey every three years for community
water systems and every five years for
noncommunity water systems and
submit the survey report to the State.
The survey must be conducted
according to State guidelines and by
persons the State approves.
(A) The watershed sanitary survey
must meet the following criteria:
encompass the region identified in the
State-approved watershed control plan
as the area of influence; assess the
implementation of actions to reduce
source water Cryptosporidium levels;
and identify any significant new sources
of Cryptosporidium.
(B) If the State determines that
significant changes may have occurred
in the watershed since the previous
watershed sanitary survey, systems
must undergo another watershed
sanitary survey by a date the State
requires, which may be earlier than the
regular date in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of
this section.
(iii) The system must make the
watershed control plan, annual status
reports, and watershed sanitary survey
reports available to the public upon
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
779
request. These documents must be in a
plain language style and include criteria
by which to evaluate the success of the
program in achieving plan goals. The
State may approve systems to withhold
from the public portions of the annual
status report, watershed control plan,
and watershed sanitary survey based on
water supply security considerations.
(6) If the State determines that a
system is not carrying out the approved
watershed control plan, the State may
withdraw the watershed control
program treatment credit.
(b) Alternative source. (1) A system
may conduct source water monitoring
that reflects a different intake location
(either in the same source or for an
alternate source) or a different
procedure for the timing or level of
withdrawal from the source (alternative
source monitoring). If the State
approves, a system may determine its
bin classification under § 141.710 based
on the alternative source monitoring
results.
(2) If systems conduct alternative
source monitoring under paragraph
(b)(l) of this section, systems must also
monitor their current plant intake
concurrently as described in § 141.701.
(3) Alternative source monitoring
under paragraph (b)(l) of this section
must meet the requirements for source
monitoring to determine bin
classification, as described in §§ 141.701
through 141.706. Systems must report
the alternative source monitoring results
to the State, along with supporting
information documenting the operating
conditions under which the samples
were collected.
(4) If a system determines its bin
classification under § 141.710 using
alternative source monitoring results
that reflect a different intake location or
a different procedure for managing the
timing or level of withdrawal from the
source, the system must relocate the
intake or permanently adopt the
withdrawal procedure, as applicable, no
later than the applicable treatment
compliance date in § 141.713.

§ 141.717 Pre-f iltration treatment toolbox
components.
(a) Presedimentation. Systems receive
0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment
credit for a presedimentation basin
during any month the process meets the
criteria in this paragraph.
(1) The presedimentation basin must
be in continuous operation and must
treat the entire plant flow taken from a
surface water or GWUDI source.
(2) The system must continuously add
a coagulant to the presedimentation
basin.
(3) The presedimentation basin must
achieve the performance criteria in
paragraph (3)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) Demonstrates at least 0.5-log mean
reduction of influent turbidity. This
reduction must be determined using
daily turbidity measurements in the
presedimentation process influent and
effluent and must be calculated as
follows: logio(monthly mean of daily
influent turbidity) - logio(monthly mean
of daily effluent turbidity).
(ii) Complies with State-approved
performance criteria that demonstrate at
least 0.5-log mean removal of micron-
sized particulate material through the
presedimentation process.
(b) Two-stage lime softening. Systems
receive an additional 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a
two-stage lime softening plant if
chemical addition and hardness
precipitation occur in two separate and
sequential softening stages prior to
filtration. Both softening stages must
treat the entire plant flow taken from a
surface water or GWUDI source.
(c) Bank filtration. Systems receive
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for
bank filtration that serves as
pretreatment to a filtration plant by
meeting the criteria in this paragraph.
Systems using bank filtration when they
begin source water monitoring under
§ 141.701(a) must collect samples as
described in § 141.703(d) and are not
eligible for this credit.
(1) Wells with a ground water flow
path of at least 25 feet receive 0.5-log
treatment credit; wells with a ground
water flow path of at least 50 feet
receive 1.0-log treatment credit. The
ground water flow path must be
determined as specified in paragraph
(c)(4) of this section.
(2) Only wells in granular aquifers are
eligible for treatment credit. Granular
aquifers are those comprised of sand,
clay, silt, rock fragments, pebbles or
larger particles, and minor cement. A
system must characterize the aquifer at
the well site to determine aquifer
properties. Systems must extract a core
from the aquifer and demonstrate that in
at least 90 percent of the core length,
grains less than 1.0 mm in diameter
constitute at least 10 percent of the core
material.
(3) Only horizontal and vertical wells
are eligible for treatment credit.
(4) For vertical wells, the ground
water flow path is the measured
distance from the edge of the surface
water body under high flow conditions
(determined by the 100 year floodplain
elevation boundary or by the floodway,
as defined in Federal Emergency
Management Agency flood hazard
maps) to the well screen. For horizontal
wells, the ground water flow path is the
measured distance from the bed of the
river under normal flow conditions to
the closest horizontal well lateral
screen.
(5) Systems must monitor each
wellhead for turbidity at least once
every four hours while the bank
filtration process is in operation. If
monthly average turbidity levels, based
on daily maximum values in the well,
exceed 1 NTU, the system must report
this result to the State and conduct an
assessment within 30 days to determine
the cause of the high turbidity levels in
the well. If the State determines that
microbial removal has been
compromised, the State may revoke
treatment credit until the system
implements corrective actions approved
by the State to remediate the problem.
(6) Springs and infiltration galleries
are not eligible for treatment credit
under this section, but are eligible for
credit under § 141.718(c).
(7) Bank filtration demonstration of
performance. The State may approve
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for
bank filtration based on a demonstration
of performance study that meets the
criteria in this paragraph. This treatment
credit may be greater than 1.0-log and
may be awarded to bank filtration that
does not meet the criteria in paragraphs
(c:)(l)-(5) of this section.
(i) The study must follow a State-
approved protocol and must involve the
collection of data on the removal of
Cryptosporidium or a surrogate for
Cryptosporidium and related
hydrogeologic and water quality
parameters during the full range of
operating conditions.
(ii) The study must include sampling
both from the production well(s) and
from monitoring wells that are screened
and located along the shortest flow path
between the surface water source and
the production well(s).

§ 141.718 Treatment performance toolbox
components.
(a) Combined filter performance.
Systems using conventional filtration
treatment or direct filtration treatment
receive an additional 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit
during any month the system meets the
criteria in this paragraph. Combined
filter effluent (CFE) turbidity must be
less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least
95 percent of the measurements.
Turbidity must be measured as
described in § 141.74(a) and (c).
(b) Individual filter performance.
Systems using conventional filtration
treatment or direct filtration treatment
receive 0.5-log Cryptosporidium
treatment credit, which can be in
-------
780
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
addition to the 0.5-log credit under
paragraph (a) of this section, during any
month the system meets the criteria in
this paragraph. Compliance with these
criteria must be based on individual
filter turbidity monitoring as described
in § 141.174 or § 141.560, as applicable.
(1) The filtered water turbidity for
each individual filter must be less than
or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95
percent of the measurements recorded
each month.
(2) No individual filter may have a
measured turbidity greater than 0.3 NTU
in two consecutive measurements taken
15 minutes apart.
(3) Any system that has received
treatment credit for individual filter
performance and fails to meet the
requirements of paragraph (b)(l) or (2)
of this section during any month does
not receive a treatment technique
violation under §141.711(c) if the State
determines the following:
(i) The failure was due to unusual and
short-term circumstances that could not
reasonably be prevented through
optimizing treatment plant design,
operation, and maintenance.
(ii) The system has experienced no
more than two such failures in any
calendar year.
(c) Demonstration of performance.
The State may approve Cryptosporidium
treatment credit for drinking water
treatment processes based on a
demonstration of performance study
that meets the criteria in this paragraph.
This treatment credit may be greater
than or less than the prescribed
treatment credits in § 141.711 or
§§ 141.717 through 141.720 and may be
awarded to treatment processes that do
not meet the criteria for the prescribed
credits.
(1) Systems cannot receive the
prescribed treatment credit for any
toolbox box option in §§ 141.717
through 141.720 if that toolbox option is
included in a demonstration of
performance study for which treatment
credit is awarded under this paragraph.
(2) The demonstration of performance
study must follow a State-approved
protocol and must demonstrate the level
of Cryptosporidium reduction the
treatment process will achieve under
the full range of expected operating
conditions for the system.
(3) Approval by the State must be in
writing and may include monitoring
and treatment performance criteria that
the system must demonstrate and report
on an ongoing basis to remain eligible
for the treatment credit. The State may
designate such criteria where necessary
to verify that the conditions under
which the demonstration of
performance credit was approved are
maintained during routine operation.

§ 141.719 Additional filtration toolbox
components.
(a) Bag and cartridge filters. Systems
receive Cryptosporidium treatment
credit of up to 2.0-log for individual bag
or cartridge filters and up to 2.5-log for
bag or cartridge filters operated in series
by meeting the criteria in paragraphs
(a)(l) through (10) of this section. To be
eligible for this credit, systems must
report the results of challenge testing
that meets the requirements of
paragraphs (a)(2) through (9) of this
section to the State. The filters must
treat the entire plant flow taken from a
subpart H source.
(1) The Cryptosporidium treatment
credit awarded to bag or cartridge filters
must be based on the removal efficiency
demonstrated during challenge testing
that is conducted according to the
criteria in paragraphs (a)(2) through
(a)(9) of this section. A factor of safety
equal to 1-log for individual bag or
cartridge filters and 0.5-log for bag or
cartridge filters in series must be
applied to challenge testing results to
determine removal credit. Systems may
use results from challenge testing
conducted prior to January 5, 2006 if the
prior testing was consistent with the
criteria specified in paragraphs (a)(2)
through (9) of this section.
(2) Challenge testing must be
performed on full-scale bag or cartridge
filters, and the associated filter housing
or pressure vessel, that are identical in
material and construction to the filters
and housings the system will use for
removal of Cryptosporidium. Bag or
cartridge filters must be challenge tested
in the same configuration that the
system will use, either as individual
filters or as a series configuration of
filters.
(3) Challenge testing must be
conducted using Cryptosporidium or a
surrogate that is removed no more
efficiently than Cryptosporidium. The
microorganism or surrogate used during
challenge testing is referred to as the
challenge particulate. The concentration
of the challenge particulate must be
determined using a method capable of
discreetly quantifying the specific
microorganism or surrogate used in the
test; gross measurements such as
turbidity may not be used.
(4) The maximum feed water
concentration that can be used during a
challenge test must be based on the
detection limit of the challenge
particulate in the filtrate (i.e., filtrate
detection limit) and must be calculated
using the following equation:
Maximum Feed Concentration = 1 x 10 4
x (Filtrate Detection Limit)
(5) Challenge testing must be
conducted at the maximum design flow
rate for the filter as specified by the
manufacturer.
(6) Each filter evaluated must be
tested for a duration sufficient to reach
100 percent of the terminal pressure
drop, which establishes the maximum
pressure drop under which the filter
may be used to comply with the
requirements of this subpart.
(7) Removal efficiency of a filter must
be determined from the results of the
challenge test and expressed in terms of
log removal values using the following
equation:
LRV = LOGio(Cf)-LOG,o(Cp)
Where:
LRV = log removal value demonstrated
during challenge testing; Ct = the
feed concentration measured during
the challenge test; and Cp = the
filtrate concentration measured
during the challenge test. In
applying this equation, the same
units must be used for the feed and
filtrate concentrations. If the
challenge particulate is not detected
in the filtrate, then the term Cp must
be set equal to the detection limit.
(8) Each filter tested must be
challenged with the challenge
particulate during three periods over the
filtration cycle: within two hours of
start-up of a new filter; when the
pressure drop is between 45 and 55
percent of the terminal pressure drop;
and at the end of the cycle after the
pressure drop has reached 100 percent
of the terminal pressure drop. An LRV
must be calculated for each of these
challenge periods for each filter tested.
The LRV for the filter (LRVrii,er) must be
assigned the value of the minimum LRV
observed during the three challenge
periods for that filter.
(9) If fewer than 20 filters are tested,
the overall removal efficiency for the
filter product line must be set equal to
the lowest LRVfmei among the filters
tested. If 20 or more filters are tested,
the overall removal efficiency for the
filter product line must be set equal to
the 10th percentile of the set of LRVni,er
values for the various filters tested. The
percentile is defined by (i/(n+l)) where
i is the rank of n individual data points
ordered lowest to highest. If necessary,
the 10th percentile may be calculated
using linear interpolation.
(10) If a previously tested filter is
modified in a manner that could change
the removal efficiency of the filter
product line, challenge testing to
demonstrate the removal efficiency of
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
781
the modified filter must be conducted
and submitted to the State.
(b) Membrane filtration. (I) Systems
receive Cryptosporidium treatment
credit for membrane filtration that meets
the criteria of this paragraph. Membrane
cartridge filters that meet the definition
of membrane filtration in § 141.2 are
eligible for this credit. The level of
treatment credit a system receives is
equal to the lower of the values
determined under paragraph (b)(l)(i)
and (ii) of this section.
(i) The removal efficiency
demonstrated during challenge testing
conducted under the conditions in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(ii) The maximum removal efficiency
that can be verified through direct
integrity testing used with the
membrane filtration process under the
conditions in paragraph (b}(3) of this
section.
(2) Challenge Testing. The membrane
used by the system must undergo
challenge testing to evaluate removal
efficiency, and the system must report
the results of challenge testing to the
State. Challenge testing must be
conducted according to the criteria in
paragraphs (b)(2](i) through (vii) of this
section. Systems may use data from
challenge testing conducted prior to
January 5, 2006 if the prior testing was
consistent with the criteria in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (vii) of this
section.
(i) Challenge testing must be
conducted on either a full-scale
membrane module, identical in material
and construction to the membrane
modules used in the system's treatment
facility, or a smaller-scale membrane
module, identical in material and
similar in construction to the full-scale
module. A module is defined as the
smallest component of a membrane unit
in which a specific membrane surface
area is housed in a device with a filtrate
outlet structure.
(ii) Challenge testing must be
conducted using Cryptosporidium
oocysts or a surrogate that is removed
no more efficiently than
Cryptosporidium oocysts. The organism
or surrogate used during challenge
testing is referred to as the challenge
particulate. The concentration of the
challenge particulate, in both the feed
and filtrate water, must be determined
using a method capable of discretely
quantifying the specific challenge
particulate used in the test; gross
measurements such as turbidity may not
be used.
(iii) The maximum feed water
concentration that can be used during a
challenge test is based on the detection
limit of the challenge particulate in the
filtrate and must be determined
according to the following equation:
Maximum Feed Concentration = 3.16 x
10f) x (Filtrate Detection Limit)
(iv) Challenge testing must be
conducted under representative
hydraulic conditions at the maximum
design flux and maximum design
process recovery specified by the
manufacturer for the membrane module.
Flux is defined as the throughput of a
pressure driven membrane process
expressed as flow per unit of membrane
area. Recovery is defined as the
volumetric percent of feed water that is
converted to filtrate over the course of
an operating cycle uninterrupted by
events such as chemical cleaning or a
solids removal process (i.e.,
backwashing).
(v) Removal efficiency of a membrane
module must be calculated from the
challenge test results and expressed as
a log removal value according to the
following equation:
LRV = LOGm(C,) x LOGm(Cp)
Where:
LRV = log removal value demonstrated
during the challenge test; d = the
feed concentration measured during
the challenge test; and Cn = the
filtrate concentration measured
during the challenge test.
Equivalent units must be used for
the feed and filtrate concentrations.
If the challenge particulate is not
detected in the filtrate, the term Cp
is set equal to the detection limit for
the purpose of calculating the LRV.
An LRV must be calculated for each
membrane module evaluated during
the challenge test.
(vi) The removal efficiency of a
membrane filtration process
demonstrated during challenge testing
must be expressed as a log removal
value (LRVc-.Tesi). If fewer than 20
modules are tested, then LRVC-Ti>st is
equal to the lowest of the representative
LRVs among the modules tested. If 20 or
more modules are tested, then LRVcicM
is equal to the 10th percentile of the
representative LRVs among the modules
tested. The percentile is defined by
(i/(n+l)) where i is the rank of n
individual data points ordered lowest to
highest. If necessary, the 10th percentile
may be calculated using linear
interpolation.
(vii) The challenge test must establish
a quality control release value (QCRV)
for a non-destructive performance test
that demonstrates the Cryptosporidium
removal capability of the membrane
filtration module. This performance test
must be applied to each production
membrane module used by the system
that was not directly challenge tested in
order to verify Cryptosporidium removal
capability. Production modules that do
not meet the established QCRV are not
eligible for the treatment credit
demonstrated during the challenge test.
(viii) If a previously tested membrane
is modified in a manner that could
change the removal efficiency of the
membrane or the applicability of the
non-destructive performance test and
associated QCRV, additional challenge
testing to demonstrate the removal
efficiency of, and determine a new
QCRV for, the modified membrane must
be conducted and submitted to the
State.
(3) Direct integrity testing. Systems
must conduct direct integrity testing in
a manner that demonstrates a removal
efficiency equal to or greater than the
removal credit awarded to the
membrane filtration process and meets
the requirements described in
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (vi) of this
section. A direct integrity test is defined
as a physical test applied to a membrane
unit in order to identify and isolate
integrity breaches (i.e., one or more
leaks that could result in contamination
of the filtrate).
(i) The direct integrity test must be
independently applied to each
membrane unit in service. A membrane
unit is defined as a group of membrane
modules that share common valving
that allows the unit to be isolated from
the rest of the system for the purpose of
integrity testing or other maintenance.
(ii) The direct integrity method must
have a resolution of 3 micrometers or
less, where resolution is defined as the
size of the smallest integrity breach that
contributes to a response from the direct
integrity test.
(iii) The direct integrity test must
have a sensitivity sufficient to verify the
log treatment credit awarded to the
membrane filtration process by the
State, where sensitivity is defined as the
maximum log removal value that can be
reliably verified by a direct integrity
test. Sensitivity must be determined
using the approach in either paragraph
(b)(3)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section as
applicable to the type of direct integrity
test the system uses.
(A) For direct integrity tests that use
an applied pressure or vacuum, the
direct integrity test sensitivity must be
calculated according to the following
equation:
LRV,,rr = LOG,,, (Qp /(VCF x Qhreach))
Where:
T = the sensitivity of the direct
integrity test; Qp = total design
filtrate flow from the membrane
unit; Qhreach = flow of water from an
-------
782
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
integrity breach associated with the
smallest integrity test response that
can be reliably measured, and VCF
= volumetric concentration factor.
The volumetric concentration factor
is the ratio of the suspended solids
concentration on the high pressure
side of the membrane relative to
that in the feed water.
(B) For direct integrity tests that use
a particulate or molecular marker, the
direct integrity test sensitivity must be
calculated according to the following
equation:
LRVD1T = LOGio(Cr) - LOG,0(Cp)
Where:
LRVoiT = the sensitivity of the direct
integrity test; Ct = the typical feed
concentration of the marker used in
the test; and Cp = the filtrate
concentration of the marker from an
integral membrane unit.
(iv) Systems must establish a control
limit within the sensitivity limits of the
direct integrity test that is indicative of
an integral membrane unit capable of
meeting the removal credit awarded by
the State.
(v) If the result of a direct integrity
test exceeds the control limit
established under paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of
this section, the system must remove the
membrane unit from service. Systems
must conduct a direct integrity test to
verify any repairs, and may return the
membrane unit to service only if the
direct integrity test is within the
established control limit.
(vi) Systems must conduct direct
integrity testing on each membrane unit
at a frequency of not less than once each
day that the membrane unit is in
operation. The State may approve less
frequent testing, based on demonstrated
process reliability, the use of multiple
barriers effective for Cryptosporidium,
or reliable process safeguards.
(4) Indirect integrity monitoring.
Systems must conduct continuous
indirect integrity monitoring on each
membrane unit according to the criteria
in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (v) of this
section. Indirect integrity monitoring is
defined as monitoring some aspect of
filtrate water quality that is indicative of
the removal of particulate matter. A
system that implements continuous
direct integrity testing of membrane
units in accordance with the criteria in
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this
section is not subject to the
requirements for continuous indirect
integrity monitoring. Systems must
submit a monthly report to the State
summarizing all continuous indirect
integrity monitoring results triggering
direct integrity testing and the
corrective action that was taken in each
case.
(i) Unless the State approves an
alternative parameter, continuous
indirect integrity monitoring must
include continuous filtrate turbidity
monitoring.
(ii) Continuous monitoring must be
conducted at a frequency of no less than
once every 15 minutes.
(iii) Continuous monitoring must be
separately conducted on each
membrane unit.
(iv) If indirect integrity monitoring
includes turbidity and if the filtrate
turbidity readings are above 0.15 NTU
for a period greater than 15 minutes
(i.e., two consecutive 15-minute
readings above 0.15 NTU), direct
integrity testing must immediately be
performed on the associated membrane
unit as specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)
through (v) of this section.
(v) If indirect integrity monitoring
includes a State-approved alternative
parameter and if the alternative
parameter exceeds a State-approved
control limit for a period greater than 15
minutes, direct integrity testing must
immediately be performed on the
associated membrane units as specified
in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this
section.
(c) Second stage filtration. Systems
receive 0.5-log Cryptosporidium
treatment credit for a separate second
stage of filtration that consists of sand,
dual media,"GAG, or other fine grain
media following granular media
filtration if the State approves. To be
eligible for this credit, the first stage of
filtration must be preceded by a
coagulation step and both filtration
stages must treat the entire plant flow
taken from a surface water or GWUDI
source. A cap, such as GAC, on a single
stage of filtration is not eligible for this
credit. The State must approve the
treatment credit based on an assessment
of the design characteristics of the
filtration process.
(d) Slow sand filtration (as secondary
filter). Systems are eligible to receive
2.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment
credit for a slow sand filtration process
that follows a separate stage of filtration
if both filtration stages treat entire plant
flow taken from a surface water or
GWUDI source and no disinfectant
residual is present in the influent water
to the slow sand filtration process. The
State must approve the treatment credit
based on an assessment of the design
characteristics of the filtration process.
This paragraph does not apply to
treatment credit awarded to slow sand
filtration used as a primary filtration
process.

§ 141.720 Inactivation toolbox
components.
(a) Calculation of CT values. (1) CT is
the product of the disinfectant contact
time (T, in minutes) and disinfectant
concentration (C, in milligrams per
liter). Systems with treatment credit for
chlorine dioxide or ozone under
paragraph (b) or (c) of this section must
calculate CT at least once each day, with
both C and T measured during peak
hourly flow as specified in §§ 141.74(a)
through (b).
(2) Systems with several disinfection
segments in sequence may calculate CT
for each segment, where a disinfection
segment is defined as a treatment unit
process with a measurable disinfectant
residual level and a liquid volume.
Under this approach, systems must add
the Cryptosporidium CT values in each
segment to determine the total CT for
the treatment plant.
(b) CT values for chlorine dioxide and
ozone. (1) Systems receive the
Cryptosporidium treatment credit listed
in this table by meeting the
corresponding chlorine dioxide CT
value for the applicable water
temperature, as described in paragraph
(a) of this section.
CT VALUES (MG-MIN/L) FOR Cryptosporidium INACTIVATION BY CHLORINE DIOXIDE
Log credit
(i) 025
(ii) 0 5
(iii) 1 o ....
(iv) 1 5
(v) 2 0
(vi)2.5
Water Temperature, °C
<=0.5
159
319
637
956
1275
1594
1
153
305
610
915
1220
1525
2
140
279
558
838
1117
1396
3
128
256
511
767
1023
1278
5
107
214
429
643
858
1072
7
90
180
360
539
719
899
10
69
138
277
415
553
691
15
45
89
179
268
357
447
20
29
58
116
174
232
289
25
19
38
75
113
150
188
30
12
24
49
73
98
122
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
783
CT VALUES (MG-MIN/L) FOR Cryptosporidium INACTIVATION BY CHLORINE DIOXIDE 1—Continued
Log credit
Mil 3.0
Water Temperature, °C
<=0.5
1912
1
1830
2
1675
3
1534
5
1286
7
1079
10
830
15
536
20
347
25
226
30
147
1 Systems may use this equation to determine log credit between the indicated values: Log credit = (0.001506 x (1.09116) TemP) x CT.
(2) Systems receive the corresponding ozone CT values for the
Cryptosporidium treatment credit listed applicable water temperature, as
in this table by meeting the
described in paragraph (a) of this
section.
CT VALUES (MG-MIN/L) FOR Cryptosporidium INACTIVATION BY OZONE 1
Log credit
(i) 0 25
(ii) 0 5
(iii) 1 0
(iv) 1 5
(v) 2 0
(vi) 2 5
(vii) 3 0

Water Temperature, '°C
<=0.5
6.0
12
24
36
48
60
72
1
5.8
12
23
35
46
58
69
2
5.2
10
21
31
42
52
63
3
4.8
9.5
19
29
38
48
57
5
4.0
7.9
16
24
32
40
47
7
3.3
6.5
13
20
26
33
39
10
2.5
4.9
9.9
15
20
25
30
15
1.6
3.1
6.2
9.3
12
16
19
20
1.0
2.0
3.9
5.9
7.8
9.8
12
25
0.6
1.2
2.5
3.7
4.9
6.2
7.4
30
0.39
0.78
1.6
2.4
3.1
3.9
4.7
' Systems may use this equation to determine log credit between the indicated values: Log credit = (0.0397 x (1.09757) lcl"n) x CT.
(c) Site-specific study. The State may
approve alternative chlorine dioxide or
ozone CT values to those listed in
paragraph (b) of this section on a site-
specific basis. The State must base this
approval on a site-specific study a
system conducts that follows a State-
approved protocol.
(d) ['Itmviolet light. Systems receive
Crvpiosporidium, Ginrdin lanihlia, and
virus treatment credits for ultraviolet
(UV) light reactors by achieving the
corresponding UV dose values shown in
paragraph (d)(l) of this section. Systems
must validate and monitor UV reactors
as described in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3)
of this section to demonstrate that they
are achieving a particular UV dose value
for treatment credit.
(1) UV dose table. The treatment
credits listed in this table are for LJV
light at a wavelength of 254 nm as
produced by a low pressure mercury
vapor lamp. To receive treatment credit
for other lamp types, systems must
demonstrate an equivalent germicidal
dose through reactor validation testing,
as described in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section. The UV dose values in this
table are applicable only to post-filter
applications of UV in filtered systems
and to unfiltered svstems.
UV DOSE TABLE FOR Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, AND VIRUS INACTIVATION CREDIT
Log credit
(i) 0.5
(ii) 1 0
(iii) 1.5
(iv) 2 0
(v) 2 5
(vi) 3.0
(vii) 3 5
(viii) 4.0

Cryptosporidium
UV dose (mJ/cm2)
1 6
2 5
3 9
5 8
8 5
12
15
22

Giardia lamblia
UV dose (mJ/cm2)
1 5
2 1
3 0
5 2
7 7
11
15
22

Virus
UV dose (mJ/cm2)
39
58
79
100
121
143
163
186

(2) Reactor validation testing. Systems
must use UV reactors that have
undergone validation testing to
determine the operating conditions
under which the reactor delivers the UV
dose required in paragraph (d)(l) of this
section (i.e., validated operating
conditions). These operating conditions
must include flow rate, UV intensity as
measured by a UV sensor, and UV lamp
status.
(i) When determining validated
operating conditions, systems must
account for the following factors: UV
absorhance of the water; lamp fouling
and aging; measurement uncertainty of
on-line sensors; UV dose distributions
arising from the velocity profiles
through the reactor; failure of UV lamps
or other critical system components;
and inlet and outlet piping or channel
configurations of the UV reactor.
(ii) Validation testing must include
the following; Full scale testing of a
reactor that conforms uniformly to the
UV reactors used by the system and
inactivation of a test microorganism
whose dose response characteristics
have been quantified with a low
pressure mercury vapor lamp.
(iii) The State may approve an
alternative approach to validation
testing.
(3) Reactor monitoring, (i) Systems
must monitor their UV reactors to
determine if the reactors are operating
within validated conditions, as
determined under paragraph (d)(2) of
this section. This monitoring must
include UV intensity as measured by a
UV sensor, flow rate, lamp status, and
other parameters the State designates
-------
784
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
based on UV reactor operation. Systems
must verify the calibration of UV
sensors and must recalibrate sensors in
accordance with a protocol the State
approves.
(ii) To receive treatment credit for UV
light, systems must treat at least 95
percent of the water delivered to the
public during each month by UV
reactors operating within validated
conditions for the required UV dose, as
described in paragraphs (d)(l) and (2) of
this section. Systems must demonstrate
compliance with this condition by the
monitoring required under paragraph
(d)(3)(i) of this section.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements

§141.721 Reporting requirements.

(a) Systems must report sampling
schedules under § 141.702 and source
water monitoring results under
§ 141.706 unless they notify the State
that they will not conduct source water
monitoring due to meeting the criteria of
§141.701(d).
(b) Systems must report the use of
uncovered finished water storage
facilities to the State as described in
§141.714.
(c) Filtered systems must report their
Cryptosporidiitm bin classification as
described in §141.710.
(d) Unfiltered systems must report
their mean source water
Cryptosporidium level as described in
§141.712.
(e) Systems must report disinfection
profiles and benchmarks to the State as
described in §§ 141.708 through 141.709
prior to making a significant change in
disinfection practice.
(f) Systems must report to the State in
accordance with the following table for
any microbial toolbox options used to
comply with treatment requirements
under § 141.711 or § 141.712.
Alternatively, the State may approve a
system to certify operation within
required parameters for treatment credit
rather than reporting monthly
operational data for toolbox options.
MICROBIAL TOOLBOX REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Toolbox option
Systems must submit the following information
On the following schedule
(1) Watershed control pro-
gram (WCP).
(2) Alternative source/intake
management.

(3) Presedimentation
(4) Two-stage lime softening
(5) Bank filtration
(6) Combined filter perform-
ance.
(7) Individual filter perform-
ance.
(8) Demonstration of per-
formance.
(i) Notice of intention to develop a new or continue an
existing watershed control program.
(ii) Watershed control plan

(iii) Annual watershed control program status report

(iv) Watershed sanitary survey report
Verification that system has relocated the intake or
adopted the intake withdrawal procedure reflected in
monitoring results.
Monthly verification of the following: (i) Continuous
basin operation (ii) Treatment of 100% of the flow (iii)
Continuous addition of a coagulant (iv) At least 0.5-
log mean reduction of influent turbidity or compliance
with alternative State-approved performance criteria.
Monthly verification of the following: (i) Chemical addi-
tion and hardness precipitation occurred in two sepa-
rate and sequential softening stages prior to filtration
(ii) Both stages treated 100% of the plant flow.
(i) Initial demonstration of the following: (A) Unconsoli-
dated, predominantly sandy aquifer (B) Setback dis-
tance of at least 25 ft. (0.5-log credit) or 50 ft. (1.0-
log credit).
(ii) If monthly average of daily max turbidity is greater
than 1 NTU then system must report result and sub-
mit an assessment of the cause..
Monthly verification of combined filter effluent (CFE)
turbidity levels less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at
least 95 percent of the 4 hour CFE measurements
taken each month.
Monthly verification of the following: (i) Individual filter
effluent (IFE ) turbidity levels less than or equal to
0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of samples each
month in each filter (ii) No individual filter greater
than 0.3 NTU in two consecutive readings 15 min-
utes apart.
(i) Results from testing following a State approved pro-
tocol.
(ii) As required by the State, monthly verification of op-
eration within conditions of State approval for dem-
onstration of performance credit.
No later than two years before the applicable treatment
compliance date in § 141.713
No later than one year before the applicable treatment
compliance date in §141.713.
Every 12 months, beginning one year after the applica-
ble treatment compliance date in § 141.713.
For community water systems, every three years begin-
ning three years after the applicable treatment com-
pliance date in §141.713. For noncommunity water
systems, every five years beginning five years after
the applicable treatment compliance date in
§141.713.
No later than the applicable treatment compliance date
in §141.713.

Monthly reporting within 10 days following the month in
which the monitoring was conducted, beginning on
the applicable treatment compliance date in
§141.713.

Monthly reporting within 10 days following the month in
which the monitoring was conducted, beginning on
the applicable treatment compliance date in
§141.713.
No later than the applicable treatment compliance date
in §141.713.
Report within 30 days following the month in which the
monitoring was conducted, beginning on the applica-
ble treatment compliance date in § 141.713.
Monthly reporting within 10 days following the month in
which the monitoring was conducted, beginning on
the applicable treatment compliance date in
§141.713.
Monthly reporting within 10 days following the month in
which the monitoring was conducted, beginning on
the applicable treatment compliance date in
§141.713.]
No later than the applicable treatment compliance date
in §141.713.
Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring
was conducted, beginning on the applicable treat-
ment compliance date in § 141.713.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
785
MICROBIAL TOOLBOX REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Toolbox option
Systems must submit the following information
On the following schedule
(9) Bag filters and cartridge
filters.
(10) Membrane filtration
(11) Second stage filtration
(12) Slow sand filtration (as
secondary filter).

(13) Chlorine dioxide
(14) Ozone
(15) UV
(i) Demonstration that the following criteria are met: (A)
Process meets the definition of bag or cartridge filtra-
tion; (B) Removal efficiency established through chal-
lenge testing that meets criteria in this subpart.
(ii) Monthly verification that 100% of plant flow was fil-
tered.

(i) Results of verification testing demonstrating the fol-
lowing: (A) Removal efficiency established through
challenge testing that meets criteria in this subpart;
(B) Integrity test method and parameters, including
resolution, sensitivity, test frequency, control limits,
and associated baseline.
(ii) Monthly report summarizing the following: (A) All di-
rect integrity tests above the control limit; (B) If appli-
cable, any turbidity or alternative state-approved indi-
rect integrity monitoring results triggering direct integ-
rity testing and the corrective action that was taken.
Monthly verification that 100% of flow was filtered
through both stages and that first stage was pre-
ceded by coagulation step.
Monthly verification that both a slow sand 'filter and a
preceding separate stage of filtration treated 100% of
flow from subpart H sources..
Summary of CT values for each day as described in
§141.720..

Summary of CT values for each day as described in
§141.720..

(i) Validation test results demonstrating operating condi-
tions that achieve required UV dose.
(ii) Monthly report summarizing the percentage of water
entering the distribution system that was not treated
by UV reactors operating within validated conditions
for the required dose as specified in 141.720(d)..
No later than the applicable treatment compliance date
in §141.713.
Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring
was conducted, beginning on the applicable treat-
ment compliance date in § 141.713.
No later than the applicable treatment compliance date
in §141.713.
Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring
was conducted, beginning on the applicable treat-
ment compliance date in §141.713.
Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring
was conducted, beginning on the applicable treat-
ment compliance date in §141.713.
Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring
. was conducted, beginning on the applicable treat-
ment compliance date in §141.713.
Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring
was conducted, beginning on the applicable treat-
ment compliance date in § 141.713.
Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring
was conducted, beginning on the applicable treat-
ment compliance date in § 141.713.
No later than the applicable treatment compliance date
in §141.713.
Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring
was conducted, beginning on the applicable treat-
ment compliance date in § 141.713.
§ 141.722 Recordkeeping requirements.

(a) Systems must keep results from
the initial round of source water
monitoring under § 141.701(a) and the
second round of source water
monitoring under § 141.701(b) until 3
years after bin classification under
§ 141.710 for filtered systems or
determination of the mean
Cryptosporidium level under § 141.710
for unfiltered systems for the particular
round of monitoring.
(b) Systems must keep any
notification to the State that they will
not conduct source water monitoring
due to meeting the criteria of
§141.701(d) for 3 years.
(c) Systems must keep the results of
treatment monitoring associated with
microbial toolbox options under
§§ 141.716 through 141.720 and with
uncovered finished water reservoirs
under § 141.714, as applicable, for 3
Requirements for Sanitary Surveys
Performed by EPA

§ 141.723 Requirements to respond to
significant deficiencies identified in sanitary
surveys performed by EPA.
(a) A sanitary survey is an onsite
review of the water source (identifying
sources of contamination by using
results of source water assessments
where available), facilities, equipment,
operation, maintenance, and monitoring
compliance of a PWS to evaluate the
adequacy of the PWS, its sources and
operations, and the distribution of safe
drinking water.
(b) For the purposes of this section, a
significant deficiency includes a defect
in design, operation, or maintenance, or
a failure or malfunction of the sources,
treatment, storage, or distribution
system that EPA determines to be
causing, or has the potential for causing
the introduction of contamination into
the water delivered to consumers.
(c) For sanitary surveys performed by
EPA, systems must respond in writing
to significant deficiencies identified in
sanitary survey reports no later than 45
days after receipt of the report,
indicating how and on what schedule
the system will address significant
deficiencies noted in the survey.
(d) Systems must correct significant
deficiencies identified in sanitary
survey reports according to the schedule
approved by EPA, or if there is no
approved schedule, according to the
schedule reported under paragraph (c)
of this section if such deficiencies are
within the control of the system.

PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION

• 8. The authority citation for part 142
continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 tJ.S.C. 300f, 300g-l, 300g-2.
300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300J-4, 300J-
9and300j-ll.

• 9. Section 142.14 is amended by
adding paragraph (a)(9) to read as
follows:

§142.14 Records kept by States.
(a)
-------
786
Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 3/Thursday, January 5, 2006/Rules and Regulations
(9) Any decisions made pursuant to
the provisions of part 141, subpart W of
this chapter.
(i) Results of source water E. coli and
Cryptosporidium monitoring.
(ii) The bin classification after the
initial and after the second round of
source water monitoring for each
filtered system, as described in
§141.710 of this chapter.
(iii) Any change in treatment
requirements for filtered systems due to
watershed assessment during sanitary
surveys, as described in § 141.711(d) of
this chapter.
(iv) The determination of whether the
mean Cryptosporidium level is greater
than 0.01 oocysts/L after the initial and
after the second round of source water
monitoring for each unfiltered system,
as described in § 141.712(a) of this
chapter.
(v) The treatment processes or control
measures that systems use to meet their
Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements under §141.711 or
§ 141.712 of this chapter.
(vi) A list of systems required to cover
or treat the effluent of an uncovered
finished water storage facility, as
specified in § 141.714 of this chapter.
*****

• 10. Section 142.15 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(6) to read as
follows:
§ 142.15 Reports by States.
(c)* * *
(6) Subpart W. (i) The bin
classification after the initial and after
the second round of source water
monitoring for each filtered system, as
described in § 141.710 of this chapter.
(ii) Any change in treatment
requirements for these systems due to
watershed assessment during sanitary
surveys, as described in § 141.711(d) of
this chapter.
(iii) The determination of whether the
mean Cryptosporidium level is greater
than 0.01 oocysts/L both after the initial
and after the second round of source
water monitoring for each unfiltered
system, as described in § 141.712(a) of
this chapter.
*****

• 11. Section 142.16 is amended by
adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:

§ 142.16 Special primacy conditions.
*****
(n) Requirements for States to adopt
40 CFR part 141, subpart W. In addition
to the general primacy requirements
elsewhere in this part, including the
requirements that State regulations be at
least as stringent as Federal
requirements, an application for
approval of a State program revision
that adopts 40 CFR part 141, subpart W,
must contain a description of how the
State will accomplish the following
program requirements where allowed in
State programs.
(1) Approve an alternative to the E.
coli levels that trigger Cryptosporidium
monitoring by filtered systems serving
fewer than 10,000 people, as described
in §141.701(a)(5).
(2) Assess significant changes in the
watershed and source water as part of
the sanitary survey process and
determine appropriate follow-up action
for systems, as described in § 141.711(d)
of this chapter.
(3) Approve watershed control
programs for the 0.5-log treatment credit
in the microbial toolbox, as described in
§141.716(a) of this chapter.
(4) Approve protocols for
demonstration of performance treatment
credits in the microbial toolbox, as
allowed under § 141.718(c) of this
chapter.
(5) Approve protocols for alternative
ozone and chlorine dioxide CT values in
the microbial toolbox, as allowed under
§141.720(c) of this chapter.
(6) Approve an alternative approach
to UV reactor validation testing in the
microbial toolbox, as allowed under
§141.720(d)(2)(iii) of this chapter.
* * * * *
|FR Doc. 06-4 Filed 1-4-06; 8:45 ;im|
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
Appendix C
Rule Fact Sheets/Quick Reference
Guides
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
**\ LT2ESWTR Source Water Monitoring
*"" * for Systems Serving At Least 10,000
People Factsheet
WHAT Is THE LT2ESWTR?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) on January 5, 2006. The LT2ESWTR improves control of microbial
pathogens. The LT2ESWTR requires source water monitoring at public water systems (PWSs) that use
surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) (i.e., Subpart H
PWSs). Based on system size and filtration type, systems need to monitor for Cryptosporidium, E. cod,
and turbidity.

WHAT Is THE PURPOSE OF SOURCE WATER MONITORING?

Source water monitoring data will be used to categorize the source water Cryptosporidium
concentration into one of four "bin" classifications that have associated treatment requirements. The
LT2ESWTR provides other options for systems to comply with the initial source water monitoring
requirements:

R Submit data from Cryptosporidium samples collected before the system must begin source water
monitoring (i.e., Grandfathered), and the data must meets certain requirements.

m Filtered systems may skip source water monitoring and commit to provide a total of at least 5.5-
log of treatment for Cryptosporidium, equivalent to meeting the treatment requirement of Bin 4.
Unfiltered systems skip source water monitoring and commit to provide a total of at least 3-log
Cryptosporidium inactivation, which is equal to meeting the treatment requirements for
unfiltered systems with a mean Cryptosporidium concentration of greater than 0.01 oocysts/L.
Systems that decide to skip monitoring and provide maximum treatment must notify the state in
writing.

A second round of source water monitoring will follow 6 years after the system makes its initial bin
determination. Grandfathering is not available for the second round of source water monitoring.

Note: f. co/; and turbidity data may not be grandfathered unless the system is also grandfathering
corresponding Cryptosporidium data.

WHAT ARE THE INITIAL SOURCE WATER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS?

The source water monitoring requirements of the LT2ESWTR apply to all Subpart H PWSs. You are
subject to initial source water monitoring requirements if you do not have existing monitoring data
that meets grandfathering requirements. For more information on source water monitoring
requirements, see EPA's Source Water Monitoring Guidance Manual for Public Water Systems for the
Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (EPA 815-R06-005 February 2006),
available at www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/it2/cornpiiance.html.

Prior to beginning initial source water monitoring, you must submit a sampling schedule that specifies
the calendar dates when you will collect the required source water samples. The samples must be
evenly spaced throughout the monitoring period (e.g., monthly on the 15th of each month). However,
the schedule may be altered to take into account holidays, weekends, or other events. All the samples
must be taken within a 5-day window (i.e., you can take the sample up to 2 days before or 2 days after
-------
the date indicated in the schedule). In addition, you must submit a description of the intended
sampling location in relation to the source and any treatment processes, as well as a description of any
points of chemical addition, and filter backwash recycle.

• FILTERED SYSTEMS SERVING AT LEAST 10,000 PEOPLE - You must collect Cryptosporidium,
E. coii and turbidity samples at least monthly for 24 months.

• UNFILTERED SYSTEMS SERVING AT LEAST 10,000 PEOPLE - You must sample for Cryptosporidium
at least monthly for 24 months.

Alternately, you may notify the EPA or the state that you elect not to conduct source water monitoring
and commit to providing the maximum treatment of 5.5 log removal or inactivation for filtered
systems or 3-log inactivation for unfiltered systems.

WHEN MUST I COMPLY WITH THE MONITORING REQUIREMENTS?

The system compliance schedule is based on the population served by your system. A PWS must
conduct monitoring based on the requirements of the largest system in the combined distribution
system. The interconnected wholesale/consecutive systems relationships have been determined by
the state.
Systems that serve...
Submit: Sample Schedule and Sample
Location Description
Must begin the first round of source
water monitoring by...
Submit Grandfathered Data (if
applicable)
Submit Bin Classification (Filtered) or
Mean Cryptosporidium Level
(Unfiltered)
Comply with additional LT2ESWTR
treatment technique requirements2
Must begin the second round of source
water monitoring by...
> 100, 000 people
(Schedule 1)1
July 1 , 2006
October 2006
December 1 , 2006
March 2009
ApriM,2012
April 201 5
50,000 to 99,999 10,000 to 49,999
people people
(Schedule 2) 1 (Schedule 3) 1
January 1 , 2007
April 2007
June 1 , 2007
September 2009
October 1, 2012
October 201 5
January 1 , 2008
April 2008
June 1 , 2008
September 2010
October 1 , 201 3
October 201 6
1 Your schedule is defined by the largest system in your combined distribution system.
2 State may allow up to an additional 2 years for capital improvements to comply with the treatment technique.
WHAT Is A BIN CLASSIFICATION?
FILTERED SYSTEMS SERVING AT LEAST 10,000 PEOPLE - You will be classified into a "bin" based on
the results of your source water monitoring. Your bin classification determines whether further
treatment for Cryptosporidium is required. A second round of source water monitoring is required 6
years after your initial bin classification and may affect your bin classification.
-------
For systems that are:
.required to monitor for Cryptosporidium
Mean Cryptosporidium
Concentration1
0.075 oocysts/L
from 0.075 to < 1.0 oocysts/L
from 1.0 to < 3.0 oocysts/L
>. 3.0 oocysts/L
Bin Classification
Bin 1
Bin 2
Bin 3
Bin 4
1 Samples must be analyzed by an approved laboratory and use EPA method 1622 or 1623.

ADDITIONAL TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR FILTERED SYSTEMS - Additional treatment is required
if the bin classification is a 2, 3, or 4. Refer to the table below for the additional Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements.
Classification
If the system uses the following filtration treatment in full compliance with existinr
requirements, then the JJ'"~'------ ..,_•„.___. , . .
Conventional filtration
treatment (includin;
softening)
Direct filtration
Slow sand or
diatomaceous
earth filtration
Alternative
filtration
technologies
Bin 1
Bin 2
Bin 3
Bin 4
No additional treatment
1-log treatment
2-log treatment
2.5-log treatment
No additional
treatment
1.5-log treatment
2. 5- log treatment
3-log treatment
No additional
treatment
1-log treatment
2-log treatment
2.5-log treatment
No additional
treatment
d)
(2)
(3)
(1) As determined by the state such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 4.0-log.
(2) As determined by the state such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 5.0-log.
(3) As determined by the state such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 5.5-log.

For information on the toolbox options that can be used to achieve additional log removal
requirements, see the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Toolbox Guidance Manual
(draft version anticipated late 2006).

UNFILTERED SYSTEMS SERVING AT LEAST 10,000 PEOPLE - You must calculate an arithmetic mean of
all Cryptosporidium samples concentrations required. Following completion of the second round of
source water monitoring, you must provide a level of inactivation for Cryptosporidium based on the
arithmetic mean of your Cryptosporidium sample concentrations.
For systems that are:
Unfiltered
Mean Cryptosporidium
Concentration1
< 0.01 oocysts/L
> 0.01 oocysts/L
Cryptosporidium inactivation
2-log
3-log
1 Samples must be analyzed by an approved laboratory and use EPA method 1622 or 1623.
-------
ARE You CONSIDERING MAKING A CHANGE To YOUR DISINFECTION PRACTICES?

After completing the initial round of source water monitoring, systems that plan to make a significant
change to their disinfection practice must notify the state, develop disinfection profiles, and calculate
disinfection benchmarks for Giardia lamblia and viruses. To develop a profile and benchmark, PWSs
must monitor at least weekly for a period of 12 consecutive months to determine the total log
inactivation for Giardia lamblia and viruses. The disinfection benchmark is an indicator of disinfection
effectiveness and depends upon the inactivation of Giardia lamblia or viruses. The benchmark is
determined by calculating the average daily inactivation value for each of 12 consecutive months. The
lowest monthly average becomes the disinfection benchmark. If the PWS has data from more than 1
year, the benchmark is the average of the lowest monthly average value for each of the years. A PWS
may use grandfathered data that is substantially equivalent to develop the disinfection profiles for
Giardia lamblia and viruses. The Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR)
Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Technical Guidance Manual (EPA 816-R-03-004, May 2003),
provides guidance for developing a disinfection profile and benchmark. EPA has developed two tools
for systems to determine their disinfection profile and calculate the benchmark at the following
website: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/lt1eswtr.htmL

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE MATERIALS

The following guidance document addresses the source water monitoring requirements for the
LT2ESWTR:

* Source Water Monitoring Guidance Manual for Public Water Systems for the Final Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (EPA 815-R06-005 February 2006) - Provides surface
water systems, laboratories, states, and Tribes with a review of the source water monitoring
provisions. The source water monitoring guidance manual provides direction to the systems on
how, where and when to monitor, how to report the data, how to submit "grandfathered" data
(e.g., previously collected data), and how the data can be evaluated and used to determine risk
bin classification.

For additional guidance on implementing the LT2ESWTR, you may refer to the following existing and
future EPA materials:
m LT2ESWTR Quick Reference Guides (Schedules 1 3)

• On-line Microscopy Training Module
• On-line Sample Collection Module
m Microbial Laboratory Guidance Manual for the Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (EPA 815-R06-006 February 2006)
m Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual (EPA 815-R-06-009 November 2005)

• Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual: Overview and Summary Factsheet
(www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2/pdfs/guide_lt2_membranefiltration. fs_final.pdf)

m Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidance Manual and Workbook (final version anticipated mid-2006)

• Simultaneous Compliance Guidance Manual for Stage 2 Rules (draft version anticipated mid-2006)

B Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Toolbox Guidance Manual (draft version
anticipated late 2006)

For additional information, please contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791,
send an email to stage2mdbp@epa.gov. or visit www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2.

Office of Water (4606) EPA 816-F-06-017 www.epa^oy/safewater/disinfection/lt2 June 2006
-------
** LT2ESWTR Source Water Monitoring
for Systems Serving Less Than
10,000 People Factsheet
WHAT Is THE LT2ESWTR?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) on January 5, 2006. The LT2ESWTR improves control of microbial pathogens.
The LT2ESWTR requires source water monitoring at public water systems (PWSs) that use surface water or
ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) (i.e., Subpart H PWSs). Based on system
size and filtration type, systems need to monitor for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity. This factsheet
is for systems that serve less than 10,000 people. Note, if you sell water to a system that serves greater
than 10,000 people or are part of a combined distribution system and one of the consecutive systems
has a population greater than 10,000 people, please refer to the LT2ESWTR Source Water Monitoring
for Systems Serving At Least 10,000 People Factsheet (EPA 816-F-06-017).

WHAT Is THE PURPOSE OF SOURCE WATER MONITORING? _

Source water monitoring data will be used to categorize the source water Cryptosporidium concentration in
to one of four "bin" classifications that have associated treatment requirements. The LT2ESWTR provides
other options for systems to comply with the initial source water monitoring requirements:

••"* Submit data from Cryptosporidium samples collected before the system must begin source water
monitoring and the data must meets certain requirements.

' Filtered systems may skip source water monitoring and commit to provide a total of at least 5.5 log
of treatment for Cryptosporidium, equivalent to meeting the treatment requirement of Bin 4.
Unfiltered systems skip source water monitoring and commit to provide a total of at least 3-log
Cryptosporidium inactivation, which is equal to meeting the treatment requirements for unfiltered
systems with a mean Cryptosporidium concentration of greater than 0.01 oocysts/L. Systems that
decide to skip monitoring and provide maximum treatment must notify the state in writing.

A second round of source water monitoring will follow 6 years after the system makes its initial bin
determination. Grandfathering is not available for the second round of source water monitoring.

WHAT ARE THE INITIAL SOURCE WATER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS?

The source water monitoring requirements of LT2ESWTR apply to all Subpart H PWSs. You are subject to
initial source water monitoring requirements if you do not have prior monitoring data that meets
grandfathering requirements. For more information on source
water monitoring requirements see EPA's Source Water
Monitoring Guidance Manual for Public Water Systems for the
Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(EPA 815-R06-005 February 2006), available at
www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2/cornpHance.htmi.
Prior to beginning initial source water monitoring, you must
submit a sampling schedule that specifies the calendar dates
when you will collect the required source water samples. The
Two options systems serving less than
10,000 people have to comply with the
source water monitoring requirements are:
• Conduct E, coli monitoring first and
based on those results, the system may
or may not need to conduct
Cryptosporidium monitoring, or
• Systems may go directly to
Cryptosporidium monitoring.
samples must be evenly spaced throughout the monitoring
period (e.g., monthly on the 15th of each month). However, the schedule may be altered to take into
account holidays, weekends, or other events. All the samples must be taken within a 5-day window (i.e., you
can take the sample up to 2 days before or 2 days after the date indicated in the schedule). In addition, you
-------
must submit a description of the intended sampling location in relation to the source and any treatment
processes, as well as a description of any points of chemical addition, and filter backwash recycle.

FILTERED SYSTEMS SERVING LESS THAN 10,000 PEOPLE - You should collect f. coli samples at least once
every 2 weeks for 12 months. You will then be required to monitor for Cryptosporidium at least twice per
month for 12 months, or at least once per month for 24 months, if either of the following conditions are
met:

m. For systems using lakes or reservoirs, if the mean annual f. coli concentration is greater than 10
f. co//7100 mL. This also applies to GWUDI systems if the nearest surface water body is a lake or
reservoir.

• For systems using flowing stream sources, if the mean annual f. coil concentration is greater than 50
f. colil 100 mL. This also applies to GWUDI systems if the nearest surface water body is a flowing
stream, or if there is no nearby surface water.

A system may choose to notify EPA or the state it will not collect the f. coli samples, but you will collect
Cryptosporidium samples at least twice per month for 12 months, or at least once per month for 24 months.

UNFILTERED SYSTEMS SERVING LESS THAN 10,000 PEOPLE - You must sample for Cryptosporidium at least
twice per month for 12 months, or at least once per month for 24 months.

WHEN MUST I COMPLY WITH THE MONITORING REQUIREMENTS?

October 1, 2017
January 1, 2010
April 2010
Junel, 2010
September 201 2
October 1, 2014
April 1, 2.019
1 Applies only to filtered systems.
2 Applies to filtered systems that exceed the E. coli trigger or do not monitor for E. coli and to unfiltered systems.
3 State may allow up to an additional 2 years for capital improvements to comply with the treatment technique.
WHAT Is A BIN CLASSIFICATION?
FILTERED SYSTEMS SERVING LESS THAN 10,000 PEOPLE - You will be classified into a "bin" based on the
results of your source water monitoring. Your bin classification determines whether further treatment for
Cryptosporidium is required. A second round of source water monitoring is required 6 years after your initial
bin classification and may affect your bin classification.
-------
For systems that are:
.required to monitor for Cryptosporidium
Mean Cryptosporidium
Concentration1
0.075 oocysts/L
from 0.075 to < 1.0 oocysts/L
from 1.0 to < 3.0 oocysts/L
:> 3.0 oocysts/L
Bin Classification
Bin 1
Bin 2
Bin 3
Bin 4
... not required to monitor for Cryptosporidium
N/A
Bin 1
1 Samples must be analyzed by an approved laboratory and use EPA method 1622 or 1623.
2 Only for systems that do not exceed the E. coll trigger level.

ADDITIONAL TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR FILTERED SYSTEMS - Additional treatment may be required
based on your bin classification. Refer to the table below for the additional Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements.
Bin
Classification
If the system uses the following filtration treatment in full compliance with existinr
requirements, th " "
Conventional filtration
treatment (including
softening)
Slow sand or
Direct filtration diatomaceous earth
filtration
Alternative
filtration
technologies
Bin 1
Bin 2
Bin 3
Bin 4
No additional treatment
1-lo§ treatment
2-log treatment
2.5-log treatment
No additional
treatment
1.5-log treatment
2.5-log treatment
3-log treatment
No additional
treatment
1-log treatment
2-log treatment
2.5-log treatment
No additional
treatment
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) As determined by the state such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 4.0-log.
(2) As determined by the state such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 5.0-log.
(3) As determined by the state such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 5.5-log.

For information on the toolbox options that can be used to achieve additional log removal requirements, see
the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Toolbox Guidance Manual (draft version
anticipated late 2006).

UNFILTERED SYSTEMS SERVING LESS THAN 10,000 PEOPLE You must calculate an arithmetic mean of all
Cryptosporidium samples concentrations required. Following completion of the second round of source
water monitoring, you must provide a level of inactivation for Cryptosporidium based on the arithmetic
mean of your Cryptosporidium sample concentrations.
For systems that are:
Mean Cryptosporidium
Concentration1
Cryptosporidium inactivation
Unfiltered
< 0.01 oocysts/L
0.01 oocysts/L
2-log
3-log
1 Samples must be analyzed by an approved laboratory and use EPA method 1622 or 1623.
-------
ARE YOU CONSIDERING MAKING A CHANGE TO YOUR DISINFECTION PRACTICES?

After completing the initial round of source water monitoring, systems that plan to make a significant
change to their disinfection practice must notify the state, develop disinfection profiles, and calculate
disinfection benchmarks for Giardia lamblia and viruses. To develop a profile and benchmark, PWSs must
monitor at least weekly for a period of 12 consecutive months to determine the total log inactivation for
Giardia lamblia and viruses. The disinfection benchmark is an indicator of disinfection effectiveness based
on the inactivation of Giardia lamblia or viruses. The benchmark is determined by calculating the average
daily inactivation value for each of 12 consecutive months. The lowest monthly average becomes the
disinfection benchmark. If the PWS has data from more than 1 year, the benchmark is the average of the
lowest monthly average value for each of the years. The Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule (LT1ESWTR) Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Technical Guidance Manual (EPA 816-R-03-004,
May 2003), provides guidance for developing a disinfection profile and benchmark. EPA has developed two
tools for systems to determine their disinfection profile and calculate the benchmark at the following
website: www.epa.gov/safewater/rndbp/lt1eswtr.htmi.

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE MATERIALS

The following guidance document addresses the source water monitoring requirements for the LT2ESWTR:

• Source Water Monitoring Guidance Manual for Public Water Systems for the Final Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (EPA 815-R06-005 February 2006) - Provides surface water
systems, laboratories, states, and Tribes with a review of the source water monitoring provisions.
The source water monitoring guidance manual provides direction to the systems on how, where and
when to monitor, how to report the data, how to submit "grandfathered" data (e.g., previously
collected data), and how the data can be evaluated and used to determine risk bin classification.

For additional guidance on implementing the LT2ESWTR, you may refer to the following existing and future
EPA materials:

- LT2ESWTR Quick Reference Guides (Schedule 4)

*' On-line Microscopy Training Module
* On-line Sample Collection Module
"" Microbial Laboratory Guidance Manual for the Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule (EPA 815-R06-006 February 2006)
r» Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual (EPA 815-R-06-009 November 2005)
^ Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual: Overview and Summary Factsheet
(www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2/pdf5/guidejt2_membranef1ltration_fsmfinal.pdf)

" Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidance Manual and Workbook (final version anticipated mid-2006)

"" Simultaneous Compliance Guidance Manual for Stage 2 Rules (draft version anticipated mid-2006)

" Small Entity Compliance Guidance (draft version anticipated mid-2006)

"* Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Toolbox Guidance Manual (draft version
anticipated late 2006)
For additional information, please contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791,
send an email to sta6e2mdbp@epa.gov. or visit www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2.
Office of Water (4606) EPA 816-F-06-018 www.epa.gov/safewater June 2006
-------
LJ2ESWTR Data Collection and
Tracking System Factsheet
WHAT Is THE LT2ESWTR?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule (LT2ESWTR) on January 5, 2006. The LT2ESWTR requires EPA, states, public water systems (PWSs), and
laboratories to work together collecting source water monitoring data soon after the rule is finalized.

WHAT ARE THE IPMC AND DCTS? _

EPA developed the Information Processing and Management Center (IPMC) and Data Collection & Tracking
System (DCTS) to help manage data submissions and notifications associated with rule implementation. The
IPMC is a processing center that manages electronic and hard copy submittals, the DCTS, and sends notification
letters. The DCTS ensures that PWSs can review and approve laboratory-reported data before EPA or the state
may access the data. The laboratories can enter data using data collection forms or upload data in XML format.
The LT2 Data Collection System automatically calculates final analytical results to reduce the potential for
human error.

The IPMC and DCTS have been designed to help EPA and states save time and money by serving as a central
processing center that enables real-time tracking, enhances collaboration between states and EPA, and
streamlines recordkeeping. Technical assistance is available for IPMC and DCTS users. The DCTS will enable EPA
and state reviewers to share notifications, PWS and state contacts, PWS profiles, and data generated for the
LT2ESWTR.

WHO SHOULD USE THE DCTS? _

The DCTS allows states, PWSs, laboratories, and EPA to upload, review, and/or download information.
Specifically, the DCTS allows laboratories to upload Cryptosporidium and f. coli sampling results. In addition,
PWSs can use the DCTS to upload sampling schedules and turbidity sampling results and to review and approve
or contest their sampling results uploaded by the laboratory. EPA and states will use the DCTS to track PWSs'
progress through compliance with the LT2SWTR source water monitoring requirements. For example EPA and
states will review sampling schedules and sampling results. The following schematic summarizes the
information flow between labs, PWSs, EPA, and states within the DCTS.

Uplc
XN
\

La
Anatyz
Sarn
j
P
f

bs
pies
imps
Sample

Resample
notification
k
Provides list
rovides
results
rom QC
checks
L
Dad PWS data via
\L files or enter
ria web forms

ot samples
to review
LT2C

PWSs
Review
lab input
A
i,
i

letter of submitted
Grandfathered data
4
« •
1
1 Provides data to
• be considered for
EPA&
States
Review Lab
and PWS input
| (jranatathenng +'
Review J T
and 1
approve ^°vi,dfj st °|l
KK Grandfathered
samples | data to review '
+
)ata ColU
System

Action

L
Provides list of
samples to
review

' — >

SDWIS
Accepts and
stores
acceptable
data

-------
How DOES THE DCTS WORK?
The DCTS is a Web-based application that allows for both manual entry and batch uploads. The system is
password protected and accessible only by approved EPA, state drinking water staff, PWSs, and laboratories.
Submissions to the DCTS are not considered confidential business information (CBI) and are subject to the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

PWSs can create their sampling schedules in the DCTS by entering individual dates, generating a recurrence
pattern, or copying a previously entered schedule from another facility. Throughout monitoring, the DCTS
compares monitoring dates to scheduled dates to verify compliance. A PWS can also submit data through the
DCTS that they want EPA or the state to consider allowing them to use as grandfathered data.

After PWSs collect Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity samples and submit them to a laboratory for
analysis, the laboratory posts the analytical results to the DCTS. When the laboratory approves and releases the
sampling results for PWS review, the PWS can logon to the DCTS to review the data. The PWS must
electronically approve the data within 10 days of the end of month following the month the sample was
collected. [Note: If the PWS does not approve their posted data in that time period, the database will
automatically process the data as submitted by the laboratory with a flag to indicate the PWS did not approve
the data.] When Cryptosporidium monitoring is complete, the PWS uses the sampling data to calculate the
mean Cryptosporidium concentration. DCTS can keep a running calculation of the mean Cryptosporidium
concentration for the PWS, but a final calculation and bin determination will need to be submitted by the PWS
to EPA or the state.

All PWSs serving at least 10,000 people must report results from the initial source water monitoring to EPA
electronically at www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tools/tools-dcts.html. A PWS that is unable to report
monitoring results electronically may use an EPA or state approved alternative approach for reporting. PWSs
serving less than 10,000 people must report results from the initial source water monitoring to the state. EPA
encourages all systems to submit their source water monitoring results electronically. The following table
summarizes options available to labs and systems for submitting data to the DCTS.

Options for Meeting LT2ESWTR Submission Requirements to the DCTS '
Option 1
Upload sampling schedule or sampling
data directly to the Web site 2
Option 2
With EPA or state approval, mail
paper copies to:
US EPA-1 PMC
P.O. Box 98
Dayton, OH 45401
Option 3
With EPA or state approval,
e-mail electronic submissions as
attachments to:
stage2mdbp@epa. gov
1 PWSs and labs must use one of these three options to submit information to the DCTS. In addition, PWSs can send copies of submissions
to the state, but this is not required.
2 Go to EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tools/tools-dcts.html to submit information (e.g., sampling schedule,
monitoring data, or intent to provide maximum treatment) and for a list of acceptable file formats.

WILL THE DCTS INTEGRATE INTO OTHER DATABASE SYSTEMS?

Although the database design is independent of EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), the
DCTS is built to easily integrate with EPA's Office of Water's data systems (i.e., Central Data Exchange (CDX),
and SDWIS). For example, a state can download an XML file (e.g., inventory, laboratory, or violation schema)
from the DCTS and then have the option to upload the file to SDWIS/State or other state databases.

How CAN THE DCTS BE ACCESSED?

The DCTS is available on the Web, but requires a username and password. The site is located at
www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tools/tooj.s-dcts.html. Each laboratory and PWS that is registered with
the DCTS has an Administrative User. The Administrative User is responsible for the initial registration of the
entire lab or PWS.
For additional information, please contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791,
send an email to stage2mdbp@epa.gov. or visit www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2.
Office of Water (4606)
EPA816-F-06-019
www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2
June 2006
-------
1 LT2ESWTR Laboratory Factsheet
WHAT is THE LT2ESWTR?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) on January 5, 2006. The goal of the LT2ESWTR is to improve control of
microbial pathogens by identifying water systems whose source water is vulnerable to contamination
by Cryptosporidium and requiring those systems to treat for that greater risk. Key provisions of the
LT2ESWTR include:

** Source water monitoring at public water systems (PWSs) that use surface water or ground water
under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI).

"^ Monitoring for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity based on system size and filtration type.

•* Using Surface water or GWUDI source water monitoring data to categorize the sources
according to four "bin" classifications that have associated treatment requirements. Systems
that avoid filtration will be placed into one of two categories based on source water
monitoring, and will have to meet specified inactivation requirements.

• Using grandfathered data collected before the system must begin Cryptosporidium source
water monitoring, if the data meet rule requirements. Systems may use this data instead of
conducting source water monitoring.

For detailed information regarding source water monitoring, including sampling and shipping
procedures, systems should consult the Source Water Monitoring Guidance Manual For Public Water
Systems For The Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule [EPA 815-R06-005
February 2006]), at www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfect1on/it2.

WHICH LABORATORIES MUST SYSTEMS USE?

PWSs must use laboratories or personnel approved for source water monitoring analyses required by
the rule (i.e., Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity sampling).

" Cn/ptosporidium analysis: EPA approves laboratories through the Laboratory Quality Assurance
Evaluation Program (the Lab QA Program) to analyze Cryptosporidium. The purpose of the Lab
QA Program is to identify laboratories that can reliably measure the presence of
Cryptosporidium in surface water using the EPA Method 1622 or 1623. A list of commercial,
government, PWS, and university laboratories approved or pending approval to analyze
Cryptosporidium is located at www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfectjon/lt2/lab_aprvlabs.html.
f8 E. coli analysis: Laboratories must be certified by EPA, the National Environmental Laboratory
Accreditation Conference, or the state to analyze E. coli.

"* Turbidity analysis: Analysis must be conducted by a party approved by the state, which usually
means a state-certified operator or a professional engineer. You should consult with your state
for specific state requirements.

Commercial laboratories and other laboratories that accept samples from an outside party may charge
varying rates. Systems may consider contacting multiple laboratories to compare costs. For detailed
information on contracting laboratory services, consult the Source Water Monitoring Guidance Manual
for Public Water Systems for the Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule [EPA 815-
R06-005 February 2006], or go online at www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2.
-------
WHAT METHODS MUST LABORATORIES USE?
Laboratories and personnel must use methods approved by EPA for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and
turbidity, as presented in the following tables.
Approved Methods for E. coli
• Standard Methods 9223B (Colilert/Colilert-18)®
g Standard Methods 9221B/9221F (LTB-EC-MUG)
« Standard Methods 9222D/9222G (mFC-NA-MUG)
• Standard Methods 9213D/ EPA Method 1103.1 (mTEC)
m EPA Method 1603 Modified mTEC
« EPA Method 1604 Ml medium
m m-ColiBlue24Broth
m Standard Methods 9222B/9222G (mEndo/LES-Endo-
NA-MUG)
Approved Methods for Turbidity
Method 2130 B
Revised Method 180.1
Great Lakes Instrument (GLI) Method 2
Approved Methods for Cryptosporidium
Method 1623: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water by Filtration/IMS/FA, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-815-R-05-002. 2005.
Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in Water by Filtration/IMS/FA, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-815-R-05-001. 2005.
WHEN SHOULD SYSTEMS CONTACT LABORATORIES?
PWSs should contact laboratories to discuss contracts and sampling dates as soon as possible. The
number of samples processed each day will impact the laboratory's capacity. The PWS and the
laboratory must agree on calendar dates for monthly, or more frequent, sample analysis because the
PWS must submit a monitoring schedule no later than 3 months before monitoring begins. Monitoring
start dates are summarized in the following table.
Systems that serve...
At least 100,000 people or part of a combined distribution system
serving at least 100,000 people
50,000 to 99,999 people or part of a combined distribution system
serving at least 50,000 to 99,999 people
10,000 to 49,999 people or part of a combined distribution system
serving at least 10,000 to 49,999 people

Less than 10,000 or part of a combined distribution system serving less
than 10,000 people, and are filtered and monitoring for E. coli
Less than 10,000 or part of a combined distribution system serving less
than 10,000 people, and are monitoring for Cryptosporidium^
Must begin the first round of source
water monitoring...
October 2006
April 2007
April 2008

October 2008
April 2010
'Applies to filtered systems that exceed the E. coli trigger or decide not to monitor for E. coli, and to unfiltered systems.
For additional information, please contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791,
send an email to stage2mdbp@epa.gov. or visit www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2.
Off ice of Water (4606)
EPA816-F-06-020
www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2
June 2006
-------
oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule: A Quick Reference
Guide For Schedule 1 Systems
Title
Purposes
General
Description
Utilities
Covered
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) 71 FR 654, January 5, 2006,
Vol. 71, No. 3
Improve public health protection through the control of microbial contaminants by focusing on
systems with elevated Cryptosporidium risk. Prevent significant increases in microbial risk that
might otherwise occur when systems implement the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR).
The LT2ESWTR requires systems to monitor their source water, calculate an average
Cryptosporidium concentration, and use those results to determine if their source is vulnerable to
contamination and may require additional treatment.
Public water systems (PWSs) that use surface water or ground water under the direct influence
of surface water (GWUDI).
Schedule 1 systems include PWSs serving 100,000 or more people OR wholesale PWSs that are
part of a combined distribution system in which the largest system serves 100,000 or more
people.

Control of Cryptosporidium
Source Water
Monitoring
Installation of
Additional
Treatment
Uncovered
Finished Water
Storage Facility
Filtered and unfiltered systems must conduct 24 months of source water monitoring for
Cryptosporidium. Filtered systems must also record source water E. coli and turbidity levels.
Filtered systems will be classified into one of four "Bins" based on the results of their source
water monitoring. Unfiltered systems will calculate a mean Cryptosporidium level to
determine treatment requirements. Systems may also use previously collected data (i.e.,
Grandfathered data).
Filtered systems providing at least 5.5 log of treatment for Cryptosporidium and unfiltered
systems providing at least 3-log of treatment for Cryptosporidium and those systems that
intend to install this level of treatment are not required to conduct source water monitoring.
Filtered systems must provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium based on their bin
classification (average source water Cryptosporidium concentration), using treatment
options from the "microbial toolbox."
Unfiltered systems must provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium using chlorine
dioxide, ozone, or UV.
Systems with an uncovered finished water storage facility must either:

* Cover the uncovered finished water storage facility; or,

> Treat the discharge to achieve inactivation and/or removal of at least 4-log for viruses,
3-log for Giardia lamblia, and 2-log for Cryptosporidium.
Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking
After completing the initial round of source water monitoring any system that plans on making a significant
change to their disinfection practices must:

> Create disinfection profiles for Giardia lamblia and viruses;
> Calculate a disinfection benchmark; and,
* Consult with the state prior to making a significant change in disinfection practice.
.:#%•" ,V-,-:" : ;' '; '— \ i;.:'-/' • -^i.;
Cryptosporidium
Concentration
(oocysts/L)
< 0.075
0.075 to < 1.0
1.0to<3.0
:>3.0
Bin
Classification
Bin 1
Bin 2
Bin 3
Bin 4
Additional Cryptosporidium Treatment
Required
Conventional
Filtration
No additional
treatment
required
1 log
2 log
2.5 log
Direct
Filtration
No additional
treatment
required
1.5 log
2.5 log
3 log
Slow Sand or
Diatomaceous
Earth Filtration
No additional
treatment required
1 log
2 log
2.5 log
Alternative
Filtration
No additional
treatment
required
(D
(2)
(3)
(1) As determined by the state (or other primacy agency) such that the total removal/inactivation > 4.0-log.
(2) As determined by the state (or other primacy agency) such that the total removal/inactivation > 5.0-log.
(3) As determined by the state (or other primacy agency) such that the total removal/inactivation > 5.5-log.
-------
Call the Safe Drinking Water
Hotline at 1 -800-426-4791;
visit the EPA web site at
www.epa.gov/safewater/
disinfection/lt2; or contact
your State drinking water
representative.

Cryptosporidium Concentration Required Cryptosporidium
(oocysts/L) Inactivation
£ 0.01 2-log
> 0.01 3-log

For Drinking Water Systems (Schedule 1)
July 1,2006
October 2006
December 10, 2006
December 1 , 2006
April 1,2008
September 2008
March 2009
March 2009
April 1, 2009
March 31, 2012
January 1, 2015
April 1,201 5
Systems must submit their:
> Sampling schedule that specifies the dates of sample collection and location of
sampling for initial source water monitoring to EPA electronically; or
> Notify EPA or the state of the systems intent to submit results for grandfathering data;
or
* Notify EPA or the state of the systems intent to provide at least 5.5 log of treatment for
Cryptosporidium. Systems should consult with EPA or their state prior to submitting
this notice.
No later than this month systems must begin 24 months of source water monitoring.
System submit results for first month of source water monitoring.
No later than this date, systems must submit monitoring results for data that they want to
have grandfathered.
No later than this date, systems must notify the EPA or the state of all uncovered treated
water storage facilities.
No later than this month, systems must complete their inital round of source water
monitoring.
No later than this month, filtered systems must report their initial bin classification to the
EPA or the state for approval.
No later than this month, unfiltered systems must report the mean of all Cryptosporidium
sample results to the EPA or the state.
No later than this date, uncovered finished water storage facilities must be covered, or the
water must be treated before entry into the distribution system, or the system must be in
compliance with a state approved schedule.
Systems must install and operate additional treatment in accordance with their bin
classification.!
Systems must submit their sampling schedule that specifies the dates of sample collection
and location of sampling for second round of source water monitoring to the state.
* Systems are required to begin conducting a second round of source water monitoring.
> Based on the results, systems must re-determine their bin classification and provide
additional Cryptosporidium treatment, if necessary.
For States
January - June 2006
April 1,2007
October 5, 2007
January 5, 2008
June 30, 2008
Januarys, 2010
December 31, 2012
States are encouraged to communicate with affected systems regarding LT2ESWTR
requirements.
States are encouraged to communicate LT2ESWTR requirements related to treatment,
uncovered finished water reservoirs, and disinfection profiling to affected systems.
States are encouraged to submit final primacy applications or extension requests to EPA.
Final primacy applications must be submitted to EPA, unless granted an extension.
States should begin awarding Cryptosporidium treatment credit for primary treatments in
place.
Final primacy revision applications from states with approved 2-year extensions
agreements must be submitted to EPA.
States should award Cryptosporidium treatment credit for toolbox option implementation.
t States may allow up to an additional 24 months for compliance for systems making capital improvements.
Office of Water (4606)
EPA816-F-06-005
www.epa.gov/safewater
June 200
-------
v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule: A Quick Reference
Guide For Schedule 2 Systems
Title
Purposes
General
Description
Utilities
Covered
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) 71 FR 654, January 5, 2006,
Vol. 71, No. 3
Improve public health protection through the control of microbial contaminants by focusing on
systems with elevated Cryptosporidium risk. Prevent significant increases in microbial risk that
might otherwise occur when systems implement the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR).
The LT2ESWTR requires systems to monitor their source water, calculate an average
Cryptosporidium concentration, and use those results to determine if their source is vulnerable to
contamination and may require additional treatment.
Public water systems (PWSs) that use surface water or ground water under the direct influence
of surface water (GWUDI).
Schedule 2 systems include PWSs serving 50,000 to 99,999 people OR wholesale PWSs that are
part of a combined distribution system in which the largest system serves 50,000 to 99,999
people.
Control of Cryptosporidium
Source Water
Monitoring
Installation of
Additional
Treatment
Uncovered
Finished Water
Storage Facility
Filtered and unfiltered systems must conduct 24 months of source water monitoring for
Cryptosporidium. Filtered systems must also record source water E. coli and turbidity levels.
Filtered systems will be classified into one of four "Bins" based on the results of their source
water monitoring. Unfiltered systems will calculate a mean Cryptosporidium level to
determine treatment requirements. Systems may also use previously collected data (i.e.,
Grandfathered data).
Filtered systems providing at least 5.5 log of treatment for Cryptosporidium and unfiltered
systems providing at least 3-log of treatment for Cryptosporidium and those systems that
intend to install this level of treatment are not required to conduct source water monitoring.
Filtered systems must provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium based on their bin
classification (average source water Cryptosporidium concentration), using treatment
options from the "microbial toolbox."

Unfiltered systems must provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium using chlorine
dioxide, ozone, or UV.
Systems with an uncovered finished water storage facility must either:

* Cover the uncovered finished water storage facility; or,

> Create disinfection profiles for Giardia lamblia and viruses;
* Calculate a disinfection benchmark; and,
Consult with the state prior to making a significant change in disinfection practice.
2jl'''kfeJ£M; I:'<1IJk' ;'!;
Cryptosporidium
Concentration
(oocysts/L)
< 0.075
0.075 to < 1.0
1.0to<3.0
2:3.0
-••- • .:•**-,
'•..".' ' , ' *• . : C- ',-'. L V-- •.»•',''•;.'"„' .'.^Sf',sM3if '•'
Bin
Classification
Bin1
Bin 2
Bin3
Bin 4
Additional Cryptosporidium Treatment
Required
Conventional
Filtration
No additional
treatment
required
1 log
2 log
2.5 log
Direct
Filtration
No additional
treatment
required
1.5 log
2.5 log
Slog
Slow Sand or
Diatomaceous
Earth Filtration
No additional
treatment required
1 log
2 log
2.5 log

Alternative
Filtration
No additional
treatment
required
(D
(2)
(3)
(1) As determined by the state (or other primacy agency) such that the total removal/inactivation > 4.0-log.
(2) As determined by the state (or other primacy agency) such that the total removal/inactivation > 5.0-log.
(3) As determined by the state (or other primacy agency) such that the total removal/inactivation > 5.5-log.
-------
Call the Safe Drinking Water
Hotline at 1-800-426-4791;
visit the EPA web site at
www.epa.gov/safewater; or
contact your State drinking
water representative.

Cryptosporidium Concentration Required Cryptosporidium
(oocyst$/L) Inactivation
iO.01 2-log
> 0.01 3-log
For Drinking Water Systems (Schedule 2)
January 1 , 2007
April 2007
June 10, 2007
June 1,2007
April 1, 2008
March 2009
April 1 , 2009
September 2009
September 2009
September 30, 2012
July 1, 2015
Ocotber 1, 2015
Systems must submit their:
* Sampling schedule that specifies the dates of sample collection and location of
sampling for initial source water monitoring to EPA electronically; or
> Notify EPA or the state of the systems intent to submit results for grandfathering data;
or
> Notify EPA or the state of the systems intent to provide at least 5.5 log of treatment for
Cryptosporidium. Systems should consult with EPA or their state prior to submitting
this notice.
No later than this month, systems must begin 24 months of source water monitoring.
System submit results for first month of source water monitoring.
No later than this date, systems must submit monitoring results for data that they want to
have grandfathered.
No later than this date, systems must notify the EPA or the state of all uncovered treated
water storage facilities.
No later than this month, systems must complete their inital round of source water
monitoring.
No later than this date, uncovered finished water storage facilities must be covered, or the
water must be treated before entry into the distribution system, or the system must be in
compliance with a state approved schedule.
No later than this month, filtered systems must report their initial bin classification to the
EPA or the state for approval.
No later than this month, unfiltered systems must report the mean of all Cryptosporidium
sample results to the EPA or the state.
Systems must install and operate additional treatment in accordance with their bin
classification. t
Systems must submit their sampling schedule that specifies the dates of sample collection
and location of sampling for second round of source water monitoring to the state.
* Systems are required to begin conducting a second round of source water monitoring.
* Based on the results, systems must re-determine their bin classification and provide
additional Cryptosporidium treatment, if necessary.
For States
January - June 2006
April 1,2007
October 5, 2007
January 5, 2008
December 31, 2008
January 5, 2010
June 30, 2013
States are encouraged to communicate with affected systems regarding LT2ESWTR
requirements.
States are encouraged to communicate LT2ESWTR requirements related to treatment,
uncovered finished water reservoirs, and disinfection profiling to affected systems.
States are encouraged to submit final primacy applications or extension requests to EPA.
Final primacy applications must be submitted to EPA, unless granted an extension.
States should begin awarding Cryptosporidium treatment credit for primary treatments in
place.
Final primacy revision applications from states with approved 2-year extensions
agreements must be submitted to EPA.
States should award Cryptosporidium treatment credit for toolbox option implementation.
t States may allow up to an additional 24 months for compliance for systems making capital improvements.
Office of Water (4606)
•**»<, o
EPA816-F-06-006
www. epa. g ov/safewate r
June 200
-------
svEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
^
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule: A Quick Reference
Guide For Schedule 3 Systems
Title
Purposes
General
Description
Utilities
Covered

Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) 71 FR 654, January 5, 2006,
Vol. 71, No. 3
Improve public health protection through the control of microbial contaminants by focusing on
systems with elevated Cryptosporidium risk. Prevent significant increases in microbial risk that
might otherwise occur when systems implement the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR).
The LT2ESWTR requires systems to monitor their source water, calculate an average
Cryptosporidium concentration, and use those results to determine if their source is vulnerable to
contamination and may require additional treatment.
Public water systems (PWSs) that use surface water or ground water under the direct influence
of surface water (GWUDI).
Schedule 3 systems include PWSs serving 10,000 to 49,999 people OR wholesale PWSs that are
part of a combined distribution system in which the largest system serves 10,000 to 49,999
people.
Control of Cryptosporidium
Source Water
Monitoring
Installation of
Additional
Treatment
Uncovered
Finished Water
Storage Facility
Filtered and unfiltered systems must conduct 24 months of source water monitoring for
Cryptosporidium. Filtered systems must also record source water E. coli and turbidity levels.
Filtered systems will be classified into one of four "Bins" based on the results of their source
water monitoring. Unfiltered systems will calculate a mean Cryptosporidium level to
determine treatment requirements. Systems may also use previously collected data (i.e.,
Grandfathered data).
Filtered systems providing at least 5.5 log of treatment for Cryptosporidium and unfiltered
systems providing at least 3-log of treatment for Cryptosporidium and those systems that
intend to install this level of treatment are not required to conduct source water monitoring.
Filtered systems must provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium based on their bin
classification (average source water Cryptosporidium concentration), using treatment
options from the "microbial toolbox."
Unfiltered systems must provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium using chlorine
dioxide, ozone, or UV.
Systems with an uncovered finished water storage facility must either:
> Cover the uncovered finished water storage facility; or,
> Treat the discharge to achieve inactivation and/or removal of at least 4-log for viruses,
3-log for Giardia lamblia, and 2-log for Cryptosporidium.
Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking
After completing the initial round of source water monitoring any system that plans on making a significant
change to their disinfection practices must:

> Create disinfection profiles for Giardia lamblia and viruses;
> Calculate a disinfection benchmark; and,
> Consult with the state prior to making a significant change in disinfection practice.

Cryptosporidium
Concentration
(oocysts/L)
< 0.075
0.075 to < 1.0
1.0to<3.0
;>3.0
Bin
Classification
Bin 1
Bin 2
Bin 3
Bin 4
Additional Cryptosporidium Treatment
Required
Conventional
Filtration
No additional
treatment
required
1 log
2 log
2.5 log
Direct
Filtration
No additional
treatment
required
1.5 log
2.5 log
Slog
Slow Sand or
Diatomaceous
Earth Filtration
No additional
treatment required
1 log
2 log
2.5 log
Alternative
Filtration
No additional
treatment
required
d)
(2)
(3)
(1) As determined by the state (or other primacy agency) such that the total removal/inactivation > 4.0-log.
(2) As determined by the state (or other primacy agency) such that the total removal/inactivation > 5.0-log.
(3) As determined by the state (or other primacy agency) such that the total removal/inactivation > 5.5-log.
-------
Call the Safe Drinking Water
Hotline at 1 -800-426-4791;
visit the EPA web site at
www.epa.gov/safewater/
disinfection/lt2; or contact
your state drinking water
,. representative.
ia«K.'!aWi*Vi-rww?".<*»«'- • va.f. 'r-fVx •
Cryptosporidium Concentration
(oocysts/L)
£0.01
>0.01
Required Cryptosporidium
Inactivation
2-log
3-log
For Drinking Water Systems (Schedule 3)
January 1 , 2008
April 2008
April 1. 2008
June 10, 2008
June 1,2008
April 1, 2009
March 2010
September 2010
September 2010
September 30, 2013
July 1, 2016
Ocotber 1, 2016
Systems must submit their:
> Sampling schedule that specifies the dates of sample collection and location of
sampling for initial source water monitoring to EPA electronically; or
* Notice to EPA or the state of the system's intent to submit results for grandfathering
data; or
* Notice to EPA or the state of the system's intent to provide at least 5.5-log of treatment
for Cryptosporidium for filtered systems or 3-log of treatment for unf iltered systems.
Systems should consult with EPA or their state prior to submitting this notice.
No later than this month, systems must begin 24 months of source water monitoring.
No later than this date, systems must notify the EPA or the state of all uncovered treated
water storage facilities.
Systems submit results for first month of source water monitoring.
No later than this date, systems must submit monitoring results for data that they want to
have grandfathered.
No later than this date, uncovered finished water storage facilities must be covered, or the
water must be treated before entry into the distribution system, or the system must be in
compliance with a state approved schedule.
No later than this month, systems must complete their inital round of source water
monitoring.
No later than this month, filtered systems must report their initial bin classification to the
EPA or the state for approval.
No later than this month, unfiltered systems must report the mean of all Cryptosporidium
sample results to the EPA or the state.
Systems must install and operate additional treatment in accordance with their bin
classification (filtered systems) or mean Cryptosporidium level (unfiltered systems). t
Systems must submit their sampling schedule that specifies the dates of sample collection
and location of sampling for second round of source water monitoring to the state.
> Systems are required to begin conducting a second round of source water monitoring.
> Based on the results, systems must re-determine their bin classification (filtered
systems) or mean Cryptosporidium level (unfiltered systems) and provide additional
Cryptosporidium treatment, if necessary.
For States
July - December
2006
April 1,2007
October 5, 2007
January 5, 2008
December 31 , 2009
January 5, 2010
June 30, 2014
States are encouraged to communicate with affected systems regarding LT2ESWTR
requirements.
States are encouraged to communicate LT2ESWTR requirements related to treatment,
uncovered finished water reservoirs, and disinfection profiling to affected systems.
States are encouraged to submit final primacy applications or extension requests to EPA.
Final primacy applications must be submitted to EPA, unless granted an extension.
States should begin determining Cryptosporidium treatment credit for primary treatments
already in place.
Final primacy revision applications from states with approved 2-year extensions
agreements must be submitted to EPA.
States should award Cryptosporidium treatment credit for toolbox option implementation.
f States may allow up to an additional 24 months for compliance for systems making capital improvements.
Office of Water (4606)
EPA816-F-06-007
www.epa.gov/safewater
June 200
-------
o-EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
7 -Tl-
1 '•'„!*:'
Call the Safe Drinking Water
Hotline at 1-800-426-4791;
visit the EPA web site at
www.epa.gov/safewater/
disinfection/lt2; or contact
your state drinking water
representative.
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule: A Quick Reference
Guide For Schedule 4 Systems
Title
Purposes
General
Description
Utilities
Covered

"o
c
.c
o
0)
System must
provide 3.0-log
treatment of
Crypto and use at
least 2
disinfectants.
Install by April 1,
2012.
v /
System assigned
to Bin 2:
Needs 1.0-log of
additional
treatment or 1.5-
log for direct
filtration for total of
at least 4.0-logs of
treatment.
System assigned
to Bin 31:
Needs 2.0-logs of
additional
treatment or 2.5-
logs for direct
filtration for total of
at least 5.0-logs of
treatment. .
System assigned
to Bin41:
Needs 2.5-logs of
additional
treatment or 3.0-
logs for direct
filtration for total of
at least 5.5-logs of
treatment.
Does system use
alternative filtration?
\
No
i
^
r
Sta
exist!
ad

Install by April 1,2012.
State determines log credit for
existing technologies and needed
additional logs of treatment
Calculate disinfection benchmark,
submit analysis of how change
will affect disinfection
Redesign
disinfection
strategy
C
System makes change to disinfection process
Will
system (CWSs &
NTNCWSs only) make
a significant change to
its disinfection
rocess?
1 At least 1 log of additional treatment must use a disinfectant or filtration process from an approved list (§141.716 through §141.720).
-------
Schedule 2 Systems
All Subpart H systems serving 50,000 to 99,999 persons must:
1) Determine whether and to what extent additional treatment for Crypto is necessary, and
2) If necessary, provide additional required treatment
( Start J
O)
c
c
O
Does system
rovide filtration?
Does
system provide
at least 5.5-log of
treatment for
Crypto?
es system
provide at least 3.0-log
inactivation of
Crypto?
Does
system intend to use
historical Crypto
data?
Does
system intend to use
historical Crypto
data?
System submits
data to the state
System submits
data to the state
Does
the state
approve?2
Monitor Crypto, E. coli,
and turbidity for 24 months,
at least monthly, beginning
April 1, 2007 from the
locations according
to §141.703.
Monitor Crypto for 24 months, at least
monthly, beginning April 1, 2007
from the locations according
to §141.703.
Proceed to
Unfiltered Binning
No further
action
Proceed to
Filtered Binning
1 Or will it install such treatment by October 1, 2012 (§141.713)?
2 Actual monitoring requirements depend on whether 2 full years of historical Cryptosporidium data are available and
approved by the state. If 2 years of data are available and approved, the system follows the process in the flow chart. If
less than 2 years of data are available, systems must monitor Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity until the state
determines that the new and historical data, when combined, are sufficient.
-------
From Unfiltered
Monitoring
From Filtered
Monitoring
Determine mean source
water Crypto concentration
Is system s
Crypto level
>0.01 oocysts/L?
Yes
O)
C
'E
c
m
Determine Crypto level
per§141.710
Is system s Crypto
level <0.075
0ocysts/L?

No
system assigned to Bin 1
Is Crypto
>0.075and<1.0,
>1.0and <3.0, or
3.0 oocysts/LJ
System must
provide 2 log
treatment of
Crypto and use at
least 2
disinfectants.
Install by
October 1,2012.
V /
System must
provide 3 log
treatment of
Crypto and use at
least 2
disinfectants.
Install by
October 1,2012.
System assigned
to Bin 2:
Needs 1.0-log of
additional
treatment or 1.5-
log for direct
filtration for total of
at least 4.0-logs of
treatment.
System assigned
to Bin 31:
Needs 2.0-logs of
additional
treatment or 2.5-
logs for direct
filtration for total of
at least 5.0-logs of
treatment.
System assigned
to Bin 41:
Needs 2.5-logs of
additional
treatment or 3.0-
logs for direct
filtration for total of
at least 5.5-logs of
treatment.
C
o
0)
CO
>»
O)
£
o
c
£
o
o
Does system use
alternative filtration?
\
No
i
^
4-
r
State
existinc
add

Install by October 1, 2012.
State determines log credit for
existing technologies and needed
additional logs of treatment
Calculate disinfection benchmark,
submit analysis of how change
will affect disinfection
Redesign
disinfection
strategy
C
System makes change to disinfection process
Will
system (CWSs &
NTNCWSs only) make
a significant change to
its disinfection
rocess?
1 At least 1 log of additional treatment must use a disinfectant or filtration process from an approved list (§141.716 through §141.720).
-------
Schedule 3 Systems
All Subpart H systems serving 10,000 to 49,999 persons must:
1) Determine whether and to what extent additional treatment for Crypto is necessary, and
2) If necessary, provide additional required treatment
O)
c
c
O
Does system
rovide filtration?
Does
system provide
at least 5.5-log of
treatment for
Crypto?
oes system
provide at least 3.0-log
inactivation of
Crypto?
Does
system intend to use
historical Crypto
data?
Does
system intend to use
historical Crypto
data?
System submits
data to the state
System submits
data to the state
Monitor Crypto for 24 months, at least
monthly, beginning April 1, 2008
from the locations according
to §141.703.
Proceed to
Unfiltered Binning
Monitor Crypto, E. coli,
and turbidity for 24 months,
at least monthly, beginning
April 1, 2008 from the
locations according
to §141.703.
Yes
No further
action
Proceed to
Filtered Binning
1 Or will it install such treatment by October 1, 2013 (§141.713)?
2 Actual monitoring requirements depend on whether 2 full years of historical Cryptosporidium data are available and
approved by the state. If 2 years of data are available and approved, the system follows the process in the flow chart. If
less than 2 years of data are available, systems must monitor Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity until the state
determines that the new and historical data, when combined, are sufficient.
-------
From Unfiltered
Monitoring
From Filtered
Monitoring
Determine mean source
water Crypto concentration
Is system's
Crypto level
>0.01 oocysts/L?
Yes
O)
c
"E
c
ffi
Determine Crypto level
per§141.710
Is system s Crypto
level <0.075
oocysts/L?
system assigned to Bin 1
Is Crypto
>0.075and<1.0,
<3.0, or
>3.0 oocysts/L/2
System must
provide 2 log
treatment of
Crypto and use at
least 2
disinfectants.
Install by
October 1,2013.
V. /
System must
provide 3 log
treatment of
Crypto and use at
least 2
disinfectants.
Install by
October 1, 2013.
System assigned
to Bin 2:
Needs 1,0-log of
additional
treatment or 1.5-
log for direct
filtration for total of
at least 4.0-logs of
treatment.
System assigned
to Bin 31:
Needs 2.0-logs of
additional
treatment or 2.5-
logs for direct
filtration for total of
at least 5.0-logs of
treatment.
System assigned
to Bin 41:
Needs 2.5-logs of
additional
treatment or 3.0-
logs for direct
filtration for total of
at least 5.5-logs of
treatment.
C
O
^5
U
_C)
0)
(/>
>
o>
2
O
c
.C
O
Does system use
alternative filtration?
State determines log credit for
existing technologies and needed
additional logs of treatment
Calculate disinfection benchmark,
submit analysis of how change
will affect disinfection
Redesign
disinfection
strategy
C
System makes change to disinfection process
Will
system (CWSs &
NTNCWSs only) make
a significant change to
its disinfection
rocess?
1 At least 1 log of additional treatment must use a disinfectant or filtration process from an approved list (§141.716 through §141.720).
-------
Schedule 4 Systems
All Subpart H systems serving <10,000 persons must:
1) Determine whether and to what extent additional treatment for Crypto is necessary, and
2) If necessary, provide additional treatment
o
'E
o
Does
system provide
iltration?
Does
system provide at least
5.5-log of treatment
or Crypto"?
Does system
provide at least 3.0-log
inactivation of
Crypto?
Does
system plan to
monitor £. coli
iweekly?
Monitor E. coli
for 12 months, biweekly
Is system's
annual mean E. coli
> 10/100 ml (for reservoirs/lakes)
r >5Q/100 ml (forflowin
streams)?
No: system assigned to Bin 1
Does
system intend to use
historical Crypto
data?
System submits
data to state
Does
the state
approve?2
Monitor Crypto for 12 months,
semi-monthly or 1 per month
for 24 months beginning
January 1, 2010 from the
locations according to §141.703.
Proceed to Unfiltered
and Filtered Binning
1 Or will it install such treatment by October 1, 2014 (§141.713)?
2 Actual monitoring requirements depend on whether 1 full year of historical Cryptosporidium data (24 samples) is available and
approved by EPA. If the full amount of data is available and approved, the system follows the process in the chart. If less than 1 year of
data is available, systems must monitor Cryptosporidium until EPA determines that data are sufficient.
-------
From Monitoring
Determine mean source
water Crypto concentration
Yes

1
r
Determine mean source
water Crypto concentration
c
ffl
Is system s
Crypto level
0.01 oocyst /L
Yes
System must
provide 2.0-log
treatment of
Crypto and use at
least 2
disinfectants.
Install by
October 1,2014.
System must
provide 3.0-log
treatment of
Crypto and use at
least 2
disinfectants.
Install by
October 1,2014.
Is system s Crypto
level <0.075
oocysts/L?
Is Crypto
>0.075and .,
>1.0 and <3.0, or
>3.0 oocysts/l_2
O
7
O
~&
V)

"o
c
sz.
o
System assigned
to Bin 2:
Needs 1,0-log of
additional
treatment or 1.5-
log for direct
filtration for total of
at least 4.0-logs of
treatment.
System assigned
to Bin 31:
Needs 2.0-logs of
additional
treatment or 2,5-
logs for direct
filtration for total of
at least 5.0-logs of
. treatment. .
System assigned
to Bin 41:
Needs 2.5-logs of
additional
treatment or 3.0-
logs for direct
filtration for total of
at least 5.5-logs of
treatment.
Does system use
alternative filtration?
Calculate disinfection benchmark,
submit analysis of how change
will affect disinfection
Redesign
disinfection
strategy
Will
system (CWSs &
NTNCWSs only) make
a significant change to
its disinfection
rocess?
State determines log credit for
existing technologies and needed
additional logs of treatment
No
C
System makes change to disinfection process
No further
action
1 At least 1 log of additional treatment must use a disinfectant or filtration process from an approved list (§141.716 through §141.720).
-------
Appendix E
Template Letters
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Template Letters

The following template letters have been developed as guidance. These templates are not a required
format for communicating between EPA or states and the affected systems. However, they will ensure
that system receives a formal notice of the issue and documentation for their own records and that EPA or
the state has hard-copy documentation of the correspondence with the system.

Written notification may include:

1. Summary of the issue.

2. Appropriate contact if questions arise.

3. Fact sheet or other summary materials (optional). EPA has developed the following fact
sheets for the LT2ESWTR:

• LT2ESWTR Source Water Monitoring for Systems Serving Less Than 10,000
People Factshcet (EPA816-F-06-018 June 2006).

• LT2ESWTR Source Water Monitoring for Systems Serving At Least 10,000 People
Factshcet (EPA816-F-06-017 June 2006).

• LT2ESWTR Data Collection and Tracking System Factshcet (EPA816-F-06-019
June 2006).

• LT2ESWTR Laboratory Factshcet (EPA816-F-06-020 June 2006).

These additional materials can be found on EPA's LT2ESWTR Web site at
http://www.cpa.gov/safcwatcr/disinfcction/1t2.

The following LT2ESWTR template letters include:

• Status of Grandfathercd Source Water Data Submission.
• Acknowledging Receipt of a System's Intent to Submit Grandfathered Data.
• Acknowledging Receipt of a System's Intent to Provide Full Treatment.
• Informing the System of Re-sampling Requirements Because of Missing Sample(s).
• Informing the System of Re-sampling Requirements Because of a Laboratory Error.
• Approving Source Water Monitoring Plan.

Text highlighted should be changed as appropriate to provide accurate information to the system,
highlighting should be removed.
L T2ESWTR Implementation Guidance E-1 A ugust 200 7
-------
Example Letter
Letterhead

Contact Name
System Name
Address
City, State 12345

PWSID: XX1234567

RE: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR)
Status of Grandfathered Source Water Data Submission

Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. :
On [insert date], this office received a letter from [insert name of system] containing [insert type of data
received, Cryptosporidium, E. coli, turbidity] data from [insert timeframe]. It is understood that [insert
name of system] submitted this data in lieu of collecting source water monitoring data required to comply
with the LT2ESWTR. This letter is to confirm that the data submitted has been reviewed and approved by
this office for the purpose of grandfathering. Your system is still required to collect monthly [insert type
of source water data this system will need to collect, Cryptosporidium, E. coli, turbidity] samples through
[insert date this system will need to collect data through before they can use the grandfathered data]. The
previous collected data will be added to the end of the 2-ycar period. Once all required source water
monitoring samples arc collected, a bin classification will need to be determined for your system. Your
bin classification determines whether further treatment for Cryplosporidium is required.

A second round of source water monitoring is required as part of the LT2ESWTR. Your bin classification
may change based on the results of the second round of monitoring. Grandfathering data will not be
accepted for the second round of monitoring.

Additional reference information is attached for your use. If you have questions regarding this letter,
please contact us by sending an e-mail to stagc2mdbp(«:epa.gov. For more information regarding this rule
visit the LT2ESWTR website at www.cpa.gov/satcwatcr/disinfcction/lt2.

Enclosures:
LT2ESWTR Quick Reference Guide
LT2ESWTR Source Water Monitoring for Systems Serving Less Than 10,000 People Factsheet
LT2ESWTR Source Water Monitoring for Systems Serving At Least 10,000 People Factsheet
[list other enclosures]
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance E-2 August 2007
-------
Example Letter
Letterhead

Contact Name
System Name
Address
City, State 12345

PWSID: XX1234567

RE: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR)
Acknowledging Receipt of a System's Intent to Submit Grandfathered Data

Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. :
On [insert date], this office received a letter from the [insert name of system] containing an intent to
grandfather submission. This letter is to confirm that the intent to grandfather submitted has been
reviewed and approved by this office. Your system is still required to submit the actual grandfather data
by [insert compliance date for submitting grandfather data] for review.

A second round of source water monitoring is required as part of the LT2ESWTR. Grandfathcring data
will not be accepted for the second round of monitoring.

Additional reference information is attached for your use. If you have questions regarding this letter,
please contact us by sending an e-mail to slagc2mdbpu':cpa.gov. For more information regarding this rule
visit the LT2ESWTR website at www.cpa.gov/saI'cvvatcr/disinledion/It2.

Enclosures:
LT2ESWTR Quick Reference Guide
LT2ESWTR Source Water Monitoring for Systems Serving Less Than 10,000 People Factshcct
LT2ESWTR Source Water Monitoring for Systems Serving At Least 10,000 People Factsheet
[list other enclosures]
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance E-3 August 2007
-------
Example Letter
Letterhead

Contact Name
System Name
Address
City, State 12345

PWSID: XX1234567

RE: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR)
Acknowledging Receipt of a System's Intent to Provide Full Treatment

Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. :
On [insert date] this office received notice from [insert name of system] of their intent to provide at least
[insert either 5.5-log or 3.0-log] treatment for Cryplosporidium in lieu of source water monitoring as
required by LT2ESWTR. Your system is required to install and operate treatment technologies to provide
at least [insert either 5.5-log or 3.0-log] treatment for Cryptosporidium by [insert compliance date].

Additional reference information is attached for your use. If you have questions regarding this letter,
please contact us by sending an e-mail to stagc2mdbpfaicpa.gov. For more information regarding this rule
visit the LT2ESWTR website at vvww.cpa.gov/satewatcr/disinfcction/lt2.

Contact Name
System Name
Address
City, State 12345

PWSID: XX1234567

RE: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR)
Re-sampling Requirements Because of Missing Sample(s)

Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. :
The LT2ESWTR requires systems to sample once per month for [insert what the system must sample for,
Cryptosporidium, E. coli, Turbidity] in their source water. According to our records the results of your
source water samples for [Enter month] were due by [Enter date results due]. These results have not been
received. Failure to take your source water samples in compliance with your approved sample schedule is
a monitoring violation. Your system is required to provide notice to the public for failure to take the
required samples. This public notice must be provided by [Enter date 1-year from violation].

The LT2ESWTR requires systems to collect 24 samples in order to determine the appropriate bin
classification. If your system misses 3 or more samples your system will be required to provide special
public notice to explain the missed samples. Also your system may not have enough information to make
a bin determination. Therefore you system is required to submit a revised sampling schedule that
addresses how your system will collect the missed samples. This revised sampling schedule must be
submitted by [enter date]. This schedule must be approved by this office prior to your system collecting
the missed sample. In addition, your system must continue collect your monthly samples in accordance
with your original sampling schedule.

It is required that your system notifies this office immediately with a reason why the sample was missed.
Below is a list of possible reasons why the sample was missed:

• An extreme condition or situation existed that posed a danger to the sample collector.
• An extreme condition or situation existed that could not be avoided and caused your system to be
unable to sample in the 5-day period.
• The valid analytical result was not reported because of equipment failure, loss of or damage to the
sample, or failure to comply with the analytical method requirements.
• The approved laboratory failed to analyze the sample.

Additional reference information is attached for your use. If you have questions regarding this letter,
please contact us by sending an e-mail to stagc2mdbpfecpa.gov. For more information regarding this rule
visit the LT2ESWTR website at vvwvv.epa,gov/safewatcr/disinfcction/ll2.

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance E-5 August 2007
-------
Example Letter
Letterhead

Contact Name
System Name
Address
City, State 12345

PWSID: XX1234567

RE: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR)
Re-sampling Requirements Because of a Laboratory Error

Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. :
An error occurred at the laboratory for the [insert type of sample, Cryptosporidium, E. coli, Turbidity]
sample submitted on [enter date] by your system for compliance with the LT2ESWTR source water
monitoring requirements. Due to this error your system is required to collect a replacement sample no
later than 21 days after receiving this letter. If this is not feasible, you must notify this office immediately
and provide an explanation of why the sample may not be collected within the 21 days.

Additional reference information is attached for your use. If you have questions regarding this letter,
please contact us by sending an e-mail to stagc2mdbp(a'epa.gov. For more information regarding this rule
visit the LT2ESWTR website at www.cpa.gov/safcwater/disinfection/lt2.

Contact Name
System Name
Address
City, State 12345

PWSID: XX1234567

RE: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR)
Source Water Monitoring Plan Submission Approval

Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. :
On [insert date], this office received a letter from the [insert name of system] containing a source water
monitoring plan. This letter is to confirm that this submission has been reviewed and approved by this
office. Your system is required to collect monthly [insert what the system must sample for,
Ciyptosporidium, E. coli, Turbidity] samples as specified in the source water monitoring plan. Once all
required source water monitoring samples are collected, a bin classification will need to be determined for
your system. Your bin classification determines whether further treatment for Cryptosporidium is
required.

A second round of source water monitoring is required as part of the LT2ESWTR. Your system will be
required to submit a source water monitoring plan for the second round of source water monitoring.

Additional reference information is attached for your use. If you have questions regarding this letter,
please contact us by sending an e-mail to stajjc^mdJ^rjfajejTa^ov. For more information regarding this rule
visit the LT2ESWTR website at www.epa.gov/saI'cwatcr/disinfeelion/112.

Enclosures:
LT2ESWTR Quick Reference Guide
LT2ESWTR Source Water Monitoring for Systems Serving Less Than 10,000 People Factshect
LT2ESWTR Source Water Monitoring for Systems Serving At Least 10,000 People Factsheet
[list other enclosures]
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance E-7 August 2007
-------
This page intentionally left blank
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance E-8 August 2007
-------
Appendix F
Data Collection and Tracking
System
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Data Collection and Tracking System (DCTS)
1. Registration Step-by-Step
2. Users' Manual for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule (LT2 Rule) Data Collection and
Tracking System
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance F-1 August 2007
-------
This page intentionally left blank
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
F-2
August 2007
-------
Step-by-Step Registration for Central Data Exchange (CDX)/
Data Collection and Tracking System (DCTS)
Did vou receive a letter from EPA/IPMC providing a Customer Retrieval Kev (CRK)?
YES - Follow the directions under "A. Step-by-Step Registration for DCTS using CRK"
NO - Follow the directions under "B. Step-by-Step Registration for DCTS using CDX"
A
Steo-bv-Steo Registration for DCTS using CRK fSteps A.1. - A.12. need to be
completed once. Once the password is setup, ao to A.13.)
A.1. Goto: http://cdx.epa.gov/preregistration
A.2. Input the CRK provided in the letter from EPA. You will only input the CRK the first time you enter the DCTS
A.3. Click on "Register"
A.3. Read the Warning Notice and Privacy Statements
A.4. Click on "Click here to continue" - New screen will appear
A.5. Read the Terms and Conditions
A.6. Click on "I Accept" and you will be sent to the registration page - New screen will appear

CDX Registration: User Information

A.7. Note - The user name box will automatically have your user name. This must not be changed (see Figure 1). This is the
user name you will use in the future each time you log-in to DCTS.
Figure 1
CDX Registration: User Information

Please verify the information in your user profile. Use the TAB key to move from field to field. *
First Name: Mr.

Last Name: Smith
John
* Suffix: —
Please choose a user name and password-the password must be at least 8 characters long
and contain at least one number. Both passwords and user names are restricted to alpha-
numeric characters and may not begin with a number or contain spaces or symbols, e.g. $ # ."
or @. Your user name should not be a part of your password. If you enter a user name which is
in use, you will be asked to select a new user name.

User Name: SmithJohn *
(More than 7 characters: Don't use $ # . " or @)
Password:
*
Re-enter Password:
(More than 7 characters w/1 number; Don't use $ # ." or
The Help Desk will use the Secret Question and Answer to authenticate you if you forget your
password. Please enter a secret question which has relevance to you and has an answer which
is not easily guessed by others.
Secret Question:

Secret Answer:
*

*
A.8. Input a password (following recommended format)
A. 9. Re-enter the password
A. 10. Input a secret question and answer - This will be used by the Help Desk to authenticate you if you forget your password
A.11. Click on "Next"
A.12. You should receive a message from "CDX Registration" [EPACDX@csc.com] within 24 hours of submitting your request.
Once you have received the e-mail confirming your set-up, you can log into the DCTS.
1
-------
Figure 2
Centra
Welcome,
Mr. John Smith
CDX Registration Status: Active
Data Exchange- MyCDX
Last Login: July 21 , 2006
Registered Since: July 21 , 2006
Recertification Date: July 21 , 2006
You have 0 new messages in your Inbox
Change System Edit Persor
Password Information
Available Account Profiles:
• LT2: LT2 Data Collection, LT2/Stag
al Edit Current Add New
Account Profiles Employer Profile
e 2 Tracking system, and IDSE Plan/Report Entry
^"^^^ SEE STEP
^^ A.18.
Loaaina into the Data Collection and Tracking System (DOTS)

Once you have received the e-mail confirming your set-up, you can log into the DCTS.
A.13. Goto: http://www.epa.gov/cdx
A. 14. Click on "Log-in to CDX" (on sidebar) - New screen will appear
A. 15. Input your user name - This is the user name created for you when you originally logged in with your CRK (see Step
A.7.)
A.16. Input your password
A.17. Click on "Login" - New screen will appear
A.18. Click on the long link "LT2: LT2 Data Collection, LT2/Stage 2 Tracking system, and IDSE Plan/Report Entry" program
(see Figure 2). New window will appear
A. 19. To open data system related to submission and review of samples for compliance with the LT2 Rule click on LT2
Data Collection System (see Figure 3)
A.20. To open data system related to submission of your IDSE Plan or IDSE Report for compliance with the Stage 2 Rule
click on IDSE Plan/Report Entry (see Figure 3)
Figure 3
Systems
The system recognizes you as an approved user for the following applications, please select a system to launch...

LT2 Data Collection System
Launches the LT2 Data Collection System for the submission and review of samples

IDSE Plan/Report Entry
Launches IDSE Plan/Report Entry, which will lead you through filling out and submitting your IDSE PSan or Report
-------
B,
Steo-bv-Steo Registration for DOTS using CDX fSteps B.1. -B.17. need to be
completed for registration. Once the password is setup, go to B.19.)
B.1. Go to: http://www.epa.gov/cdx
B.2. Click on "Log-in to CDX" (on sidebar) - New screen will appear
B.3. Click on "Registration" (on sidebar) - New screen will appear
B.4. Read the Warning Notice and Privacy Statements
B.5. Click on "Click here to continue" - New screen will appear
B.6. Read the Terms and Conditions and click on "I Accept" - New screen will appear
B.7. Input a user's first and last name, user name (following recommended format), password (following recommended
format) and re-enter the password, a question that can be used in case you forget your password, and the answer to the
question - New screen will appear
B.8. Input the water system's name in the Organization Name field and all other requested information. Click on "Next" -
New screen will appear

CDX Registration: Add Program
B.9. Select "LT2: LT2, Stage 2, and IDSE Plan/Report Entry (LT2)" (see Figure 4).
Figure 4
CDX Registration: Add Program

Facility Registry System - Update Service (FRS-US):

Lead-Based Paint Activities (LEAD):

LT2: LT2, Stage 2, and IDSE Plan/Report Entry (LT2):

Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS):

Radionuclide NESHAPs (RAD):

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Site ID (RCRA):

Stormwater Notice of Intent (eNOI) (SWENOI):

Toxic Release Inventory Made Easy Web (Approved Pilot Submitters ONLY) (TRIMEweb):

Toxic Substance Control Act - HaSD Form (TSCA-HASD):

Compliance Information Systems (VERIFY):

Request Manufacturer Code for OTAQ Compliance (VERIFY MFR REG):

Water Contaminant Information Tool (WCIT):
B.10. Click on "Next" - New screen will appear
Complete Role Information -
B. 11. Role is "Asubmitter" only option
B.12. Select "Standard" (This is CDX. This is not where you request DCTS Admin access.)
B.13. Input your water system's federal PWSID (i.e., WA5312345) in the ID field. If you don't know your PWSID please
send an e-mail to stage2mdbp@epa.gov.
B.14. Submission method is "WEBFORM" (only option)
B.15. Click on "Next"
B.16. Read the message
B.17. Click on "Finished"
B.18. You should receive confirmation from "CDX Registration" [EPACDX@csc.com] within 24 hours of submitting your
request. Once you have received the e-mail confirming your CDX set-up, you can log into the DCTS.

Logging into the Data Collection and Tracking System (DCTS)
B.19. Follow steps B.1. and B.2.
B.20. Input your user name and password - This is the user name you choose for yourself when setting up your CDX
account (see Step B.7.). Click "Login" - New screen will appear
B.21. Click "LT2: LT2 Data Collection, LT2/Stage 2 Tracking system, and IDSE Plan/Report Entry" program (see
Figure 2) - New window will appear
B.22. To submit your IDSE Plan electronically for compliance with the Stage 2 Rule click on IDSE Plan/Report Entry (see
Figure 5). This is the final registration step for DCTS users that need to comply with the Stage 2 requirements for only one
water system.
-------
Figure 5
The system recognizes you as an approved user for the following applications, please select a system to launch.
IDSE Plan/Report Entry
Launches tDSE Plan/Report Entry, which will ieacl you through fiiiing out and submitting your !DSE Plan or Report
If you need access to multiple systems to complete multiple IDSE plans/reports or if you need to comply with the LT2
requirements, you must request access to the LT2 Data Collection System. To obtain access to the LT2 Data Collection
System you must contact your system's DCTS administrator. If you do not know your system's DCTS administrator, e-mail
your system's PWSID, water system name, and CDX user name to stage2mdbp@epa.gov.
B.23. Once access is granted to the LT2 Data Collection System please click on the LT2 Data Collection System link that
will appear above the IDSE Plan/Report Entry link (see Figure 3)
B.24. Click on the "User Profile" icon
B.25. Update information for First Name, Last Name, State, Phone Number, or E-mail Address if any are incorrect (see
Figure 6)
Figure 6

User Profile |
* = Required
The following
SEE
STEP
B.25.

:iel
infc
/'
\
d
rmation is provided by CDX- If you feel any of the information is incorrect, please access CDX to update/verify.
UserName :
'First Name
"Last Name
'State
*Phone Number
•Email Address
SmtlhJohn
John
Smith
UN
(123)456-7890
johnsmilh@somewhere com
Save and Continue Exi& Registration

B.26. Click on "Save and Continue"
B.27. Input your water system's federal PWSID (i.e., WA5312345) in the Organization Code field (see Figure 7)
Figure 7
Please enter your Organization ID and click "Lookup Organization." The "Lookup Organization" link will be replaced with a "Request
Access" link and an "Undo" link. If your correct organization is displayed, click "Request Access." If you have incorrectly entered the
organization ID, click "Undo" and repeat the process. If you are an E. coli laboratory and your lab is missing from the list of organizations,
please click "E. coli Lab Registration."

If you are an existing user and would like access to the IDSE Plan/Report entry. Enter the code for the desired PWS and select LT2 from
the system list. Otherwise, you should enter the PWSs organization code in the Program ID field when registering via CDX.
Organization Code
Lookup Organization
E. col: Lab Registration Edit User Information Save and Continue Exit Registration
B.28. Click on "Lookup Organization" (see Figure 7)
B.29. A new field "System Type" will appear; select "Both" (even if you only need access to one of the rules)
B.30. Click on "Request Access"
B.31. Click on "Save and Continue"
B.32. If you need to request access to additional systems, repeat steps B.27. through B.31. Once you are finished, click on
"Exit Registration."
Once your user name has been authenticated by the DCTS administrator for your system, you will be granted access to
the data system for these additional system(s).
4
-------
USER A L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Users' Manual for the
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule (LT2 Rule)
Data Collection and Tracking System
Version 1.2

June 2, 2006

Prepared for
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1-1
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual

Office of Water (4607)
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/
May 2006
1-2
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Acknowledgment

This Users' Manual was prepared under the direction of Sharon Gonder, of the Standards and Risk
Management Division within the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW). It was prepared by the CSC Biology Studies Group under
General Services Administration Federal Supply Service Contract No. GS-23F-9820H.
Disclaimer
This Users' Manual has been reviewed by the Standards and Risk Management Division (SRMD) within
the USEPA OGWDW. Mention of company names, trade names, or commercial products in this report
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. This Users' Manual is available for
download in Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) format from http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/.
1-3
-------
USER A L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Table of Contents
Section 1. Introduction 1-1
1.1 Organization of Manual 1-1
1.2 Aboutthe LT2 Data Collection System 1-2
1.3 Data Use 1-3
1.4 Analytical Methods 1-3
1.5 User Roles 1-3

Section 2. Getting Started 2-1
2.1 System Requirements 2-1
2.2 Connecting to the LT2 Data Collection System 2-1
2.2.1 New User Registration 2-2
2.2.2 Password Reset 2-6
2.3 Administrative User Functions 2-7
2.3.1 User Registration 2-7
2.3.2 New Cryptosporidium Laboratory 2-7
2.3.3 New E. co//'Laboratory 2-7
2.3.4 Update Users - PWS and Lab Users 2-9
2.3.5 Update Contracting Labs 2-10
2.4 Updating User-Specific Information 2-12
2.5 Navigation Toolbar 2-14
2.6 Help Screens 2-15
2.6.1 Lab User Help Screens 2-16
2.6.2 PWS User Help Screens 2-17
2.6.3 EPA User Help Screens 2-17
2.6.4 State User Help Screens 2-18
2.6.5 Administrative Functions Help Screens 2-19
2.7 Logout 2-19

Section3. Lab User Role 3-1
3.1 Select Organization 3-1
3.2 Creating a New Sample 3-2
3.3 Cryptosporidium Samples 3-3
3.3.1 Cryptosporidium Data Entry 3-4
3.3.2 Calculations Associated with Cryptosporidium Data Processing 3-10
3.3.3 Cryptosporidium Data Review 3-12
3.4 £. co// 15-tube MPN Method Samples 3-13
3.4.1 E. co// 15-tube MPN Method Data Entry 3-13
3.4.2 Calculations Associated with E. co// 15-tube MPN Method Data Processing 3-17
3.4.3 E. co// 15-tube MPN Method Data Review 3-21
3.5 E. co//ONPG-MUG, 51-well Method Samples 3-22
3.5.1 E. co//ONPG-MUG 51-well Method Data Entry 3-22
3.5.2 Calculations Associated with E. co//ONPG-MUG, 51-well Method Data Processing 3-26

1-4
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
3.5.3 E. co/;' ONPG-MUG, 51-well Method Data Review 3-29
3.6 E. co//ONPG-MUG, 97-well Method Samples 3-29
3.6.1 E. co//ONPG-MUG, 97-well Method Data Entry 3-30
3.6.2 Calculations Associated with E. co//ONPG-MUG, 97-well Method Data Processing 3-34
3.6.3 E. co//ONPG-MUG, 97-well Method Data Review 3-37
3.7 E. co// Membrane Filtration Method Samples 3-38
3.7.1 E. co//Membrane Filtration Method Data Entry 3-38
3.7.2 Calculations Associated with E. co// Membrane Filtration Method Data Processing 3-43
3.7.3 E. co//Membrane Filtration Method Data Review 3-47
3.8 View Samples and Search 3-47
3.9 Sample Dates 3-49
3.10 Contacts 3-50

Section 4. PWS User 4-1
4.1 Select Organization 4-2
4.2 View Samples and Search 4-3
4.3 PWS Cryptosporidium Data Review 4-5
4.4 PWS E. co//Data Review 4-7
4.5 PWS Facility Information 4-12
4.6 PWS Sampling Schedule 4-15
4.7 PWS Contact List 4-18
4.8 Grandfathering and Bin Status Tracking 4-21

Section 5. EPA and State Users 5-1
5.1 View Samples and Search 5-4
5.2 EPA and State Cryptosporidium Data Review 5-5
5.3 EPA and State E. co//15-tube MPN Data Review 5-7
5.4 EPA and State E. co// ONPG-MUG, 51-well Data Review 5-9
5.5 EPA and State E. co//ONPG-MUG, 97-well Data Review 5-11
5.6 EPA and State E. co//Membrane Filtration Data Review 5-13
5.7 EPAand State Official Contact List 5-15
5.8 Grandfathering and Sampling Plan Tracking 5-18
5.9 Reports 5-20

Section 6. XML Submission Process 6-1
6.1 Who should consider submitting data using XML? 6-1
6.2 The XML Process 6-1
6.2.1 Timing of Transactions 6-1
6.2.2 Document Structure 6-2
6.2.3 Legal and Security Considerations 6-7
6.3 User Process 6-8
6.4 LT2 XML Data Flow 6-10
6.5 Error Corrections and Resubmissions 6-11
6.5.1 Cryptosporidium and E. coli Verification Rules 6-11
6.5.2 Cryptosporidium Verification Rules 6-11
6.5.3 E. coli Verification Rules 6-12

1-5
-------
USEPA L T2DCTS Users'Manual
Section 7. Legal and Security Considerations 7-1
7.1 Application Location 7-1
7.2 LT2 User Responsibilities 7-1
7.3 Passwords 7-1
7.4 Record Keeping 7-1
Table of Appendices
Appendix A. LT2 Data Collection System XML DTD A-1
Appendix B. Requirements Checklist for Cryptosporidium Sample Results Entered into the LT2 Data
Collection System B-1
Appendix C. Requirements Checklist for Most Probable Number E. coli Sample Results Entered into the
LT2 Data Collection System C-1
Appendix D. Requirements Checklist for Membrane Filtration E. coli Sample Results Entered into the
LT2 Data Collection System D-1
1-6
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. LT2 DCTS Data Entry/Upload, Review, and Approval Process 1-2
Figure 1-2. Overview of the LT2 DCTS User Roles 1-5
Figure 2-1. CDX Select Application Screen 2-2
Figure 2-2. Systems Screen 2-2
Figure 2-3. New User Registration Screen 2-4
Figure 2.4. User Profile 2-5
Figure 2-5. New User Registration Organization Identification Screen 2-5
Figure 2-6. New User Registration Organization Identification Information Screen 2-6
Figure 2-7. Password Notification Screen 2-7
Figure 2-8. New User Registration Organization Identification Screen 2-8
Figure 2-9. E. coli Lab Registration Screen 2-9
Figure 2-10. Update Users Screen 2-10
Figure 2-11. Update Contracting Labs Screen 2-11
Figure 2-12. Update Contracting Labs Information Screen 2-12
Figure 2-13. User Profile Screen 2-13
Figure 2-14. User Profile Organization Identification Screen 2-14
Figure 2-15. Lab Toolbar 2-15
Figure 2-16. PWS Toolbar 2-15
Figure 2-17. EPA Toolbar 2-15
Figure 2-18. State Toolbar 2-15
Figure 2-19. Example Help Screen 2-16
Figure 3-1. LT2 Data Collection System Lab User Basic Work Flow 3-1
Figure 3-2. Select Organization Screen 3-2
Figure 3-3. Create New Sample Screen 3-3
Figure 3-4. Cryptosporidium Data Entry Screen 3-5
Figure 3-5. Cryptosporidium Resample Screen 3-9
Figure 3-6. Calculated Cryptosporidium Sample Results Ready for Submission Screen 3-11
Figure 3-7. E. coli 15-tube MPN Method Data Entry Screen 3-14
Figure 3-8. Calculated E. coli 15-tube MPN Method Sample Results Ready for Submission 3-18
Figure 3-9. E. coli ONPG-MUG, 51-well Method Data Entry Screen 3-23
Figure 3-10. Calculated E. coli ONPG-MUG, 51-well Method Sample Results Ready for Submission..3-27
Figure 3-11. E. coli ONPG-MUG, 97-well Method Data Entry Screen 3-31
Figure 3-12. Calculated E. coli ONPG-MUG, 97-well Method Sample Results Ready for Submission..3-35
Figure 3-13 E. coli Membrane Filtration Method Data Entry Screen 3-39
Figure 3-14. Calculated E. coli Membrane Filtration Method Sample Results Ready for Submission ...3-43
Figure 3-15. Laboratory Search Screen 3-48
Figure 3-16. View a PWS Sampling Schedule 3-50
Figure 3-17. Laboratory Contact List 3-50
Figure 3-18. Contact Form 3-51
Figure 4-1. LT2 DCTS PWS User Basic Work Flow 4-1
Figure 4-2. Select Organization Screen 4-2
Figure 4-3. PWS Search Screen 4-3
Figure 4-4. PWS Cryptosporidium Data Review Screen 4-6

1-7
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Figure 4-5. PWS E. coli 15-tubeMPN Method Data Review Screen 4-8
Figure 4-6. PWS E. coli ONPG-MUG, 51-well Method Data Review Screen 4-9
Figure 4-7. PWS E. coli ONPG-MUG, 97-well Method Data Review Screen 4-10
Figure 4-8. PWS E. coli Membrane Filtration Method Data Review Screen 4-11
Figure 4-9. PWS Facility Information 4-13
Figure 4-10. PWS Add/Edit Facility/Sample Collection Point Screen 4-14
Figure 4-11. PWS Sampling Date Maintenance Screen 4-16
Figure 4-12. PWS Print Sampling Schedule Screen 4-18
Figure 4-13. PWS Contact List 4-19
Figure 4-14. PWS Contact Form 4-20
Figure 4-15. Grandfathering Data and Sampling Plan 4-23
Figure 5-1. LT2 DCTS EPA User Basic Work Flow 5-2
Figure 5-2. LT2 DCTS State User Basic Work Flow 5-3
Figure 5-3. State or EPA Search 5-5
Figure 5-4. Cryptosporidium Sample Results .5-6
Figure 5-5. E. coli 15-tube MPN Method Sample Results 5-8
Figure 5-6. E. coli ONPG-MUG, 51-well Method Sample Results 5-10
Figure 5-7. E. coli ONPG-MUG, 97-well Method Sample Results 5-12
Figure 5-8. E. coli Membrane Filtration Method Sample Results 5-14
Figure 5-9. EPA or State Contact List Screen 5-16
Figure 5-10. PWS Details Contact Screen for EPA and State Users 5-17
Figure 5-11. Contact Details Screen for EPA and State User .....5-18
Figure 5-12. Grandfathering and Sampling Plan Tracking 5-19
Figure 5-13. Reports List for the EPA User 5-21
Figure 6-1. Create New Sample Screen 6-8
Figure 6-2. Lab Upload 6-9
Figure 6-3. Lab Upload - Successful Upload 6-9
Figure 6-4. Lab Upload - Failed Upload 6-10
1-8
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Section 1. Introduction
Welcome to the Users' Manual for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2 Rule)
Data Collection and Tracking System. This document is intended to provide guidance to laboratories,
public water systems (PWSs), and state and USEPA officials on the various functions of the LT2 Data
Collection and Tracking System (DCTS), which has been developed to support data reporting under the
LT2 Rule monitoring program.

The LT2 rule requires PWSs that use surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface
water to monitor their source water (influent water prior to treatment) for Cryptosporidium, Escherichia coli
(E. coli), and turb.idity. In support of the monitoring requirements specified by this rule, three documents
have been developed to provide guidance to the affected PWSs and the laboratories that support them:

Source Water Monitoring Guidance Manual for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule (LT2 Rule) [EPA-815-R-06-005]. This guidance manual for PWSs affected by the rule provides
information on laboratory contracting, sample collection procedures, and data evaluation and
interpretation.
Microbial Laboratory Manual for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2 Rule)
[EPA-815-R-06-006]. The goal of this manual is to provide Cryptosporidium and E. coli laboratories
analyzing samples in support of the LT2 rule with guidance and detailed procedures for all aspects of
microbial analyses under the rule to maximize data quality and consistency.
Users' Manual for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2 rule) Data Collection
and Tracking System [EPA-No.-TBD] (this document). This manual provides PWSs and laboratories with
instructions on the entry, review, and approval of electronic data using the LT2 DCTS, and provides
USEPA and states with instructions on viewing system-generated reports.

These manuals, as well as additional information and updates on the LT2 rule are available on the Web
at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/.

If you have additional questions not addressed by this manual, please email LT2 Technical Support, at
stage2mdbp@epa.gov, or contact the LT2/Stage 2 Data Collection and Tracking System user support at
1-888-LT2-0020 (1-888-582-0020).

1.1 Organization of Manual

This manual provides guidance on the following aspects of the LT2 DCTS:

• Section 1 - Provides an overview of the LT2 rule and manual organization. It also provides
background information on the LT2 DCTS, the use of the data in the LT2 DCTS, the analytical
method specifications in the LT2 rule, and the various user roles.
• Section 2 - Provides details on the LT2 DCTS requirements, process for connecting to the LT2
DCTS, the Administrative User's role, the login process, new user registration, how to request
help, and the logout procedure.
• Section 3 - Provides Lab User details.
• Section 4 - Provides PWS User details.
• Section 5 - Provides EPA and State User details.
• Section 6 - Describes the XML data submission process.
• Section 7 - Provides legal and security information.
1-1
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
1.2 About the LT2 Data Collection System

Under the LT2 rule, filtered PWSs that serve more than 10,000 people (i.e., large filtered systems), and
that use surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water as their drinking water
source, will be required to sample for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity.

The USEPA developed the LT2 DCTS to support the activities required under the LT2 Rule. PWSs collect
water samples to be analyzed for three specific measures of water quality: the presence of
Cryptosporidium, £. coli, and turbidity. The samples are analyzed (by either the PWS on-site laboratory or
an off-site laboratory) in compliance with the LT2 monitoring program. The data generated from the
analysis is entered into the LT2 DCTS either by manually entering the data in data collection forms or by
uploading the data in XML format. The DCTS acts as a repository for these data, and provides analytical
support by calculating sample results. PWSs use the LT2 DCTS to review sample data prior to
submission to USEPA and/or state officials. A summary of the data flow through the LT2 DCTS is
provided in Figure 1-1. Details on the different user roles are provided in Section 1.5, User Roles.
Sampling conducted by PWS; Ctyptosportdium sample
shipped to the laboratory; £ c.p// sample analyzed on-site
or shipped off-site for analysis
1
Laboratory analysis completed; analytical results posted
by the laboratory to the LT2 data collection system; data
are verified and checked for compliance by LT2 data
collection system; results are marked for release by
laboratory to PWS and/or state for review and approval
PWS review of data; PWS electronic approval of data and
submission to EPA for review
rf
K
TJ
O
4-1
W)
«fl
O>
O
V
rs
o>
o
c
o
TJ
a.
ill
J}
EPA (and State) review can be done at any time after
PWS approval; data cannot be modified
Results made available to the public through SDWIS
or other means
Figure 1-1. L T2 DCTS Data Entry/Upload, Review, and Approval Process
1-2
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
1.3 Data Use

The data collected for compliance with the LT2 rule will be used to determine whether improved treatment
for the control of microbial pathogens will be needed in the future for individual PWSs. The data will be
used for the following purposes:

Assessment of mean Cryptosporidium concentration for individual plants - to assess the need for
additional treatment by classifying each plant by treatment requirements. (This requires reliable
Cryptosporidium data from field samples.)
Evaluation of the relationship between Cryptosporidium occurrence, E. coli, and turbidity - Reassessment
of the microbial index to determine how E. coli and turbidity monitoring can be used to assess the need to
monitor for Cryptosporidium at small systems. (This requires reliable Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and
turbidity data from field samples.)
Evaluation of Cryptosporidium method performance in source waters - to verify the assumptions upon
which the Federal Advisory Committee Act Agreement in Principle was based. (This requires reliable
Cryptosporidium data from matrix spike samples.)

More detailed information on the uses of each of these types of data are provided in the Microbial
Laboratory Manual for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2 Rule) [EPA-815-
R-06-006] and the Source Water Monitoring Guidance Manual for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule (LT2 Rule) [EPA-815-R-06-005].
1.4 Analytical Methods
All analytical data entered into the LT2 DCTS must be generated using methods approved for use under
the LT2 rule and in accordance with defined quality assurance (QA) procedures. Details on approved
Cryptosporidium and E. coli methods and QA procedures are provided in the Microbial Laboratory Manual
for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2 Rule) [EPA-815-R-06-OQ6].

Public water systems measuring turbidity during sample collection under the LT2 rule must use turbidity
methods approved for use under the rule. Detailed information on turbidity measurements and methods is
provided in the Source Water Monitoring Guidance Manual for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (LT2 Rule) [EPA-815-R-06-005].

1.5 User Roles

Five different user roles will access the LT2 DCTS:

• Lab User: Enters and edits the data via web entry forms or XML file submission.
• Lab Approver User: Authorizes submission of sample results to the PWS by checking and
approving the associated data. The Lab Approver User may also enter and edit data via web
entry forms or XML file submission. For Cryptosporidium laboratories, the data approver is the
laboratory's Principal Analyst under the Lab QA Program.
• PWS User: Reviews sample results submitted by the Lab Approver User. The PWS User may
release the results to USEPA and the state in which the facility is located as approved or
contested results, or may return the sample to the lab for error correction.
• State User: Reviews the results that have been approved by the PWSs within its jurisdiction
(generally within their state). The State User only sees samples that have been approved or
contested by the PWS, as well as samples that have not been reviewed by the PWS within the
designated time frame. They do not see samples that have been flagged or returned to the lab.
• EPA User: Reviews the results that have been released by all PWSs. The EPA User only sees
samples that have been approved or contested by the PWS, as well as samples that have not

1-3
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
been reviewed by the PWS within the designated time frame. They do not see samples that have
been flagged or returned to the lab.

For each user role, there is also an "Administrative User." This is a user that belongs to one of the five
roles that is able to perform all the functions of that user role as well as being able to update users and
change their status within their organization (e.g. change a "Pending" user to a "Lab Approver User"). A
matrix of the LT2 DCTS user roles and actions is provided in Figure 1-2. The registration procedure for
each user role is discussed in Section 2 of this manual.
1-4
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Laboratory actions
PWS actions
Enter data

^1
Review
Manage
contacts,
search for
results, view
contacts,
access help
data
Request
lab changes
Jt_~
EPA and State actions
Figure 1-2. Overview of the L T2 DOTS User Roles
1-5
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Section 2. Getting Started
This section provides instructions for connecting to the LT2 DCTS, the Administrative User's role, the log
in process, new user registration information, accessing help, and logging out.
2.1 System Requirements
The LT2 DCTS was designed to be accessible from most personal computers (PCs) with an Internet
connection. Ensure that you have the following before using the LT2 DCTS:

• PC with 486 MHz processor or better; Pentium is recommended;
• One of the following Microsoft Platforms: Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP or NT;
• Web Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE), version 5.5 or above, or Netscape Navigator,
version 4.0 or above, with 128-bit encryption; and.
• Internet access; high-speed connection is recommended.

Note: If you have Internet Explorer 6.0 or above, verify that your browser has the following settings
selected. Click on TOOLS and select "Internet Options." Click on the "SECURITY" tab. Click on the "CUSTOM
LEVEL..." button. Scroll down to "Microsoft VM," and change the Java Permissions by selecting the "Low
Safety" radio button. Scroll down to "Miscellaneous," and change the "Access Data Across Domains" to
enable. Repeat with "Allow Meta Refresh" and "Display mixed content."

No additional hardware, software, or tools should be needed.

2.2 Connecting to the LT2 Data Collection System

The official contact for the PWSs and Cryptosporidium laboratories will receive CDX Customer Retrieval
Keys (CRK) to access the LT2 DCTS for the first time. All other users that need access to the system
should follow the instructions for new user registration provided in Section 2.2.1 .To access as a pre-
registered user, perform the following steps:

• Open your Web browser connected to the Internet.
• Open the CDX CRK login page (provided in your welcome email/letter).
• Enter your CRK.
• Setup a user name and password and update prepopulated user information.
• Select the LT2: LT2/Stage 2, and IDSE Plan/Report Entry (shown in Figure 2-1)
• CDX will now redirect you to the LT2/Stage 2 Data Collection and Tracking System, which will
open in a new window, once there the Select Application screen is displayed as shown in Figure
2-2.
• Click on the "LT2 DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM" link to access the LT2 Data Collection System.
2-1
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Last updated or. December 1
-------
USER A L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
d. Organization (including name, address, city, state, zip code, and country)
e. Phone Number
f. E-mail Address
g. Secret question and answer
Select the LT2: LT2/Stage 2, and IDSE Plan/Report Entry from the list of available
applications
EPA will review your registration information and confirm that you are eligible for access to
the LT2/Stage 2 Tracking System
Once your eligibility to access the system is confirmed you will receive an email
granting you access to the system
2-3
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Recent Announcements I Con*

DX Home > Registration
CPX Reuisliatiott: User information

Use the TAB key to move from field to field. * » REQUIRED FIELD
First Name: I Mr

Last Name
Please choose a user name and password-the password must be at least 8 characters
long and contain at least one number Both passwords and user names are restricted to
alpha-numeric characters and may not begin with a number or contain spaces or symbols.
e.g. $ # ." or @. Your user name should not be a part of your password. If you enter a user
name which is in use, you will be asked to select a new user name.
(More than 7 characters, Dont use $ #." or
Password:

Re-enter Password
(More than 7 characters w/1 number: Donl use $ #." or
The Help Desk will use the Secret Question and Answer to authenticate you if you forget youi
password. Please enter a secret question which has relevance to you and has an answer
which is not easily guessed by others.
Secret Question:

Secret Answer.
Figure 2-3. New User Registration Screen
2-4
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
2.2.1.1 Requesting Access to Organizations in LT2

Once you have received notice that you were approved in CDX. You may follow the directions in 2.2
above for continuing into LT2. Once you select LT2, you must first go to the User Profile to confirm your
contact information. After confirming your contact information click "Save and Continue," (Figure 2.4) you
will be prompted to enter the organization ID(s) for the organization(s) you represent. To request access
to an organization, enter the organization ID and click "LOOKUP ORGANIZATION" Figure 2-5 provides an
example of the "New User Registration Organization Identification" screen. If a valid organization ID was
entered, the page will refresh and display the corresponding organization name. Verify this information
and click "REQUEST ACCESS" to add the selected organization to the list of organizations you represent.
User Profile
* = Required Field

The following information is provided by CDX If you feel any of the information is incorrect, please access CDX to update/verify.

™^______._ .„___ _. ___ __
Sam
[Smith
| (703) 818-0000
Isam smith@anytownlab.corn
Figure 2.4. User Profile
LT2 New User Registration
Please enter your Organization ID and click "Lookup Organization " The "Lookup Organization" link will be replaced with a "Request
Access" link and an "Undo" link. If your correct organization is displayed, click "Request Access." If you have incorrectly entered the
organization ID, click "Undo" and repeat the process. If you are an E. coii laboratory and your lab is missing from the list of organizations
please click "E. co/i Lab Registration."
Organization Code
£• C.S.W.L a hJR .eg istiati
Edit User information
nizaticn
Save ami Continue >
Figure 2-5. New User Registration Organization Identification Screen

You may repeat the previous process until all of the organizations you represent have been entered. The
LT2 DCTS will confirm registration in the top section of the form. After you have requested access to the
necessary organization(s), click "SAVE AND CONTINUE" at the bottom of the screen. If you would like to
remove any organizations from this list, click the corresponding "DELETE" button next to each organization.
2-5
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
A new screen will open, detailing the information you provided to the LT2 DCTS. If any information is
incorrect, you may return to the previous screens by clicking the appropriate link at the bottom of the
summary screen, as seen in Figure 2-6.
LT2 New User %gistratiQn :>: • > ' . • i ;v'\ • •••• " ...• ,.•. . ;;;*v ;
The
You
LT2 system recognizes you as the Administrative User for the following organizations:
Organization Type
Laboratory
Organization Name Organization Code
Anytown MPN Lab VA9876543
have requested to access LT2 for the following organizations:
Organization Type
Oiqanization Name Organization Code
Laboratory
Anytown Lab
VA1234567
Delete
Please enter your Organization ID and click "Lookup Organization." The "Lookup Organization" link will be replaced with a "Request
Access" link and an "Undo" link. If your correct organization is displayed, click "Request Access." If you have incorrectly entered the
organization ID, click "Undo" and repeat the process. If you are an £ coti laboratory and your lab is missing from the list of organizations
please click "E cov Lab Registration "
1. 00tt
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
.Secret Question/Secret Answer
Secret Question: test

Secret Answer: ;
SUBMIT
CLEAR
Figure 2-7. Password Notification Screen
2.3 Administrative User Functions

Each lab or PWS that is registered with the LT2 DCTS has an Administrative User. The Administrative
User is key to the initial registration of the entire lab or PWS. If the Administrative User does not complete
the following tasks (described in Sections 2.3.1 - 2.3,4), no other user will be able to effectively access or
use the LT2 DCTS.

2.3.1 User Registration

If you are the Administrative User for an organization, login to CDX and continue to LT2. Click on the
"USER PROFILE" link, and verify your pre-populated contact information. To update your contact
information, go to your MyCDX page. You must be registered before others from your organization can
use the LT2 DCTS.

2.3.2 New Cryptosporidium Laboratory

Cryptosporidium laboratories will be pre-registered to the DCTS. However, if your laboratory is not listed
in the DCTS, please contact USEPA with your laboratory information.

2.3.3 New E. co// Laboratory

After you have logged in to the LT2 DCTS, you can view your personal contact information and list of
organizations you represent by clicking on the "USER PROFILE" link on the navigational toolbar at the left of
the screen. You will be able verify your contact information. To update your contact information, go to
your MyCDX page.

As the Administrative User for an E. coli laboratory, you may register the laboratory by clicking on the "E.
co// LAB REGISTRATION" link on the bottom of the "Organization Identification" screen, as seen in Figure 2-
2-7
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
8. The LT2 "Organization Information" screen allows £. coli laboratories that have not previously
registered with the LT2 DCTS to electronically request access to the LT2 DCTS.
Please enter your Organization 10 and click "Lookup Organization." The "Lookup Organization" link wil! be replaced with a "Request
Access" link and an "Undo" link. If your correct organization is displayed, click "Request Access." If you have incorrectly entered the
organization ID, click "Undo" and repeat the process. If you are an £. coli laboratory and your lab is missing from the list of organizations,
please click "E. coli Lab Registration."

You will be required to enter in your Lab ID, Lab Name, and Lab Type, mailing address, city, state, zip
code, and phone number. This information should be reviewed and updated (if necessary) to reflect the
laboratory's contact information. Figure 2-9 provides an example of the "E. coli Lab Registration" screen.

After you have entered the required information, click "SAVE AND CONTINUE" at the bottom of the screen
and a summary of the information submitted to the LT2 DCTS will be provided. If any of this information is
incorrect you may return to the previous screens by clicking the "EDIT INFORMATION" link at the bottom of
the summary screen. Click "CONTINUE WITH REGISTRATION" to return to the organization identification
screen and continue with your personal registration. To receive more details regarding the information
required for certification, click the "CERTIFICATION INFORMATION" link towards the bottom of the screen.

Note: If you are already registered with the LT2 DCTS, you can access the E. coli New Lab Registration
module within the User Profile pages.
2-8
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
LT2 E co/; Lab Registration
* = Required Field

Please enter the following information to register your lab with the LT2 Data Collection System.
"Lab ID
'Li?» ftfewji?
"Lah Type
"Miisiiiu] AfM'ess
"Cfty
'S?.Ki-
'Zip Coife
'f'lu'iiif Ntinihifi
f-,ix Minnie!
'E'ltKiii /u/i/rt'«
[VA9876543
(Anytown MPN Lab
1? E coA'15-TubeMPN
l~ £. col< Membrane Filtration
r £. cotfONPG-MUG,51-well
F £. coffONPG-MUG,97-well
J15 Main Street

JAnytown
(VA 2
J20151
|(703)818-DOOO Ext.|

S3m.smith@anytownlab.com
Please send the i'-ititic.itioii iiif,»iiiiaji,.ji to LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR by fax: (937) 586-6557, or by mail: to LT2E3WTR and
Stage 2 OBPR ATTN: E coii LT2 Data Collection and Tracking System Laboratory Registration. P.O. Box 98. Dayton, OH 45401. Met
certification is verified, the system administrator is notified to activate your laboratory in the system
(kef piofile
Save .iiiil <:. oiitmiie
Figure 2-9. E. coli Lab Registration Screen

2.3.4 Update Users - PWS and Lab Users

In the Update Users function, the Administrative User has the ability to assign roles and administrative
rights to those who have requested access to the LT2 DCTS for your organization. This function is
accessed from the side navigational toolbar, under the "UPDATE USERS" link. This link appears only to the
Administrative User for an organization. Figure 2-10 provides an example of the "Update Users" screen.
2-9
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
'•Update Users
Laboratory - Aciytown Lab - VA1234567

You are listed Administrator for this organization, Talia Blanche! Your user role is Lab Appiover User.

The following people have requested permission to access LT2 for your organization. Please select the appropriate role (where
necessary) and designate a second administrative user. Click "Delete" if you wish to remove the user.
First Name
Sam
Last Name
Smith
Role
Lab Approver l^ei v
Administrate!

Delete
Submit Changes •*j
Figure 2-10. Update Users Screen

A list of users who have requested access to the LT2 DCTS for your organization will display. Designate
a role for each user by selecting the appropriate role from the drop-down menu to the right of the user's
name. Appoint a secondary Administrative User for each organization by clicking the radio button
corresponding to the desired user. If the user should not receive access to the LT2 DCTS for your
organization, remove their name from the list by clicking "DELETE." When you are finished making the
appropriate modifications, click "SUBMIT CHANGES" to commit all changes to the database.

2.3.5 Update Contracting Labs

This link appears only to the Administrative User for a PWS. The Update Contracting Labs module
provides you, as the PWS Administrative User, a means for selecting the contracting laboratories for your
organization. This function is accessed from the left-hand side navigational toolbar, under the "UPDATE
CONTRACT LABS" link. It is essential to access this module and set up a laboratory before the laboratory
can submit data for your PWS. Figure 2-11 provides an example of the "Update Contracting Labs"
screen.
2-10
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Update Contracting Labs for VA1 PWS - VA1
The following lab(s) have already been selected as contractors with your organization.
VATestLab2-VA0920051
Please select the contracting labs for your PWS. Select the type of lab you are looking for (either Cryptosporidium or E. col?) and then
select the state where the lab is located. You can use the navigation buttons to jump to a different section, or click a letter to bring you to
the first listing associated with that letter.

*ln orderfor your lab to enter your data for LT2, they must be registered in the system If the lab does not appear in this list, please ask
them to contact the LT2 Help Desk to be enrolled in the system
What type of lab aie you searching for?

Foi what state?
Cryptosporidiurn O E. coli
i&BCDEFaHlJK-LMNO£QBSIU _ ^ ± 1
Add
D
Lab Name - ID
Anvtown Lab - VA1234567
VA Post Beta Test Lab - VA011079
[...I! V!.rgiD.!.a...l£.stlD.Q...Lail.z.VA1234.5
All UJ? A 6 C D E F G H ! J K L M N Q P Q R S I U V W X VI
Figure 2-11. Update Contracting Labs Screen

In order to select a laboratory as a contractor for your PWS, you must search by laboratory type and
state. Select whether you would like to search for Cryptosporidium or E. coli laboratories by clicking the
radio button that appears to the left of the desired laboratory type. Next, select the state for which you
would like to search using the drop-down menu. The page will refresh with a listing of laboratories that
meet the selected criteria. Browse through the listing of laboratories by using the navigational links that
appear at the top and bottom of the search results table. Use > to continue to the next 30 laboratories, <
to return to the previous 30 laboratories, >| to skip to the last 30 laboratories, and |< to return to the first
30 laboratories. The alphabetical links can also be used to bring you to the first laboratory that is
associated with that letter.

To select one or more laboratories as your contracting laboratory, click the check box that appears to the
left of the laboratory name(s) and click the "SUBMIT SELECTED LABS" link to complete the process. The
newly selected laboratory name(s) will appear at the top of the screen with the rest of the contracting
laboratories for your PWS. You can remove a laboratory from this list by clicking the trash can icon that
appears to the left of the laboratory name.

Note: You may select multiple laboratories in multiple states.

If you would like to view more information regarding a laboratory before selecting it as a contracting
laboratory, click on the Lab Name. The pertinent contact information for the laboratory will display on a
new page. Figure 2-12 provides an example of the "Update Contracting Labs" information screen. If you
have selected the correct laboratory and wish to add it to your list of contracting laboratories, click the
2-11
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
"SELECT AS CONTRACTING LAB" link. If you would like to return to the list of potential laboratories without
selecting this laboratory as a contracting laboratory, click the "RETURN TO LIST" link.
• Update Contracting Labs for VA1 PWS - VA1
Please review the following information and determine if this lab should be added to your organization's list of contracting labs. Click
"Select As Contracting Lab" if you would like to add this lab to your contracting lab list, or click "Return to List" to return to view the listing
of potential contracting labs.
Lab ID
Lab Kiime
Lab Type
VA1 234567
Anytown Lab
Cryptosporidium; E. coli: Membrane Filtration

Piimaiy User Name
Mailing Address
City
Slate
Zip Code
Phone Numbei
Fax Number
E-rnnil
Talia Blanche!
15 Main Street
Anytown
Virginia
20151
(703)818-0000

kbianchet@fedcsc.com
Select _A*__OM!MjL*.!i!!
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Utsr Profile
* = Required Field

The following information is provided by CDX If you feel any of the information is incorrect, please access CDXto update/verify.
UsetNiitne :
first Natim
'Last Name
'State
'PitQtw Niinttwt
'Email A«/ifr«$s
LT2TEST3
Sam
Smith
|VAj
1(703)818-0000
jsam.smlth@anytownlab.com
Figure 2-13. User Profile Screen

After you have reviewed the information, click the "SAVE AND CONTINUE" link to proceed to the next section
and edit your organization information. The LT2 DCTS will confirm registration to previously selected
organizations listed at the top of the screen. If you would like to remove any organizations from this list,
click the corresponding "DELETE" button.

To request access to a new organization, enter the organization ID and click the "LOOKUP ORGANIZATION"
link. If a valid organization ID was entered, the page will refresh displaying the corresponding organization
name. Verify this information and click the "REQUEST ACCESS" link to add the selected organization to the
list of organizations you represent. If you have incorrectly entered the organization ID, click "UNDO" to
repeat the process. You may repeat the process until all of the organizations you represent have been
entered. Figure 2-14 provides an example of the "User Profile Organization Identification" screen.
2-13
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
The
You
Pie
Ace
orq;
plea
LT2 system recognizes you as the Administrative User for the following organizations:
Organization Type
Laboratory
Organization Mams Organize
Anytown MPN Lab VA9876543
tion Code

have requested to access LT2 for the following organizations:
Organization Type
Laboratory A
Organization Maine Oiganuation Code
lytown Lab VA1 234567

Delete
ise enter your Organization ID and click "Lookup Organization." The "Lookup Organization" link will be replaced with a "Request
ess" link and an "Undo" link If your correct organization is displayed, click "Request Access." If you have incorrectly entered the
nization ID, click "Undo" and repeat the process. If you are an E. coli laboratory and your lab is missing from the list of organizations,
se click "£". cot: Lab Registration."
Organization Code
Lookup OHianization
f-. toli 1 ah k^isii allot)

Eilit Usei Infoiination Save tinil icurtimi"

Figure 2-14. User Profile Organization Identification Screen

After you have requested access to the necessary organization(s), click the "SAVE AND CONTINUE" link at
the bottom of the screen a summary of the information you submitted to the LT2 DCTS will be provided. If
any information is incorrect, you may return to the previous screens by clicking the appropriate link at the
bottom of the summary screen.
2.5 Navigation Toolbar
Upon successful login, a navigation toolbar will appear on the left-hand side of each page of the LT2
DCTS and will allow you to quickly select the tool you wish to access. The navigation toolbar that appears
is dependent on the user role. Lab Users will see the "Lab Tools" toolbar; PWS Users will see the "PWS
Tools" toolbar, et cetera. If a user has requested access to the LT2 DCTS, but has not yet been granted
permission, they will see a "Tools" toolbar where they will only have access to their User Profile.

Examples of each navigation toolbar are provided in Figures 2-15 through 2-18. A detailed explanation of
each toolbar item is provided in Sections 3, 4, and 5 which specifically address the Laboratory, PWS, and
EPA/State roles respectively.
2-14
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
PWS TOOLS
1 View
"'"Samples
Information
Contacts
m OF & Bin
Trackina
||Active
Oraanization
User Profile
:U0date
Contract
Uodate
Users
1 Help
Submit
Comments
Figure 2-15. Lab
Toolbar
Figure 2-16. PWS
Toolbar
Figure 2-17. EPA
Toolbar
Figure 2-18. State
Toolbar
2.6 Help Screens
The Help module of the LT2 DCTS is designed to provide you with a set of instructions relevant to the
screen on which you are currently working. You will also have the ability to view other sections of the help
guide by selecting the "TABLE OF CONTENTS" link on the left-hand navigation toolbar of the "Help" screen.
The Help module will appear in a new window to enable you to view both the LT2 DCTS and the help text
simultaneously. An example of the "Help" screen is included in Figure 2-19.
2-15
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
LT2 Data Collection System
Below is a brief introduction to the LT2 Data Collection System Registration process Detailed information on each stage in the process
can be found on the help screen associated with each web page.

Administrative User Registration

Each organization will have a designated primary contact and lead user that will control the user rights for the particular organization.
These lead individuals will be designated as the administrative user for the organization and will be responsible for delegating user
responsibilities and roles in the LT2 Data Collection System Administrative Users will be pre-populated in the LT2 Data Collection
System and will receive a temporary user name and password in the mail The Administrative User must be registered before others can
use LT2 for their organization

1 To gain access to the LT2 Data Collection System enter in your temporary user name and password you received in the mail
2 Verify your pre-populated contact information, making changes as necessary. LT2 suggests changing the temporary password
and user name at this time Provide a means for authentication to the system by answering a secret question
3 You will then be directed to a screen to verify the organization to which you are associated. Since you are the Administrative User
for an organization, your organization will automatically be displayed at the top ofthe screen To request access to additional
organizations, enter in the organization ID(s) for the organizations you represent and a summary ofthe information you submitted
with be displayed at the top ofthe screen If any information is incorrect you may return to the previous screens by clicking the
appropriate link at the bottom ofthe summary screen

New User Registration

1 The LT2 Data Collection System allows individuals to electronically register with the system Each usei should register once, and
have only one user name and password If you have not registered with the system, you can do so by clicking the "REQUEST
ACCESS" link at the bottom ofthe login screen
2 Enter yout contact information, select a user name and password, and provide a means for authentication to the system by
answering a secret question.
3 Then enter the organization ID(sj for the oiganization(s) you represent You may request access to more than one organization.
Once you have requested access to the necessary orgamzation(s), a summary ofthe information you submitted to the system
will be provided All approved Ciyptospondiuni laboratories are registered with the LT2 Data Collection System. If your E. coli lab is
not registered with the LT2 Data Collection System, please see the instructions below for registering your laboratory If any
information is incorrect you may return to the previous screens by clicking the appropriate link at the bottom ofthe summary
screen
4 Once you have completed steps 1-3, the Administrative User for the organization you requested access to must approve you as a
valid user Once they have approved you as a valid usei your user name and password will grant you access to the LT2 Data
Collection System
Figure 2-19. Example Help Screen

You can receive general LT2 DCTS help tips, by selecting the "GENERAL HELP TIPS FOR ALL USERS" link on
the table of contents.

2.6.2 PWS User Help Screens

The following help screens are available to the PWS User:

• Select Organization
• Search
o Cryptosporidium Review
o E. co//' 15 MPN Review
o E. co// ONPG-MUG, 51-well Review
o E. co// ONPG-MUG, 97-well Review
o E. co// Membrane Filtration Review
• Facility Information
o Edit/Add New Facility/Sample Collection Point
• Official Contact List
• Contact List
• Edit/Create New Contact
• Sampling Schedule - Edit
• Sample Schedule - Print View
• GF and Bin Status Tracking
• PWS User Glossary
o Edit/Add New Facility/Sample Collection Point
2.6.3 EPA User Help Screens
The following help screens are available to the EPA User:
2-17
-------
USER A L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
• Select Organization
• Search
o Cryptosporidium Review
o E. co//15 MPN Review
o E. co// ONPG-MUG, 51-well Review
o E. co// ONPG-MUG, 97-well Review
o E. co// Membrane Filtration Review
• Official Contact List
• Contact List
• View Contact
• Sampling Schedule - Edit
• Sample Schedule - Print View
• GF and Bin Tracking
• Reports
o Sample Tracking
o Sample Tracking Detail
o Sample Backlog
o List of Users
o LT2 Data Collection and Tracking System Usage
o PWS Schedule Submission Compliance
o Sample History
o Binning Report
o Missed and Re-Sampled Events
o Grandfathered Data
o Monitoring Waived
o PWS Sample Location Plan Compliance
o Sample Pair Incomplete
o PWS Facility Compliance

2.6.4 State User Help Screens

The following help screens are available to the State User:

• Select Organization
• Search
o Cryptosporidium Review
o E. co//'15 MPN Review
o E. co// ONPG-MUG, 51-well Review
o E. co//ONPG-MUG, 97-well Review
o E. co//' Membrane Filtration Review
• Official Contact List
• Contact List
• View Contact
• GF and Bin Tracking
• Reports
o Sample Tracking
o Sample Backlog
o PWS Schedule Submission Compliance
o Binning Report
o Missed and Re-Sampled Events

2-18
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
o Grandfathered Data
o Monitoring Waived
o PWS Sample Location Plan Compliance
o Sample Pair Incomplete
o PWS Facility Imcomplete

2.6.5 Administrative Functions Help Screens

The following help screens are available on the administrative functions:

• Administrative Functions Overview
• All Users
o New User Registration
• Contact Information, User Name and Password, Secret Question and Answer
• Associate Organizations
• Confirmation
o User Profile
• Review Contact Information
• Update Associated Organizations
o Password Reset
• Confirmation
• Administrative User
o E. co/;' Lab Registration
• Contact Information
• Confirmation
o Assign User Roles
o Select Contracting Labs
o Lab-Specific Details
• System Administrator
o Approve E. co// Labs
• Lab Specific Details
• Confirmation
2.7 Logout
You will be logged out of the LT2 DCTS upon selecting the logout option from the navigation toolbar. The
LT2 DCTS will display a confirmation message: "You have successfully logged out." You must repeat the
login process to regain access to the LT2 DCTS. There is also an automatic time-out function built into
the database that logs you out after 30 minutes of system inactivity.
2-19
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Section 3. Lab User Role
This section provides instructions for a Lab User and Lab Approver User. The basic laboratory
capabilities are shown in Figure 3-1.
Cryptosporidun
Web Form Entry

*"
Cryptosporiaun
Calculations

Cryptosporidun
Confirmation

Enter Samples Via
Web Forms/Upload

Upload Sample
Search and View
Samples

Approve Samples
View/Delete
Contacts.

Add/Edit Contacts
View PWS Facility
Sample Dates
Select New
Organization
Edit User Information
Add/Edit Users
A
View Help Screens
Figure 3-1. L T2 Data Collection System Lab User Basic Work Flow

All laboratory functions described in this section are initiated by logging into the LT2 DCTS Home Page,
available on the Web at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/ and selecting the appropriate link from the
navigation toolbar on the left-hand side of the screen.
3.1 Select Organization
The "Select Organization" screen is intended for those users who are associated with more than one
organization. If you are only associated with one organization, you will not be directed to this screen after
log in. If you are registered for more than one organization, this screen will open automatically. You must
3-1
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
select the organization you wish to access. Figure 3-2 provides an example of the "Select Organization"
screen.
Select Organization
Your Current Organiiation is Anytown Lab - VA1234567
Select the organization for which you want to use LT2 with:

I Ar^tewn La6~4/A1234567™
i|VA1 PWS - VA1
VATestl_ab2-VA0920051 :
CONTINUE
Figure 3-2. Select Organization Screen

The LT2 DCTS will display a list of associated organizations and you will be required to select the
organization for which you would like to edit/view/enter data. At any given point, you can only
enter/view/review samples for one organization. To switch to another organization, click the "CHANGE
ACTIVE ORGANIZATION" link that appears in the side navigation toolbar. The "Select Organization" screen
will display, and you may choose to work within a different organization. The organization that you are
currently working under will display at the top of each screen.

The LT2 DCTS will, by default, link you to the first organization that appears on your list. You can change
this default by selecting a new organization from your list box. The page will refresh, and you will be
associated with the new organization. For example, by default you may be entered as Anytown Lab. If
however, you would like to review samples for VA1 PWS, select VA1 PWS by clicking on its name in your
list box. The page will refresh and VA1 PWS will appear as the active organization at the top of the
screen.

Click "CONTINUE" to complete the "Select Organization" procedure. After selecting your current
organization, you will be directed to the "Search for a Sample for Lab" screen, as seen in Figure 3-15.
The navigation toolbar will appear in the side toolbar with the links appropriate to the selected user role.

3.2 Creating a New Sample — THIS section win be updated when
the functionality becomes available in the next release of the LT2 DCTS.

The LT2 DCTS allows both laboratory data approvers and those who enter laboratory data to enter
Cryptosporidium and E. col! data via web entry forms and an XML upload process. If you are registered
only as an E. coli laboratory, the only sample option available to you will be E. coli method types, and you
will only be able to upload E. co//XML files. Alternatively, if you are registered as only a Cryptosporidium
laboratory, the only sample option that you can choose is Cryptosporidium, and you will only be able to
upload Cryptosporidium XML files. If you are registered as both a Cryptosporidium and E. coli laboratory,
all sample method types and uploads will be available to you.

To enter data, select the "CREATE NEW SAMPLE" link from the navigation toolbar on the left. Figure 3-3
displays the "Create New Sample" screen.
3-2
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Create New Sample for Anytown Lab - VA1234567
To import data from your laboratory's information system, dick "Upload Sample(s)." To enter data for a new
sample using web forms, select trie analyte (and method type, for E. co!i) and dick "Enter Samplefs)."
Crypiospondii/m
E. colil Select Method Type
ENTERSAMPLE(S) UPLOAD SAM.PLE(S)
Figure 3-3. Create New Sample Screen
To import Cryptosporidium or E. co//data already entered in your Laboratory Information Management
System (LIMS) or data tracking database, click the "UPLOAD SAMPLE(S)" link on the right side of the screen.
Details for using the upload process are discussed in Section 6.
To enter data manually into the LT2 DCTS via the web entry forms, you must first select the analyte for
which data will be entered. Cryptosporidium is the default analyte.
To enter data for E. coli samples, click on the radio button to the left of "E. coli." Then, select the
appropriate method type from the drop-down menu. The four E. coli method types include the following:
• 15-tubeMPN
• ONPG-MUG, 51-well
• ONPG-MUG, 97-well
• Membrane Filtration
Details on the specific methods associated with each of these method types are provided in the Microbial
Laboratory Manual for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2 Rule) [EPA-815-
R-06-006].
After the appropriate analyte information is selected, you must click the "ENTER SAMPLE(S)" link to the right
to be directed to the appropriate data entry form. The following sections discuss the data entry process
for each analyte and method:
• Cryptosporidium - Section 3.3
• E. coli 15-tube MPN - Section 3.4
• E. coli ONPG-MUG, 51-well - Section 3.5
• E. coli ONPG-MUG, 97-well - Section 3.6
• E. coli Membrane Filtration - Section 3.7

3.3 Cryptosporidium Samples This section will be updated when
the functionality becomes available in the next release of the LT2 DCTS.
The following section details data entry and data review for Cryptosporidium samples.
3-3
-------
USER A L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
3.3.1 CryptOSpOridium Data Entry This section will be updated when
the functionality becomes available in the next release of the LT2 DCTS.

Approved Cryptosporidium laboratories can use the LT2 DCTS to enter Cryptosporidium sample data for
new monitoring (and not grandfathered data). Cryptosporidium analyses conducted in support of the LT2
rule must be performed using the 2005 version of Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in Water by
Filtration/IMS/FA (EPA-821-R-01-026) or the 2005 version of Method 1623: Cryptosporidium and Giardia
in Water by Filtration/IMS/FA (EPA-821-R-01-025). The full versions of these methods are available for
download in Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) format from the following sites:

• http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/1622de05.pdf
• http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/1623de05.pdf
• http://www.epa.gov/microbes/

Guidance on the use of these methods during the LT2 rule are provided in the Microbial Laboratory
Manual for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2 Rule) [EPA-815-R-06-006].

Figure 3-4 displays an example of a "Cryptosporidium Data Entry" screen. Users may enter data for up to
four Cryptosporidium samples using this screen.
3-4
-------
USEPA
L T2 DCTS Users' Manual
Cryprosportd/um - Anytown Lab -VA1234567
j Do not enter data for samples that did not meet QC requirements. You are acknowledging the following by entering Cryptosporidium
I sample data into the LJ2 Data CoOect/on System, aii holding times for the sample were met, the sample was received by the laboratory
I tn acceptable condition: and results for the associated method blank, OPR, and positive and negative staining controls were acceptable
| Enter data for up to four different samples. Click the field name for more information

I FIELDS COMMON TO ALL SAMPLES
I Sample Status
\RssmmM
! Sample ID (optional)

IPWSJD
JEWS Mama
PWS Facility ID
IPtWS.F3dlitt.Name
Sample Collection Paw?
IB
\ Sample Collection famt
ItjatiK '
i Sainjilf Collection Dale

i Sajmjiit iHmiEkMjii
HSj
.^RII'S^ Volume FHteisd
;jlj
;yte...!.fift.':.- n.f..Fihe.rj.!l
I V^fsime examined?
iNsmibes of Oojj^sts •
! fetal of AM Wieies*
New Sample New Sample
;No v

- Please Select- v
|
- Please Select- :v

- Please select v
:
*
"":"1
Field v: ]

Yes v i
1
! DATA TO CALCULATE OOCYST CONCENTRATION (NEEDED ONLY FOR SAMPLES IN WHICH < 100% OF FILTERED VOLUME
! WAS EXAMINED) i
\* hint _< i > up ii i
"si'~ -Li! *'L j<^ l
11 t i )
V s»>m M S <-sy p it fa 3
t_jlU-litl tt< IlJlCi£tt«J
«« IHiilliU

i DATA TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH SAMPLE VOLUME ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS (NEEDED ONLY FOR SAMPLES IN
WHICH VOLUME FILTERS
HUH**..* Fill.* UMJ
iffiLLfifiiiisialtd
DATA FOR MATRIX SPIKl
s^eiofttataaid
Ntsiiil***? oi.Q.fM^s??-
Sj)(£ e- *
<-•»!• Q'l'imfiJUs
PWS < «nin»nt*
l IHf'GJlODtLEIE
-.aWPLl
D IS < 10 L OR LESS mt

SAMPLES

Add

IN 100% OF THE FILTERE
"

1
Click save to continue
Clfc
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Each of the four columns on the screen represents an individual sample. Definitions for each data field
can be viewed by clicking on the field name in the left column of the screen. Starting at the top of each
column, enter the value for each field, moving down the column in order. The following is a detailed
description of each field.

Sample Status - The sample status indicates the status of the sample in the sample review process. The
default setting is "New Sample" for sample data entry. Valid values include:

• New Sample - applies to samples that are being entered for the first time.
• Pending Release - indicates that a sample has been entered or uploaded, and is ready for laboratory
review and approval, and release to the PWS. These samples can still be edited by the laboratory to
correct any errors before the information is submitted to the PWS.
• Returned by PWS - samples have been returned to your laboratory by the utility for issue resolution.
• Delivered to PWS - indicates that a sample has been released to the PWS for review. These
samples cannot be edited.
• PWS Reviewed - samples have been reviewed by the PWS and submitted to USEPA and state.

Resample - The Resample field indicates whether or not the sample is a resample.

Sample ID (optional) - The Sample ID field may be entered for any or all samples if your laboratory
wishes to use this information to easily track samples in the LT2 DCTS.

The following fields are entered in the top section of the screen labelled "Fields Common To All Samples."
The majority of these fields must be completed with information that is required for each analysis. Three
of the fields are auto-populated and should be verified and corrected if needed.

PWS ID - The PWS ID is the public water system ID, which is usually comprised of a two-letter state code
followed by a seven-digit number. The PWS ID for the sample is provided by the PWS on the ILT2 Sample
Collection Form you received with the sample. If a PWS ID was not supplied with the sample, contact the
PWS to obtain the correct value.

The PWS IDs of all PWSs that have selected your laboratory as their Cryptosporidium laboratory will
display in the drop-down menu that appears when you click the arrow next to the field. If the PWS ID for
the sample you need to enter does not appear, your laboratory has not been selected by the PWS as
their Cryptosporidium laboratory. You need to contact the PWS to request that they select your laboratory
in the LT2 DCTS before their PWS ID will appear in the drop-down menu.

PWS Name - The PWS Name is the name of the public water system associated with the PWS ID
selected. This field is auto-populated by the LT2 DCTS, based on the PWS ID entered. Compare the
name in this field to the PWS name supplied by the PWS on the LT2 Sample Collection Form and verify
that the PWS ID you entered is correct for this sample.

PWS Facility ID - The PWS Facility ID identifies the plant within the PWS from which the sample was
collected. The PWS Facility ID for the sample is provided by the PWS on the LT2 Sample Collection Form
you received with the sample. If a PWS Facility ID was not supplied with the sample, contact the PWS to
obtain the correct value. Only IDs for the facilities associated with the PWS you selected will display in the
drop-down menu.

PWS Facility Name - The PWS Facility Name is the name of the facility associated with the PWS Facility
ID selected. This field is auto-populated by the LT2 DCTS, based on the PWS Facility ID entered.
Compare the name in this field to the PWS Facility Name supplied by the PWS on the LT2 Sample
Collection Form and verify that the PWS ID you entered is correct for this sample.

3-6
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Sample Collection Point ID - The Sample Collection Point ID indicates the sampling point at the facility
from which the sample was collected. The Sample Collection Point ID is provided by the PWS on the LT2
Sample Collection Form you received with the sample. If a PWS Sample Collection Point ID was not
supplied with the sample, contact the PWS to obtain the correct value. Only ID'S for the sampling points
associated with the selected facility will display in the drop-down menu.

Sample Collection Date - This is the date the sample was collected by the facility. The Sample
Collection Date is provided by the PWS on the LT2 Sample Collection Form you received with the
sample. If a sample collection date was not supplied with the sample, contact the PWS to obtain the
correct date. Use the mm/dd/yy format to enter the date. Sample collection dates that are earlier than
01/01/99 or later than the current date will not be accepted by the LT2 Data Collection System.

Sample Type (Field or MS) - Use the drop-down menu for this field to select whether the sample is a
field sample (a routine, unspiked source water sample) or a matrix spike (MS) sample (a source water
sample spiked with a known number of Cryptosporidium oocysts to determine method recovery). If MS is
selected, data must be entered in the supplemental fields provided to calculate the Analytical Accuracy.

Sample Volume Filtered (L) - Enter the Sample Volume Filtered, in L, in this field. If the sample was
filtered in the field, use the sample volume filtered reported by the PWS on the LT2 Sample Collection
Form. The sample volume filtered value must be greater than 0 and may be reported to the nearest
hundredth (for example, 10.41). However, the value should not be more precise than the measurement
method (for example, if a flow totalizer that provides measurements to the nearest tenth is used, the value
should be reported to the nearest tenth (10.4), NOT the nearest hundredth (10.40).

Was 100% of Filtered Volume examined? - Use the drop-down menu for this field to select "Yes" or
"No." "Yes" is selected when all of the filtered volume was processed through the entire method and
examined. "No" is selected when not all of the volume filtered is examined (for example, if the filtered
volume yields > 2.0 ml of packed pellet volume, and only 2 ml is examined). If "No" is selected, data
must be entered into supplemental fields provided to calculate oocyst concentration and verify that LT2
rule sample volume analysis requirements were met for the sample.

Number of Oocysts / Total of All Slides - Enter the total number of oocysts identified on all slides from
the sample. Cryptosporidium oocysts to be reported using EPA Method 1622/1623 are defined as the
following: Those determined by brilliant apple green fluorescence under UV light, size (4 to 6 m in
diameter), and shape (round to oval), excluding atypical organisms specifically identified as other
microbial organisms by FITC & DIG (for example, those possessing spikes, stalks, appendages, pores,
one or two large nuclei filling the cell, red fluorescing chloroplasts, crystals, spores, etc.).

Additional fields are required by the LT2 DCTS to calculate oocyst concentrations for samples in which
less than 100% of the sample volume filtered was examined:

Volume of Resuspended Concentrate (ml_) Generated - Enter the volume, in ml, of the resuspended
concentrate for the sample that you measured in Section 13.2.4 in the 2005 version of EPA Method
1622/1623. This volume should have been entered on line 25(a) of the Method 1622/23 Bench Sheet.
The value entered for this field must be a whole number.

Volume of Resuspended Concentrate Transferred to IMS (mL) - Enter the volume, in mL, of the
resuspended concentrate that was actually transferred to IMS for processing through the remainder of the
3-7
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Method. This volume is the total of the volumes of the multiple, individual resuspended concentrates
transferred to flat-sided sample tubes for IMS processing in Section 13.2.4.2 of the 2005 version of EPA
Method 1622/1623. This volume should have been entered on line 25(b) of the Method 1622/23 Bench
Sheet. The value entered for this field must be a whole number, which is less than or equal to the Volume
of Resuspended Concentrate (ml) Generated entered for this sample.

Additional fields required by the LT2 DCTS to verify compliance with sample volume analysis
requirements if the sample volume filtered was less than 10 L or less than 100% of the filtered volume
was examined:

Number of Filters Used - Enter the number of filters used. The value entered must be a whole number
greater or equal to 0 if direct centrifugation (no filter) was used.

Packed Pellet Volume (mL) Generated - Enter the total packed pellet volume, in ml, that was
generated for the sample after centrifugation and measured in Section 13.2.1 of the 2005 version of
Method 1622/1623. The value entered for this field may be reported to the nearest tenth of a mL (for
example, 2.6 mL).

Using the information entered into the data fields on this screen, the LT2 DCTS can determine whether
the requirements for sample volume have been met. Under the LT2 rule, PWSs are required to analyze,
at a minimum, either 10 L of sample, OR 2 mL of packed pellet volume, OR as much volume as two filters
can accommodate before clogging. The two-filter condition applies only to filters that have been approved
by USEPA for nationwide use with Methods 1622/1623: the Pall Gelman Envirochek™ and Envirochek™
HV filters, and the IDEXX FiltaMax™ foam filter.

Additional fields required by the LT2 DCTS if the sample is a matrix spike to calculate MS recoveries
include:

Sample Volume Spiked (L) - Enter into this field the sample volume spiked, in L. The value may be
reported to the nearest hundredth (for example, 10.41). However, the value should not be more precise
than the measurement method. For instance, if a graduated carboy is used to measure the volume to be
.spiked before filtration, and you cannot determine measurements with more precision than the nearest
tenth, the value should be reported to the nearest tenth (10.4), NOT the nearest hundredth (10.40). If you
use a graduated carboy calibrated to the nearest quarter liter, you should report to the nearest quarter
liter (for example, 10, 10.25, 10.5, or 10.75 L). The volume entered for this field must not be less than the
value entered for Sample Volume Filtered.

Number of Oocysts Spiked - Enter into this field the estimated number of oocysts spiked in the matrix
spike sample, based on the information provided with your flow cytometer-sorted oocysts.

If you have made errors in data entry for one or more samples and have not yet clicked "SAVE," you may
erase all of the data entered on the screen by clicking "RESET ENTIRE FORM."

If data are not entered into all of the required fields are not entered, an error message will display at the
top of the screen when you select "SAVE". You will not be permitted to continue until all necessary values
are supplied.

After primary measurements (such as Sample Volume Filtered and Number of Oocysts / Total of Slides
Identified) are entered on this screen, and you have clicked "SAVE" to continue, the LT2 DCTS will
automatically calculate the oocyst concentration in the sample.

Note: If any information is entered onto the bottom portion of the data entry screen that is not required for
a particular sample, this information will not be saved.

3-8
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Lab Comments (optional) - As a Lab User, you can click "ADD" to incorporate comments concerning the
sample into the information sent to the PWS. After entering comments into the comments box, click
"SAVE" to save the comment. By clicking "CANCEL" in the comment box, the comment box will close and
any information entered will not be recorded to the sample.

PWS Comments (if available) - As a Lab User, you can view comments in this field concerning the
sample that the PWS has sent back to the laboratory.

If the sample is a resample, additional data must be provided for the following fields:

Original Sample Collection Date - The date the original sample was collected.

Resample Explanation - The reason for why this resample is required.

3.3.1.1 Cryptosporidium Resample Data This section will be updated
when the functionality becomes available in the next release of the LT2
DCTS.

If the resample field is marked as "Yes" for any of the four samples, you will be required to enter the
original sample collection date, as well as comments on why the resample is being collected. Click
"SAVE" to continue and "CANCEL" to return to the previous page. Figure 3-5 displays the
"Cryptosporidium Resample" screen.

;The following item(s) were marked as a resample and if editable, require additional collection information.
»•-..; LJSyiMS
..-HI I II'
• >, jr.
i +"- NJI,..;
rw- jKihtsLiD
I / ', ni.-Hit^JNajjie
...ainfik! collection Point ID
! Sample Collection Point Name
1 Saimgle Collection Kate
Otiqinal Sample Collection Date

Resample EKplanatiiMts
New Sample ]
Octl
VA1
VA1 PWS
VA01 1 |
VA01 1 fac
SP2
SP2
10/04/2005 ~~|
ft
Add

Figure 3-5. Cryptosporidium Resample Screen
3-9
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
3.3.2 Calculations Associated with Cryptosporidium Data

Processing This section will be updated when the functionality
becomes available in the next release of the LT2 DCTS.

The LT2 DCTS will help users perform the required method calculations by using the data entered by the
laboratories to automatically calculate the sample results. After the user has entered data into all of the
required fields for a Cryptosporidium sample, the LT2 DCTS will automatically calculate the sample
results and present the "Calculated Cryptosporidium Sample Results Ready for Submission" screen as
shown in Figure 3-6.
Crj^tesj^rldJum-Anytown L^b -VA1 234567 I
Cal
Clic
ciliated Sample Results
< the field name for more information.
Status
Sample ID (optional)
PWS ID
PWS Name
PWS .Facility ...ID
PWS Fa cHhy. .Maine
Sample Collection Point ID
Sajiifile Collection Point Name
Sample Collection Date
Sample Tj^ge
SjiniijIjLMMilBJt Austafi'lJii
Pellet Volume
ks^MJiiLi
Contaminant/Pal ametei
Analytical Method Number
Analytical Result - Value
Analytical Rgst
]!_; Ufli! J»JL. .Measure
AtilM ica.! Accui a^...{%J. ..{MS.o nly)
Flags
Resample
Qjri.a!naLS§JBfii
e_Coneciion_Da.te
Resampie Explanation
CHECK THE BOX TO DELIVER SAMPLE(S) TO PWS

A
B
C
D
Pending Release
Oct1
VA1
VA1
PWS
V.A011
VA01 1 fac
SP2
SP2
10/04/2005
Field
8
23
Cryptosporidium
1622/1623
0.25
oocysts/L

Yes
09/06/2005
Vie
V
n

Explanation of Flags
Sample not collected within +/-2 days of scheduled date
Sample volume analysis requirements not met
Matrix spike sample was spiked with greater than 500
oocysts
The matrix spike volume analyzed is not within +/- 10% of
the volume analyzed for the associated field sample
Pending Release
Octla
VA1
VA1 PWS
VA011
VA01 1 fac
SP2
SP2
10/04/2005
MS
12

Cryptosporidium
1622/1623
0.25
oocysts/L
0%
D
Yes
09/06/2005
View
D
Deliver Sampiete) to PWS
Eistei New Saniplejst £
Logout fci

3-10
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Figure 3-6. Calculated Cryptosporidium Sample Results Ready for Submission Screen
To help you identify the sample, several previously entered data elements will be redisplayed at the top of
the screen, including the following:
• Sample ID
• PWS ID
• PWS Facility ID
• Sample Collection Point
• Sample Collection Date
• Resample
• Original Sample Collection Date
• Resample Explanation
The following fields are the DCTS-calculated values resulting from the DCTS calculations and values that
are automatically populated to provide the data needed for later storage in Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS) will display. These calculated and auto-populated elements include the
following:
Sample Volume Analyzed (L) (LT2 DCTS-calculated) - If less than 100% of the sample volume filtered is
examined, then the sample volume analyzed and the pellet volume analyzed must be calculated.
Otherwise, the sample volume analyzed equals the sample volume filtered. The sample volume analyzed
is calculated using Formula 1:
Formula 1
Resuspended concentrate volume transferred to IMS
Sample volume analyzed = Volume filtered *
Resuspended concentrate volume
Pellet Volume Analyzed (mL) (LT2 DCTS-calculated; only for samples in which less than 100% of the
filtered volume was examined) - The pellet volume analyzed is calculated using Formula 2:
Formula 2
Resuspended concentrate volume transferred to IMS
Pellet volume analyzed = Pellet volume *
Resuspended concentrate volume

Contaminant Parameter (automatically populated with "Cryptosporidium")
Analytical Method Number (automatically populated with "1622/1623")
Analytical result - Value and Unit of Measure (LT2 DCTS-calculated) - The analytical result is
measured in oocysts/L and is calculated using Formula 3:
Formula 3
Number of oocysts
Analytical Result =
Sample volume analyzed
Analytical accuracy % (LT2 DCTS-calculated; MS samples only) - If MS was entered as the sample
type, then the analytical accuracy must be calculated to display the percent recovery for matrix spike
samples. The analytical accuracy is calculated using Formula 4:
3-11
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Formula 4
Analytical
Accuracy =
Calculated # of oocysts/L (MS sample) - Calculated # of oocysts/L (associated field sample)

Estimated number of oocysts spiked/L
* 100%
The final component of the DCTS calculations is assignment of data qualifier flags. These flags are
placed at the bottom of the screen. If data is not compliant with LT2 rule monitoring requirements, it will
automatically be flagged in the DCTS, and the appropriate flag key identifying the noncompliant
monitoring requirement will display in the Flags field of the sample results information. Table 3-1 displays
the four flags that can apply to Cryptosporidium data, as well as the conditions that trigger each flag. A
legend defining the flag keys will appear with the key letter and the flag at the bottom of the screen.

Table 3-1. Cryptosporidium Data Flags
KEY
A
B
C
D
E
FLAG
Sample schedule not met.
Sample volume analysis requirements not
met.
Matrix spike sample was spiked with greater
than 500 oocysts.
The matrix spike volume analyzed is not
within +/- 10% of the volume analyzed for the
associated field sample.
An associated E. coli sample has not been
submitted.
TRIGGER
The sample collection date is not within +/- 2 days of the
predetermined sampling date.
The LT2 requirements for sample volume analyzed were
not met (and this flag is triggered) when:
1 filter was used and <10 L was analyzed AND <2 mL
packed pellet was analyzed.
-OR-
More than 1 filter was used and <100% was examined
AND <10 L was analyzed AND <2 mL packed pellet was
analyzed.
The number of oocysts entered is a value greater than 500.
The matrix spike volume entered into the field is not within
+/- 10% of the entered analyzed volume for the associated
field sample.
An E. coli sample has not been submitted for the same
PWS, facility, sampling point, and sample collection date.
3.3.3 Cryptosporidium Data Review This section will be updated
when the functionality becomes available in the next release of the LT2
DCTS.

The LT2 DCTS allows the Principal Analyst at a laboratory to review, edit, and approve Cryptosporidium
sample results for submission to the PWS. Principal Analysts are identified as Lab Approver Users in the
LT2 DCTS. If you are the designated Lab Approver User, you will have the option to approve the sample
results for submission to the PWS at this time. If you are without designated approval status, you will riot
have the option to submit data to the PWS. Rather, you will have the option to edit the current sample
data or enter new samples.

Lab Approver Users use the DCTS calculation page displayed in Figure 3-6 to review data. As a Lab
Approver User, you will review the entered, calculated, and populated results for each sample to verify
that they are correct before approving the results for submission to the PWS. If errors are identified, the

3-12
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
results can be edited by clicking on the "EDIT SAMPLES" link in the bottom right corner. If you would like to
approve the sample, check the box at the bottom of each column of a pending release sample and click
the "DELIVER SAMPLE(S) TO PWS" link in the bottom right corner.

The laboratory must verify that all holding times and other QC requirements were met. Before the
sample(s) can be approved, you must agree to the following statement:

"By approving these Cryptosporidium monitoring results for release from your laboratory, you are verifying
that the results were generated in accordance with all Method 1622/1623 and LT2 rule QC requirements.
[Ok] [Cancel]"

Clicking "OK" will update the sample(s) to the lab-approved status, thereby making it available for PWS
review. If "CANCEL" is clicked, the sample(s) will not be approved. Criteria for valid Cryptosporidium
samples are provided in Appendix B.

If "OK" is clicked, you will be directed to a confirmation screen indicating that: "The following
Cryptosporidium sample(s) were successfully submitted to the PWS on [date sent]." To navigate from this
confirmation screen, use the main toolbar on the left.

3.4 E. co/i 15-tube MPN Method Samples This section win
be updated when the functionality becomes available in the next release
of the LT2 DCTS.

The following section details data entry and data review for E. coli 15-tube MPN method samples.

3.4.1 E. coli 15-tube MPN Method Data Entry This section win be
updated when the functionality becomes available in the next release of
the LT2 DCTS.

Laboratories certified to analyze E. coli using the 15-tube Most Probable Number (MPN) method format
can use the LT2 DCTS to enter valid E. coli MPN sample data. If you analyzed the £. coli sample using a
different method, click the "CREATE NEW SAMPLE" icon on the toolbar and select the appropriate E. coli
analytical method type from the drop-down menu. The following 15-tube MPN methods are approved for
LT2 E. coli analysis:

• Standard Methods 9221B/9221F (LTB to EC-MUG) 15-tube MPN
• Colilert (Standard Methods 9223)
• Colilert-18 (Standard Methods 9223)

3-13
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
£ coW 16-Tube MPN - Anytown Lf b - VA1234567
Do not enter data for samples that did not meet QC requirements. You are acknowledging the following by entering E. cob sample data
into the LT2 Data Collection System: a/I holding and incubation times and temperatures for the sample were met' the sample was
received by the laboratory in acceptable condition; a/I method-specified QC requirements were met; and all QA/QC criteria and
procedures specified in the Manual for the Certification of Laboratories Analyzing Drinking Water (EPfi j»5-B-97-OtHl were followed.
Enter data for the New Sample.
Save
Delete {frf
Clear Form
FIELDS COMMON TO ALL SAMPLES
Sjlij.l!.l.t..-SMtus
Resample
Sample ID (optional)

PWSJP
PWS Name
PWS Facility ID

PWS Facility Name
Sample Collection Point ID

Sample Collection Point Name
Sample Collection Date

Analytical Method Niimbei

SourceJSfater Tg^e
Tiirbidjly Result (NTUI
Lad Comments

P WS_C: o mjriif IMS
New Sample
No v

- Please Select -iv|

- Please Select- |v.

- Please Select -;vi

D
- Please Select- v:
- Please Select- -v

ENTER YOUR CALCULATED E. coli/WO mL RESULT HERE OR HAVE THE SYSTEM CALCULATE IT FOR
YOU USING THE SAMPLE RESULT CALCULATOR BELOW
£'. £00100 ml

SAMPLE RESULT CALCULATOR (ENTER PRIMARY DATA AND CLICK SAVE, BELOW, TO
AUTOMATICALLY CALCULATE THE SAMPLE RESULT)
Positive 10.0 ml tubes
Positive 1.0 ml tubes
Positive 0.1 ml ttibes
Pflsitjve 0..01..mjLJ.u b es
Positive 0.001 ml., tubes

RESAMPLE INFORMATION (REQUIRED IF THE SAMPLE IS A RESAMPLE)
Original Sample Collection Date

Resample Explanation

__,j

Click save to continue.
Save
Delete
Figure 3-7. E. coli 15-tube MPN Method Data Entry Screen

3-14
-------
USER A L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Only one sample may be entered at a time. Definitions for each data field can be viewed by clicking on
the field name in the left column of the screen. Starting at the top of the data entry column, enter the
value for each field, moving down the column in order. The following is a detailed description of each
field.

Sample Status - The Sample Status indicates the status of the sample in the sample review process.
The default setting is "New Sample" for sample data entry. Valid values include:

New Sample - applies to samples that are being entered for the first time.
Pending Release - indicates that a sample has been entered or uploaded, and is ready for laboratory
review and approval, and release to the PWS. These samples can still be edited by the laboratory to
correct any errors before the information is submitted to the PWS.
Delivered to PWS - indicates that a sample has been released to the PWS for review. These samples
cannot be edited.
Returned by PWS - samples have been returned to your laboratory by the utility for issue resolution.
PWS Reviewed - samples have been reviewed by the PWS and submitted to USEPA and state.

Resample - The resample field indicates whether or not the sample is a resample.

Sample ID (optional) - The Sample ID field may be entered for any or all samples if your laboratory
wishes to use this information to easily track samples in the LT2 DCTS.

The following fields are required in the top section of the screen labelled "Fields Common To All
Samples":

PWS ID - The PWS ID is the public water system ID, which is comprised of a two-letter state code
followed by a seven-digit number. If your laboratory is a PWS laboratory, the PWS ID for your utility will
display in the drop-down menu that appears when you click the arrow next to the field. If your laboratory
is analyzing E. coli samples for a PWS client, the PWS ID for the sample is provided by the PWS on the
LT2 Sample Collection Form you received with the sample. If a PWS ID was not supplied with the
sample, contact the PWS to obtain the correct value.

The PWS IDs of all PWSs that have selected your laboratory as their E. coli laboratory will display in the
drop-down menu that appears when you click the arrow next to the field. If the PWS ID for the sample you
need to enter does not appear, your laboratory has not been selected by the PWS as their E. coli
laboratory. You need to contact the PWS to request that they select your laboratory in the LT2 DCTS
before their PWS ID will appear in the drop-down menu.

PWS Name - The PWS Name is the name of the public water system associated with the PWS ID
selected. This field is auto-populated by the LT2 DCTS, based on the PWS ID entered. If your laboratory
is a PWS laboratory, confirm the name in this field is your PWS name and verify that the PWS ID you
selected is correct for this sample. If your laboratory is analyzing E. coli samples for a PWS client,
compare the name in this field to the PWS name supplied on the LT2 Sample Collection Form and verify
that the PWS ID you entered is correct for this sample.

PWS Facility ID - The PWS Facility ID identifies the plant within the PWS from which the sample was
collected. If your laboratory is a PWS laboratory, select the appropriate PWS Facility ID corresponding to
your PWS. If your laboratory is analyzing £. coli samples for a PWS client, the PWS Facility ID for the
sample is provided on the LT2 Sample Collection Form you received with the sample. If a PWS Facility ID
was not supplied with the sample, contact the PWS to obtain the correct value. Only IDs for the facilities
associated with the PWS you selected will display in the drop-down menu.
3-15
-------
USER A L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
PWS Facility Name - The PWS Facility Name is the name of the facility associated with the PWS Facility
ID selected. This field is auto-populated, based on the PWS Facility ID entered. If your laboratory is a
PWS laboratory, confirm that the PWS Facility Name and the PWS Facility ID you selected are correct for
this sample. If your laboratory is analyzing E. coli samples for a PWS client, verify that the PWS Facility
Name supplied by the PWS on the LT2 Sample Collection Form and the PWS ID you entered are correct
for this sample.

Sample Collection Point ID - The Sample Collection Point ID indicates the sampling point at the facility
from which the sample was collected. If your laboratory is a PWS laboratory, select the appropriate
Sample Collection Point ID corresponding to your PWS. If your laboratory is analyzing E. coli samples for
a PWS client, the Sample Collection Point ID for the sample is provided by the PWS on the LT2 Sample
Collection Form you received with the sample. If a PWS Sample Collection Point ID was not supplied with
the sample, contact the PWS to obtain the correct value. Only IDs for the sampling points associated with
the selected facility will be displayed in the drop-down menu.

Sample Collection Point Name - The sample collection point name is the name of the sample collection
point associated with the Sample Collection Point ID selected. This field is auto-populated, based on the
Sample Collection Point ID entered. If your laboratory is a PWS laboratory, confirm that the Sample
Collection Point Name and that the Sample Collection Point ID you selected are correct for this sample. If
your laboratory is analyzing E. coli samples for a PWS client, compare the name in this field to the
Sample Collection Point Name supplied by the PWS on the LT2 Sample Collection Form and verify that
the Sample Collection Point ID you entered is correct for this sample.

Sample Collection Date - This is the date the sample was collected by the facility. Use the mm/dd/yy
format to enter the date. Sample collection dates that are earlier than 01/01/99 or later than the current
date will not be accepted by the LT2 DCTS. If your laboratory is a PWS laboratory, enter the date the
sample was collected by the facility. If your laboratory is analyzing E. coli samples for a PWS client, the
Sample Collection Date is provided by the PWS on the LT2 Sample Collection Form you received with
the sample. If a Sample Collection Date was not supplied with the sample, contact the PWS to obtain the
correct date.

Analytical Method Number - This is the method number used to designate the analytical method used
for analysis, as listed at the beginning of Section 3.4.1. Only approved analytical methods for the given
method format (in this example, 15-tube MPN) will be displayed in the drop-down menu.

Source Water Type - This is the type of water body used as the source for the drinking water facility from
which the sample was collected, and is needed to evaluate the potential relationship between
Cryptosporidium and E. coli concentrations. Select "Flowing Stream," "Lake/Reservoir," "Both FS and
L/R" (for both Flowing Stream and Lake/Reservoir), "GWUDI-FS" (Ground Water Under the Direct
Influence of Flowing Stream), or "GWUDI-LR" (Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of
Lake/Reservoir).

Turbidity Result (NTU) (required only for filtered systems with a population greater than 10,000) - This is
the measured turbidity reported as NTU. Turbidity should be measured by the facility at the time of
sample collection. If your laboratory is a PWS laboratory, the turbidity should be reported with the sample
when sent to your laboratory for analysis. If your laboratory is analyzing E. coli samples for a PWS client,
the turbidity result is provided by the PWS on the LT2 Sample Collection Form you received with the
sample. If no turbidity result was supplied by the PWS with the sample, contact the PWS to obtain the
turbidity result.

Lab Comments (optional) - As a Lab User, you can incorporate comments concerning the sample into
the information sent to the PWS by entering comments into the comments field.

3-16
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
PWS Comments (if available) - As a Lab User, you can view comments in this field concerning the
sample that the PWS has sent back to the laboratory.

After entering the required fields, you may choose to enter the final calculated concentration of E. colt in
the sample reported as E. co///100 mL calculated in your laboratory or have the LT2 DCTS calculate your
results based on primary measurements. If you do not want the LT2 DCTS to automatically calculate your
result using your primary measurements, complete the E. coli result - value field. This value may be
reported to the nearest tenth. Note: Do not complete the bottom section if you complete this field - any
data entered will be ignored.

E. coli n 00 mL - The final calculated result of E. coli per 100 mL.

To enter primary measurements from the sample and have the LT2 DCTS automatically calculate the
final result, complete the bottom section of the screen. Note: Do not enter a value for "E. coli /100 mL" in
the middle section. If a value is entered for this field any additional primary measurements entered will be
ignored by the DCTS. Additional fields required by the DCTS to calculate results for the E. coli 15-tube
MPN method may include the following primary measurements:

Positive 10.0 mL tubes - This is the number of positive tubes containing 10.0 mL of sample. This value
must be reported as a whole number between 0 and 5.

Positive 1.0 mL tubes - This is the number of positive tubes containing 1.0 mL of sample. This value
must be reported as a whole number between 0 and 5.

Positive 0.1 mL tubes - This is the number of positive tubes containing 0.1 mL of sample. This value
must be reported as a whole number between 0 and 5.

Positive 0.01 mL tubes - This is the number of positive tubes containing 0.01 mL of sample. This value
must be reported as a whole number between 0 and 5.

Positive 0.001 mL tubes - This is the number of positive tubes containing 0.001 mL of sample. This
value must be reported as a whole number between 0 and 5.

If the sample is a resample, additional data must be provided for the following fields:

Original Sample Collection Date - The date the original sample was collected.

Resample Explanation - The reason for why this resample is required.

After the first section and either the middle section or bottom section have been completed, click "SAVE" to
continue. If you have made errors in data entry and have not yet clicked "SAVE," you can erase all of the
data entered on the screen by clicking "RESET ENTIRE FORM." You cannot save sample data unless all
required fields for the sample have been completed.

3.4.2 Calculations Associated with E. coli 15-tube MPN

Method Data Processing This section will be updated when the
functionality becomes available in the next release of the LT2 DCTS.

The LT2 DCTS will allow you to perform the required method calculation by using the primary data
entered by the laboratory to automatically calculate the sample results. After you have entered all of the
required and primary measurement fields for an E. coli sample the LT2 DCTS will automatically calculate
the sample results and present the "Calculated E. coli 15-tube MPN Method Sample Results Ready for
Submission" screen as show in Figure 3-8.

3-17
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
E. cotf 1S-Tube WPH - Anytown Lab - VA1234567
I Calculated Sample Results

Click the field name for more information.
Status
Sample ID (optional)
PWS IP
EWSJajiw
PWSJMIiiSLffi
PWS Facility Name
Sample Collection Point II)
Sample Collection Point Name
Samole Collection Date
Analytical Method Number
SojirceJWatei Tiije
Analytical Result - Value
Analvticai Result - Unit of Measure
Contaminant/parameter
Turbiditj/LResult INTO)
Flags
BttMifiJs.
Oriqinal Sample Collection Date
Resample Explanation
Pending Release
MPN1
VA1
VA1 PWS
VA011
VAD1 1 fac
SP1
SP1
10/04/2005
SM 9221 B/9221 F (LTB/EC-MUG)
both
220
E. coli/100 ml
E. coll
0.2

A
Sample

not
Explanation
collected within +/-
of Flags
2 days of scheduled

date
Edit Sample
Enlet Hew Sample
Logout
Figure 3-8. Calculated E. co/i 15-tube MPN Method Sample Results Ready for Submission
To help you identify the sample, several previously entered fields will be redisplayed at the top of the
screen, including:
• Sample ID
• PWS
• PWS facility
• Sample collection point
• Sample collection date
• Analytical method number
• Source water type
• Resample
• Original Sample Collection Date
• Resample Explanation
3-18
-------
USEPA L T2 DCTS Users' Manual
The LT2 DCTS-calculated "Analytical Result - Value" is automatically populated. The analytical result is
measured in E. co///100 ml and uses the following procedure described.

The data entry screens for both 15-tube methods require the user to input the number of positive 10.0,
1.0, 0.1, 0.01, and 0.001 mL tubes as appropriate.

The guidance and examples for determining E. coli concentrations using multiple-tube methods are
based on the revision of Standard Methods 9221C included in the 2001 Supplement to the 20th Edition of
Standard Methods, approved by the Standard Methods Committee in 1999.

Note: The analytical result can be automatically calculated using the LT2 DCTS.

For each sample volume (e.g., 10, 1, 0.1, and 0.01 mL or additional sample volumes as necessary),
determine the number of positive tubes out of five.

A dilution refers to the volume of original sample that was inoculated into each series of tubes. Only three
of the dilution series will be used to estimate the MPN. The three selected dilutions are called significant
dilutions and are selected according to the following criteria. Examples of significant dilution selections
are provided in Table 3-2.

Choose the highest dilution (the most dilute, with the least amount of sample) giving positive results in all
five tubes inoculated, and the two succeeding higher (more dilute) dilutions (Table 3-2, Example A).

If the lowest dilution (least dilute) tested has less than five tubes with positive results, select it and the two
next succeeding higher dilutions (Table 3-2, Examples B and C).

When a positive result occurs in a dilution higher (more dilute) than the three significant dilutions selected
according to the rules above, change the selection to the lowest dilution (least dilute) that has less than
five positive results and the next two higher dilutions (more dilute) (Table 3-2, Example D).

When the selection rules (above) have left unselected any higher dilutions (more dilute) with positive
results, add those higher-dilution positive results to the results for the highest selected dilution (Table 3-2,
Example E).

If there were not enough higher dilutions tested to select three dilutions, select the next lower dilution
(Table 3-2, Example F).

MPN values need to be adjusted, based on the significant dilutions series selected above. Since the
MPN/100 mL values in the table are based on the 10 mL, 1 mL, and 0.1 mL dilution series, per method
requirements, the MPN value must be adjusted if these are not the significant dilution series selected.
Use the following calculation to adjust the MPN when the 10 mL, 1 mL, and 0.1 mL dilution series are not
the significant dilution series selected:
MPN value
Analytical Result = = £. coli MPN/100 mL
# of mL in middle dilution
3-19
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Table 3-2. MPN Value Table

Example

A
B
C
D
E
F
Least
dilute
(lowest)
10 mL

0
0
0
1
0
5
Most dilute
(highest)
0.001 mL

0
0
0
0
1
2

Combination of
Positives
5-1-0
4-5-1
0-0-1
4-4-1
4-4-1
5-5-2

MPN Index No./l 00
mL
330
48
1.8
400
400
54,000
Example A: The significant dilution series for the 5-1-0 combination of positives includes the 1 mL, 0.1
mL, and 0.01 mL dilutions. Since the 10 mL, 1 mL, and 0.1 mL dilutions were not selected, an adjustment
is necessary to account for the dilutions selected:
Analytical Result =
33
0.1
= 3305. co//MPN/100mL
Example B: Since the 10 mL, 1 mL, and 0.1 mL dilutions are the significant dilutions, no adjustment is
necessary and the result is 48 £. co///100 mL.

Example C: Since the 10 mL, 1 mL, and 0.1 mL dilutions are the significant dilutions, no adjustment is
necessary and the result is 1.8 E. co///100 mL.

Examples D and E: The significant dilution series for the 4-4-1 combination of positives includes the 1
mL, 0.1 mL, and 0.01 mL dilutions. Since the 10 mL, 1 mL, and 0.1 mL dilutions were not selected, an
adjustment is necessary to account for the dilutions selected:
Analytical Result =
40
0.1
= 400 E. co// MPN/100 mL
Example F: The significant dilution series for the 5-5-2 combination of positives includes the 0.1 mL, 0.01
mL and .001 mL dilutions. Since the 10 mL, 1 mL, and 0.1 mL dilutions were not selected, an adjustment
is necessary to account for the dilutions selected:
Analytical Result =
540
0.01
= 54,000 E. co// MPN/100 mL
The remaining three fields in the "Calculated E. co// 15-tube MPN Method Sample Results Ready for
Submission" screen include auto-populated fields to help define the sample specifications. The Sample
Analytical Result unit of measure is auto-populated by the LT2 DCTS as "E. co///100 mL," and the
contaminant/parameter field is automatically populated by the LT2 DCTS as "E. co//."

The Final component of the DCTS calculations is assignment of a data qualifier flag. This flag is placed at
the bottom of the screen. If data is not compliant with LT2 rule monitoring requirements, it will

3-20
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
automatically be flagged in the DCTS, and the flag key identifying the noncompliant monitoring
requirement will be displayed in the flag row of the sample results information. Table 3-3 displays the
flags that can apply to E. col! data, as well as the condition that triggers the flag. A legend defining the
flag keys will appear with the key letter and the flag at the bottom of the screen.

Table 3-3. E. coli Data Qualifier Flags
KEY
A
E
FLAG
Sample schedule not met.
An associated Cryptospohdium sample has
not been submitted.
TRIGGER
The sample collection date is not within +/- 2 days of the
predetermined sampling date.
A Cryptosporidium sample has not been submitted for the
same PWS, facility, sampling point, and sample collection
date.
3.4.3 E. coli 15-tube MPN Method Data Review This section win
be updated when the functionality becomes available in the next release
of the LT2 DCTS.

The LT2 DCTS allows the Principal Analyst at the laboratory to review and approve E. coli sample 15-
tube MPN results for submission to the PWS. Principal Analysts are identified as Lab Approver Users in
the LT2 DCTS. If you have been designated as the Lab Approver User, you will have the option to
approve the sample results for submission to the PWS at this time. If you are without designated approval
status, you will not have the option to submit data to the PWS. Rather, you will have the option to edit the
current sample data or enter new samples.

Lab Approver Users use the LT2 DCTS calculations page displayed in Figure 3-8 to approve data. As a
Lab Approver User, you will review the entered, calculated, and populated results for each sample to
verify that they are correct before approving the results for submission to the PWS. If errors are identified,
the results can be edited by clicking on the "EDIT SAMPLES" link in the bottom right corner. If you would like
to approve the sample, click the "DELIVER SAMPLE TO PWS" link in the bottom right corner.

Before the sample can be approved, you must agree to the following statement:

"By approving these E. coli monitoring results for release from your laboratory, you are verifying that the
results were generated in accordance with all method and LT2 rule QC requirements. [Ok] [Cancel]"

Clicking "OK" will update the sample to the lab-approved status, thereby making it available for PWS
review. If "CANCEL" is clicked, the sample will not be approved. Criteria for valid MPN E. coli samples are
provided in Appendix C.

If "OK" is clicked, you will be directed to a confirmation screen indicating that: "The following E. coli
sample was successfully submitted to the PWS on [date sent]." To navigate from this confirmation screen
use the main toolbar on the left.

If no inaccuracies or other issues are identified, approve the data for "release" to the PWS for review
(USEPA does not receive the data at this point). When the data are approved, the rights to the data are
transferred electronically by the LT2 DCTS to the PWS, and the data can no longer be changed by the
laboratory unless returned to the laboratory by the PWS.
3-21
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
3.5 E. co// ONPG-MUG, 51-well Method Samples This
section will be updated when the functionality becomes available in the
next release of the LT2 DOTS.

The following section details data entry and data review for E. co//ONPG-MUG, 51-well method samples.

3.5.1 E. co/i ONPG-MUG 51-well Method Data Entry This
section will be updated when the functionality becomes available in the
next release of the LT2 DCTS.

Laboratories certified to analyze E. co//using the ONPG-MUG, 51-well method format can use the LT2
DCTS to enter valid E. co// sample data. If you analyzed the E. co// sample using a different method, click
the "CREATE NEW SAMPLE" icon on the toolbar and select the appropriate E. co// method type from the
drop-down menu. The ONPG-MUG, 51-well analytical method numbers approved for LT2 E. co//analyses
include the following:

• Colilert™ (Standard Methods 9223)
• Colilert-18™ (Standard Methods 9223)

Do not enter data for samples that did not meet QC requirements. You are acknowledging the following by entering E. coli sample data
into tne LJ2 Data Collection System: all holding and incubation times and temperatures for the sample were met' the sample was
received by the laboratory in acceptable condition: all method-specified QC requirements were met, and all QA/OC criteria and
procedures specified in the Manual for the Certification of Laboratories Analyzing Drinking Water (EPA H15-B-9T-Q61) were followed.
Enter data for the New Sample.
Save
Delete jrfj*
Clear Form
| FIELDS COMMON TO ALL SAMPLES
SajBBkJilSiHS j New Sample
Resasngle
Sample ID fopfkmall

PWS ID

PWS Name
PWS Facility ID

PWS FaciJitv Name

Sajn^lsjj9j.lftciif>n _Pj>iii.LU '
Sample {.'oHfK lioji Pojo? fMm-1
.SilD.U>!.6_t.ftLtecJiojl D'>l!'
AiyijjticaiJlethotLNii .mj.><-.i
Sonic e W-'itei Tvj)>:-
Tyilaiittt ReMLtfiW;
L4iL&M)JJ.B.fiMS
NO v|

- Please Select- ;v^

- Please Select- ;v-

- Please Select- v

**r~ !
- Please Select- v
- Please Select - v

JZWSjCsHllllfiJlls I
ENTER YOUR CALCULATED E. coli 100 mL RESULT HERE OR HAVE THE SYSTEM CALCULATE IT FOR
YOU USING THE SAMPLE RESULT CALCULATOR BELOW
E. coW-101) nil

SAMPLE RESULT CALCULATOR (ENTER PRIMARY DATA AND CLICK SAVE, BELOW, TO
AUTOMATICALLY CALCULATE THE SAMPLE RESULT)
I Volume iMJ
Number ol positive wells
IRESAMPLE INFORMATION (REQUIRED IF THE SAMPLE IS A RESAMPLE)
I.Rgsappie Exi.tl.litMloii
Click save to continue
Saw
Delete
Clear Form
Figure 3-9. E. coli ONPG-MUG, 51-well Method Data Entry Screen
3-23
-------
USEPA L T2 DCTS Users' Manual
Only one sample may be entered at a time. Definitions for each data field can be viewed by clicking on
the field name in the left column of the screen. Starting at the top of the data entry column, enter the
value for each field, moving down the column in order. The following is a detailed description of each
field.

Sample Status - The Sample Status indicates the status of the sample in the sample review process.
The default setting is "New Sample" for sample data entry. Valid values include:

Resample - The resample field indicates whether or not the sample is a resample.

Sample ID (optional) - The Sample ID field may be entered for any or all samples if your laboratory
wishes to use this information to easily track samples in the LT2 DCTS.

The following fields are required in the top section of the screen labelled "Fields Common To All
Samples:"

PWS ID - The PWS ID is the public water system ID, which is comprised of a two-letter state code
followed by a seven-digit number. If your laboratory is a PWS laboratory, the PWS ID for your utility will
be displayed in the drop-down menu that appears when you click the arrow next to the field. If your
laboratory is analyzing E. coli samples for a PWS client, the PWS ID for the sample is provided by the

PWS on the LT2 Sample Collection Form you received with the sample. If a PWS ID was not supplied
with the sample, contact the PWS to obtain the correct value.

The PWS IDs of all PWSs that have selected your laboratory as their E. coli laboratory will be displayed in
the drop-down menu that appears when you click the arrow next to the field. If the PWS ID for the sample
you need to enter does not appear, your laboratory has not been selected by the PWS as their E. coli
laboratory. You need to contact the PWS to request that they select your laboratory in the LT2 DCTS
before their PWS ID will appear in the drop-down menu.

3-24
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
PWS Facility Name - The PWS Facility Name is the name of the facility associated with the PWS Facility
ID selected. This field is auto-populated, based on the PWS Facility ID entered. If your laboratory is a
PWS laboratory, confirm that the name in this field is your PWS Facility Name and PWS Facility ID you
selected are correct for this sample. If your laboratory is analyzing E. coli samples for a PWS client, verify
that the PWS Facility Name supplied by the PWS on the LT2 Sample Collection Form and the PWS ID
you entered are correct for this sample.

Sample Collection Point Name - The Sample Collection Point Name is the name of the sample
collection point associated with the Sample Collection Point ID selected. This field is auto-populated,
based on the sample collection point ID entered. If your laboratory is a PWS laboratory, confirm that the
Sample Collection Point Name and the Sample Collection Point ID you selected are correct for this
sample. If your laboratory is analyzing E. coli samples for a PWS client, compare the name in this field to
the Sample Collection Point Name supplied by the PWS on the LT2 Sample Collection Form and verify
that the Sample Collection Point ID you entered is correct for this sample.

Analytical Method Number - This is the method number used to designate the analytical method used
for analysis, as listed at the beginning of Section 3.5.1. Only approved analytical methods for the given
method format (in this example, ONPG-MUG, 51-well) will be displayed in tine drop-down menu.

Lab comments (optional) - As a Lab User, you can incorporate comments concerning the sample into
the information sent to the PWS by entering comments into the comments field.

3-25
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
PWS comments (if available) - As a Lab User, you can view comments in this field concerning the
sample that the PWS has sent back to the lab.

After entering the required fields, you may choose to enter the final calculated concentration of E. coli in
the sample reported as E. coli /1 00 ml_ calculated in your laboratory or have the LT2 DCTS calculate your
results based on primary measurements. If you do not want the LT2 DCTS to automatically calculate your
result using your primary measurements, complete the E. coli result - value field. This value may be
reported to the nearest tenth. Note: do not complete the bottom section if you complete this field - any
data entered will be ignored.

E. coli IWO mL - The final calculated result of E. coli per 100 mL.

To enter primary measurements from the sample and have the LT2 DCTS automatically calculate the
final result, complete the bottom section of the screen. Note: Do not enter a value for "E. coli /100 mL" in
the middle section. If a value is entered for this field any additional primary measurements entered will be
ignored by the LT2 DCTS. Additional fields required to calculate results for the E. coli ONPG-MUG, 51-
well method may include the following primary measurements:

Volume analyzed (mL) - This is the mL of sample added to the tray for analysis. This value may be
reported to four decimal places.

Number of positive wells - This is the number of total coliform positive wells with UV fluorescence. This
value must be reported as a whole number between 0 and 51.

If the sample is a resample, additional data must be provided for the following fields:

Original Sample Collection Date - The date the original sample was collected.

Resample Explanation - The reason for why this resample is required.

3.5.2 Calculations Associated with E. coli ONPG-MUG, 51-

well Method Data Processing This section will be updated
when the functionality becomes available in the next release of the LT2
DCTS.

The LT2 DCTS will help you perform the required method calculation by using the primary data entered
by the laboratory to automatically calculate the sample results. After you have entered all of the required
and primary measurement fields for an E. coli sample the LT2 DCTS will automatically calculate the
sample results and present the "Calculated E. coli ONPG-MUG, 51-well Method Sample Results Ready
for Submission" screen as shown in Figure 3-10.
3-26
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
£. eeftONPS-MUS, 51-well - Anytdwn Lab;
Calculated Sample Results

Click the field name for more information
Status
Sample ...ID ...(optional!
BW.SJLD

PWS Facility ID
EHSBiaiiJaLHaMt,
Sample Collection Point ID
Sjnijjte Collection Point Maine
8 ai».ijl.t...C.ftl|ec|io o Date
&Mbrti€iiMel!l9d Number
Source Water Type
Analytical Result - Value
Analytical Result - Unit of Measure
Contaniinant'paiainetei
iMwJLaJfesfltiJMlJJi
flsm
JiebffitliLe
OiliH!ML5jMl'4lli CfilMclifilLDjL*;;
Bs.saiiipM_Exj>!<3iiaik>ii
Pending Release
Oct4
VA1
VA1 PWS
VA011
VA01 1 fac
SP2
SP2
10/05/2005
SM 9223 (Colilert)
river/stream
5
E. coli/100 ml
E coli
15

No
!

Explanation of
A (Sample not collected within +/-2 days of scheduled date
jUHJOUt *::.)
Figure 3-10. Calculated E. coli ONPG-MUG, 51-well Method Sample Results Ready for Submission

To help you identify the sample, several previously entered fields will be redisplayed at the top of the
screen, including the following:
3-27
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
• Sample ID
• PWS
• PWS facility
• Sample collection point
• Sample collection date
• Analytical method number
• Source water type
• Resample
• Original Sample Collection Date
• Resample Explanation

Select appropriate dilution. If multiple dilutions are used, the tray exhibiting 80% positive wells (41
positive wells) should be used to determine MPN value.

Note: The analytical result can be automatically calculated using the LT2 DCTS.

Determine MPN. Using the number of positive wells from the appropriate dilution, identify the
corresponding MPN/100 ml in the table provided by the vendor. For example, if a 100 mL sample was
analyzed, and there were 41 positive wells, the corresponding MPN would be 83.1 MPN/100 rnl_

Adjust for dilution factor. Because the MPN/100 ml values in the table are based on 100 mL samples,
the MPN value should be adjusted if less than 100 mL of sample volume was analyzed. Use the following
calculation to adjust the MPN to account for the dilution:

100
MPN value * = E. coli MPN/100 mL
mL sample analyzed
Example:

Volume analyzed (mL) = 10 mL (in 90 mL of dilution water)

Number of positive wells = 41

MPN = 83.1

The analytical result is calculated as follows:

100
83.1 * = 831 E. coli MPN/100 mL
10

On the ONPG-MUG, 51-well data entry screen, the user is asked to input the volume analyzed (mL) and
the number of positive wells. The LT2 DCTS uses the answer provided for the number of positive wells, in
order to select the corresponding MPN value from the IDEXX® 51-Well Quanti-Tray® MPN Table.

The remaining three fields in the "Calculated E. coli ONPG-MUG, 51-well Method Sample Results Ready
for Submission" screen include auto-populated fields to help define the sample specifications. The sample
analytical result unit of measure is auto-populated by the LT2 DCTS as "E. co///100 mL," the
contaminant/parameter field is automatically populated by the LT2 DCTS as "E. coli."

3-28
-------
USER A L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
The final component of the LT2 DCTS calculations is assignment of a data qualifier flag. This flag is
placed at the bottom of the screen. If data are not compliant with LT2 rule monitoring requirements, it will
automatically be flagged in the LT2 DCTS, and the flag key identifying the noncompliant monitoring
requirement will be displayed in the flag row of the sample results information. Table 3-3 displays the
flags that can apply to E. co//data, as well as the condition that triggers the flag. A legend defining the
flag keys will appear with the key letter and the flag at the bottom of the screen.

3.5.3 E. co// ONPG-MUG, 51-well Method Data Review This
section will be updated when the functionality becomes available in the
next release of the LT2 DCTS.

The LT2 DCTS allows the Principal Analyst at the laboratory to review and approve E. co// sample ONPG-
MUG, 51-well procedure results for submission to the PWS. As the Principal Analyst, you are identified as
Lab Approver User in the LT2 DCTS. If you have been designated as the Lab Approver User, you will
have the option to approve the sample results for submission to the PWS at this time. If you are without
designated approval status, you will not have the option to submit data to the PWS. Rather, you will have
the option to edit the current sample data or enter new samples.

Lab Approver Users use the LT2 DCTSs calculations page displayed in Figure 3-10 to approve data. You
will review the entered, calculated, and populated results for each sample to verify that they are correct
before approving the results for submission to the PWS. If errors are identified, the results can be edited
by clicking on the "EDIT SAMPLE " link in the bottom right corner. If you would like to approve the sample,
click the "DELIVER SAMPLE TO PWS" link in the bottom right corner.

Before the sample can be approved, you must agree to the following statement:

"By approving these E. co// monitoring results for release from your laboratory, you are verifying that the
results were generated in accordance with all method and LT2 rule QC requirements. [Ok] [Cancel]"

If "OK" is clicked, you will be directed to a confirmation screen indicating that: "The following E. co//
sample was successfully submitted to the PWS on [date sent]." To navigate from this confirmation screen,
use the main toolbar on the left.

3.6 E. co/i ONPG-MUG, 97-well Method Samples This
section will be updated when the functionality becomes available in the
next release of the LT2 DCTS.

The following section details data entry and data review for E. co/; ONPG-MUG, 97-well method samples.
3-29
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
3.6.1 E. co// ONPG-MUG, 9 7-we 11 Method Data Entry This
section will be updated when the functionality becomes available in the
next release of the LT2 DCTS.

Laboratories certified to analyze E. co//using the ONPG-MUG, 97-well method format can use the LT2
DCTS to enter valid E. co// sample data. If you analyzed the E. co// sample using a different method, click
the "CREATE NEW SAMPLE" icon on the toolbar and select the appropriate E. co// method from the drop-
down menu. The ONPG-MUG, 97-well analytical method type approved for LT2 E. co//analyses include
the following:

• Colilert™ (Standard Methods 9223)
• Colilert-18™ (Standard Methods 9223)

The full versions of these methods are available for download in Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) format from
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/index.html or http://www.epa.gov/microbes/. Guidance on the use of
these methods under the LT2 rule, as well as the full text of the method, is provided in the Microbial
Laboratory Manual for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2 Rule) [EPA-815-
R-06-006]. Figure 3-11 displays the LT2 DCTS screen used by an approved E. co// laboratory to enter
valid E. co// sample data generated using the ONPG-MUG, 97-well method.
3-30
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
E«Q«0NPS-MUG, S?-w«sll - Afiytewn Ijtb - VM23456?
Do not enter data for samples that did not meet QC requirements. You are acknowledging the following by entering E. coli sample data
I into the LT2 Data Collection System, all holding and incubation times and temperatures for the sample were met; the sample was
\ received by the laboratory in acceptable condition; all method-specified QC requirements were met: and all QA/QC criteria and
\procedures specified in the Manual for the Certification of Laboratories Analyzing Drinking Water (EPA §15-B-97-l!t}1) were followed.
Enter data for the New Sample.
Save
Delete j
Clear Focin
FIELDS COMMON TO ALL SAMPLES
Sample Status
Rgsamjile
Sample ID {optional)
EWSJD
PWS Name
EffiSLEfldlitsdE

EWS..rac!.!.i.tjf...Marn.e
JylEUlMJlMifiMJMLtliillJIl
Sait||ile Collection Point Name
Sj n s |>1*_€ tiiiitlhlfiJisUB
&ia&fclL£46lho!DI!lgU3§
PWS Comments
Nev^ Sample
No v

- Please Select- v;i

- Please Select- v;

- Please Select- v

""nl
- Please Select- v
- Please Select- ;v.

~ " ~ . .. — - |
! ENTER YOUR CALCULATED E. coli100 ml RESULT HERE OR HAVE THE SYSTEM CALCULATE IT FOR
YOU USING THE SAMPLE RESULT CALCULATOR BELOW
{LjJiMlIOjiiL

SAMPLE RESULT CALCULATOR (ENTER PRIMARY DATA AND CLICK SAVE, BELOW, TO
AUTOMATICALLY CALCULATE THE SAMPLE RESULT)
Volume analyzed finU

Small wells positive

RESAMPLE INFORMATION (REQUIRED IF THE SAMPLE IS A RESAMPLE)
Q.d.fli .!!§!.§ Jjij |l le. CpJM cti o n 0 ate
Resample Esplanation
3
*
Click save to continue.
Save
Delete 1
Clear Form
Figure 3-11. E. coli ONPG-MUG, 97-well Method Data Entry Screen

3-31
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Only one sample may be entered at a time. Definitions for each data field can be viewed by clicking on
the field name in the left column of the screen. Starting at the top of the data entry column, enter the
value for each field, moving down the column in order. The following is a detailed description of each
field.

Sample Status - The Sample Status indicates the status of the sample in the sample review. The default
setting is "New Sample" for sample data entry. Valid values include:

Resample - The resample field indicates whether or not the sample is a resample.

Sample ID (optional) - The Sample ID field may be entered for any or all samples if your laboratory
wishes to use this information to easily track samples in the LT2 DCTS.

The following fields are required in the top section of the screen labelled "Fields Common To All
Samples:"

PWS ID - The PWS ID is the public water system ID, which is comprised of a two-letter state code
followed by a seven-digit number. If your laboratory is a PWS laboratory, the PWS ID for your utility will
be displayed in the drop-down menu that appears when you click the arrow next to the field. If your
laboratory is analyzing E. coli samples for a PWS client, the PWS ID for the sample is provided by the
PWS on the LT2 Sample Collection Form you received with the sample. If a PWS ID was not supplied
with the sample, contact the PWS to obtain the correct value.

PWS Name - The PWS Name is the name of the PWS associated with the PWS ID selected. This field is
auto-populated by the LT2 DCTS, based on the PWS ID entered. If your laboratory is a PWS laboratory,
confirm the name in this field is your PWS name and verify that the PWS ID you selected is correct for
this sample. If your laboratory is analyzing E. coli samples for a PWS client, compare the name in this
field to the PWS name supplied on the LT2 Sample Collection Form and verify that the PWS ID you
entered is correct for this sample.

3-32
-------
USER A L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
PWS Facility Name - The PWS Facility Name is the name of the facility associated with the PWS
Facility ID selected. This field is auto-populated, based on the PWS Facility ID entered. If your laboratory
is a PWS laboratory, confirm that the PWS Facility Name and PWS Facility ID selected are correct for this
sample. If your laboratory is analyzing E. coli samples for a PWS client, verify the PWS Facility Name
supplied by the PWS on the LT2 Sample Collection Form and the PWS ID you entered are correct for this
sample.

Sample Collection Point Name - The sample collection point name is the name of the sample collection
point associated with the sample collection point ID selected. This field is auto-populated, based on the
Sample Collection Point ID entered. If your laboratory is a PWS laboratory, confirm that the Sample
Collection Point Name and the Sample Collection Point ID you selected are correct for this sample. If your
laboratory is analyzing E. coli samples for a PWS client, compare the name in this field to the Sample
Collection Point Name supplied by the PWS on the LT2 Sample Collection Form and verify that the
Sample Collection Point ID you entered is correct for this sample.

Analytical Method Number - This is the method number used to designate the analytical method used
for analysis, as listed on at the beginning of section 3.6.1. Only approved analytical methods for the given
method format (in this example, ONPG-MUG, 97-well) will be displayed in the drop-down menu.

Lab Comments (optional) - As a Lab User, you can incorporate comments concerning the sample into
the information sent to the PWS by entering comments into the comments field.

3-33
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
PWS Comments (if available) - As a Lab User, you can view comments in this field concerning the
sample that the PWS has sent back to the laboratory.

After entering the required data, you may choose to enter the final calculated concentration of E. coli in
the sample reported as E. coli /100 ml calculated in your laboratory or have the LT2 DCTS calculate your
results based on primary measurements. If you do not want the LT2 DCTS to automatically calculate your
result using your primary measurements, complete the E. coli result - value field. This value may be
reported to the nearest tenth. Note: do not complete the bottom section if you complete this field - any
data entered will be ignored.

£. co///100 mL - The final calculated result of E. coli per 100 ml.

To enter primary measurements from the sample and have the LT2 DCTS automatically calculate the
final result, complete the bottom section of the screen. Note: do not enter a value for "E. coli /100 mL" in
the middle section. If a value is entered for this field any additional primary measurements entered will be
ignored by the LT2 DCTS. Additional fields required to calculate results for the E. coli ONPG-MUG, 97-
well method may include the following primary measurements:

Volume analyzed (mL) - This is the mL of sample added to the tray for analysis. This value may be
reported to four decimal places.

Large wells positive - This is the number of total coliform positive large wells with UV fluorescence. This
value must be reported as a whole number between 0 and 49.

Small wells positive - This is the number of total coliform positive small wells with UV fluorescence. This
value must be reported as a whole number between 0 and 48.

If the sample is a resample, additional data must be provided for the following fields:

Original Sample Collection Date - The date the original sample was collected.

Resample Explanation - The reason for why this resample is required.

After the first section and either the middle section or bottom section have been completed, click "SAVE" to
continue. If you have made errors in data entry, and have not yet clicked "SAVE," you can erase all of the
data entered on the screen by clicking "RESET ENTIRE FORM." You cannot save sample data unless all
required fields for the sample have been completed.

3.6.2 Calculations Associated with E. coli ONPG-MUG, 97-

well Method Data Processing This section will be updated
when the functionality becomes available in the next release of the LT2
DCTS.

The LT2 DCTS will help you perform the required method calculation by using the data entered by the
laboratories to automatically calculate the sample results. After you have entered all of the required and
primary measurement fields for an E. coli sample the LT2 DCTS will automatically calculate the sample
results and present the "Calculated E. coli ONPG-MUG, 97-well Method Sample Results Ready for
Submission" screen as shown in Figure 3-12.
3-34
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
fe.eotf ONPSl/IUG, 97-wtll -, Jtoytewn Lab - VA1234S67
Calculated Sample Results

Click the field name for more information.
Status
Sa nigis. ...ID...JO pjtjo. n a jj
PWS FaciJily >P
PWS ..Facility Name
I Sample Collection Point.Name
Sam§ifi..Cfi|lcctitO
Source Water Type
Contaminant-MJ aiiietei
F lags
Qiigij!a.LSiioui!i CoMectijDii_Qate
Pending Release
97a
VA1
VA1 PWS
VA011
VAD11 fac
SP1
SP1
10/07/2005
SM 9223 (Colilert)
both
72
E. coli/100 ml
COJJ
No
Explanation of
A [Sample not collected v^ithin +/-2 days of scheduled date
Enter New Sample
logout
Figure 3-12. Calculated E. coli ONPG-MUG, 97-well Method Sample Results Ready for Submission

To help you identify the sample, several previously entered fields will be redisplayed at the top of the
screen, including the following:
3-35
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
• Sample ID
. PWS
• PWS facility
• Sample collection point
• Sample collection date
• Analytical method number
• Source water type
• Resample
• Original Sample Collection Date
• Resample Explanation

In the section below these elements, the LT2 DCTS calculated value is automatically populated. The
analytical result is measured in E. co///100 ml and uses the equation below.

Select appropriate dilution to yield countable results. If multiple dilutions are used, the tray exhibiting
positive wells in the 40% to 80% range (39 to 78 total positive large and small wells) should be used to
determine MPN value.

Note: The analytical result can be automatically calculated using the LT2 DCTS.

Determine MPN. Using the number of large positive wells and small positive wells from the appropriate
dilution, identify the corresponding MPN/100 mL in the table provided by the vendor. Large well values
are located in the left column; small well values are located in the top row. For example, if a 100 ml
sample was analyzed, and there were 29 large positive wells and 5 small positive wells, the
corresponding MPN would be 49.6 MPN/100 ml.

100
Analytical result = MPN value *
mL sample analyzed

Example:

Volume analyzed = 10 mL of sample (in 90 mL of dilution water)

Large wells positive = 39

Small wells positive = 5

The MPN value calculated based on the intersection of 10 and 2 in the table.

MPN = 81.3

100
Analytical result = 81.3* 813 £. co//MPN/100 mL
10

On the ONPG-MUG, 97-well data entry screen, you are asked to input the volume analyzed (mL), the
number of large wells positive and the number of small wells positive. The LT2 DCTS uses the answers

3-36
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
provided for the numbers of large and small wells positive in order to select the corresponding MPN value
from the IDEXX Quanti-Tray/2000 MPN Table. On the IDEXX Quanti-Tray/2000 MPN Table, the rows
represent the number of large wells positive and the columns represent the number of small wells
positive. The MPN is determined based on the intersection of rows and columns.

The remaining three fields in the "Calculated E. coli ONPG-MUG, 97-well Method Sample Results Ready
for Submission" screen include auto-populated fields to help define the sample specifications. The sample
analytical result unit of measure is auto-populated by the LT2 DCTS as "E. CO///100 mL," and the
contaminant/parameter field is automatically populated by the LT2 DCTS as "E. coli."

The final component of the LT2 DCTS calculation is assignment of a data qualifier flag. This flag is placed
at the bottom of the screen. If data are not compliant with LT2 rule monitoring requirements, it will
automatically be flagged in the LT2 DCTS, and the flag key identifying the noncompliant monitoring
requirement will be displayed in the flag row of the sample results information. Table 3-3 displays the
flags that can apply to E. coli data, as well as the condition that triggers the flag. A legend defining the
flag keys will appear with the key letter and the flag at the bottom of the screen.

3.6.3 E. co/i ONPG-MUG, 97-well Method Data Review This
section will be updated when the functionality becomes available in the
next release of the LT2 DCTS.

The LT2 DCTS allows the Principal Analyst at the laboratory to review and approve E. coli sample ONPG-
MUG, 97-well procedure results for submission to the PWS. As the Principal Analyst, you are identified as
Lab Approver User in the LT2 DCTS. If you have been designated as the Lab Approver User, you will
have the option to approve the sample results for submission to the PWS at this time. If you are without
designated approval status, you will not have the option to submit data to the PWS. Rather, you will have
the option to edit the current sample data or enter new samples.

Lab Approver Users use the LT2 DCTS calculations page displayed in Figure 3-12 to approve data. You
will review the entered, calculated, and populated results for each sample to verify that they are correct
before approving the results for submission to the PWS. If errors are identified, the results can be edited
by clicking on the "EDIT SAMPLE" link in the bottom right corner. If you would like to approve the sample,
click the "DELIVER SAMPLES TO PWS" link in the bottom right corner.

Before the sample can be approved, you must agree to the following statement:

Clicking "OK" will update the sample to the lab-approved status, thereby making it viewable for PWS
review. If "CANCEL" is clicked, the sample will not be approved. Criteria for valid E. coli samples are
provided in Appendix C.

If no inaccuracies or other issues are identified, approve the data for "release" to the PWS for review
(USEPA does not receive the data at this point). When the data are approved, the rights to the data are
transferred electronically by the LT2 DCTS to the PWS, and the data can no longer be changed by the
laboratory unless returned to the laboratory by the PWS.
3-37
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
3.7 E. co// Membrane Filtration Method Samples This
section will be updated when the functionality becomes available in the
next release of the LT2 DCTS.

The following section details data entry and data review for E. co// Membrane Filtration method samples.

3.7.1 E. co// Membrane Filtration Method Data Entry This
section will be updated when the functionality becomes available in the
next release of the LT2 DCTS.

Laboratories certified to analyze E. co/; using the membrane filtration method format can use the LT2
DCTS to enter valid E. co// membrane filtration data. If you analyzed the E. co// sample using a different
method, click the "CREATE NEW SAMPLE" icon on the toolbar and select the appropriate E. co// analytical
method from the drop-down menu. The following membrane filtration procedures are approved for LT2 E.
co// analyses:

• Standard Methods 9222B/9222G (mEndo orLES-Endo/NA-MUG)
• Standard Methods 9222D/9222G (mFC/NA-MUG)
• Standard Methods 9213D (mTEC)
• Method 1603 (Modified mTEC)
• Method 1604 (Ml medium)
• m-ColiBlue24 Broth

The full versions of these methods are available for download in Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) format from
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/index.html or http://www.epa.gov/microbes/. Guidance on the use of
these methods under the LT2 rule, as well as the full text of the method, is provided in the Microbial
Laboratory Manual for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2 Rule) [EPA-815-
R-06-006]. Figure 3-13 displays the LT2 DCTS screen used by an approved E. co// laboratory to enter
valid E. co// sample data generated using the Membrane Filtration method.
3-38
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
E. cati Membrane Filtration - Anytown Lab - VA1234567
jDo not enter data for samples that did not meet QC requirements You are acknowledging the following by entering E. coli sample data
| into the LT2 Data Collection System: all holding and incubation times and temperatures for the sampie were met, the sample was
\ received by the laboratory in acceptable condition, a// method-specified QC requirements were met: and all QA/QC criteria and
[procedures specified in the Manual for the Certification of Laboratories Analyzing Drinking Water (EPA 815-&~97-001) were followed

; /*$.. ( >"rttv~
I Enter data foi the New Sample. S.?:f¥.f> V^ 0.*HktM* UJ] Q*-?JI.I:.<*.QB ^m.
FIELDS COMMON TO ALL SAMPLES
Samfiia-Sltlii
R««ampl>
SMUBlejiliftetaaij
PWS !D

PWS Name
EMMjscJJJOJfi
PWS FadlMsLName
Sfljimlt Collection Poitrt ID

SiOUdSJ.MesaiMLPolnlJN.imfi
SMWlMiikcIioiiDMe
AthiiijfHc^f M '.".ixiiitienis
; ENTER YOUR CALCULATED E. coli/WO mL RESULT HERE OR HAVE THE SYSTEM CALCULATE IT FOR
1 YOU USING THE SAMPLE RESULT CALCULATOR BELOW
I SAMPLE RESULT CALCULATOR (ENTER PRIMARY DATA AND CLICK SAVE, BELOW. TO
.AUTOMATICALLY CALCULATE THE SAMPLE RESULT)
I Eiiifti
Hlrei 2
j Filter 3 volume jmL|
IRESAMPLE INFORMATION (REQUIRED IF THE SAMPLE is A RESAMPLE)
i Dale
Click save to continue
Figure 3-13 E. coli Membrane Filtration Method Data Entry Screen

3-39
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Only one sample may be entered at a time. Definitions for each data field can be viewed by clicking on
the field name in the left column of the screen. Starting at the top of the data entry column, enter the
value for each field, moving down the column in order. The following is a detailed description of each
field.

Sample Status - The Sample Status indicates the status of the sample in the sample review process.
The default setting is "New Sample" for sample data entry.Valid values include:

• New Sample - applies to samples that are being entered for the first time.
• Pending Release - indicates that a sample has been entered or uploaded, and is ready for laboratory
review and approval, and release to the PWS. These samples can still be edited by the laboratory to
correct any errors before the information is submitted to the PWS.
• Delivered to PWS - indicates that a sample has been released to the PWS for review. These
samples cannot be edited.
• Returned by PWS - samples have been returned to your laboratory by the utility for issue resolution.
• PWS Reviewed - samples have been reviewed by the PWS and submitted to USEPA and state.

Resample - The resample field indicates whether or not the sample is a resample.

Sample ID (optional) - The Sample ID field may be entered for any or all samples if your laboratory
wishes to use this information to easily track samples in the LT2 DCTS.

The following fields are required in the top section of the screen labelled "Fields Common To All
Samples."

PWS ID - The PWS ID is the public water system ID, which is comprised of a two-letter state code
followed by a seven-digit number. If your laboratory is a PWS laboratory, the PWS ID for your utility will
be displayed in the drop-down menu that appears when you click the arrow next to the field. If your
laboratory is analyzing E. coli samples for a PWS client, the PWS ID for the sample is provided by the
PWS on the LT2 Sample Collection Form you received with the sample. If a PWS ID was not supplied
with the sample, contact the PWS to obtain the correct value.

The PWS IDs of all PWSs that have selected your laboratory as their £. coli laboratory will be displayed in
the drop-down menu that appears when you click the arrow next to the field. If the PWS ID for the sample
you need to enter does not appear, your laboratory has not been selected by the PWS as their E. coli
laboratory. You need to contact the PWS to request that they select your laboratory in the LT2 DCTS
before their PWS ID will appear in the drop-down menu.

3-40
-------
USEPA L T2 DCTS Users' Manual
PWS Facility Name - The PWS Facility name is the name of the facility associated with the PWS Facility
ID selected. This field is auto-populated, based on the PWS Facility ID entered. If your laboratory is a
PWS laboratory, confirm that the PWS Facility Name and PWS Facility ID selected are correct for this
sample. If your laboratory is analyzing E. coli samples for a PWS client, verify that the PWS Facility Name
supplied by the PWS on the LT2 Sample Collection Form and the PWS ID you entered are correct for this
sample.

Sample Collection Point Name - The sample collection point name is the name of the sample collection
point associated with the sample collection point ID selected. This field is auto-populated, based on the
Sample Collection Point ID entered. If your laboratory is a PWS laboratory, confirm that theSample
Collection Point Name and the Sample Collection Point ID you selected are correct for this sample. If your
laboratory is analyzing E. coli samples for a PWS client, compare the name in this field to the Sample
Collection Point Name supplied by the PWS on the LT2 Sample Collection Form and verify that the
Sample Collection Point ID you entered is correct for this sample.

Analytical Method Number - This is the method number used to designate the analytical method used
for analysis, as listed at the beginning of Section 3.7.1. Only approved analytical methods for the given
method format (in this example, membrane filtration) will be displayed in the drop-down menu.

Lab Comments (optional) - As a Lab User, you can incorporate comments concerning the sample into
the information sent to the PWS by entering comments into the comments field.

3-41 .
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
PWS Comments (if available) - As a Lab User, you can view comments in this field concerning the
sample that the PWS has sent back to the laboratory.

After entering the required fields, you may choose to enter the final calculated concentration of E. coli in
the sample reported as E. co///100 ml calculated in your laboratory or have the LT2 DCTS calculate your
results based on primary measurements. If you do not want the LT2 DCTS to automatically calculate your
result using your primary measurements, complete the E. coli result - value field. This value may be
reported to the nearest tenth. Note: Do not complete the bottom section if you complete this field - any
data entered will be ignored.

£. co///100 mL - The final calculated result of E. coli per 100 mL

To enter primary measurements from the sample and have the LT2 DCTS automatically calculate the
final result, complete the bottom section of the screen. Note: Do not enter a value for "E. coli /100 ml" in
the middle section. If a value is entered for this field any additional primary measurements entered will be
ignored by the LT2 DCTS. Additional fields required by the LT2 DCTS to calculate results for the E. coli
Membrane Filtration method may include the following primary measurements:

Filter 1 volume (mL) - the mL of sample filtered on Filter 1. This value may be reported to four decimal
places.

Filter 1 CFU - the number of E. coli colony forming units (CFU) observed on Filter 1. This value must be
reported as a whole number.

Filter 2 volume (mL) - the mL of sample filtered on Filter 2. This value may be reported to four decimal
places.

Filter 2 CFU - the number of E. coli colony forming units (CFU) observed on Filter 2. This value must be
reported as a whole number.

Filter 3 volume (mL) - the mL of sample filtered on Filter 3. This value may be reported to four decimal
places.

Filter 3 CFU - the number of E. coli colony forming units (CFU) observed on Filter 3. This value must be
reported as a whole number.

Filter 4 volume (mL) - the mL of sample filtered on Filter 4. This value may be reported to four decimal
places.

Filter 4 CFU - the number of E. coli colony forming units (CFU) observed on Filter 4. This value must be
reported as a whole number.

If the sample is a resample, additional data must be provided for the following fields:

Original Sample Collection Date - The date the original sample was collected.

Resample Explanation - The reason for why this resample is required.

After the first section and either the middle section or bottom section have been completed, click "SAVEE" to
continue. If you have made errors in data entry and have not yet clicked "SAVE," you can erase all of the
data entered on the screen by clicking "RESET ENTIRE FORM." You cannot save sample data unless all
required fields for the sample have been completed.
3-42
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
3.7.2 Calculations Associated with E. coll Membrane

Filtration Method Data Processing This section win be
updated when the functionality becomes available in the next release of
the LT2 DOTS.

The LT2 DCTS will help you perform the required method calculation by using the primary data entered
by the laboratory to automatically calculate the sample results. After the user has entered all of the
required and primary measurement fields for an E. coli sample the LT2 DCTS will automatically calculate
the sample results and present the "Calculated E. coli Membrane Filtration Method Sample Results
Ready for Submission" screen as shown in Figure 3-14.
- An^town Lab - VA1234S67
Calculated Sample Results
Click the field name for more information.

Stains
PWS ID
I PWS Name
S «J I' tl> !JL£<> IJ fi clifiiL _Po hit. !D
Sample Collection Point Name
So.uice Watej:
Analytical ResiijT- IJ»it <
Contaniinant'para m ete i
Pending Release
VA1
VA1 PWS
VA011
VA011 fac
SP2
SP2
09/06/2005
EPA 1603 (modified rnTEC)
gwudi-fs
18
E. coli/100 ml
E. coli
Ttuliiditv R
SISJ1
13
Resarnple
Snmpie Collection Pate
ofFlaqs
A [Sample not collected within +1-2 days of scheduled date
D.e.!.iveL..Sa»j.|)je JoJ'VVS

Et|it Sample

Eirtei New Sample

logout i.l
Figure 3-14. Calculated E. coli Membrane Filtration Method Sample Results Ready for Submission

To help you identify the sample, several previously entered fields will be redisplayed at the top of the
screen, including the following:
3-43
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
• Sample ID
• PWS
• PWS facility
• Sample collection point
• Sample collection date
• Analytical method number
• Source water type
• Resample
• Original Sample Collection Date
• Resample Explanation

In the section below these elements, the LT2 DCTS-calculated value is automatically populated. The
analytical result value is the final calculated concentration of E. coli in the sample, reported as E. co///100
mL The Analytical result is measured in E. coli /100 ml and uses several steps to reach the final value.
On the membrane filtration data entry screen, the user is asked to input the volume and CPU value for
Filters 1 through 4. These values will be used to determine the CPU/100 ml analytical result value.

E. coli counts should be determined from the volume(s) filtered that yielded 20 to 80 E. coli colonies (20-
60 for mFC-NA-MUG), and not more than 200 total colonies per plate. (Guidance for samples that do not
yield countable plates is provided in Sections E and F of the February 2006 version of the Microbial
Laboratory Guidance Manual for the Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2
Rule) [EPA-815-R-06-006] (Reference 4.6.2.2).

Note: The analytical result can be automatically calculated using the LT2 DCTS.

If there are greater than 200 colonies per membrane, even for the lowest dilution, the result is recorded
as "too numerous to count" (TNTC). These results cannot be reported for LT2 monitoring, as they cannot
be used for the required data analyses. During the next sampling event, analyze an additional, lower
dilution volume (the highest dilution volume may be omitted) unless conditions were unusual (e.g., heavy
rains, flooding, etc.) during the sampling event yielding TNTC for all dilutions.

If colonies are not sufficiently distinct for accurate counting, the result is recorded as "confluent growth"
(CNFG). To prevent CNFG from occurring, smaller sample aliquots should be filtered. For example, if
sample volumes of 100, 10, 1 and 0.1 mL are analyzed and even the 0.1 mL plate results in CNFG, then
potentially 0.01 mL should be analyzed during the next sampling event. For sample volumes less than 1
mL, serial dilutions should be used, and 1 mL volumes of the dilutions should be filtered. The 100 mL
volume can be eliminated. Note: If growth is due to high levels of total conforms but low E. coli, another
method should be chosen for analysis that does not rely on total coliform determination prior to or
simultaneously with E. coli determination.

Note: Results that are TNTC or CNFG are not appropriate for LT2 microbial data analysis, and cannot be
entered into the LT2 DCTS. These results should not be reported.

Using the E. coli counts from the appropriate dilution, E. coli CFU/100 mL is calculated based on the
following equation:

100
E. coli CPU * = E. coli CFU/100 mL
mL sample filtered

3-44
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Example 1:
Filter 1 volume = 100 mL
Filter 2 volume = 10 ml
Filter 3 volume = 1.0 ml
Filter 4 volume = 0.1 mL
CFU = TNTC
CFU = 40
CFU = 9
CFU = 0
Using the guidance on countable colonies above, the counts from the 10 mL plate will be used to
calculate the E. coli concentration for the sample:
40 E. coli CPU *
100
10
= 400£. co//CFU/100mL
If no E. co//colonies are present, the detection limit is calculated as the following:
< largest volume filtered per 100 ml.
100mL
Detection Limit =
Example 2:
Filter 1 volume (ml) = 100 ml
Filter 2 volume (mL) = 10 mL
Filter 3 volume (mL) = 1.0 mL
Calculation of E. co///100 mL:
Largest volume filtered

CFU = 0
CFU = 0
CFU = 0
= E. co//CFU/100mL
100 mL
100mL
Example 3:
Filter 1 volume (mL) = 100 mL
Filter 2 volume (mL) = 10 mL
Filter 3 volume (mL) = 1.0 mL
Calculation of E. co///100 mL:
100mL
10 mL
= <1 E. co//CPU/100 mL

CFU = Lab incident, no data available
CFU = 0
CFU = 0

= <10E. co//CPU/100 mL
If there are no filters with E. coli counts in the 20-80 colony range (20-60 for mFC-NA-MUG), sum the E.
coli counts on all filters, divide by the volume filtered and report as number per 100 mL.
3-45
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Example 4:
Filter 1 volume (ml) = 50 mL
Filter 2 volume (mL) = 25 mL
Filter 3 volume (mL) = 10 mL
The analytical result is calculated as:
(15 + 6 + 0)*
CFU = 15
CFU = 6
CFU = 0
100
(50 + 25 + 10)
= 25E. co//CFU/100mL
Example 5:
Filter 1 volume (mL) = 50 mL
Filter 2 volume (mL) = 25 mL
Filter 3 volume (mL) = 10 mL
The analytical result is calculated as:
(105 + 92 + 85)'

Example 6:
Filter 1 volume (mL) = 100 mL
Filter 2 volume (mL) = 10 mL
Filter 3 volume (mL) = 1 mL
The analytical result is calculated as:
(82 + 18 + 0)*

Example 7:
Filter 1 volume (mL) = 50 mL
Filter 2 volume (mL) = 25 mL
Filter 3 volume (mL) = 10 mL
The analytical result is calculated as:
(83)*
CFU = 105
CFU = 92
CFU = 85
100
(50 + 25 + 10)

CFU = 82
CFU = 18
CFU = 0
= 332£. co//CFU/100mL
100
(100+ 10 + 1).
= 90£. co//CFU/100mL
100
10
CFU = TNTC
CFU = TNTC
CFU = 83

- = 830 £. co// CFU/100 mL
3-46
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
The remaining three fields in the "Calculated E. coli Membrane Filtration Method Sample Results Ready
for Submission" screen include auto-populated fields to help define the sample specifications. The sample
analytical result unit of measure is auto-populated as "E. co///100 ml," and the contaminant/parameter
field is automatically populated by the LT2 DCTS as "E. coli."

The final component of the LT2 DCTS calculations is assignment of a data qualifier flag. This flag is
placed at the bottom of the screen. If data are not compliant with LT2 rule monitoring requirements, it will
automatically be flagged in the LT2 DCTS, and the flag key identifying the noncompliant monitoring
requirement will be displayed in the flag row of the sample results information. Table 3-3 displays the
flags that can apply to E. coli data, as well as the condition that triggers the flag. A legend defining the
flag keys will appear with the key letter and the flag at the bottom of the screen.

3.7.3 E. coli Membrane Filtration Method Data Review This
section will be updated when the functionality becomes available in the
next release of the LT2 DCTS.

The LT2 DCTS allows the Principal Analyst at the laboratory to review and approve E. coli sample
membrane filtration method results for submission to the PWS. If you have been designated as the Lab
Approver User, you will have the option to approve the sample results for submission to the PWS at this
time. If you are without designated approval status you will not have the option to submit data to the
PWS, rather, you will have the option to edit the current sample data or enter new samples.

Lab Approver Users use the LT2 DCTS calculations page displayed in Figure 3-14 to approve data. You
will review the entered, calculated, and populated results for each sample to verify that they are correct
before approving the results for submission to the PWS. If errors are identified, the results can be edited
by clicking on the "EDIT SAMPLE" link in the bottom right corner. If you would like to approve the sample,
click the "DELIVER SAMPLE TO PWS" link in the bottom right corner.

Before the sample can be approved, you must agree to the following statement:

If "OK" is clicked, you will be directed to a confirmation screen indicating that: "The following E. coli sample
was successfully submitted to the PWS on [date sent]." To navigate from this confirmation screen use the
main toolbar on the left.

3.8 View Samples and Search This section will be updated when
the functionality becomes available in the next release of the LT2 DCTS.

The LT2 DCTS allows laboratories to search for Cryptosporidium or E. coli samples already entered by
their laboratory. The search screen serves as an access point to view the existing sample data. You can

3-47
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
set search specifications for E. co//or Cryptosporidium data, sample ID, PWS inventory data, status, last
update date, and sample collection date. Figure 3-15 displays an example of the search screen.
Seared for a Sample for Anytown tafe - VA1234S67 ™%
. "''

Please enter as much data as possible to !i mit the search to a targeted «et of results.
Large data retrievals can produce problems with the display of the results •
© Cryptosporidium Q E. coli vj select Method
DSamplelD
QPWS Inventory Data
D Status
E3 Last Edit Date
D Sample Collection Date

To perform a wildcard search, use the "%" symbol to specity the location ot the wildcard
identifier (e.g. "VA2%").
PWS * Facility: v,
v ^

Start 09/08/2005 End : 10/08/2005
Start End
SEARCH SAMPLES Ms,
Tfe

Figure 3-15. Laboratory Search Screen

To search for a sample, first select either Cryptosporidium or £. coli at the top of the table by clicking the
appropriate radio button. If E. coli is selected, select the appropriate method type from the drop-down
menu. You can search for all four E. coli method types by selecting "All Methods" from the drop-down
menu. After selecting the analyte, select one or more of the search specification displayed in the table by
clicking the box next to the criterion. For each criterion selected, enter the value in the field, or pick the
desired value from the drop-down menu to the right. After you have selected the analyte and search
specifications, click on the "SEARCH SAMPLES" link to display the search results. A listing of relevant
samples will appear at the bottom of the screen. Up to 10 samples will be viewed at one time. If more
than 10 samples match the search specifications, navigational buttons will be displayed to permit the user
to click through the rest of the data. There are buttons to move to the next set of 10 samples (>), last set
of 10 samples (>|), previous set of 10 samples (<), and first set of 10 samples (|<). If you chose to search
for all E. coli methods, the method that was used for the sample will be color-coded in the search results:

• Yellow: 15-tubeMPN
• Purple: Membrane Filtration
• Grey: ONPG-MUG, 51-well
• Pink: ONPG-MUG, 97-well

The text at the top of the bottom section of the screen indicates how many samples matched your search
specifications. If you would like to modify your search, return to the top of the screen, modify the search
information and click on the "SEARCH SAMPLES" link again.

Search results are organized in the table by three "status" categories:
3-48
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
• Pending release - samples that have been entered by your laboratory but not approved for release
to the PWS.
• Delivered to the PWS - samples that have been approved by your laboratory for PWS review, and
can no longer be changed by your laboratory.
• Returned by PWS - samples that have been submitted by your laboratory to the PWS, but returned
to you by the PWS for action.

Once a sample has been either approved or contested by the PWS, it switches to a "PWS Reviewed"
status. These samples are not automatically displayed to the user. They must be searched for
specifically, by selecting the "PWS Reviewed" status from the drop-down menu in the search
specifications.

Under each status, the data are initially sorted by "Last Edit Date." You may also sort the data by clicking
on any of the column headings including Sample ID, PWS, PWS Facility, Sample Collection Point, Last
Edit Date, Sample Collection Date, and Last Edit User.

You can view (or edit for samples that are pending release) up to four Cryptosporidium samples or one E.
co// sample at a time by clicking the check boxes to the left of the samples, then clicking on the "EDIT/VIEW
SELECTED SAMPLE DATES" link. You can download samples that have been delivered to the PWS by
clicking the check boxes to the left of the samples, then clicking on the "DOWNLOAD SELECTED SAMPLES"
link. You may also print the search results using the "PRINT SEARCH RESULTS." Once the "PRINT SEARCH
RESULTS" link is clicked and your printer's menu appears, set the print layout/orientation to "Landscape" in
order to see the entirety of the search results.

To return to the first record in your search click the "RETURN TO TOP OF RESULTS" link on the bottom of the
page. To perform a new search, click on the "CHANGE SEARCH OPTIONS" link at the bottom of the screen to
go back to the top of the page.
3.9 Sample Dates
Laboratories may view a PWS' established sampling schedule dates by using the left-hand toolbar and
clicking on the "Sample Dates" button. This leads to a screen with two search options: by date range or
by organization. To view sampling dates, select both a start and end date and click "Submit" to view all
scheduled sample dates that match the search specification. To view established sampling schedule
dates by organization, select both the PWS name and facility name from the list and click the "SUBMIT" link
to view sampling dates associated with the selected PWS and facility. Figure 3-16 displays an example of
the "PWS Sampling Schedule" search screen.
3-49
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Sample Dates
View the PWS established sampling schedule by searching within a particular Date Range or Organization and then click
"Submit" to display the results.
'?':
*•**-•'
Date Range
Otganization
Start
PWS
; 8/9/2005 "3
! -Please select- jvj
End
Facility
J1 0/29/2005 3
I -Please select- v
Sampling Schedule:
Submit
Date
PWS
Facility
08/22/2005
VA1 PWS
VA011 fac
09/05/2005
VA1 PWS
VAD11 fac
09/19/2005
VA1 PWS
VA011 fac
10/03/2005
VA1 PWS
VA011 fac
10/17/2005
VA1 PWS
VA011 fac
Figure 3-16. View a PWS Sampling Schedule
3.10 Contacts
The LT2 DCTS allows Lab Users to view the list of contacts for their laboratory. Lab Approver Users may
select and/or update the Official Contact for their laboratory by clicking on the "CONTACTS" link in the
navigational toolbar. New contacts entered into the LT2 DCTS will automatically be associated with the
laboratory you are currently working on and will be visible only to users with permission to access data for
the laboratory. Lab Users can also view the contacts for the PWSs for which they are a contracting
laboratory. Note: Lab Users do not have the ability to modify the PWS contacts. Figure 3-17 displays an
example of the "LT2 Contacts" screen.
Contacts for Anytown Lab - VA1234867 j|*
LTZ Co nt
Update th
lab must r
acts
3 official contact by selecting the radio button next to the appropriate contact and click "Update Official Contact." Note: Every
ave one official contact designated as the main contact for all EPA correspondence.
Official
Contact
^v
•',.}
tdtt
/
^
Delete

ET
€itfltt<#Naiiie ' -

Kerri Contact
James Smith
'• '' IttlS ; ''' :?
:.l
Analyst
Principal
f -:;j -if- ' :
'•f<-Vmm HifKiber
(703)618-0000
(703) 888-8888 |
Uuciate Official Contact Insert New Contact Seal eh Official Contacts
Figure 3-17. Laboratory Contact List

Every laboratory must have an Official Contact identified in the LT2 DCTS as the point of reference on all
USEPA correspondence. The first contact entered into the LT2 DCTS will automatically be selected as
the Official Contact. If more than one contact is listed for a laboratory, the Lab Approver User will have
the ability to determine which person should be designated as the Official Contact. After an Official
3-50
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Contact is assigned, that user cannot be deleted until the Lab Approver User has designated a new
Official Contact. The Official Contact is the person from your laboratory that USEPA should contact
regarding LT2 issues. Select the Official Contact for your laboratory by clicking the appropriate radio
button under the "Official Contact" column in the contacts table and clicking the "UPDATE OFFICIAL
CONTACT" link.

To delete a contact for your laboratory, click the trash can icon next to the contact name in the "Delete"
column of the contacts table. Note: Since an Official Contact is required by the LT2 DCTS, the Official
Contact cannot be deleted.

The LT2 DCTS also allows Lab Approver Users to update and add new contact information. Lab Users
can only view this information. To edit information for a contact, click the pencil icon next to the contact
name in the "Edit" column of the contacts table. To add a new contact for your laboratory, click the
"INSERT NEW CONTACT" link. Figure 3-18 displays the screen used for updating and adding new contact
information.
Please enter/edit information about the contact below To designate the contact as a LT2 and/or Stage 2 contact, select the appropriate
contact type from the associated drop-down. If "Mot Applicable" is selected, you are stating that this individual is not a contact for the
particular system.
'* First Name
""Last Name
NickNantft
LT2 Contact Type
Department
-Till e
"Mailing Address
Mailing jy«Jr*ss2
*<%
* State
*I5p C»
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
If you are editing contact information, the contact form will be populated with the current information
stored in the database. You may simply update the field you would like to correct and click the "SAVE" link
at the bottom of the screen.

If you are entering a new contact, you must enter values for all required fields marked with an asterisk.
You may enter values for optional fields, as appropriate. When complete, click the "SAVE" link at the
bottom of the screen.

You may exit the form using the following three methods:

• To return to the laboratory contact list without saving, click the "RETURN TO LIST" list.
• To save the contact information, click the "SAVE" link.
• If you make data entry errors, and would like to delete all information from the form and start over,
click the "RETURN TO LIST" link.
3-52
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Section 4. PWS User
This section provides instructions for the public water system (PWS) User. The basic PWS capabilities
are shown in Figure 4-1.
Search Criteria

— ^

Approve/Contest/Return to
Lab

£ co// Review/Approve/
Contest/Return to Lab
— ^

Cryptosporiaium
Confirmation

E. coli
Confirmation
Facility Information

Edit/Add New Facility/Sample
Point
View/Delete Contacts

Edit/Add New Contact
Edit Sample Dates or
Enter New

Print Schedule
View urandfatnered
and Bin Status
Select a New
Organization
Edit User Information
Add/Delete Contract
Labs
Add/Edit Users
Help Screens
Figure 4-1. L T2 DOTS PWS User Basic Work Flow
4-1
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
An overview of the steps you must take to use the LT2 DCTS include the following:

All PWS functions described in this section are initiated by logging into the LT2 DCTS Home Page,
available on the Web at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/index.html. When you, as a PWS User, log on
to the LT2 DCTS, the LT2 DCTS will determine the list of organizations with which you are associated. In
most cases, you will be associated with only one organization and will move directly to the search screen
(Section 4.2). If you are registered for more than one organization, you must select the PWS you wish to
access (Section 4.1).
4.1 Select Organization
The "Select Organization" screen is intended for those users who are associated with more than one
organization. If you are only associated with one organization, you will not be directed to this screen after
login. If you are registered for more than one organization, this screen will open automatically. You must
select the organization you wish to access. Figure 4-2 displays the "Select Organization" screen.
Your Current Organization is Anytown Lab - VA1234567
Select the organization t'of which you 'ffant to use LTO with:
3-VA1234567
IVA1 PWS - VA1
:[VA Test Lab 2 - VA0920051
CONlMUf
Figure 4-2. Select Organization Screen

After your initial log in, the LT2 DCTS will display a list of associated organizations and you will be
required to select the organization for which you would like to edit/view/enter data. At any given point, you
can only enter or review samples for one organization. To switch to another organization, click the
"CHANGE ACTIVE ORGANIZATION" link that appears in the side navigation toolbar. The "Select Organization"
screen will be displayed, and you may choose to work within a different organization. The organization
that you are currently working under will be displayed at the top of each screen.

The LT2 DCTS will, by default, link you to the first organization that appears on your list. Clicking a new
organization on your list can change this default. The page will refresh, and you will be associated with
4-2
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
the new organization. For example, by default you may be entered as Anytown Lab. However, you may
wish to review samples for VA1 PWS. Select VA1 PWS by clicking on its name in the list box. The page
will refresh and VA1 PWS will appear as the active organization at the top of the screen.

Click the "CONTINUE" link to complete the procedure and continue to the first page associated with the
selected user role. The navigation toolbar will appear on the left side with the links appropriate to the
selected user role.

4.2 View Samples and Search This section will be updated when
the functionality becomes available in the next release of the LT2 DCTS.

The LT2 DCTS allows PWSs to search for Cryptosporidium or E. coli samples already entered by
laboratories associated with their utility. The search screen serves as an access point to view the existing
sample data. After first selecting Cryptosporidium or E. coli, you can set search specifications for
Cryptosporidium or E. co//data, PWS inventory data, status, lab approval date, and sample collection
date. Figure 4-3 displays an example of the search screen.

Please enter as much data as possibleto limit the search to atargeted sat of results.
Large data retrievals can produce problems with the di splay of th« results.
• • CfYptOupOl'ldlUrr: E CO'l V Select Method
QPWS Inventory Data
[J Status
[i] Lab Approval Date
LJ Sample Collection Date
Facility v Sampling Point: v
-
Start 09/08/2005 End 10/08/2005
Start End I
Figure 4-3. PWS Search Screen

From the search screen, you can gain access to any data that has been previously approved by a Lab
Approver User. To search for a sample, first select either Cryptosporidium or E. coli at the top of the table
by clicking the appropriate radio button. If E. coli is selected, choose the appropriate method type from
the drop-down menu to the right of "E. coli," or select to search for all methods by selecting "All Methods"
from the drop-down menu. Next, select one or more of the search specifications displayed in the table
which follows by entering the criterion in the text box or picking the desired value from the drop-down
menu to the right. The corresponding check box will automatically be selected. Click the check box to
remove this item from your list of search criterion. After you have selected the analyte and search
specifications, click the "SEARCH SAMPLES" link to display the search results. A listing of relevant samples
will appear at the bottom of the screen with text indicating the number of samples that matched your
search specifications. Up to 10 samples will be displayed at one time. If more than 10 samples match the
search specifications, navigational buttons will be displayed to permit the user to click through the rest of
the data. There are buttons to move to the next set of 10 samples (>), the last set of 10 samples (>|), the
4-3
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
previous set of 10 samples (<), and the first set of 10 samples (|<). If you chose to search for all E. coli
methods, the method that was used for the sample will be color-coded in the search results:

• Yellow: 15-tubeMPN
• Purple: Membrane Filtration
• Grey: ONPG-MUG, 51-well
• Pink: ONPG-MUG, 97-well

If you would like to modify your search, return to the top of the screen, modify the search specifications
and click the "SEARCH SAMPLES" link again.

Search results are organized by five "status" categories, as displayed in Table 4-1 below:

Table 4-1. Status Categories
STATUS
Pending approval
Approved
Returned to Lab
Contested
Not Reviewed
DESCRIPTION
Samples that have been submitted by the laboratory, but that your PWS has not
approved for release to USEPA.
Samples that have been approved by your PWS for submission to USEPA.
Samples that have been returned to the laboratory by the PWS for further action.
Samples that have been submitted by your PWS to USEPA not as approved samples,
but as sample results that were generated, but that you contend are not valid for LT2
binning.
Samples that have not been reviewed by a PWS within the designated time period are
automatically forwarded to USEPA/state. Flagged samples are excluded from this
process and will remain at the PWS. The designated time period is defined as no later
than 10 days after the end of the first month following the month in which the sample is
collected (e.g. if the sample was collected April 16th, June 10th is the end of the
designated time period).
Under each status, the data are initially sorted by "Lab Approval Date." You may also sort the data by
clicking on any of the remaining column headings, including: Sample ID, Lab, PWS Facility, Sample
Collection Point, and Sample Collection Date.

You can view up to four samples of the same analyte and method at a time by clicking the check boxes to
the left of the samples, then clicking on the "REVIEW SELECTED SAMPLES" link. You may choose to approve,
contest, or send the sample data back to the associated laboratory for modification. Approved or
contested samples are submitted to the USEPA.

You may also print the search results using the "PRINT SEARCH RESULTS" Link. Note: Once the "PRINT
SEARCH RESULTS" link is clicked and your printer's menu appears, set the print layout/orientation to
"Landscape" in order to see the entirety of the search results.

To return to the top of the table of search results, click the "RETURN TO TOP OF RESULTS" link on the bottom
of the page. Also, to perform a new search, click the "CHANGE SEARCH OPTIONS" link at the bottom of the
screen to go back to the top of the page.
4-4
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
4.3 PWS Cryptosporidium Data Review This section win be
updated when the functionality becomes available in the next release of
the LT2 DCTS.

The LT2 DCTS allows you to review Cryptosporidium sample results submitted by the laboratory. You
may approve the results for submission to USEPA, contest the results for submission to USEPA as
invalid, or return the results back to the laboratory for issue resolution. To do so, you can reach the
Cryptosporidium review sample screen directly from the search screen. LT2 DCTS calculations are
displayed at the top of the screen, with the raw data entered by the laboratory at the bottom. Figure 4-4
depicts the PWS Cryptosporidium Data Review Screen.

You may only review samples the laboratory has approved and submitted to the PWS. Up to four
Cryptosporidium samples are displayed on this screen. Data for each sample are displayed in a different
column. Sample results can only be viewed by the PWS; they cannot be edited in any way. However, if
the sample is returned to the laboratory, the data can be edited by the laboratory if appropriate.

You can change the sample status by approving or contesting the sample, or you can choose to return
the sample to the associated laboratory. The status of each sample is displayed at the top of each
column, as displayed in Table 4-1.

The information displayed in the table at the top half of the data review page contains the final results for
each sample, including sample identification information and the calculated concentration of
Cryptosporidium in the sample. A description of each of these fields can be viewed by clicking on the
field. For a written description refer to Section 3.3, Cryptosporidium Samples. The comments fields for the
PWS User differ from those available to the Lab User. The "Lab Comments to PWS" field will not be
displayed, instead a PWS User can view "Lab Comments" entered by a laboratory. A PWS User can add
comments to the sample for laboratory or for USEPA/state viewing. This function works by clicking "ADD"
for either "PWS Comments For Lab" or "PWS Comments for EPA/State" and entering the comments into
the comments box that appears. After entering comments into the comments box, click "SAVE" to close the
comment window and associate the comments with the sample. Note: the comments will not be saved
until "SAVE CHANGES" is selected from the sample review screen. By clicking "CANCEL" in the comment box,
the comment box will close, and any information entered will not be recorded to the sample.
4-5
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Grypttaporiantm-Via PWs
• VA1 : *4,
To submit "Pending" sample? a-; approved or contested, or return "Pending" samples lo the lab for correction, change the status using the
drop-down menu Click the "Save Changes" link to complete the action t >- i itLn tmn regaidmg each sample can be found by
scrolling down Click the field name for more information
ass
Pending Approval v;
Pending Approval! "1
SYSTEM GENERATED CRYPTOSPOK&UM CALCULATIONS
S«!!R!<> IB ts|Mte!!»i)
PWS facility ID
MS .ydlilit N««
S.iiiiKl* collation print ID
taw |
Sample «>lter.tira ii,M<-
9
V^011
VAD11 fac
SP1
3PI
01A]2/2IXl4
S«!(,l« ..{MS (R*<<) .«< MSI [Field
U
PsMfc! v*»!»me ait%;^
(mLj
£MlilffilM2Ul'iM!liel< •
A»*%!K«U"?'^>ii ,iiimJ».,
AlMlV«»s,lli >i,m • i
377
,58
I'.'-.'V'pfL'SPofWum
ir.j;viEC3
b 1
nnrv-.tvl
«!*>
H*p. "1:
LjkELm»M:fl VI,,:.
1
vyiD11
VAD1 1 fac
SP2
SP2
09/08^003
Field
311
1.3
Cryplospoildiuirr
1622/1623
7405
oocysts/L

E
^ira
No

.-.11,1
A.fjr
PVV,•: <- -: - i
1
\
: Pending Approval :**;
Pending Approval v

VA01 1
VA011 fac
SP2
3P2
09/22/2003
Field
15

Ciyptosfandium
1622/1623
1533
f>OCVSlS/L

--,1:1
'-v J :l

i f Mii.iM.itK'M o! M.i«r> I
i ft '''-iirijii.' nnt rnilec ted within +/-11 clav;. of scheduled date
j B I'Mmpir vuiume anaiysi1:. requirempnts notmet
| f lr,l itn- spile '..?irripe was spiked with greater than 500 i
! i ih^ rrntii--. spil.e -/olume anatv^ed is not within +/- 10% of J
! ilfif- vuiume ..m.-iiyzed for the ,3=_. rousted f eld sample j

3
VA011
VA01 1 fac
SP2
SP2
1 0/08.12003
Field
377
1.58
Cfyptospondium
1622/1623
61
oocysts/L

B
xj£^'
No

:'i*1
'\,_l,'l

SUPPLEMENTARY CRYPinsPORIOIUM DATA ELEMENTS ENTERED BY THE LABORATORY
FIELDS COMMON 10 Al 1 SAMPI f S
h.impU- H
Sainplomliin.FMt-i,. : .,
W.-fS KW'-< -.t i,i!.'!,-^
vohMiH- (.--•.,f!Iini (i
11 1 J
15
II
N
Humb?i ui ...wv-.1'
3
15 |5
Y N

DATA TO CAL all AT[ OlirYSl CONCE NTRATION (NEEDED ONLY FOR SAMPLES IN WHICH < 100% OF FILTERED VOLUME
WAS EXAMINED)
i-»m.fnliotc m:i' V .I'-'l
Voiunit «I !«>|,.i,Mi.i, r
IM!. (ml 1
,:•:• 13:
|s 2
h2
q T
IDATA TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH SAMPLE VOLUME ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS (NEEDED ONLY FOR SAMPLES IN
IWHICH VOLUME FILTERED is
-------
USER A L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
The information displayed in the table at the bottom half of the data review page contains the raw data
that were entered by the laboratory for the sample. These data are used by the LT2 DCTS to calculate
final results, or verify compliance with LT2 monitoring requirements. These data may be helpful to you in
evaluating the final results that appear in the top table. A description of each of these fields can be viewed
by clicking on the fields. For a written description, refer to Section 3.3, Cryptosporidium Samples.

After you have verified that data reported by the laboratory are complete, have met method QC
requirements, and that there are no remaining issues on the data, you can electronically approve the data
and release it to USEPA by changing the status to "Approved." If the data are not adequate, or cannot be
used for LT2 binning, it may be "Returned to Lab" or sent to the USEPA as "Contested", respectively. If a
sample is "Returned to Lab" or sent to the USEPA as "Contested", a comment for the lab or the USEPA
must be added to the sample before being sent to the receiving entity. If a sample was not collected
within the valid sample collection window (+/- 2 days from a date on the sample schedule), flag A will
display and comments must be entered in the "PWS flag explanation for EPA/State" field.

If flag B, C, or D are associated to the sample, it cannot be passed to USEPA or state for inclusion in the
LT2 Bin. Instead, the sample must either remain at the PWS, or be marked as "Returned to Lab" for
modification. Flags A and E do not automatically prohibit inclusion in the LT2 Bin and can be passed to
USEPA and state for review. See Table 3-1 for a description of the flags. To change the status of a
sample that is "Pending Approval", select the appropriate status in the drop-down menu in the "Status"
row above the sample. After the appropriate status has been selected, click the "SAVE CHANGES" link.

If a sample has already been approved, returned to the lab, contested, or not reviewed in time, its status
cannot be changed.

Once a sample is reviewed, you will be directed to a confirmation screen indicating that: "The following
Cryptosporidium sample was successfully submitted on [date sent]." To navigate from this confirmation
screen, use the main toolbar on the left.

4.4 PWS E. COli Data Review This section will be updated when
the functionality becomes available in the next release of the LT2 DCTS.

The LT2 DCTS allows you to review £. coli sample results submitted by the laboratory. You may approve
the results for submission to USEPA, contest the results for submission to USEPA as invalid, or return the
results back to the laboratory for issue resolution. You can access the E. coli review sample screen
directly from the search screen. LT2 DCTS calculations are displayed at the top of the screen, with the
raw data entered by the laboratory at the bottom. Figures 4-5 through 4-8 depict the "PWS E. coli Data
Review" screens.

You may only review samples the laboratory has approved and submitted to the PWS. Up to four E. coli
samples are displayed on this screen. Data for each sample are displayed in a different column. Sample
results can only be viewed by the PWS; they cannot be edited in any way. However, if the sample is
returned to the laboratory, the data can be edited by the laboratory. For a detailed description of each
type of sample status, review Section 4.3.
4-7
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
E. SOU - VA1 PWS - VA1 *i ,
To submit "Pending" samples a
drop-down menu Click the "Sa
scrolling down. Click the field n
_Stal«%
s approved or contested, o
l,e II* jopUondl)
ESMSLtocilrty in
E3SS..fenilhi Nam*
Sample iollt>t Holt ponti
I
.t?Mn^lt...^Mlf.^lJMLPM!H
Name
S.!!HJ*fe i.»l!*M J«*H dai?
Smiite w,ii tj£(»»>
C."oiJtairwM»l $41 limH^s
An.fS]^1.i^MjBM!M**f
"limit!
Sj]^¥*icMjrjsM>IL^llMj&
Analytical result .... unit oi
Hiejsisrjt
llilUillBLiesaiJliSiyj
Etaas
LsliLMIMOJlOli?
BesJ}ectk>n flale
lab lesample
fexplmM*I&B
PWS c^iBHieist^ fos ia!.^
PWS comments foi
EPS'State
PWS flaa explanation for
EPA/State
EPA f!iK! expi-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
|E^E«>»-¥A1 PWS-WI ' . ;. ' .'.''. ':"":' .. . ..•••'•'' "'^ji^i
To subr
drop-do
scrollin

nit "Pending" samples as approved or contested, or return "Pending"
ivn menu. Click the "Save Changes" link to complete the action. Mon
3 down. Click the field name for more information.
Return to Search Screes? S

Status
Pending Approval v
samples to the lab for correction, change the status using the
' information regarding each sample can be found by
aye Chanties \y
Pending Approval M
Pending Approval v'
SYSTEM GENERATED £. CO// CALCULATIONS
Sarngljs ID (optionaj}
PWS facility ID
PWS facility. Name
Sjmtjjle collect|oii£oin4 ID
SjUHldiiCollectijcMjjyyntJName
Ssnii>fejiMl6£fitn ials
Source watei tvpe
^2Jl!«!ilill!ii!]i:JMlj3J!lSl?I
Analytical method nunibei
Analytical lesnlt -value
4llidiMfiJlJJJ?Jll!!LJllli!j3ij!l£ilSSlI6
[i!j.kLi!Ifi- LS'syJlJH Jill
•:Lass
._ab comments
iesaijiijif
l!l*LlllM..$
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
To sybn
dtop-do
scroHinc
nil "Pending" samples as approved or contested, or return "Pending" samples to the iab for correction, change the status using the
tai menu Click the "Saw Changes" link to eompltte the action NtBrjLinfQOSgtiQn regarding each ianipte can be found by
3 down. Click the field name for more information.
M.)lus
Pending Approval •*
Pending Appro. a! ~
Pending Approval *•;
SYSTEM GENERATED E. co« CALCULATIONS
\.stm$\» ll» t«ptbftal}
PWSIaolity in
E«4»%lii!XN
. tii.n point II)
S. f f»H<»c}i,j»ts p.otnt N.mif
Sdllljitu e ollpriii.ji -Luc
Syr £«"»<«•' 'jfl'f
' «nl.im m|..n>iiii.>t,-i
ftiiiijyiK -il im;thM ..I Hi" isnre
1 urbulif^ i''<,n,i ^*| i tlj
i i,,ti.-, H.m
I ill '.- JIHJ.!.. .'r}.(,m,,!l,.|.
(>W- - .iM'»..nl (,,i !..(.
CW' (mil ii"iit> f./1 f I'A Sl.ih-
\"ff* tl.ilj <-«jH.lfittl<"ll I"! ( I A Milt.
! PA fl,i«j f uplinatiuM

VA011
VA011 fac
SP1
SP1
09/03/2005
both
E co*
SM 9223 (Colilert)
185
E coli/100 mL
1
A

MJ
j-.g.c.
rife

VA01 1
VA01 1 fac
SP2
SP2
06/07/2005
river/stream
e co*
SM 9223 (Colilert)
66
E coli/100 ml
31!

Arid
Ada

Et>;(*ld

SUPPLEMENTARY E. coti DATA ELEMENTS ENTERED BY THE LABORATORY
User Calculated £.co/< 100 mL
£, S^d, .5c(Mn ,,,,.M,.tl!i, -^

Figure 4-7. PWS E. coli ONPC-MUC, 97-well Method Data Review Screen
4-10
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
E.COW-VA1 PWS-VA1 : .. ..'..',.•.•;•• . .' :,,':-['-l •' . ' •" : " %^"
••:.--.--••• :-- - "' '• •-' '" ''' . • ' '• - , ':•• ::.-:: , .: • " . - '."/'-:'. '"' .
To subr
drop-do
scrollin
nit "Pending" samples as approved or cor
wn menu Click the "Save Changes" link
g down Click the field name for more info
Be.!!!!.!.
Status
tested, or return "Pending" samples to the lab for corre
o complete the action. More information reaardma eac
mation
J.;>. S e ii i di Ss:r s si^ ^.^ve..Ch^.o.o.es y^
Pending Approval iv|
Pending Approval !v|
lion, change the status u
h sample can be found by
Pending Approval v j
SYSTEM GENERATED E. COll CALCULATIONS
Sample ID topttenali
PWS facility ID
PWS fcieilitv Name
S.lMp.'J...£Ml.t.dMp...n.f!.!lt!.D
Sj.!P.I?.l.^l.*-MltMif.'l.ll. <,<>iiti:iicnls
Rj?%ii!!|lJe
MaiudUamB!sjMi<,lis'jL!k!fi.
tiiJuesjiBmli-asjiijuijaii'ji
PWS a;omments fo? ls~4t
PWS comments lot fff< Si.ne
P W S jj[ F P A S f a|e
RPA JI'Kj . ex|>Ja»a?ioi!

VA01 1
VA01 1 fac
SP2
SP2
09/D6/2005
gwudi-fs
£ co/i
EPA 1603 (modified mTEC)
18
E coli/100 ml
13

Aikl
Ark]

VA011
VA01 1 fac
SP2
SP2
09/30,2005
both
£ coli
SM 921 3D (mTEC)
62
E. coli/100 ml
12
A

Add
Add
Arid

f K|ilanati-)i> »1 I lag-:, ]
A. [Sample not collected within +/-2 days of scheduled date j

MF3
VA011
VA01 1 fac
SP1
SP1
07/05/2005
river/ stream
E co/i
EPA 1604 (Ml Medium)
62
E coli/100 mL
1
A

.Add
AJIC.I
Add

SUPPLEMENTARY E. coli DATA ELEMENTS ENTERED BY THE LABORATORY
User Calculated E.co/l 100 mL
E.co//'100 ml
Sample Result Calculator
:i!!S! ...I. v.9.lM.nj*. .te! J
CBLf!.n...E>!le.!....!.
-fitei 'I v0jjime_|l^|j
CPU eti Fiitei 2
:ilfe! 3 voiMMMjl^t^
CPU on Fiitei 3
-iSte! 4 vsjSssme joUJ
CPU on Fiitei j

65
3
52
32
32 34
14

BsffimJflSc flidi.Saeeii Savt.CiislitifiS ^
sing the
Figure 4-8. PWS E. coli Membrane Filtration Method Data Review Screen
4-11
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
The information displayed in the table at the top half of the page contains the final results for each
sample, including sample identification information and the calculated concentration of E. coli in the
sample. A description of each of these fields can be viewed by clicking on the field itself. Alternatively,
you can refer to Sections 3.4 through 3.8 for a description of these fields. The comments fields for the
PWS User differ from the Laboratory User. The "Lab Comments to PWS" field will not be displayed,
instead a PWS User can view "Lab Comments" submitted by a laboratory. A PWS User can add
comments to the sample for the laboratory or the USEPA/state to view. This function works by clicking
"ADD" for either "PWS Comments for Lab" or "PWS Comments for EPA/State" and entering the comments
into the comments box that appears. After entering comments into the comments box, click "SAVE" to save
the comment to the sample. By clicking "CANCEL" in the comment box, the comment box will close, and
any information entered will not be recorded to the sample.

The information displayed in the table at the bottom half of the page contains the raw data that was
entered by the laboratory for the sample if the laboratory elected to use the LT2 DCTS to calculate results
based on the primary data. These data may be helpful to you in evaluating the final results that appear in
the top table. A description of each of these fields can be viewed by clicking on the field itself.
Alternatively, you can refer to Sections 3.4 through 3.8 for a description of these fields.

After you have verified that data reported by the laboratory are complete, have met method QC
requirements, and that there are no remaining issues for the data, you can electronically approve the data
and release it to USEPA by changing the status to "Approved." If the data are not adequate, or cannot be
used for LT2 binning, it may be "Returned to Lab" or sent to the USEPA as "Contested," respectively. If a
sample is "Returned to Lab" or sent to the USEPA as "Contested", a comment for the laboratory or the
USEPA must be added to the sample before being sent to the receiving entity. If a sample was not
collected within the valid sample collection window (+/- 2 days from a date on the sample schedule; flag A
will display), comments must be entered in the "PWS flag explanation for EPA/State" field.

To change the status of a sample that is "Pending Approval," select the appropriate status in the drop-
down menu in the "Status" row above the sample. After the appropriate status has been selected, click
the "SAVE CHANGES" link.

Note: If a sample has already been approved, returned to the lab, contested, or not reviewed in time, its
status cannot be changed.

Once a sample is reviewed, you will be directed to a confirmation screen indicating that: "The following £.
coli sample was successfully submitted on [date sent]." To navigate from this confirmation screen, use the
main toolbar on the left.
4.5 PWS Facility Information
Information regarding the facility and sampling points for the PWS are detailed in a report generated by
the LT2 DCTS. This function of the LT2 DCTS allows you to view, establish, or remove a relationship
between your PWS, and its facilities and sampling points.

The "Facility Information" screen is accessed through the navigation toolbar's "Facility Information" button
on the left side of the screen. Each facility's sampling points will be displayed alongside the
corresponding facility. All data are organized in tabular format and can be sorted by clicking on the
desired column heading. Figure 4-9 displays an example of the "Facility Information" screen.
4-12
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Inventory Report for VA1FWS-VA1 ^fe>
V •- "• ' • '••, • '•• -'-'--'. .•••'- . • • .'.'-. ."..- - - .' "..:•' .-,.., '.;;?:;:• ,',;.:;^r 3
Facility and
: .-_..-. „ — ----— i
Sampling Point Information
C//c& on fne facility or sampling point name to edit the associated information.

• 40 -
VA011

VA02

ADD FACILITY/SAMPLING POINT
•' • ;, /Facilitf
" '' fume mmm 1m«.

FacilitV' Two Active Intake

vmmJtm. •
sw

sw
«Sampl#-'t»1leettoo f «A^~i''^\
m
SP1
SP2
compVA02
' " " Mane ; ,&
SP1
SP2
comoosite
ADD FACILIT //SAMPLING POINT
Figure 4-9. PWS Facility Information

Up to 10 facilities can be viewed at one time. If more than 10 facilities exist for this PWS, navigational
buttons will be displayed to permit the user to click through the other data. There are buttons to move to
the next set of 10 facilities (>), the last set of 10 facilities (>|), the previous set of 10 facilities (<), and the
first set of 10 facilities (|<).

To edit information for a facility or sample collection point, click on the facility name or sample collection
point name. To add a new facility or sample collection point for your PWS, click the "ADD
FACILITY/SAMPLING POINT" link. To edit a previously entered facility, click the facility name. The "Add/Edit
Facility/Sample Collection Point" screen of the LT2 DCTS is where the user can associate a facility and
sample collection point to their particular PWS. You will either edit information for existing facilities and
sample collection points, or enter information for new ones. Figure 4-10 displays an example of the
"Add/Edit Facility/Sample Collection Point" screen.
4-13
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Add Edit Facility/Sample Collection Point for VA Delta 1 c - VA1 c
Please enter the following information for the Facility.
PWS facility 10

Facility Name

Facility Status

Facility Inactive Status
Date
Facility Types

Watei Type

V ;
::;v:::: 3
vi
•vi
D Our system has no separate facility IDs

Please enter/review the following information for the Sample Coiieaion Point, which is related to the above Facility.
Sample Collection Point
!fi

Name

D our system has no separate sample point IDs
MF LI
(fot samples comprised oi water collected from multiple sources)
Figure 4-10. PWS Add/Edit Facility/Sample Collection Point Screen

To create a new, discrete sampling point for an existing facility (which designates a single sampling
location, rather than a composite of sample volume from multiple sampling locations), click the "INSERT
NEW SAMPLING POINT" link at the bottom of the screen and enter values for all fields.

To create a new, composite sampling point (which represents the combined volume of samples collected
at multiple sampling locations), click the "INSERT COMPOSITE SAMPLING POINT" link at the bottom of the
screen. The sampling point name and ID will be automatically generated, with values of composite and
"comp" + "facility ID," respectively. Only one composite sampling point can be entered for each facility.

To save the new or changed facility or sampling point information, click the "SAVE" link. If you make data
entry errors, and would like to delete all information from the form and start over, click the "RESET" link. To
return to the inventory list without saving changes, click the "CANCEL" link.

If your PWS does not have separate facility IDs, mark the "Our system has no separate facility IDs" and
click save. A default facility will be saved with a facility code of TP, facility name of Treatment Plant,
sampling point code of SP, and sampling point name of Sampling Point.

If your PWS has separate facility IDs, but does not have a separate sample point ID, then enter the facility
information and mark the "Our system has no separate sample point IDs" check box before clicking save.
4-14
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
The facility information you entered will be saved, along with default information for the sample collection
point (SP, Sample Point).

WARNING: Once a facility and its sampling points are saved to the LT2 DCTS, the facility and sampling
point IDs and names cannot be deleted. If you wish to change this information, you must either contact
USEPA or you set the facility to an inactive status, and create a new active facility with the correct
information. You can set a facility to inactive by selecting "Inactive" from the facility status drop-down
menu, and entering the date that the facility became (or will become) inactive. The facility inactive status
date must be after the last sample collection date listed in the LT2 DCTS for this facility.
4.6 PWS Sampling Schedule
The LT2 DCTS allows you to assign the dates that samples will be collected throughout the monitoring
program. The sample date module is accessed through the navigation toolbar through the "SAMPLE DATES"
link. After you specify a particular facility, the page will refresh to display the list of sample dates you have
currently defined, (if sample date data has already been entered). Figure 4.11 displays an example of the
"PWS Sampling Date Maintenance" screen.
4-15
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Sampling Schedule for VA Test 1 b - VA1 b
Select the facility you would C;Ae to view'ente; sampling datesfor in the drop-down menu befow. Next, select one of the metbodsbeiovj to
enier/edit dates for when ihe samples will be collected. Once the sample dates are saved, and appear in the sampling dates list box, they
are available for EPA review.
FaciMiy
Method
Pitt Street Plant
Individual Date Entry - one date at a time
Weekly Date Entry • recurrence pattern for a specific weekday
Monthly Date Entry - recurrence pattern for specific day of a month
Copy Dates - copy existing sampling schedule to another facility
LJZ sampling schedules must be established and saved in the system prior to the regulatory deadline for your system. After this date, this
samplirtg schedule function will not be automatically submitted to EPA. Requests to change sampling schedules after this date must be
submitted to EPA in vmtmg.
Individual Date Entiy
(Month
Cliiii|>ii!ini [fates
Figure 4-11. PWS Sampling Date Maintenance Screen

You have the ability to add or remove dates from the current list. Dates can be added through four
methods: selecting individual dates, directing the LT2 DCTS to pick dates based on a "weekly recurrence
pattern," directing the LT2 DCTS to pick dates based on a "monthly recurrence pattern," or by copying the
schedule from one facility to another.

To set a sampling schedule, begin at the top of the screen by selecting the facility for which you are
establishing the schedule. Then, determine which method (individual date entry, weekly date entry,
monthly date entry, or copying another facility schedule) you will use to establish the schedule. Note: the
weekly and monthly date entry selection may produce sample collection dates on weekends or holidays,
and will need to be edited before it is finalized. You must pick at least one sample date per calendar
month for the 24 month period in which you will be monitoring.

If you use the Individual Date Entry method, select individual dates using the drop-down menus for
month, day, and year, and click "SAVE DATE" after each one. After each save, the date will appear in the
window at the right. Review the resulting sampling date schedule that appears in the window at the right.

4-16
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
To change any dates that occur on weekends or holidays, select the date in the right window and click the
"EDIT DATE" link to the left. You can also delete sampling dates by highlighting the desired dates (use
CTRL or SHIFT to select multiple dates) and clicking the "REMOVE SAMPLING DATE" link. Or, click the
"REMOVE ALL DATES" link to remove all dates.

If you use the Weekly or Monthly Date entry, enter the day, week, and/or month frequency of the
schedule you would like to establish and the start and end dates of the monitoring period. Click "SAVE
DATE" after you have made the desired selections. If you plan on collecting more than one sample per
month, establish two sampling points - one for the first sampling date each month and another for the
second sampling date each month. Review the resulting sampling date schedule that appears in the
window at the right. To change any dates that occur on weekends or holidays, select the date in the
window and click the "EDIT DATE" link to the left.

If you choose to apply a schedule from another facility, select the facility for which you have already
established a schedule at the top of the screen. Then, select the "Copy Dates to" window at the bottom by
selecting the radio button at the left of the table row. Select the facility and click the "SAVE" link to apply
the same sampling dates. The new sampling dates will be added to the facility's existing schedule (they
will not replace the existing schedule).

Note: Your sampling schedule is not final, and can be changed up to three months prior to the beginning
of the LT2 monitoring period that pertains to your facility (see Table 4-2 below). At this point, the LT2
DCTS will submit the current version of the schedule you have established to USEPA. Make sure that
your schedule is correct, has been reviewed by all required PWS staff, and has been confirmed with your
Cryptosporidium and E. coli laboratory well before this time period. The sampling schedule must include
at least one sample per month for 24 months. No changes can be made to the schedule without USEPA
approval after it has been submitted. Beyond this date, all functionality will be removed and this
component will only serve as reference information in a view only mode. If any changes are desired, you
must contact USEPA.

After you have established your schedule, you may print the schedule by clicking the "PRINT SCHEDULE"
link on the bottom right of the page. Figure 4-12 displays an example of the "Print Schedule" screen.

This screen allows you to view and print the sampling schedule established through the LT2 DCTS. After
this screen generates, your printer window will pop-up to allow you to print.

Note: The recurrence pattern selection may produce sample collection dates on weekends or holidays,
and will need to be edited before it is finalized.

4.7 PWS Contact List

The LT2 DCTS allows you to view the list of contacts for your PWS and your contract laboratories
currently entered into the LT2 DCTS, select the Official Contact for the PWS, and update the contact list,
as necessary. You are able to enter a new contact, delete contacts, or edit the existing contact
information for your organization. New contacts entered into the LT2 DCTS will automatically be
associated with the current PWS and will be visible only to users with permission to access data from this
PWS including the USEPA and your contracting laboratories. PWS Users can also view contacts for their
4-18
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
supporting laboratories. Note: PWS Users do not have the ability to modify the laboratory contacts.
Figure 4-13 displays an example of the "LT2 DCTS PWS Contact List."
Contact changes were successful
LT2 Contacts
Update the official contact by selecting the radio button next to the appropriate contact and click "Update Official Contact." If the user is
both a LT2 and Stage 2 contact, they are the official contact for both systems. Note: Every PWS must have one official contact
designated as the main contact for all EPA correspondence.
Contact

m
s
s
fel«$
5?

John Jacobs
Jane Smith

Manager
Laboratory Director
, *
(555) 555-5555
(555) 555-5555
**" *+* • '
LT2
LT2
Insert Hew Contact
Offici.il Contacts
2 Cont.icts
The following contacts are associated with Stage 2. They should not be the first point of contact for LT2 questions, but are listed as
additional resources Associate an existing Stage 2 contact with LT2 by selecting the desired "Link" checkboxes and clicking "Associate
Contact."
(555) 555-5555

,11,. ll f.tftK i.ll CtHlt.lCtS
Figure 4-13. PWS Contact List

When viewing PWS contacts, both the LT2 and Stage 2 contacts for the organization will be displayed.
The Stage 2 contacts should not be your first point of contact for LT2. They are listed as an additional
resource if the LT2 contact is not available. To associate a pre-existing Stage 2 contact with LT2, select
the corresponding check box from the link column, and click the "ASSOCIATE CONTACT" link.

Every PWS must have an Official Contact identified in the LT2 DCTS. The Official Contact should be the
person from your PWS that USEPA should contact regarding LT2 issues. The first contact entered into
the LT2 DCTS will automatically be selected as the Official Contact. After an Official Contact is assigned,
that user cannot be deleted until a new Official Contact has been designated. Select the Official Contact
for your PWS by clicking the appropriate radio button under the "Official Contact" column in the contacts
table and clicking the "UPDATE OFFICIAL CONTACT" link.

To delete a contact for your PWS, click the trash can icon next to the contact name in the "Delete" column
of the contacts table. The contact will be removed from the LT2 list of contacts. If the contact was listed
as both a Stage 2 and LT2 contact, the contact will remain on the Stage 2 list.

LT2 DCTS also allows you to update and add new contact information. To edit information for a contact,
click the pencil icon next to the contact name in the "Edit" column of the contacts table. To add a new
contact for your PWS, click the "INSERT NEW CONTACT" link. Figure 4-14 displays the screen for updating
and adding new contact information.
4-19
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Please enter/edit information about the contact below. To designate the contact as a LT2 and/or Stage 2 contact, select the appropriate
contact type from the associated drop-down If "Not Applicable" is selected, you are stating that this individual is not a contact for the
particular system.

*Daiin§ MArms
Mailing Address2
'City
•Stats
'Zip Cfrfc
Phone Number
Fax Numhei
'•Email
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
AK v
Ext.
PR'JR'l
Figure 4-14. PWS Contact Form

If you are editing contact information, the contact form will be auto-populated with the current information
stored in the database. You may simply update the field you would like to correct and click the "SAVE" link
at the bottom of the screen.

If you are entering a new contact, you must enter values for all required fields marked with an asterisk.
You must designate the contact as either a LT2 or Stage 2 contact (or both) by selecting from the
appropriate dropdown menu. You may enter values for optional fields as appropriate. When completed
click the "SAVE" link at the bottom of the screen.

You may exit the form using the following three methods:
4-20
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
• To return to the PWS contact list without saving, click the "return to list" link.
• To save the contact information, click the "SAVE" link.
• If you make data entry errors, and would like to delete all information from the form and start over,
click the "RETURN TO LIST" link.

4.8 Grandfathering and Bin Status Tracking

The Grandfathering and Bin Status Tracking module provides PWS Users with the ability to track the
status of their PWS facilities in the LT2 DCTS. Figure 4-15 displays the "GF Data and Sampling Plan"
screen.
4-21
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
SF Data S Sampling Plan
. Please setect a Facility and click VIEW
[Facility
In - Intake
Currently viewing : Intake - In
1. PWS intends to submit grandfathered data
Notice of Intent to p.
Grandfather submitted U
View intent to Grandfather Forrr
. .Date EPA received Intent to
Grandfather Form (mm/dd/yyyy)
Number ot qrandfathered samples
to be submitted
Date range grandfathered samples
to be submitted(mnu'dd/yyyy)
PWS intends to submit additional
samples
Start

D
This field cannot be edited by a PWS.
End:
After viewing the schedule, please click on the back button of your browser to return to
this page and retain the information you have entered
Number of additional samples to
be submitted
g Upload grandfather dal3 ynls function is locked until an "Intent to Grandfather" form is received Once EPA
receives the form, you may upload your data
"Note All grandtathered data must be submitted to EPA (via email or mail) either m MS Excel spreadsheet (.xls) or text file
( bit) format Do not submit fites in the xml file formal that is used in the lab sample upload module
Sending hardcopy grandfather ,-,
data by mail
EPA receipt of sample location
plan

a Upload sample location plan

, Sending sample location
plan/schematic by mail
3. EPA review of sample schedule
PWS intends to waive monitoring
4. and proceed to BIN 4
classification
Date EPA received Intent to
Waive Monitoring (rnm/dd/yyyy)
c PWS has uncovered finished
reservoirs
a Uncovered finished reservoirs
Not Received

['Browsed |
Please ensure the PWS ID and facility name are in the tiles you upload.

Not Received
This field cannot be edited by a PWS
Add a Reservoir.
Uncovered Finished Reservoir Name
South Reservoir
Plan of Action
Cover
Note Stage 1 Data (i.e TTHM and HAAS data) will not be dynamically loaded into this system This data will be uploaded in a
format that is outlined in guidance and on the attachment page of the IDSE Tool Stage 1 compliance monitoring data should
continue to be transferred to the Agency through SDWIS or another State database or through the normal mechanism that
Slates employ

If sending a hard copy by mail, please send it in the appropriate format (per note below) lo IPMC at P O Box 93, Dayton, OH,
45401 ot email the information to your state representative. The following items must be submitted as either a MS Word (.doc)
or PDF file

• Sample location plan/schematic
• A Notice of Intent to Provide Maximum Treatment (submit you intend to waive monitoring and proceed to BIN 4 classification)
• A plan of action for uncovered finished reservoirs (must be submitted to EPA wrthm three years of rule promulgation)
4-22
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Figure 4-15. Grandfathering Data and Sampling Plan

Clicking the "Submit GF & Sampling Plan" link on the left toolbar will display the Grandfathering and
Sample Location Tracking module. Choose the desired facility and click on the "VIEW" link to see the
status of the facility.

The information is organized as follows:

• PWS intends to submit grandfathered data.
• USEPA receipt of sample location.
• USEPA review of sample schedule.
• PWS intends to waive monitoring and proceed to Bin Classification.

Note that as a PWS user, all sections are available for your review, but only the first two items are
available for your modifications.

If your system intends to submit grandfathered data, provide answers to the "PWS intends to submit
grandfathered data" section. You must submit the grandfathered samples prior to the compliance
deadline listed in Table 4-3. You can either upload the data, email the data to your state representative,
or mail a hard copy to Information Processing and Management Center (IPMC) at P.O. Box 98, Dayton,
OH, 45401. You will not be able to review the sample data using the LT2 DCTS.

Table 4-3. Grandfathered Data Compliance Deadline
SCHEDULE
1
2
3
4
COMPLIANCE DEADLINE
12/1/2006
6/1/2007
6/1/2008
12/1/2008
If your system is submitting samples in addition to the grandfathered samples, be sure to enter the
sample schedule, by either using the "SAMPLE DATES" link on the toolbar, or the "EDIT/VIEW SAMPLE
SCHEDULE" within the first section.
Your system is also required to submit a sample location plan. It must be submitted prior to the
compliance deadlines listed in Table 4-4. Like the grandfathered data, you can either upload the sample
location plan, email it to your state representative, or mail a hard copy to IPMC at P.O. Box 98, Dayton,
OH, 45401

Table 4-4. Sample Location Plan Compliance Deadline
SCHEDULE
1
2
3
4 (E. co// monitoring)
4 (Cryptosporidium monitoring)
SUBMISSION DEADLINE
7/1/2006
1/1/2007
1/1/2008
7/1/2008
1/1/2010
4-23
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
If your system intends to waive monitoring and proceed to BIN 4 classification, you must submit a Notice
of Intent to Provide Maximum Treatment. Your system will not be approved until the proper
documentation is received by IPMC. Please mail the appropriate notice to IPMC, P.O. Box 98, Dayton,
OH 45401.
4-24
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Section 5. EPA and State Users

This section provides screen-specific instructions for EPA and State Users. The basic EPA and State
User capabilities are similar and displayed in Figures 5-1 and 5-2.
5-1
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Select Search Criteria

CryptosporitfiumView Data

E co// View Data
Contact List

View Contact Information
Edit Sample Dates or
Enter New

Print Schedule
Grandfathered and Bin
Status
Select a New
Organization
Add/Edit Users
Edit User Information
View Reports
Help Screens
Sample Tracking
Sample Backlog
List of Users
LT2 Data Collection System
Usage
PWS Schedule Submission
Compliance
Sample History
Binning
Missed and Re-sampled Events
Grandfathered Data
Monitoring Waived
PWS Sample Location Plan
Compliance
View Contact
Information
Figure 5-1. L T2 DOTS EPA User Basic Work Flow
5-2
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Grandfathered and Bin
Status
Select a New
Organization
Edit User Information
Add/Edit Users
"X,
""X
View Reports

Help Screens
Select Search Criteria

Gr/DtQSQondium'\/\ew Data

£ co// View Data
View Contact
Information
Contact List

View Contact Information

Sample Tracking

Sample Backlog

PWS Schedule Submission
Compliance

Binning

Missed and Re-sampled Events

Grandfathered Data

Monitoring Waived

PWS Sample Location Plan
Compliance
Figure 5-2. L T2 DOTS State User Basic Work Flow

All EPA and State functions described in this section are initiated by logging into the LT2 DCTS Home
Page, available on the Web at http://www.epa,gov/safewater/lt2. When you login to the LT2 DCTS as a
State or EPA User, the LT2 DCTS will advance directly to the "View Samples and Search" screen.
5-3
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
5.1 View Samples and Search - This section win be updated
when the functionality becomes available in the next release of the LT2
DCTS.

The LT2 DCTS allows you to search for Cryptosporidium or E. col! samples submitted to USEPA by
PWSs (State Users can only view sample results from PWSs in their state). The search screen serves as
an access point to view the existing sample data. You can gain access to any data that has been
approved or contested by the PWS. You can establish search specifications for Cryptosporidium or E. coli
data, PWS Inventory Data, Lab, Status, PWS Review Date, and Sample Collection Date. Figure 5-3
displays an example of the search screen.

From the search screen, you can access any data that has been previously approved by the PWS User.
To search for a sample, select either Cryptosporidium or E. coli at the top of the table by clicking the
appropriate radio button. If E. coli is selected, choose the appropriate method type from the drop-down
menu to the right of "E. coli," or select "All Methods" to view all E. coli methods. Next, select one or more
of the search specifications displayed in the table which follows by entering the criterion in the text box or
picking the desired value from the drop-down menu to the right. The corresponding check box will
automatically be selected. Click the check box to remove this item from your list of search criterion.

After you have selected the analyte and search specifications, click the "SEARCH SAMPLES" link to display
the search results. A listing of relevant samples will appear at the bottom of the screen with text indicating
the number of samples that matched your search specifications. Up to 10 samples will be displayed at
one time. If more than 10 samples match the search specifications, navigational buttons will be displayed
to permit the user to click through the rest of the data. There are buttons to move to the next set of 10
samples (>), the last set of 10 samples (>|), the previous set of 10 samples (<), and the first set of 10
samples (|<). If you chose to search for all E. coli methods, the method that was used for the sample will
be color coded in the search results:

Yellow: 15-tubeMPN
Purple: Membrane Filtration
Grey: ONPG-MUG, 51-well
Pink: ONPG-MUG, 97-well

If you would like to modify your search, return to the top of the screen, modify the search information and
click the "SEARCH SAMPLES" link again.

Search results are organized in the table by five categories:

Approved - Samples that have been approved by a PWS for submission to USEPA.
Contested - Samples that have been submitted by a PWS to USEPA not as approved samples, but as
sample results that were generated, but that the PWS contends are not valid for LT2 binning.
EPA Approved - Flagged samples that have been approved by a PWS and further approved by USEPA
and state.
EPA Invalidated - Flagged samples that were approved by a PWS, but rejected by USEPA and state.
Not Reviewed - Samples that have not been reviewed by a PWS within the designated time period (no
later than 10 days after then end of the first month following the month in which the sample is collected)
are automatically forwarded to USEPA/state. Flagged samples are excluded from this process and will
remain at the PWS.
5-4
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Under each status, the data are sorted by default according to "PWS Review Date." You may also sort
the data by clicking on the column headings including Sample ID, Lab, PWS ID, PWS Facility ID, Sample
Collection Point, and Sample Collection Date.
*'• ' ' • • ' ' tk "•
Search for a Sample for EPA . . • . :^\Z

Wease enter as much data as possible to ti mil the search .to a targeted set of results.
Large data retrievals can produce problems with the display of the results.
(:> Cryptosporidium O E. coti vj Select Meth°d
DPWS Inventory Data
DLab
D Status
E PWS Review Date
Li Sample Collection Date

State: v PWS v Facility v,
V
V
Start 09/08/2005 End 10/08/2005
Start End
- « - - '\
%

Figure 5-3. State or EPA Search

You can view up to four samples of the same analyte and method at a time by clicking the boxes to the
left of the samples, then clicking on the "REVIEW SAMPLES" link. If multiple E. coli samples are selected,
they must all be of the same method type. You may also print the search results using the "PRINT SEARCH
RESULTS." Once the "PRINT SEARCH RESULTS" link is clicked, and your printer's menu appears, set the print
layout/orientation to "Landscape" in order to see the entirety of the search results.

To return to the first record in your search, click the "RETURN TO TOP OF RESULTS" link on the bottom of the
screen. To perform a new search, click the "CHANGE SEARCH OPTIONS" link at the bottom of the screen to
go back to the top of'the page.

Note: State Users can access data only from PWSs in their state.

5.2 EPA and State Cryptosporidium Data Review This
section will be updated when the functionality becomes available in the
next release of the LT2 DCTS.

You can reach the Cryptosporidium review sample screen directly from the search screen. Figure 5-4
displays the "LT2 DCTS Cryptosporidium Sample Results" screen.
5-5
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Click the Lab ID or PWS ID to view the corresponding contact information Click the Held name for more information
SJafHs Approved j Approved j Approved Approved
SYSTEM GENERATED CflYPTOSPOROUW CALCULATIONS
s.imtil,. II) (ontiarifljt
(,<*!»
fflSJB
i'wsa»ii>
PWSfssiliWl!)
rWS facility H«m»
Sanmfe tnUtctian paint IP
SMMJS.tl'ltar]silJ>.si(iLte«
Sample «!i»«ion L!ii««9rs
AiMiytkni accmjie o;5j»!,iM!ki!i
f'*'Sjaia>>>«in« faLf£Ai«»
C»> II.3S «:«|)IJM!iori ioi tPftSM!«
EPA(l,ail
lismosaLlttto f«*i-iimile J)"iyl
14
laajjjjoj.!.
VA".
VA1 PWS
VA011
VA011 fac
SPI
SP1
03/22/2004
Field
15

Ciyplospondium
1622/1623
1 533
oocysts/L

On
NCI

15
VApaaosi
Vii
VA1 PWS
VA011
VA01 1 fac
SPI
SP1
04/06/2004
Field
377
1 58
Ciyplospotidtum
1622/1623
61
oocysts/L

B
VIEW
No

16
j-U-U U. 1
"
VAt PWS
VA011
VA01 1 fac
SP1
SP1
04/21/2004
Field
586
1 54
Cryptospor/d/urn
1622/1623
0341
oocysts/L

B
Vs.*
No

l-x|I« III
Sampfe volume tlllOKij (Li
W,« !<»>', ol «i!««,i v<,l»»M! f xornim-d?
Humiiei n <««««s
14
15
Y

15
5
N

16
6
N

17
35
V

DATA TO CALCULATE OOCYST CONCENTRATION (NEEDED ONLY FOR SAMPLES IN WHICH <100% OF FILTERED VOLUME
WAS EXAMINED)
^™«f<'S'B!>W'*'<<:'>llM"t'"eU'lLI
niis«»yrE"!"' "'"""'"'*'

122
92
11 2
8.2

DATA TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH SAMPLE VOLUME ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS (NEEDED ONLY FOR SAMPLES IN
WHICH VOLUME FILTERED IS <10 L OR LESS THAN 100% OF THE FILTERED VOLUME WAS ANALYZED)
Numb«i at mint iisot!
PiKiotl jsftik'tvehiine jml} generatefl
DATA FOR MATRIX SPIKE SAMPLES
Sanifil* volume spiked (Li
N!itniieiof
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Up to four Cryptosporidium samples are displayed on this screen. Data for each sample are displayed in
a separate column. The information displayed in the table in the top half of the page contains the final
results for each sample, including sample identification information and the calculated concentration of
Cryptosporidium in the sample. A description of each of these fields can be viewed by clicking on the
field. For a written description, refer to Section 3.3, Cryptosporidium Samples. The comments displayed
to EPA and State Users are different from those seen by Laboratory Users. The "Lab Comments to PWS"
field will be replaced by the "PWS Comments for EPA," which show any comments sent from the PWS
concerning the sample.

The information displayed in the table in the bottom half of the page contains the fields that were entered
by the laboratory for the sample to calculate final results, or to verify compliance with LT2 monitoring
requirements. These elements may be helpful in evaluating the final results that appear in the top table. A
description of each of these fields can be viewed by clicking on the field; information is also provided in
Section 3.3 of this manual.

If Flag A applies to the sample, you will be permitted to review the data and modify the sample status to
either "EPA Approved" or "EPA Invalidated". You will be required to enter comments in "EPA Flag
Explanation" as well as select the date you wish to remove from the sample schedule using the "Remove
Date" field. The date removed should match the date of the original sample that was collected. Click the
"SAVE CHANGES" link to save the updated sample status.

5.3 EPA and State E. co// 15-tube MPN Data Review
This section will be updated when the functionality becomes available in
the next release of the LT2 DCTS.

You can access the E. coli 15-tube MPN review sample screen directly from the search screen. Figure 5-
5 displays the "LT2 DCTS £. coli 15-tube MPN Sample Results" screen.
5-7
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
£. COJi - EPA GGWDW - EPA *V
Click th
e Lab ID or PWS ID to view the corresponding contact information. Click the field name for more information.
Return to Search Screen
Status
Approved
Approved
Approved
SYSTEM GENERATED E. coti CALCULATIONS
Sample .ID (optional)
lab ID
PWS tP
PWSJBarM
P-WS facility ID
PWS facility Name
Sample cotleetion point ID
Sample collection point Name
ii.a.!B.t*M..£.M!..i.^M!.L43i&
Soi jrcft. watf O5f ES
Cj> .ntajnj Offlltfifl ..( ffifilSlSi
Analytical methorl number

Analytical result -value
feBflMtailSS jJLjji.ilLfil
niefisjue.
ImM4i.li..i.9su!t..(N.r.U).
EL43S
1 ah eomiDeiits
E®i*^!^llM
Oligiiiaf saniplp colleelioi) tlflte
L jil^ i;t sa oi.|)le. e x.|>.(.an. ati o H
PWS comments tor EPA'Stale
PWS flag explanation to!
EP&Slalt
EPA fhif| ex|?ia»at8oo
Remove Date .JMesainjjies OnfyJ
MPN2
VA1234567
VA1
VA1 PWS
VA011
VA01 1 fac
SP1
SP1
10/03/2005
gwudi-fs
E. coli
SM9221B/9221F(LTB/EC-
MUG)
123
E. coll/100 ml
15

vij;*-
No

MPN1
VA1234567
VA1
VA1 PWS
VA011
VA01 1 fac
SP1
SP1
10/04/2005
both
E. coli
SM 9221 B/9221 F (LTB/EC-
MUG)
220
E coli/100 ml
0.2

VA011D79
VA011079b
VA Post Beta PWS
0110079b
Facility 01 10079
03
SP03
07/13/2005
gwudi-fs
E. coli
SM 9221 B/9221 F (LTB/EC-
MUG)
790
E coli/100 ml
4

tx|>l
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
You may only review samples the PWS approved, contested, or did not review within the required
timeframe (no later than 10 days after then end of the first month following the month in which the sample
is collected). You cannot change the status or edit the data unless the sample is a flagged due to falling
outside of the sample schedule (Flag A).

Up to four E. coli samples are displayed on this screen. Data for each sample are displayed in a separate
column. The information displayed in the table in the top half of the page contains the final results for
each sample, including sample identification information and the calculated concentration of E. coli in the
sample. A description of each of these fields can be viewed by clicking on the field itself. Alternatively,
you can refer to Section 3.4 in this manual for a description of these fields. The comments displayed to
EPA and State Users are different from those seen by Laboratory Users. The "Lab Comments to PWS"
field will be replaced by the "PWS Comments for EPA" field, which will show any comments sent from the
PWS concerning the sample.

The information displayed in the table at the bottom half of the page contains the fields that were entered
by the laboratory for the sample, to calculate final results, or to verify compliance with LT2 monitoring
requirements. These elements may be helpful in evaluating the final results that appear in the top table. A
description of each of these fields can be viewed by clicking on the field itself. Alternatively, you can refer
to Section 3.4 in this manual for a description of these fields.

If flag A applies to the sample, you will be permitted to review the data and modify the sample status to
either "EPA Approved" or "EPA Invalidated". You will be required to enter comments in "EPA Flag
Explanation" as well as select the date you wish to remove from the sample schedule using the Remove
Date field. The date removed should match the date of the original sample that was collected. Click the
"SAVE CHANGES" link to save the updated sample status.

5.4 EPA and State E. coli ONPG-MUG, 51 -well Data

Review This section will be updated when the functionality becomes
available in the next release of the LT2 DCTS.

You can access the E. coli ONPG-MUG, 51-well review sample screen directly from the search screen.
Figure 5-6 displays the "LT2 DCTS E. coli ONPG-MUG, 51-well Sample Results" screen.
5-9
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
£ . call - SPA QGWDW - EPA ^k
Click th
e Lab ID or PWS ID to view the corresponding contact information. Click the field name for more information.
Return to Seal ch Screen
Status
Approved
SYSTEM GENERATED £. coH CALCULATIONS
Samole ID (optional}
LMOD
PW.S.JD
PWS Name
PWS facility ID
PWS facility Name
Sample collection point ID
Sample cftllictioii_BOiot^N.M)6.
SamDle collection date
Some* watet type
Cjjnt9injnajttarajniJ£tei.
Analytical method numbei
Anjjjftical result - value
AtMJXtifiii result - unit of nieasuie
Turhiditv result (NTUJ
EMflt
La l| csiIUBfJlfe
B®y Mills
Oriainal sample collection date
Lab resample explanation
PWS comments f 01 EPA/Stale
!PWS fla« explanation for EPA^State
EPA fiaq exjjjanatiori
Remove Date fResanigjIes Only)

VA1 234567
VA1
VA1 PWS
VA011
VA01 1 fac
SP1
SP1
10/05/2005
both
E. coli
SM 9223 (Colilert)
23
E. coli/100mL
0.1

Approved
Contested

Oct4
VA1 234567
VA1.
VA1 PWS
VA011
VA01 1 fac
SP2
SP2
10/05/2005
river/stream
E coli
SM 9223 (Colilert)
5
E. coli/100 ml
15

Explanation of Flags
A Sample not collected within +/-2 days of scheduled date

VA1 234567
VA1
VA1 PWS
VA011
VA01 1 fac
SP1
SP1
09/04/2005
,. f

E. coli
SM 9223 (Colilert)
92
E. coli/100 ml
12

View

SUPPLEMENTARY E. coli DATA ELEMENTS ENTERED BY THE LABORATORY
User Calculated E.CO///100 ml
E.COM100 ml
23

Sample Result Calculator
Volume analyzed (mLJ.
Number of r»»sitive wells

68
3
55
32
Retuin to Seaich Screen

Figure 5-6. E. coli ONPG-MUC, 51-well Method Sample Results

5-10
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
You may only review samples the PWS approved, contested, or did not review within the required
timeframe (no later than 10 days after then end of the first month following the month in which the sample
is collected). You cannot change the status or edit the data unless the sample is a flagged due to falling
outside of the sample schedule (Flag A).

Up to four E. co// samples are displayed on this screen. Data for each sample are displayed in a separate
column. The information displayed in the table in the top half of the page contains the final results for
each sample, including sample identification information and the calculated concentration of E. co// in the
sample. A description of each of these fields can be viewed by clicking on the field itself. Alternatively,
you can refer to Section 3.5 in this manual for a description of these fields. The comments displayed to
EPA and State Users are different from those seen by Lab Users. The "Lab Comments to PWS" field will
be replaced by the "PWS Comments for EPA" field, which will show any comments sent from the PWS
concerning the sample.

The information displayed in the table in the bottom half of the page contains the fields that were entered
by the laboratory for the sample, to calculate final results, or to verify compliance with LT2 monitoring
requirements. These elements may be helpful in evaluating the final results that appear in the top table. A
description of each of these fields can be viewed by clicking on the field itself. Alternatively, you can refer
to Section 3.5 in this manual for a description of these fields.

5.5 EPA and State E. col/ONPG-MUG, 97-well Data

Review This section will be updated when the functionality becomes
available in the next release of the LT2 DCTS.

You can access the E. co// ONPG-MUG, 97-well review sample screen directly from the search screen.
Figure 5-7 displays the "LT2 DCTS E. coll ONPG-MUG, 97-well Sample Results" screen.
5-11
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
£„ C0W - VA1 PWS - VA1 . *•*„.
To subn
drop-dm
scrollinc
nt "Pending" samples as approved or contested, or return "Pending" samples to the lab for correction, change the status using the
wn menu. Click the "Save Changes" link 10 complete the action. More information regarding each sample can he found by
down Click the field name for more information
Rftiint (i<__S«.}trJLSc(f'<>ii S,ivfljQi<:in
Pending Approval «
Pending Approval v
Pending Approval •*
SYSTEM GENERATED £. colt CALCULATIONS
^*^£0l^illil Jl£i^i®N^J!
PWMA<1f%Ji>
PJVS lacility Name
S«i|»ipt^ t,oIJ££ti«n |»uinl ID
$,imjt!*> i-ojJj-rtiOH (iwitrt Nam*-
Sjiniptis*. igjH^clioii rt.it*
Soiiif ejwatfttjji)"
( «w»i»N»w»ij(<>iiWiiC'it'r
Attil utHliod iiuittb{*<
Anal^tii rfl i^'iilt v.iliit
Aiuilytir til rr-Miit miti u\ Dt>-.iMin-
Ttirhhtity if-sult (NTH)
P I.JIJS
1 ,il> crtiiisiieji|S
R.PVllllp.k'
Dligiiyl sjlltljMc rnll^ifioli il.ilr
1 «lli tcs,pllrtlIi»ti«l1

V*011
V/>01 1 fac
SP1
SP1
Q9/Q3/20QS
both
E. coil
SM 9223 (Colilert)
185
E coli/!OOmL
1
A

«drt
a.dg
WJrl

V«I11
VA01 1 fac
SP2
SP2
OM7/2QQ5
river/stream
E erf
SM 9223 (Colilert)
66
E coli/100 ml
32

Mfl
Md

f::xpiilfl.:ltton el F1««JS
A Sample not collected within +A2 days of scheduled date

V.A01 1
VA011 fac
SP2
SP2
07/10/200S
both
E. COl!
SM 9223 (Colilert)
142
E coli/1 00 ml
1

Mfl
&M

SUPPLEMENT ARY E. c»H DATA ELEMENTS ENTERED BY THE LABORATORY
User Calculated E.co// 100 ml
e.COft'TOfi ml
[66

Sample Result Calculator
V«jtimt,Ati«>|^<'ft(l (HI! 1
| «»!jf" WftjIji.JOSItjWC
SrnalJjwclJsjijMjliy;:
99
44
23

33
23
t2
HeHtyj i<> Sc.m'li Sn"t-n s.ivc t It1)ii'i>"<,'"<^'

5-7. E. coli ONPG-MUG, 97-well Method Sample Results
5-12
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
You may only review samples the PWS approved, contested, or did not review within the required
timeframe (no later than 10 days after then end of the first month following the month in which the sample
is collected). You cannot change the status or edit the data unless the sample is a flagged due to falling
outside of the sample schedule (Flag A).

Up to four E. coli samples are displayed on this screen. Data for each sample are displayed in a separate
column. The information displayed in the table in the top half of the page contains the final results for
each sample, including sample identification information and the calculated concentration of E. coli in the
sample. A description of each of these fields can be viewed by clicking on the field itself. Alternatively,
you can refer to Section 3.6 in this manual for a description of these fields. The comments displayed to
EPA and State Users are different from those seen by Laboratory Users. The "Lab Comments to PWS"
field will be replaced by the "PWS Comments for EPA" field, which will show any comments sent from the
PWS concerning the sample.

The information displayed in the table in the bottom half of the page contains thefields that were entered
by the laboratory for the sample, to calculate final results, or to verify compliance with LT2 monitoring
requirements. These elements may be helpful in evaluating the final results that appear in the top table. A
description of each of these fields can be viewed by clicking on the field itself. Alternatively, you can refer
to Section 3.6 in this manual for a description of these fields.

5.6 EPA and State E. coll Membrane Filtration Data

Review This section will be updated when the functionality becomes
available in the next release of the LT2 DCTS.

You can access the E. coli membrane filtration procedure review sample screen directly from the search
screen. Figure 5-8 displays the "LT2 DCTS E. coli Membrane Filtration Procedure Sample Results"
screen.
5-13
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
S. COlf - SPA OCWDW - EPA *^
Click the Lab ID or PWS ID to view the
SIMMS
corresponding contact information. Click the field
Return to Search Screen S,we Cliaiui

Approved
Approved •*
SYSTEM GENERATED £. C00 CALCULATIONS
Samole ID (optionail
Lab ID
ms,m.
PWS Name
PBfS.f3.s.«liw...!l
PWS fadiiry Name
Sample collection point ID
Sample eclletiistt point Name
Sjiin|>lf_c«IMct|j>» dMl
Souses watef iypft
Coiitaminant'Mramtitet
Aimlylfej 1 method nHmhej
Analytical tesuif • vaine
&U«MMlJflSi!lL_!i!lit»l
madams
Iiiibi|js collection date
Liibj^aivijiie..e/\!>M!!^li^M
PWS continents lot EPft?St,rte
P.WS flag twj>lana(i«!! foi
E:PASt (R'^aini'l^ Oiij^l

VA1 234567
VA1
VA1 PWS
VA011
VA011 fac
SP2
SP2
09/30/2005
both
e co*
SM9213D(mTEC)
B2
E coli/100 ml
12
A

Vie*
•-iflfl
v
name for more information
SS\^
I Approved |v
Approved

MF3
VA 1234567
VAJ.
VA1 PWS
VA011
VA011 fac
SP1
SP1
07/D5/2005
river/stream
E. coll
EPA 1604 (Ml
Medium)
62
E coli/100 ml
1
A

VIFiJ'v1.'1

VA.1 234567
VA1
VA1 PWS
VA011
VA01 1 fac
SP1
SP1
07/11/2005
river/stream
£ coli
EPA 1604 (Ml
Medium)
142
E. coli/100 mL
1

Add \
v

t: >;p!an»tiosi $1 J-lr|J:!!?es 2
Filter 3 volume (mU
OSLffiLEliELl
FiMii^ vMillHI-MiU
CtMonHMmJ.

65
3
Qn
14

52
32
34
1

Return to Search Scfeess Save Chtini;

es%0j>*
Figure 5-8. E. coli Membrane Filtration Method Sample Results

5-14
-------
USER A L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
You may only review samples the PWS approved, contested, or did not review within the required
timeframe (no later than 10 days after then end of the first month following the month in which the sample
is collected). You cannot change the status or edit the data unless the sample is a flagged due to falling
outside of the sample schedule (Flag A).

Up to four £. co// samples are displayed on this screen. Data for each sample are displayed in a separate
column. The information displayed in the table in the top half of the page contains the final results for
each sample, including sample identification information and the calculated concentration of E. co// in the
sample. A description of each of these fields can be viewed by clicking on the field itself. Alternatively,
you can refer to Section 3.7 in this manual for a description of these fields. The comments displayed to
EPA and State Users are different from those seen by Lab Users. The "Lab Comments to PWS" field will
be replaced by the "PWS Comments for EPA" field, which will show any comments sent from the PWS
concerning the sample.

The information displayed in the table in the bottom half of the page contains the fields that were entered
by the laboratory for the sample, to calculate final results, or to verify compliance with LT2 monitoring
requirements. These elements may be helpful in evaluating the final results that appear in the top table. A
description of each of these fields can be viewed by clicking on the field itself. Alternatively, you can refer
to Section 3.7 of this manual for a description of these fields.

5.7 EPA and State Official Contact List

The LT2 DCTS allows you to search for laboratory or PWS contacts. Figure 5-9 displays the EPA and
State "Contact List" screen.
5-15
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Contacts ••.• |s'::
To search for contacts, make a selection and click "View " A list of LabsfPWSs and Official Contacts will be displayed
A complete listing of contacts for 3 particular organization can be found by clicking the desired organization name To
find more information on an individual contact, click the contact's name. Use the navigational buttons below to jump to a
different section. Clicking a letter will bring you to the first listing associated with that letter.

Region All *\
State ^i- All v.
Organization typ* All vj
View
fcSABCDIFGHIJKLMNOPegSIUyfflXYZ
Qia«*MtianiiiiMMMD ' *""• '' *,:
#45 SOUTH PLAZA. PHASE #1 - N.J14 14409

1 ORCHARD PAR! . INDUSTRIAL AREA - GT0769 1 03

1 SALMON BROOK STREET - CT0565073

1 .2,3 GROW WITH ME - CTG769203

1-2-3 fnotl stop - NY59300G::i

.lLNE:'VyiiC::.SJ£^^
in-4 'WATER SYSTEM - M^SCICIM?*

100 FIFTH A.VE BLDC- - PA5Q">0937

1 no MM! INT AIN VIEW PGAD PARK - VT0020800

1 H 1 1 MIDDLETOWN AVEM - E PROPERTIES, LL. ':
CT0999053
imRD...SIPE£LPLAZA.-.£L64y.726
10402 AIRLINE DRIVE WATER SvSTEM - TK1 0 1289 1

1037 FEDERAL ROAD - CT01S9843

109 LOMMIR ROAD - CT02S0163

11 WEST CONDOMINIUM- MO3238020

1 105 NORTHRi.lP ROAD - :T 1489043

1112 FEDERAL ROAD - L TO 1 89853

1 1 14 FEDERAL ROAD - CT01 89863

fuSS TACONIC LLC - NY 1320777

1 14TH STREET MOBILE HC'ME PARK- TX1520067

Oiaanizatiori
-I**.
PVVS
PWS
PWS
nvs
PWS
PWS
PWS
PWS
PWS
PWS
PWS
PWS
PWS
PWS
PWS
PWS
PWS
PWS
PWS
PWS
Official CertarJ Name
''•%'„
SANDRA RAYNOR

DAVID Ml LAND

HAL PIERCE
LORI Nl ZZn

unlj'iowi unknown

DEBORAH. OMAN
APLENE 3TASCHKE

unl.nnwn unknown

IA.OKP iRIFFIN

FPAMk 'ARRAMO

PAlILDJLyjLLAR
WILLIAM DEFOE
ROBERT W
PARKER
KAREN A priSS

» >
• pww :"
Number
973-729-
6175
203-245-
9599
860-653-
7283
203-469-
9323
914-737-
4600
646-935-
1200
573-372-
3916
412-281-
8172
802-442-
4594
203-469-
6300
904-465-
4653
713-697-
0256
203-775-
8482
860-267-
2409
573-374-
9378
203-284-
8682
203-740-
9333
203-740-
9333
518-398-
7101
806-745-
7027
Q-9 A B C D E F G H 1 J K L M N Q P ffl R S T U V W X Y Z » >

Figure 5-9. EPA or State Contact List Screen

5-16
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Search for laboratory or PWS contacts by selecting the Region, State, and/or Organization Type from the
appropriate drop-down menus at the top of the page, then click "VIEW" to display the list of contacts. To
search the list by laboratory or PWS name, use the letters above the table to display laboratories or
PWSs that begin with that letter.

To display a complete listing of contacts for a laboratory or PWS, click the organization name. Figure 5-10
displays an example of the PWS details contact screen.
LT2 Contacts

Update the official contact by selecting the radio button next to the appropriate contact and click "Update Official Contact." If the user is
both a LT2 and Stage 2 contact, they are the official contact for both systems. Note: Every PWS must have one official contact
designated as the mam contact for all EPA correspondence.
Official
Contact

LT2
Se«iich Official Contacts
Stage 2 Contacts
The following contacts are associated with Stage 2. They should not be the first point of contact for LT2 questions, but are listed as
additional resources. Associate an existing Stage 2 contact with LT2 by selecting the desired "Link" checkboxes and clicking "Associate

t ii»k View [ < ontotl N>tn>e
n »' It1 ellv Steven;
(Jlk
Data Analyst
I Chonf Ntmili^i
(703)818-0001
A........ '..m..'t -
-------
USEPA
LT2DCTS Users'Manual
Contacts it

First. Name '. •• ,/ ? '•'
Last Nam* I • "'<5!-f;>w
NiekNam* ,,., ' %;.»
Lf2&iitactf»e >"/'
«taa«2^CtetenB«T^».-^,. ' ''*g
Depart**!*, . • ' . ,*'v^-
™» ..
Mailing Addrwp , , j
Mailing JMdteSi'l|?. ^-v^ ..-.-.
<% •*
Start* ,, ,: !'
Zip Csile - , ' ^
Phone Nurabsi "' "
Fnx Number
timill Adrtr»»
C*i!iirittnte

John
Jacobs

technical
NA

Manager
1 5 Main Street

Sterling
VA
20165
(703)818-0000

john@jacobs.com

RET'i IRNTO I |:~,T "

Figure 5-11. Contact Details Screen for EPA and State User

5.8 Grandfathering and Sampling Plan Tracking
EPA and State Users have the ability to track the status of a PWS facility in the LT2 DCTS. EPA and
State Users can modify the data in the following categories:
• PWS intends to submit grandfathered data;
• USEPA receipt of sample location;
• USEPA review of sample schedule; and
• PWS intends to waive monitoring and proceed to Bin Classification.
5-18
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
\ Pfeas* seiec! a
and cfcA V7£W
State
PWS
Facility
VA v
VA1-VA1PWS vj
VA02 - FaniiCy Two « _:
'-
Currently editing: Facility Two . VA02
1 PWS intends to submis grandfatheied data
a Date lettes received (MMAtd/yyyy)
b Number of gtandfaihefed samples to be submitted
c Date fange grandfathered samples were collected (MM/dd/yyyy)
d PWS intends !o submit additional samples
Start
End
fr IJunbK i < '>=cl jn«ple tu be 'ubrmttHii
•f ED
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
To upload grandfathered data or a sample location plan (as submitted by the PWS), use the appropriate
browse button to search for the desired file. Click "SAVE" to upload the files. To view a status of
previously submitted files, click the "View SUBMISSION TRACKING" link to proceed to the Submission
Tracking module in the Stage 2 application.

5.9 Reports - Not all the listed reports are available for the first release of
the LT2 DOTS

EPA and State Users have the ability to view reports generated by the LT2 database. The reports are
accessed by clicking the "REPORTS" link on the left toolbar. Figure 5-13 displays the "Report List" screen.

The reports available for EPA Users are as follows:

• Sample Tracking - Displays the number of sample results submitted and reviewed.
• Sample Backlog - Displays the number of sample results pending laboratory approval and PWS
review.
• List of Users - Displays a listing of LT2 DCTS users and their role, grouped by organization.
• LT2 Data Collection System Usage - Displays the number of organizations that have accessed
the LT2 Data Collection System, as well as those organizations that have not used the LT2
DCTS.
• PWS Schedule Submission Compliance - Displays the number of active facilities for each PWS
that have/have not submitted a complete sample schedule to the LT2 DCTS.
• Sample History - Displays sample results that have been returned to the laboratory from the
PWS as part of the sample review process.
• Binning Reports - Allows the EPA User to view the list of PWS facilities with current
Cryptosporidium bin values of at least 0.075 oocysts/L, the list of current bin values for all PWS
facilities, or the current bin value of a specific PWS.
• Missed and Re-Sampled Events - Displays a list of PWSs that have missed a sampling date
and/or submitted a resample.
• Grandfathered Data - Displays a list of PWSs intending to submit grandfathered data.
• Monitoring Waived - Displays a list of PWSs who have waived monitoring and who are intending
to waive monitoring.
• PWS Sample Location Plan Compliance - Displays a list of sample location plans not received.

State Users have the ability to review a subset of these reports. All data displayed is applicable to PWS
utilities within their state jurisdiction. The reports available to State Users are as follows:

• Sample Tracking - Displays the number of sample results submitted and reviewed.
• Sample Backlog - Displays the number of sample results pending laboratory approval and PWS
review.
• PWS Schedule Submission Compliance - Displays the number of active facilities for each PWS
that have/have not submitted a complete sample schedule to the LT2 DCTS.
• Sample History • Displays sample results that have been returned to the laboratory from the
PWS as part of the sample review process.
• Binning Reports - Allows the user to view the list of PWS facilities with current Cryptosporidium
bin values of at least 0.075 oocysts/L, the list of current bin values for all PWS facilities, or the
current bin value of a specific PWS.

5-20
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
• Missed and Re-Sampled Events - Displays a list of PWSs that have missed a sampling date
and/or submitted a resample.
• Grandfathered Data - Displays a list of PWSs intending to submit grandfathered data.
• Monitoring Waived - Displays a list of PWSs who have waived monitoring and who are intending
to waive monitoring.
• PWS Sample Location Plan Compliance - Displays a list of sample location plans not received.
Please select a report to display.

Sample flacking
Displays the number of sample results submitted and reviewed.

Sample Backlog
Displays the number of sample results pending laboratory approval and PWS review.

List of Users
Displays a listing of LT2 Data Collection System users and their role, grouped by organization.

LI2 JiiMiL C.ai! e cjio a Sysit'J ii JJ •-. j « j i
Displays the number of organizations that have acceded the LT2 Data Collection System, as well as those organizations that have not
used the system.

PWSS ch « S 1 1 f HI i j_s«> io. 1 1 £ o 1 1 1 1 • ! i . 1 1 1 • •
Displays the number of active facilities for each PWS that have/have not submitted a complete sample schedule to the LT2 Data
Collection System

Sfl]].!KJ.£jliSL2!>
Displays sample results that have been returned to the laboratory from the PWS as part of the sample review process.
.Rcjjorls
Displays a list of PWS facilities with Cn/ptdspotKiiiim bin values of greater than 0.075 oocysts/L.

j Re-S^mpled I y^iiits
Displays a list of PWSs that have missed a sampling date and/or submitted a re-sample

Grandfathers tl D.II.S
[Displays a list of PWSs intending to submit grandfathered data
iiloiiim Waived
(Displays a list of PWSs that intend to waive monitoring

PWS Sample Location Pj ' ! ! i ' I i < ' ' ' ' " r'
Displays a list of sample location plans not received
Figure 5-13. Reports List for the EPA User
5-21
-------
USEPA L 72 DOTS Users' Manual
Section 6. XML Submission Process

The XML data upload module of the LT2 DCTS was created to assist those laboratories who regularly
submit a large volume of sample data. Submitting sample data on an individual basis would be a daunting
task. If a laboratory is already tracking their sample data within a database, there is no need to duplicate
this data entry within the LT2 DCTS. Instead, the laboratory can generate an XML file based on their
sample data. The Lab User can upload this single file to the LT2 DCTS, replacing the data entry with a
few simple clicks.

6.1 Who should consider submitting data using

XML?

The LT2 DCTS users that may benefit from using the XML upload function include the following:

Commercial laboratories that need to submit a high volume of sample results to the LT2 DCTS.
Laboratories that are already tracking their sample data in an electronic source, such as a laboratory
information management system (LIMS) or another database, that is maintained by an experienced
database administrator.

USEPA assistance for those interested in using XML uploads is available through a USEPA-
developed tool that automatically extracts data from the laboratory's relational database and creates an
XML file that meets the specified document type definition (DTD) requirements. This tool would require an
initial mapping of the laboratory's database to the LT2 database structure. Assistance is available from
LT2 Technical Support, at stage2mdbp@epa.gov, or the LT2 Hotline, at 1-888-LT2-0020.

6.2 The XML Process

The Lab Data Upload module allows the Lab User to upload an XML file via a web form. The LT2 DCTS
will process the file and populate the database with the data from the XML file. After the file is uploaded,
the user will receive a confirmation message. The samples will be available for review through the Search
screen.

Only Lab Users have the ability to submit electronic files to the LT2 DCTS. Since files will contain data
about the sample and the analytical results, it will replace the need for the laboratory to manually enter
sample data.

The laboratory will have the ability to pre-approve samples by populating the status field in the XML file.
After the data passes LT2 verification checks, the samples will be sent directly to the PWS for review,
eliminating the need for a Lab Approver User to access LT2 and individually verify samples. This will
provide labs with greater efficiency than the manual entry process. Only Lab Approver Users will be
permitted to upload samples in "lab approved" status.
6.2.1 Timing of Transactions
Regardless of the upload time, each file submitted will generate a confirmation record appearing during
the user's upload session. This record will indicate the success or failure of the file and detail the exact
data errors if the file failed.

Note: The user must keep the web browser open during the upload validation and should not navigate to
any other page.

A limited number of samples can be included in a XML file. Since there are a minimal number of data
elements tracked by the LT2 DCTS, the space required for each sample is relatively small. However, the
larger the XML file, the longer it will take to process the information. It may be more practical to limit the
6-1
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
size of XML files, which will expedite the upload process. Cryptosporidium laboratories may consider
uploading by 20-sample quality control (QC) batch.

6.2.2 Document Structure

The LT2 DCTS's XML implementation uses DTDs developed specifically for submitting analytical results
for water samples. The DTDs describe the format and the data elements required for submitting valid,
formatted monitoring data and analytical results in XML format to the LT2 System. There is one DTD for
submitting Cryptosporidium sample results, and a separate DTD that includes all four E. coli methods.
These DTDs are included in Appendix A.

Table 6-1 provides a brief description of the field names, descriptions, and types that will be provided by
Cryptosporidium laboratories and indicates whether the element is required or optional.

Table 6-1. Cryptosporidium Data Elements
Data Element Name
Data Element
Description
Field Type
Requirement
CRYPTO_SAMPLES Information
PWSJD
FACILITYJD
SAMPLE_POINT_ID
Public Water System ID
number
Public Water System
facility ID number
Sampling point ID
number
VARCHAR(9)
VARCHAR(15)
VARCHAR(20)
Required
Required
Required
SAMPLE Information
ANALYTE
LAB_SAMPLE_ID
SAMPLE_COLLECTION_DATE
DATE_FORMAT
Designates file as
Cryptosporidium sample
Sample identification
number
Sample collection date
(Date format is
'DD/MM/YY'), lower
bound of 01/01/99 and
upper bound of current
date
Description of the date
format using pre-set
symbols
VARCHAR(15)
VARCHAR(20)
DATE
VARCHAR
Required
Required
Required
Required
CRYPTO Information
S AM PLE_VOL_EXAM I N E D
ANALYSIS_TYPE
SAMPLE_VOLUME_FILTERED
NO_OF_CRYPTO
Designates whether
100% of the sample
volume was filtered
Sample analysis type
Sample volume filtered
(L), may be reported to
the nearest hundredth
and must be greater
than 0
Total number of oocysts
VARCHAR(1)
VARCHAR(IO)
NUMBER(20,8)
NUMBER(7)
Required
Required
Required
Required
6-2
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Data Element Name

RESUSPENDED_CONC_VOL
RESUSPENDED_CONC_VOL_IMS
NUM_FILTERS
PELLET_VOLUME
SAMPLE_VOLUME_SPIKED
NO_OF_CRYPTO_SPIKE
VALID_STATUS_CODE
LAB_COMMENT
RESAMPLE
ORIG SAMPLE COLLECTION DA
TE
LAB_RESAMPLE_EXPLANATION
Data Element
Description
from all slides, that meet
fluorescence, size, and
shape criteria under IFA
and cannot be ruled out
using DAPI or DIG, must
be whole number greater
than or equal to 0
Volume of resuspended
concentrate (mL)
generated, must be a
whole number
Volume of resuspended
concentrate (mL)
transferred to IMS, must
be a whole number
Number of filters used,
must be a whole number
greater than or equal to
0
Pellet volume (mL)
generated, may be
reported to the nearest
hundredth
Sample volume spiked
(L), may be reported to
the nearest hundredth
Estimated number of
oocysts spiked, may be
reported to the nearest
hundredth
The status of the sample
Comments regarding the
sample data
Displays whether the
sample is a resample
The date the original
sample was collected
The lab's justification as
to why the resample was
collected
Field Type

NUMBER(20,8)
NUMBER(20,8)
NUMBER
NUMBER(20,8)
NUMBER(20,8)
VARCHAR
VARCHAR(20)
VARCHAR(4000)
VARCHAR(1)
DATE
VARCHAR(4000)
Requirement

Required if
SAMPLE VOL. EXAMIN
ED = N
Required if
SAMPLE VOL. EXAMIN
ED = N •
Required if
(SAMPLE VOL EXAMIN
ED = N) OR
(SMAPLE VOL FILTER
ED<10)
Required if
(SAMPLE VOL EXAMIN
ED = N)OR
(SMAPLE VOL FILTER
ED<10)
Required if
ANALYSIS_TYPE = MS
Optional
Optional
Optional
Required
Required if RESAMPLE =
1
Required if RESAMPLE =
1
6-3
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Table 6-2 provides a brief description of the field names, descriptions, and types that will be provided by
E. co// laboratories and indicates whether the element is required or optional. Shaded rows are elements
that may be required, depending on the sample and whether the laboratory enters the final result into the
LT2 DCTS or enters primary measurements into the LT2 DCTS for automatic calculation of the final
result.

Table 6-2. E. coli Data Elements
Data Element Name
Data Element
Description
Field Type
Requirement
ECOLI_SAMPLES Information
PWSJD
FACILITYJD
SAMPLE_POINT_ID
Public Water System ID
number
Public Water System facility
ID number
Sampling point ID number
VARCHAR(9)
VARCHAR(15)
VARCHAR(20)
Required
Required
Required
SAMPLE Information
ANALYTE
LAB_SAMPLEJD
SAMPLE_COLLECTION_DATE
DATE_FORMAT
Designates file as E. coli
sample
Sample identification number
Sample collection date (Date
format is 'DD/MM/YY'), lower
bound of 01/01/99 and upper
bound of current date
Description of the date
format using pre-set symbols
VARCHAR(15)
VARCHAR(20)
DATE
VARCHAR
Required
Required
Required
Required
ECOLI Information
ANALYTICAL_MEHTOD_NUMBER
SOURCE_WATER_TYPE
TURBIDITY_VALUE
SAMPLE_CALC
FILTER1_VOLUME
FILTER1_CFU
Analytical method number
Source water type
Turbidity result - must be
greater than or equal to 0
and may be reported to the
hundredth
E. coli 1 00 ml_ (option of
entering this value of the
primary measurements
below), maybe reported to
the nearest tenth
Filter 1 : mL of sample
filtered, must be greater than
0 and may be reported to 6
decimal places
Filter 1 : Number of £. coli
colony forming units (CFU),
must be a whole number
VARCHAR(40)
VARCHAR(20)
NUMBER(5)
NUMBER(20)
NUMBER(14,4)
NUMBER
Required
Required
Required for filtered
systems with a
population greater
than 10,000
Required if primary
measurements
(shaded in gray) not
entered below
Required if
(SAMPLE CALC =
NULL) and
(METHOD_TYPE =
Membrane Filtration)
Required if
(SAMPLE CALC =
NULL) and
(METHODJTYPE =
Membrane Filtration)
6-4
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Data Element Name
FILTER2_VOLUME
FILTER2_CFU
FILTER3_VOLUME
FILTER3_CFU
FILTER4_VOLUME
FILTER4_CFU
VOLUME_ANALYZED
COLIFORM_LARGE_WELLS
COLIFORM_SMALL_WELLS
COLIFORM_POSITIVE
POSITIVE_10_TUBES
Data Element
Description
Filter 2: mL of sample
filtered; must be greater than
0 and may be reported to 6
decimal places
Filter 2: Number of E. coli
colony forming units (CFU);
must be a whole number
Filter 3: mL of sample
filtered; must be greater than
0 and may be reported to 6
decimal places
Filter 3: Number of E. coli
colony forming units (CFU);
must be a whole number
Filter 4: ml of sample
filtered; must be greater than
0 and may be reported to 6
decimal places
Filter 4: Number of E. coli
colony forming units (CFU);
must be a whole number
mL of sample added to tray;
must be greater than 0 and
may be reported to decimal
places
Large wells positive: Total
coliform positive and UV
fluorescence; must be a
whole number between 0
and less than or equal to 49
Small wells positive: Total
coliform positive and UV
fluorescence; must be a
whole number between 0
and less than or equal to 48
Number of wells positive:
Total coliform positive and
UV fluorescence; must be a
whole number between 0
and less than or equal to 51
Number of positive tubes
10.0 mL; must be a whole
number, less than or equal to
5
Field Type
NUMBER(14,4)
NUMBER
NUMBER(14,4)
NUMBER
NUMBER(14,4)
NUMBER
NUMBER(14,4)
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER(1)
Requirement
Required if
FILTER2 CFU !=
NULL
Required if
FILTER2 VOLUME
NNULL
Required if
FILTERS CFU !=
NULL
Required if
FILTERS VOLUME
!=NULL
Required if
FILTER4 CFU !=
NULL
Required if
FILTER4 VOLUME
!=NULL
Required if
(SAMPLE CALC =
NULL) and
(METHOD TYPE =
ONPG-MUG, 97-well
or ONPG-MUG, 51-
well)
Required if
(SAMPLE CALC =
NULL) and
(METHOD TYPE=;
ONPG-MUG, 97-
well)
Required if
(SAMPLE CALC =
NULL) and
(METHOD TYPE =
ONPG-MUG, 97-
well)
Required if
(SAMPLE CALC =
NULL) and
(METHOD TYPE =
ONPG-MUG, 51-
well)
Required if
(SAMPLE CALC =
NULL) and
(METHOD TYPE =
15-tubeMPN)
6-5
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Data Element Name
POSITIVE_1_TUBES
POSITIVE_01_TUBES
POSITIVE_001_TUBES
POSITIVE_0001_TUBES
VALID_STATUS_CODE
LAB_COMMENT
METHOD_TYPE
RESAMPLE
ORIG SAMPLE COLLECTION DA
TE
LAB_RESAMPLE_EXPLANATION
Data Element
Description
Number of positive tubes 1 .0
mL; must be a whole
number, less than or equal to
5
Number of positive tubes 0.1
mL; must be a whole
number, less than or equal to
5
Number of positive tubes
0.01 mL; must be a whole
number, less than or equal to
5
Number of positive tubes
0.001 mL; must be a whole
number, less than or equal to
5
The status of the sample
Comments regarding the
sample data
The method used to analyze
this E. coli sample
Displays whether the sample
is a resample
The date the original sample
was collected
The lab's justification as to
why the resample was
collected
Field Type
NUMBER(1)
NUMBER(1)
NUMBER(1)
NUMBER(1)
VARCHAR(20)
VARCHAR(4000)
VARCHAR
VARCHAR(1)
DATE
VARCHAR(4000)
Requirement
Required if
(SAMPLE CALC =
NULL) and
(METHOD TYPE =
15-tubeMPN)
Required if
(SAMPLE CALC =
NULL) and
(METHOD TYPE =
15-tubeMPN)
Optional
Optional
Optional
Optional
Required
Required
Required if
RESAMPLE = 1
Required if
RESAMPLE = 1
6-6
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
On the LT2 DCTS data entry screens, certain data elements are selected through drop-down menus
where the user selects from a list of possible choices. For these data elements, one of the possible
choices must be entered for the upload to work correctly. Listed in Table 6-3 are the acceptable values for
these Cryptosporidium and £. co//data elements. Note: all data elements are case-sensitive.

Table 6-3. Acceptable Data Element Values
Analyte
Both
Cryptosporidium
Cryptosporidium
E. co// - Membrane Filtration
£. co//-15-tubeMPN
£. co//- ONPG-MUG, 51 -well
£ co// - ONPG-MUG, 97-well
£. co// - all methods
£. co// - all methods
Both
Data Element Name
ANALYTE
SAMPLE_VOL_ANALYZED
ANALYTICAL_METHOD_NUMBER
ANALYTICAL_METHOD_NUMBER
ANALYTICAL_METHOD_NUMBER
ANALYTICAL_METHOD_NUMBER
ANALYTICAL_METHOD_NUMBER
SOURCE_WATER_TYPE
METHOD_TYPE
VALID_STATUS_CODE
Acceptable Values
Crypto, Ecoli
Y/N, y/n, 1/0, T/F, t/f
Field, MS
921 3D (mTEC), SM 9222B/9222G
(mENDO/NA-MUG), SM
9222B/9222G (LesENDO/NA-
MUG), EPA 1603 (modified mTEC),
EPA 1604 (Ml Medium), mColiBlue-
24
SM 9223 (Colilert), SM 9223
(Colilert-18), SM 9221B/9221F
(LTB/EC-MUG)
SM 9223 (Colilert), SM 9223
(Colilert-18)
SM 9223 (Colilert), SM 9223
(Colilert-18)
reservoir/lake, river/stream, both,
GWUDI-FS, GWUDI-LR
Membrane Filtration; 15-tube MPN;
ONPG-MUG; 51 -well, ONPG-MUG,
97-well
entered, lab approved
6.2.3 Legal and Security Considerations

If you choose to submit data via an XML file, that file will be the "official" copy of the data. The web entry
forms provide the user with a warning, reminding the user that the sample data must be compliant with
certain standards. It is assumed that the laboratory will adhere to the same standards when uploading
their XML files. These standards are discussed as follows, by analyte.

Cryptosporidium - Do not enter data for samples that did not meet QC requirements. You are
acknowledging the following by entering Cryptosporidium sample data into the LT2 DCTS: all holding
times for the sample were met; the sample was received by the laboratory in acceptable condition; and
results for the associated method blank, OPR, and positive and negative staining controls were
acceptable (EPA Method 1622/1623).
£. co// - Do not enter data for samples that did not meet QC requirements. You are acknowledging the
following by entering £. co//' sample data into the LT2 DCTS: all holding and incubation times and
temperatures for the sample were met; the sample was received by the laboratory in acceptable
condition; all method-specified QC requirements were met; and all QA/QC criteria and procedures
specified in the Manual for the Certification of Laboratories Analyzing Drinking Water (EPA 815-B-97-001)
were followed.
6-7
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
The XML file may be submitted with the sample in "lab approved" status. It is assumed that the laboratory
is acknowledging that the following if this status is chosen:

Cryptosporidium - By delivering these Cryptosporidium monitoring results to the PWS, you are verifying
that the results were generated in accordance with all Method 1622/1623 and LT2 rule QC requirements
(these criteria are specified in Appendix B).
E. co/i - By delivering these E. coli monitoring results to the PWS, you are verifying that the results were
generated in accordance with all method and LT2 rule QC requirements (these criteria are specified in
Appendix C and Appendix D).

If the file is successfully uploaded with a "lab approved" status, all the enclosed samples will move directly
to the PWS review process.

6.3 User Process

After an XML file is generated, it can be uploaded through the LT2 website. Users will see a link to
"UPLOAD SAMPLES" when they select "CREATE NEW SAMPLES" from the navigation toolbar on the left hand
side. Figure 6-1 displays the "Create New Sample" screen.
Create New Sample for Anytown Lab-VA1234567
To import data from your laboratory's information si/stem, click "Upload Sample(s)." To enter data for a new
sample using v/eb forms, select the anali/te (and method type, for E. coii! and click "Enter Sampie(s)."
: Ctyptosporidmm

. E. coli Select Method Type
NII.R..5AM£L!EiS) MELyM'..SAfflELEiS}
Figure 6-1. Create New Sample Screen

Lab Users that wish to upload XML files from their LIMS or data tracking systems, and that do not have a
user-friendly means to convert data from their system to XML for upload should contact the LT2 Hotline,
at 1-888-LT2-0020, for assistance. In addition to specific support, the LT2 Hotline staff also can provide
free USEPA software for mapping a laboratory's internal database fields to the LT2 DCTS's DTD, and for
translating the data to XML format for upload.

The user will then choose the "UPLOAD SAMPLE(S)" link on the right. After arriving at the "Lab Upload" page
(Figure 6-2), the user can upload file(s) by clicking the "BROWSE" button. If the user knows the location
of the file, they may opt to directly key this information into the text box. Otherwise, the web browser's
default directory will be displayed, allowing the user to locate the desired file. The user will select the XML
file from their computer to upload and click the "OPEN" button to commit the selection. After the file is
selected, the user will click the "UPLOAD FILE" link to import the sample information.
6-8
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Upload Sample Data for Anytown Lab - VA1234567
Do not upload samples thai did not meet QC requirements. By marking uploaded data as "Approved," you are
verifying that the results were generated in accordance with ail method and LT2 rule QC requirements.

After clicking the "UPLOAD FILE" link, the system will automatically verify the file contents and ensure that all
data are in the proper format. If the file passes system inspection, the samples will be saved to the database
immediately. If the file is invalid, error messages will appear. For help on creating an XML file, click here.
Browse..
UPLOAD FILE
Figure 6-2. Lab Upload

Once the "UPLOAD FILE" link is clicked, the LT2 DCTS begins validating the XML file. The user must wait
for the file to be validated before proceeding to other parts of the LT2 DCTS.

If the XML file passes all validation checks, the data will be loaded to the database, and the XML upload
page will refresh to show the resulting success message (Figure 6-3). The samples are then available for
review through the search module. If the XML file does not pass all validation checks, the XML upload
page will refresh to display a list of errors (Figure 6-4). Details will describe the exact sample where an
error occurred, as well as the data field containing the error. If there is an error in just one of many
samples contained in the file, the entire file will be rejected.
Upload Sample Data for Anytown Ub -VA1234567
Do not upload samples that did not meet QC requirements. By marking uploaded data as ''Approved," you are
verifying that the results were generated in accordance with all method and LT2 rule QC requirements

After clicking the "UPLOAD FILE" link, the system will automatically verify the file contents and ensure that all
data are in the proper format If the file passes system inspection, the samples will be saved to the database
immediate!)' if the file is invalid, error messages will appear For help on creating an XML file, click here.
Please specify ihe me that WM 6*&ybmiBsij,,
use the BROWSi button to locatfi* m1?'
Browse..
UPLOAD FILE
ValidCrytpo2.xml has been uploaded successfully.
Figure 6-3. Lab Upload - Successful Upload
6-9
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Upload Sample Data for Anytown Lab - VA1234567
Do not upload samples that did not meet QC requirements. By marking uploaded data as "Approved," you are
verifying that the results were generated in accordance with all method and LT2 rule QC requirements.

After clicking the "UPLOAD FILE" link, the system will automatically verify the tile contents and ensure that ail
data are in the proper format. If the file passes system inspection, the samples will be saved to the database
immediately, if the file is invalid, error messages will appear. For help on creating an XML file, gfeft here.
use the BRCWSE
Browse..
UPLOADFILE
Figure 6-4. Lab Upload - Failed Upload

6.4 LT2 XML Data Flow

To create an XML document, first identify the data fields in your database that will be extracted for
transmission to the LT2 DCTS. This involves reviewing the list of LT2 data elements for Cryptosporidium
or E. co/;' and then mapping them to your database by identifying the appropriate database name, table
name, and field name used to store each element. Someone familiar with the structure of the database
and the location of the necessary reporting fields for LT2 should be involved in this step.

Next, extract the necessary data from your laboratory's database. Most XML transformation products
have the capability of communicating directly with databases and when supplied with a DTD and mapping
information, can extract data straight from the database tables into a new XML file. Your XML software
provider or LIMS developer should be consulted about the capabilities of the software. Also, consider the
ability of the software to validate the XML documents. Validation ensures that the XML document
conforms to XML specifications and DTD rules. When an architecture for extracting the data has been
determined, the data must be parsed into an XML document according to the LT2 DTD. The LT2 DTDs
are provided in Appendix A.

The validated XML document is uploaded to the LT2 DCTS as described in Section 6.2. The LT2 DCTS
will send the XML file to the LT2 parser for validation and entry into LT2. If errors prevent the processing
of the submission, an error message will be displayed on the screen, and the entire file will be rejected.
After making necessary corrections, the data can be resubmitted. After the data elements are loaded into
LT2, you will be able to view the data through the LT2 search function.

If "entered" ("Pending Approval" status) is recorded in the status element, you will be able to make
changes to the data. If "lab approved" is recorded in the status element, and you have the correct user
rights, the data will be automatically sent to the PWS, and the LT2 DCTS date will be marked as the date
the laboratory approved the sample. At this point, the laboratory can no longer edit the information. These
samples can be viewed from the laboratory's search screen, but changes cannot be made. If the status
element was left blank, the sample would be automatically placed in "Pending Approval" status. The Lab
Approver User would need to enter the LT2 DCTS and manually approve the sample for PWS review.

Note: Cryptosporidium MS samples cannot be submitted in the "lab approved" status, since the user
needs to verify that the MS sample is associated with a field sample. Any MS sample submitted in the
"Lab Approved" status will be switched to the "Entered" status. The Lab Approver User must log in to the
LT2 DCTS to manually approve these MS samples for PWS review.
6-10
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
6.5 Error Corrections and Resubmissions
When the LT2 DCTS determines that the XML file is not valid, a detailed error log will be displayed. The
message will detail the information that is incorrect or missing. It is the user's responsibility to make the
necessary changes before resubmitting the data to LT2.
Errors could occur because a sample did not pass verification checks. The following lists the verification
checks for both Cryptosporidium and E. colt samples.

6.5.2 Cryptosporidium Verification Rules
• The SAMPLE_VOLUME_FILTERED cannot be null and must be greater than 0 and entered to
the nearest hundredth
• NO_OF_CRYPTO must be a whole number greater than or equal to zero
• ANALYSIS_TYPE cannot be null and must be either 'MS' or 'Field'
• If ANALYSIS_TYPE = 'MS' another sample (with the same PWS, FACILITY, SAMPLING_POINT,
SAMPLE_COLLECTION_DATE) should exist where ANALYSIS_TYPE = 'Field'
6-11
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
• If ANALYSIS_TYPE = 'MS', then VALID_STATUS_CODE must be saved as 'entered' regardless
of what the user submitted
• If ANALYSIS_TYPE = 'MS', then SAMPLE_VOLUME_SPIKED and NO_OF_CRYPTO_SPIKE
cannot be null
• If ANALYSIS_TYPE = 'MS', then SAMPLE_VOLUME_FILTERED must be less than or equal to
SAMPLE_VOL_SPIKED
. If ANALYSIS_TYPE = 'MS', then NO_OF_CRYPTO_SPIKE must be a whole number greater
than or equal to zero and entered to the nearest hundredth
• If ANALYSIS_TYPE = 'MS', then SAMPLE_VOLUME_SPIKED must be greater than zero
• SAMPLE_VOL_EXAMINED cannot be null and must be one of these ('1', '0', 'Y', 'N', 'y', 'n', T,
'F', T, T)
• If SAMPLE_VOL_EXAMINED is ('0', 'N', 'n', 'F', T) then RESUSPENDED_CONC_VOL_IMS,
RESUSPENDED_CONC_VOL, NUM_FILTERS, and PELLET_VOLUME cannot be null
• If SAMPLE_VOL_EXAMINED is ('0', 'N', 'n', 'F', T) or SAMPLE_VOLUME_FILTERED is less
than 10 then PELLET_VOLUME must be greater than 0 and reported to the nearest tenth
• If SAMPLE_VOL_EXAMINED is ('0', 'N', 'n', 'F', T) then SAMPLE_VOLUME_SPIKED must be
greater than 0 and reported to the nearest hundredth
. If SAMPLE_VOL_EXAMINED is ('0', 'N', 'n', 'F', T) then RESUSPENDED_CONC_VOL must be
greater than or equal to 0 and entered to the nearest tenth
• If SAMPLE_VOL_EXAMINED is ('0', 'N', 'n', 'F', T) then RESUSPENDED_CONC_VOL_IMS
must be greater than or equal to 0 and entered to the nearest tenth
• If SAMPLE_VOL_EXAMINED is ('0', 'N', 'n', 'F', T) then RESUSPENDED_CONC_VOL_IMS
must be equal to or less than RESUSPENDED_CONC_VOL
• If SAMPLE_VOLUME_FILTERED is less than 10, then NUM_FILTERS and PELLET_VOLUME
cannot be null
• If SAMPLE_VOLUME_FILTERED is less than 10 then NUM_FILTERS must be a whole number
greater than or equal to 0
• RESUSPENDED_CONC_VOL_IMS, RESUSPENDED_CONC_VOL, NUM_FILTERS,
PELLET_VOLUME, NO_OF_CRYPTO_SPIKE, NO_OF_CRYPTO,
SAMPLE_VOLUME_FILTERED, SAMPLE_VOLUME_SPIKED must be numeric

6.5.3 E. co/i Verification Rules
• METHOD_TYPE cannot be null and must be either 'Membrane Filtration', '15-Tube MPN',
'ONPG-MUG, 97-well' or 'ONPG-MUG, 51-well'
. ANALYTICAL_METHOD_NUMBER cannot be null
• If METHOD_TYPE = 'ONPG-MUG, 97-well' or 'ONPG-MUG, 51-well',
ANALYTICAL_METHOD_NUMBER must be either 'SM 9223 (Colilert)' or 'SM 9223 (Colilert-18)1
• If METHOD_TYPE = '15-Tube MPN', ANALYTICAL_METHOD_NUMBER must be either 'SM
9223 (Colilert)', 'SM 9221B/9221F (LTB/EC-MUG)' or'SM 9223 (Colilert-18)'
• If METHOD_TYPE = 'Membrane Filtration', ANALYTICAL_METHOD_NUMBER must be either
'SM 9213D (mTEC)', 'SM 9222B/9222G (mENDO/NA-MUG)', 'SM 9222B/9222G (LesENDO/NA-
MUG)', 'SM 9222D/9222G (mFC/NA-MUG)', 'EPA 1603 (modified mTEC)', 'EPA 1604 (Ml
Medium)', or 'mColiBlue-24'
• TURBIDITY_VALUE cannot be null and must be greater than or equal to zero if the PWSs is a
filtered system with a population greater than 10,000
• SOURCE_WATER_TYPE cannot be null and must be either 'Lake/Reservoir', 'Flowing Stream',
or 'Both FS and L/R'
6-12
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
If METHOD_TYPE = 'ONPG-MUG, 97-well' and SAMPLE_CALC is null then
VOLUME_ANALYZED, COLIFORM_LARGE_WELLS, and COLIFORM_SMALL_WEL.LS cannot
be null
If METHOD_TYPE = 'ONPG-MUG, 51-well' and SAMPLE_CALC is null then
VOLUME_ANALYZED and COLIFORM_POSITIVE cannot be null
If METHOD_TYPE = '15-Tube MPN' and SAMPLE_CALC is null then POSITIVE_10_TUBES,
POSITIVE_1_TUBES, POSITIVE_01_TUBES cannot be null.
If METHODJYPE = '15-Tube MPN' and SAMPLE_CALC is null then POSITIVE_10_TUBES,
POSITIVE_1_TUBES, POSITIVE_01_TUBES, POSITIVE_001_TUBES, and
POSITIVE_0001_TUBES can be entered.
If METHOD_TYPE = 'Membrane Filtration' and SAMPLE_CALC is null then one pair of
FILTER_VOLUME and FILTER_CFU must be supplied
If METHOD_TYPE = 'Membrane Filtration' and SAMPLE_CALC is null then FILTER1 VOLUME,
FILTER1_CFU, FILTER2_VOLUME, FILTER2_CFU, FILTER3_VOLUME, FILTER3_CFU,
FILTER4_VOLUME and FILTER4_CFU can be entered
If METHOD_TYPE = 'Membrane Filtration', SAMPLE_CALC is null and a value is supplied for a
FILTER_VOLUME then the corresponding FILTER_CFU cannot be null
If METHOD_TYPE = 'Membrane Filtration', SAMPLE_CALC is null and a value is supplied for a
FILTER_CFU then the corresponding FILTER_VOLUME cannot be null
If required, FILTER_VOLUME must be greater than 0 and less than or equal to 100
If required, FILTER_CFU must be a whole number
VOLUME_FILTERED for membrane filtration methods cannot exceed 100 ml_
If required, COLIFORM_POSITIVE, COLIFORM_LARGE_WELLS, and
COLIFORM_SMALL_WELLS must be a whole number greater than 0
If required, COLIFORM_POSITIVE must be less than or equal to 51
If required, COLIFORM_LARGE_WELLS must be less than or equal to 49
If required, COLIFORM_SMALL_WELLS must be less than or equal to 48
If required, VOLUME_ANALYZED must be greater than 0 and less than or equal to 100
If required, POSITIVE_10_TUBES, POSITIVE_1_TUBES, POSITIVE_01_TUBES,
POSITIVE_001_TUBES, and POSITIVE_0001_TUBES must have a whole number value of ('0',
'1','2','3','4','5')
6-13
-------
USER A L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Section 7. Legal and Security Considerations

This section focuses on legal and security considerations for all user types to ensure security and
reliability of the user accounts and data submitted through the LT2 DCTS. By using web forms or the XML
upload process to submit LT2 data, the DCTS reduces the burden on reporting facilities and responsible
environmental agencies for collecting and report data and keeping records. The reduced burden is a
result of eliminating labor, time, and other costs associated with submitting data on paper. It is important
to note, however, that electronic reporting does not alleviate or alter a submitter's responsibilities or
liabilities.

7.1 Application Location

The LT2 DCTS is hosted on USEPA's Research Triangle Park (RTP) database and Internet Web servers.
All users access the LT2 DCTS directly through the USEPA servers via their Internet connection and Web
browser. The LT2 DCTS is hosted within a secure environment and monitored by USEPA's National
Technology Services Division (NTSD). The LT2 DCTS was designed and developed in accordance with
all USEPA policies and procedures for public access databases intended for release into the central
environment.

7.2 LT2 User Responsibilities

The USEPA relies on all LT2 users to ensure that the data are protected from loss, misuse, and
unauthorized access or modification. Users are required to behave in an ethical and trustworthy manner.
Users should not attempt to perform actions or processing for which they do not have authorization.
Actions related to LT2 database administration are tracked using audit trails.

Update authority at the PWS and Laboratory is controlled by the individual organizations. Enforcement of
security for these facilities is not an EPA responsibility. All LT2 users are responsible and accountable for
the use of the data either through direct access or via applications the users develop.

7.3 Passwords

Each individual is responsible for maintaining the integrity of his/her own User Name and Password.
Transactions made with your User Name and Password are considered approved and submitted by you.
If you believe your User Name or Password has been compromised, email LT2 Technical Support, at
stage2mdbp@epa.gov, or contact the LT2 Hotline, at 1-888-LT2-0020.

Users can help ensure the integrity of their passwords by taking the following precautions:

• Change your passwords every 30 days
• Use passwords containing at least eight characters, including letters and numbers
• Do not use family names, birthdays, words describing personal interests or facets of your life that
could be guessed, or words found in a dictionary
• Use a different password than those used within the last eight versions of your password
• Control access to your PC workstation and logout whenever leaving your machine.
7.4 Record Keeping
USEPA recommends that you keep a copy of all transactions (including the time and date) sent to and
received from USEPA or in accordance with your policies and procedures. These transactions may
7-1
-------
USEPA L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
include submissions, receipt acknowledgments, error messages, resubmissions, and transmissions. The
saved copies are your audit trail for submissions to USEPA.

The LT2 rule will require laboratories to keep hardcopies of all quality control (QC) data for all data
submitted. Laboratories may only submit data to the LT2 DCTS that has met all of the QC requirements.
Common business practice is to back up and archive your electronic data in case the system fails. As
technology progresses and you upgrade, you may want to consider backward compatibility for document
retrieval. You also should consider keeping more than one copy as a backup in case the hardware or
software fails, a virus attacks, or other technological anomalies occur.
7-2
-------
USEPA
L T2 DOTS Users' Manual
Appendix A. LT2 Data Collection System XML DTD
Cryptosporidium DTD


                  816R07006
The Long Term 2 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment
Rule (LT2ESWTR)
Implementation Guidance

-------
Office of Water (4606M)
EPA816-R-07-006
wwvv.cpa.gov/safcvvalcr
August 2007                                                          Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
                             Disclaimer

This document provides guidance to states, tribes, and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Regions exercising primary enforcement
responsibility under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and contains
EPA's current policy recommendations for complying with the Long Term
2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR), Throughout this
document, the terms "state" or "states" are used to refer to all types of
primacy agencies including U.S. territories, Indian tribes, and EPA
Regions.

The statutory provisions and EPA regulations described in this document
contain legally binding requirements. This document is not a regulation
itself, nor does it change or substitute for those provisions and regulations.
Thus, it does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, or
public water systems. This guidance does not confer legal rights or impose
legal obligations upon any member of the public.

While EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the discussion
in this guidance, the obligations of the regulated community are determined
by statutes, regulations, or other legally binding requirements. In the event
of a conflict between the discussion in this document and any statute or
regulation, this document  would not be controlling.

The general description provided here may not apply to a particular
situation based upon the circumstances. Interested parties are free to raise
questions and objections about the substance of this guidance and the
appropriateness of the application of this guidance to a particular situation.
EPA and other decisionmakers retain the discretion to adopt approaches on
a case-by-case basis that differ from those described in this guidance where
appropriate.

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for their use.

This is a living document  and may be revised periodically without public
notice. EPA welcomes public input on this document at any time. Guidance
provided in this document reflects provisions in 71 FR 653.

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
Table of Contents
Introduction	xi
Section 1 Rule Requirements	1
    1.1   Introduction	3
        1.1.1   History	3
        1.1.2   Development of the LT2ESWTR	7
        1.1.3   Benefits of the LT2ESWTR	8
           1.1.3.1    Quantifiable Benefits	8
           1.1.3.2    Non-quantifiable health and non-health related benefits	8
    1.2   Requirements of the Rule: PWSs	9
        1.2.1   General Requirements	9
        1.2.2   Source Water Monitoring [40 CFR 141.701]	10
           1.2.2.1    When are systems required to begin source water monitoring? [40 CFR
                     141.701(c)]	11
           1.2.2.2    Where arc systems required to sample source water? [40 CFR 141.703]	11
        1.2.3   Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Requirements [40 CFR 141.708, 40 CFR
              141.709]	12
           1.2.3.1    Which systems need to develop profiles? [40 CFR  141.708]	12
           1.2.3.2    What if systems  previously collected data? [40 CFR 141.709]	12
           1.2.3.3    If a system developed a profile for Giardia, does it have to develop one for
                     viruses? [40 CFR 141.709]	12
        1.2.4   Treatment Requirements	12
           1.2.4.1    When do systems have to install additional treatment? [40 CFR 141.713]	12
           1.2.4.2    What arc the requirements for Ciyplosporidium treatment for filtered
                     systems? [40 CFR 141.711]	'.	13
           1.2.4.3    What arc the requirements for Cryplosporidium treatment for unfiltercd
                     systems? [40 CFR 141.712]	'	13
        1.2.5   Microbial Toolbox Options Available to Systems	14
           1.2.5.1    Watershed Control Program [40 CFR  141.716(a)]	15
           1.2.5.2    Alternative Source [40 CFR 141.716(b)]	17
           1.2.5.3    Pre-sedimentation with Coagulant [40 CFR 141.717(a)]	18
           1.2.5.4    Two-stage Lime Softening [40 CFR 141.717(b)]	18
           1.2.5.5    Bank Filtration [40 CFR 141.717(c)]	19
           1.2.5.6    Combined Filter Performance [40 CFR 141.718(a)]	20
           1.2.5.7    Individual Filter Performance [40 CFR 141.718(b)]	21
           1.2.5.8    Demonstration of Performance: What  if a system can perform better than
                     the presumptive  credit specified in the toolbox? [40 CFR 141.718(c)]	22
           1.2.5.9    Bag and Cartridge Filtration [40 CFR  141.719(a)]	23
           1.2.5.10   Membrane Filtration [40 CFR 141.719(b)]	25
           1.2.5.11   Second Stage Filtration [40 CFR 141.719(c)]	28
           1.2.5.12   Slow Sand Filters [40 CFR 141.719(d)]	29
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                 i                                    August 2007

-------
           1.2.5.13   Chlorine Dioxide [40 CFR 141.720(a) through (c)]	29
           1.2.5.14   Ozone [40 CFR 141.720(a) through (c)]	30
           1.2.5.15   Ultraviolet Light [40 CFR 141.720(d)]	30
        1.2.6    Uncovered Finished Reservoir Requirements [40 CFR 141.714]	31
        1.2.7    PWS Recordkeeping Requirements [40 CFR 141.722]	32
        1.2.8    Public Notification of Drinking Water Violations [40 CFR 141.211, Subpart Q, 40
               CFR 141 Appendix A]	32
           1.2.8.1    What are examples of a violation requiring Tier 2 notification?	32
           1.2.8.2    What are examples of a violation requiring Tier 3 notification?	32
        1.2.9    Consumer Confidence Reports Requirements	33
    1.3   Requirements of the Rule: States or Other Primacy Agencies	33
        1.3.1    Special Primacy Requirements [40 CFR 142.16]	33
        1.3.2    State Recordkeeping Requirements [40 CFR 142.14]	34
        1.3.3    State Reporting Requirements [40 CFR 142.15]	34
    1.4   Summary of Action Dates	35
        1.4.1    Applicability and Compliance Dates	35
        1.4.2    Timeline for the LT2ESWTR	39
    References	41
Section 2 Resources and Guidance	43
    2.1   Technical Guidance Manuals	45
    2.2   Rule Presentation	46
    2.3   Fact Sheet/Quick Reference Guide	46
    2.4   Frequently Asked Questions	47
Section 3 State Implementation	55
    3.1   Overview of Implementation	57
    3.2   Identify Special Primacy Conditions	57
    3.3   Identify Affected Systems	58
        3.3.1    Source Water Monitoring	63
        3.3.2    Cryplosporidium Treatment	63
        3.3.3    Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking	63
        3.3.4    Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs	64
    3.4   Communicate LT2ESWTR Requirements to Affected Systems	64
        3.4.1    Source Water Monitoring Requirements	64
           3.4.1.1    Grandfathered Data	65
           3.4.1.2    Sampling Schedule and Locations	67
           3.4.1.3    Calculating Average Cryptosporidium Concentrations	68
        3.4.2    Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements and Compliance Dates	69
        3.4.3    Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking	71
        3.4.4    Uncovered Finished Water Reservoir Requirements	71
        3.4.5    Methods of Communication	72
           3.4.5.1    Written Notification	72
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               ii                                     August 2007

-------
           3.4.5.2    Slide Presentation	75
           3.4.5.3    Guidance Documents and Seminars	75
    3.5   Update Data Management Systems	75
    3.6   Ensure that Ongoing Watershed Assessment is Conducted and Adjust Treatment
         Requirements	76
    3.7   Award Cryptosporidium Removal Credit for Primary Treatments in Place	76
    3.8   Award Cryptosporidium Removal Credit for Implementation of Options from the
         Microbial Toolbox	77
       3.8.1    Watershed Control Program [40 CFR 141.716(a)]	79
           3.8.1.1    What are the Requirements for State Approval of Watershed Control
                     Programs?	79
           3.8.1.2    What are the System's Requirements for Maintaining State Approval of
                     Watershed Control Programs?	80
           3.8.1.3    What Resources are Available to Systems and States?	80
       3.8.2    Alternative Source [40 CFR 141.716(b)]	81
       3.8.3    Pre-sedimcntation with Coagulant [40 CFR 141.717(a)]	81
       3.8.4    Two-stage Lime Softening [40 CFR  141.717(b)]	81
       3.8.5    Bank Filtration [40 CFR 141.717(c)]	82
       3.8.6    Combined Filter Performance [40 CFR 141.718(a)]	82
       3.8.7    Individual Filter Performance [40 CFR  141.718(b)]	83
       3.8.8    Demonstration of Performance  [40 CFR 141.718(c)]	83
       3.8.9    Bag and Cartridge Filtration [40 CFR 141.719(a)]	83
       3.8.10  Membrane Filtration [40 CFR 141.719(b)]	84
       3.8.11  Second Stage Filtration [40 CFR 141.719(c)J	85
       3.8.12  Slow Sand Filters [40 CFR 141.719(d)]	85
       3.8.13  Chlorine Dioxide  [40 CFR 141.720(b)]	85
       3.8.14  Ozone [40 CFR 141.720(b)]	85
       3.8.15  Ultraviolet Light  [40 CFR 141.720(d)]	86
    3.9   Oversee Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking	86
    3.10  Review Changes in Treatment or Control Measures Used to Meet Cryptosporidium
         Treatment Requirements	87
    3.11  Review Covers and Treatment for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs	87
    3.12  Approve Laboratories for Monitoring Cryptosporidium	87
Section 4 State Primacy Revision Application	89
    4.1   State Primacy Program  Revision	91
       4.1.1    The Revision Process	92
       4.1.2    The Final Review Process	93
    4.2   State Primacy Program  Revision Extensions	94
       4.2.1    The Extension Process	94
       4.2.2    Extension Request Criteria	94
       4.2.3    Conditions of the  Extension	94
    4.3   State Primacy Package	98
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               iii                                    August 2007

-------
       4.3.1   The State Primacy Revision Checklist	98
       4.3.2   Text of the State's Regulation	98
       4.3.3   Primacy Revision Crosswalk	98
       4.3.4   State Recordkeeping and Reporting Checklist [40 CFR 142.14, 40 CFR 142.15]	99
       4.3.5   Special Primacy Requirement [40 CFR 142.16]	100
       4.3.6   Attorney General's Statement of Enforceability [40 CFR 142.12(c)(2)]	100
           4.3.6.1     Guidance for States on Audit Privilege and/or Immunity Laws	100
    4.4   Guidance for the Special Primacy Requirements of the LT2ESWTR	102
       4.4.1   Establishment of Alternative to E. coli Levels that Trigger Cryptosporidium
              Monitoring	102
       4.4.2   Assessment of Significant Changes in Watershed and Source Water	103
       4.4.3   Approval of Watershed Control Programs	108
       4.4.4   Establishment of Protocols for Approving Removal Credits Under the
              Demonstration of Performance Toolbox Option	109
       4.4.5   Establishment of Protocols for Approving Alternative Ozone and Chlorine Dioxide
              CT Values	Ill
       4.4.6   Establishment of Alternative Approach to UV Reactor Validation Testing	112
Section 5 SDWIS Reporting and SNC Definitions	115
Section 6 Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Examples	'117

Appendices
Appendix A: Primacy Revision Crosswalk
Appendix B: Rule Requirements
Appendix C: Rule Fact Sheets/Quick Reference Guides
Appendix D: Flowcharts
Appendix E: Template Letters
Appendix F: Data Collection and Tracking System
Appendix G: Submission Review Checklists
Appendix H: Guidance for Reviewing Extension Requests under 1412(b)(10) of the SDWA
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                iv                                    August 2007

-------
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. General Requirements of the LT2ESWTR	10
Figure 1-2. Implementation Timeline for the LT2ESWTR	40
Figure 3-1. Timeline of System and Primacy Agency Activities	60
Figure 4-1. Recommended Review Process for State Request for Approval of Program Revisions	93
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance              v                                  August 2007

-------
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Level of Treatment Required for Filtered Systems 13
Table 1-2. Microbial Toolbox: Options and Credits 14
Table 1-3. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Watershed Control Program Toolbox
Option 17
Table 1-4. Reporting Deadlines for Alternative Source/Intake Management 18
Table 1-5. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Presedimentation Toolbox Option 18
Table 1-6. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Two-stage Lime Softening Toolbox
Option 19
Table 1-7. Reporting Deadline for Systems Choosing the Bank Filtration Toolbox Option 20
Table 1-8. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Combined Filter Performance Toolbox
Option 21
Table 1-9. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Individual Filter Performance Toolbox
Options ~ 22
Table 1-10. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Demonstration of Performance
Toolbox Option 23
Table 1-11. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Bag Filters and Cartridge Filters
Toolbox Option 25
Table 1-12. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Membrane Filtration Toolbox Option 28
Table 1-13. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Second Stage Filtration Toolbox
Option 29
Table 1-14. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Slow Sand Filtration Option 29
Table 1-15. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Chlorine Dioxide Toolbox Option 30
Table 1-16. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Ozone Toolbox Option 30
Table 1-17. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the UV Toolbox Option 31
Table 1-18. Summary of Action Dates for the LT2ESWTR 35
Table 3-1. Compliance Schedules 58
Table 3-2. Source Water Monitoring Requirements and Compliance Dates 64
Table 3-3. Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements for Filtered Systems 70
Table 3-4. Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements for Unfiltered Systems 70
Table 3-5. Suggested Cryptosporidium Removal Credit Towards LT2ESWTR Requirements for
Well-Run Water Treatment Plants 77
Table 3-6. Microbial Toolbox: Options, Log Credits, and Summary of Design/Implementation
Criteria 77
Table 4-1. State Rule Implementation and Revision Timetable for the LT2ESWTR 91
Table 4-2. State Primacy Revision Checklist 99

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance vi August 2007

-------
List of Examples
Example 3-1. Bin Classification for System Operating Part of Year 69
Example 3-2. Sample Letter Notifying Systems of Schedule Number 73
Example 4-1. Example Extension Request Checklist 96
Example 4-2. Example of Attorney General's Statement 101
Example 6-1. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for Failure to Take Action on Uncovered
Finished Water Reservoir 121
Example 6-2. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Take Action on Uncovered Finished
Water Reservoir 122
Example 6-3. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Receive Approval Before Making a
Significant Change in Disinfection Practice 124
Example 6-4. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Notify the State before Making a
Significant Change in Disinfection Practice 125
Example 6-5. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for Failure to Provide the Level of Treatment
Appropriate for Bin Classification 127
Example 6-6. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Provide the Level of Treatment
Appropriate for Bin Classification 128
Example 6-7. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for Failure to Conduct Source Water Monitoring
(Initial or Second Round) and Report the Results 130
Example 6-8. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Conduct Source Water Monitoring
(Initial or Second Round) and Report the Results 131
Example 6-9. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Submit a Source Water Monitoring
Schedule 3 Months Prior to Date System is Required to Begin Monitoring 133
Example 6-10. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Submit a Source Water Monitoring
Schedule 3 Months Prior to Date System is Required to Begin Monitoring 134
Example 6-11. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Collect Samples in Accordance
with Sampling Schedule 136
Example 6-12. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Collect Samples in Accordance with
Sampling Schedule 137
Example 6-13. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Sample at an Appropriate
Location 139
Example 6-14. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Sample at an Appropriate Location 140
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance vii August 2007

-------
                                 This page intentionally left blank
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
vni
August 2007

-------
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
 CAFO
 CCR
 CDC
 CFD
 CFE
 CFR
 CT

 CWS
 DBFs
 DCTS
 EPA
 FBRR
 FEMA
 FRDS
 GAC
 GWUDI
 HAA5

 HO
 ICR
 ICRSS
 ICRSSL
 ICRSSM
 IDSE
 IESWTR
 IFE
 IPMC
 Log
 LRAA
 LRV
 LT IESWTR
 LT2ESWTR
 MCF
 MCL
 MCLG
 M-DBP Cluster
 MRDL
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
Consumer Confidence Report
Centers for Disease Control
Computational Fluid Dynamics
Combined Filter Effluent
Code of Federal Regulations
The Residual Concentration of Disinfectant (mg/L) Multiplied by the Contact
Time (in minutes)
Community Water System
Disinfection Byproducts
Data Collection and Tracking System
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Filter Backwash Recycling Rule
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Reporting Data System
Granular Activated Carbon
Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water
Haloacctic Acids (Monochloroacetic, Dichloroacetic, Trichloroacctic,
Monobromoacctic and Dibromoacctic Acids)
Headquarters
Information Collection Rule
Information Collection Rule Supplemental Survey
Information Collection Rule Supplemental Surveys of Large Systems
Information Collection Rule Supplemental Surveys of Medium Systems
Initial Distribution System Evaluation
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Individual Filter Effluent
Information Processing and Management Center
Logarithm (common, base  10)
Locational Running Annual Average
Log Removal Value
Long Term 1  Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Membrane Cartridge Filter
Maximum Contaminant Level
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
Microbial-Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Cluster
Maximum Residual Disinfection Level
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                       IX
August 2007

-------
M/R
NCWS
NIPDWR
NOV
NPDES
NPDWR
NTNCWS
NTU
OECA
OGC
OGWDW
ORC
POTW
PWS
PWSS
Q&A
QA
QCRV
RAA
SDWA
SDWIS/FED
SNC
Stage 1 DBPR
Stage 2 DBPR
Subpart H

SWTR
TCR
TMDL
TOC
TT
TTHM

UCMR
UV
Monitoring and Reporting
Noncommunity Water System
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Notice of Violation
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
Nontransient Noncommunity Water System
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Office of General Counsel
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Office of Regional Counsel
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Public Water System
Public Water System Supervision
Questions and Answers
Quality Assurance
Quality Control Release Value
Running Annual Average
Safe Drinking Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal
Significant Non-complicr
Stage  1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
Stage  2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
PWS using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface
water
Surface Water Treatment Rule
Total Coliform Rule
Total Maximum Daily Loads
Total Organic Carbon
Treatment  Technique
Total Trihalomcthanes (Chloroform, Bromodichloromethane,
Dibromochloromcthane, and Bromoform)
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
Ultraviolet Light
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                                             August 2007

-------
Introduction
This document provides guidance to EPA Regions and states exercising primary enforcement
responsibility under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regarding implementation of the Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) under the SDWA. It also provides guidance to
the public and the regulated community regarding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
interpretation of the statute and regulations. This guidance is designed to implement national policy on
these issues.

The SDWA provisions and EPA regulations described in this document contain legally binding
requirements. This document does not substitute for those requirements, nor is it a regulation itself. It
does not impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, states, or the regulated community and may not
apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. EPA and state decision makers retain the
discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from this guidance, where appropriate.
Any decisions regarding a particular facility will be made based on the applicable statutes and
regulations. Therefore, interested parties are free to raise questions and objections about the
appropriateness of the application of this guidance to a particular situation. EPA will then consider
whether or not the recommendations or interpretations in the guidance are appropriate in that situation
based on the law and regulations. EPA may change this guidance in the future.

This manual contains the following sections:

• Section 1 summarizes the rule requirements of the LT2ESWTR and presents a timetable
of important dates.

• Section 2 lists the "stand-alone" guidance materials that will help states and public water
systems (PWSs) adopt each new requirement.

• Section 3 discusses state implementation activities.

• Section 4 covers state primacy revision requirements, including a detailed time frame for
application review and approval. This section also contains guidance and references to
help states adopt each new special primacy requirement included in these rules.

• Section 5 addresses violation determinations and associated reporting requirements to
assist states in their compliance activities.

• Section 6 provides examples of violations requiring public notification and sample
language to include in Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs).

The appendices of this document also provide information that will be useful to states and EPA Regions
throughout the primacy revision application process.

• Appendix A contains the primacy revision application crosswalk for the Rule.

• Appendix B contains the rule language of the LT2ESWTR.

• Appendix C contains fact sheets and quick reference guides for the Rule.

• Appendix D presents flowcharts to help states and systems implement the Rule.

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance xi August 2007

-------
        •       Appendix E contains various templates for letters that states can tailor to meet their
               needs.

        •       Appendix F contains information about the Data Collection and Tracking System.

        •       Appendix G contains checklists for reviewing documentation submitted by systems.

        •       Appendix H contains guidance for reviewing extension requests under Section
               1412(b)(10) of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Please note that, in several sections, the guidance makes suggestions and offers alternatives that go
beyond the minimum requirements indicated. EPA does this to provide information and/or suggestions
that may be helpful to implementation efforts. Such suggestions are prefaced by "may" or "should" and
are to be considered advisory. They arc not required elements of the LT2ESWTR.

EPA expects to undertake necessary rule implementation activities during the period of early
implementation. During this period, a state may elect to undertake some or all of the implementation
activities in cooperation with EPA. This will facilitate continuity of implementation and ensure that
system-specific advice and decisions are made with the best available information and arc consistent with
existing state program requirements.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               xii                                    August 2007

-------
Section 1	
Rule Requirements

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
1.1 Introduction
EPA finalized the LT2ESWTR in the Federal Register on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 653; see
www.cpa.gov/safcwatcr/disinfcction/lt2 ). This Rule is part of a series of rules, the "Microbial-
Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Cluster" (M-DBP Cluster), which is intended to improve control of
microbial pathogens while minimizing public health risks of disinfectants and disinfection byproducts
(DBPs). The LT2ESWTR builds upon the requirements established by the Surface Water Treatment Rule
(SWTR), Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), and the Long Term 1 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT IESWTR). Key provisions of the LT2ESWTR include:

• Source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium, with reduced monitoring requirements for
small systems.

• Additional Cryptosporidium treatment technique (TT) provisions for certain filtered
systems based on source water Cryplosporidium concentrations.

• Inactivation of Cryptosporidium for all unfiltered systems.

• Disinfection profiling and benchmarking to ensure continued levels of microbial
protection while PWSs take the necessary steps to comply with new DBP standards.

• Covering uncovered finished water reservoirs or treating the discharge from the storage
facility.

EPA believes that implementation of the LT2ESWTR will significantly reduce levels of Cryptosporidium
in finished drinking water. This will substantially lower rates of endemic cryptosporidiosis, the illness
caused by Cryplosporidium, which can be severe and sometimes fatal in sensitive sub-populations (e.g.,
infants, immune suppressed patients, and the elderly). In addition, the TT requirements of this rule arc
expected to increase the level of protection from exposure to other microbial pathogens (e.g., Giardia).

The LT2ESWTR has been finalized concurrently with the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR), which addresses reducing peak and average levels of DBPs in drinking
water supplies. The Stage 2 DBPR was finalized as a separate rule on January 4, 2006.

1.1.1 History

The 1974 SDWA called for EPA to regulate drinking water by creating the national interim primary
drinking water regulations (NIPDWR). In 1979, the first interim standard addressing DBPs was set for
total trihalomethanes (TTHM), a group of four volatile organic chemicals that form when disinfectants
react with natural organic matter in the water.

1986 SDWA Amendments

Although the SDWA was amended slightly in 1977, 1979, and 1980, the most significant changes to the
1974 law occurred when the SDWA was reauthorized in 1986. To safeguard public health, the 1986
Amendments required EPA to set health goals, or maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs), and
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for 83 named contaminants. Waterborne disease outbreaks of
giardiasis demonstrated that disease-causing microbial contamination had not been sufficiently controlled
under the original Act. In addition, several hundred chemical contaminants were known to occur in the
environment, but few were regulated in PWSs. EPA was also required to establish additional regulations
within certain timeframes, require disinfection of source water supplies, specify filtration requirements for
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 3 August 2007

-------
nearly all water systems that draw their water from surface sources, and develop additional programs to
protect ground water supplies.

In 1989, EPA issued two important National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs): the Total
Coliform Rule (TCR) and the SWTR. The TCR and SWTR provide the foundation for the M-DBP
Cluster and are summarized below.

Total Coliform Rule

The TCR applies to all PWSs. Coliforms are easily detected in water and are used to assess a water
system's vulnerability to pathogens. In the TCR, EPA set an MCLG of zero for total coliforms. EPA also
set an MCL for total coliforms and required testing of total coliform positive cultures for the presence of
E. coli or fecal coliforms, which indicate more immediate health risks from sewage or fecal
contamination. If more than 5.0 percent of the samples contain coliforms within a month, water system
operators must report this violation to the state and the public. (For water systems that collect fewer than
40 routine samples per month, no more than one sample can be total coliform-positive per month.)
Finally, the TCR required sanitary surveys every 5 years (or 10 years for noncommunity water systems
(NCWSs) using disinfected and protected ground water) for every system that collects fewer than five
routine total coliform samples per month. These are typically systems that serve 4,100 or fewer people.

Surface Water Treatment Rule

PWSs using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) (i.e.,
Subpart H systems) as a supply arc prone to microbial contamination of their source water. Pathogenic
microorganisms that can contaminate source water can be removed or inactivated during the water
treatment sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection processes. EPA issued the SWTR in response to a
Congressional mandate requiring disinfection, and filtration where necessary, of systems that use surface
water or GWUDI sources. The Rule sets MCLGs for Legionella, Giardia lamblia, and viruses at zero
because any exposure to these contaminants presents some level of health risk. The SWTR includes a TT
requirement for inactivation (or removal and inactivation) of these organisms.

Specifically, the SWTR requires that a surface water system have sufficient treatment to reduce source
water concentrations of Giardia lamblia and viruses by at least 99.9 percent (3.0-log) and 99.99 percent
(4.0-log), respectively. In addition, disinfection residuals must be maintained throughout the distribution
system. For systems that filter, the adequacy of the filtration process is determined by measuring the
turbidity of the treated water since poor turbidity removal often indicates that the filtration process is not
working properly. The goal of the SWTR is to reduce the public health risk for infection by Giardia
lamblia, Legionella, or viruses to less than one infection per year per 10,000 people.

The SWTR, however, does not account for systems with high pathogen concentrations in source water
that, when treated at the levels required under the Rule, still may not meet this health goal. The SWTR
also does not specifically control for the protozoan Cryptosporidium, as sufficient information about its
removal or disinfection was not available at the time the SWTR was finalized. Since the SWTR was
promulgated, much has been learned about this organism. Most notably, Cryptosporidium is resistant to
disinfection practices commonly employed by PWSs. Therefore, physical removal or alternative
disinfectants are the most effective treatment methods.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 4 August 2007

-------
1996 SDWA Amendments

In 1990, EPA's Science Advisory Board, an independent panel of experts established by Congress, cited
drinking water contamination as one of the most important environmental risks and indicated that disease-
causing microbial contaminants (e.g., bacteria, protozoa, and viruses) are probably the greatest remaining
health-risk management challenge for drinking water suppliers. Data from the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) confirm this concern and indicate that between 1980 and 1998, 419 waterbornc disease outbreaks
were reported, with over 511,000 estimated cases of disease. During this period, a number of agents were
implicated as causes of the outbreaks, including various protozoa, viruses, and bacteria, as well as several
chemicals (Craun and Calderon 1996, Levy et al. 1998, Barwick et al. 2000). Most of the cases (but not
the outbreaks) of illnesses were associated with surface water, including a single outbreak of
approximately 403,000 cases of cryptosporidiosis in Milwaukee, WI (Mac Kenzie et al. 1994).

The SDWA was further amended in 1996 to improve public health protection by incorporating new data
on the adverse health effects of contaminants, the occurrence of contaminants in PWSs, and the estimated
reduction in health risks that would result from further regulation. The Amendments provided for use of
best-available, peer-reviewed science in decision-making and for risk reduction and cost analyses in the
regulatory decision process.

TTHMs/Stage 1 DBPR/Stagc 2 DBPR

Many water systems treat their water with a chemical disinfectant in order to inactivate pathogens that
cause disease. The public health benefits of common disinfection practices arc significant and wcll-
rccognizcd; however, disinfection poses risks of its own. While disinfectants are effective at controlling
many harmful microorganisms, they react with organic and inorganic matter (DBF precursors) in the
water and form DBFs, some of which pose health risks when present above certain levels. Since the
discovery of chlorination byproducts in drinking water in 1974, numerous toxicological studies have been
conducted that show some DBFs to be carcinogenic and/or cause reproductive or developmental effects in
laboratory animals. Additionally, exposure to high levels of disinfectants over long periods of time may
cause health problems, including damage to blood and kidneys. While many of these studies have been
conducted with disinfectants at high doses, the weight of evidence indicates that DBFs present a potential
public health problem that must be addressed to minimize risks from long-term exposure. One of the most
complex questions facing water supply professionals is how to reduce risks from disinfectants and DBFs
while providing adequate protection against microbial contaminants.

The TTHM Rule of 1979 set a TTHM MCL for community water systems (CWS) serving 10,000 or more
people. The Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR) built on the TTHM
Rule by lowering existing MCLs and widening the range of affected systems to include all PWSs (except
most transient systems) that add a disinfectant. The Stage 1 DBPR established new MCLs for additional
DBFs (e.g., chlorite, bromatc, and haloacctic acids (HAA5)) as well as established maximum residual
disinfection levels (MRDLs) for the disinfectants chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine dioxide. In addition,
the Stage 1 DBPR required conventional filtration systems to remove specified percentages of organic
materials, measured as total organic carbon (TOC), which may react with disinfectants to form DBFs.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 5 August 2007

-------
The Stage 2 DBPR builds upon the Stage 1 DBPR by providing more consistent protection from DBFs
across the entire distribution system and by focusing on the reduction of DBF peaks. The Stage 2 DBPR
changes the way sampling results are averaged to determine compliance. The determination for the Stage
2 DBPR is based on a locational running annual average (LRAA) (i.e., compliance must be met at each
monitoring location) instead of the system-wide running annual average (RAA) used under the Stage 1
DBPR. In addition to changes in MCL compliance calculation, systems must also conduct an initial
distribution system evaluation (IDSE) to identify compliance monitoring locations that represent high
TTHM and HAA5 levels. Systems are also required to conduct an operational evaluation if they have
DBF levels that could result in an MCL exceedance if not reduced.

Filter Backwash Recycling Rule

The Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR) complements the surface water treatment rules by reducing
the potential for microbial pathogens, particularly Cryptosporidium oocysts, to pass through the filters
into the finished water of conventional and direct filtration systems that recycle backwash water. The
FBRR requires affected systems to return regulated recycle streams (e.g., spent filter backwash, thickener
supernatant, or liquids from dewatering processes) through all processes of a system's conventional or
direct filtration system, unless the state approves an alternate location. In addition, the FBRR requires
systems to notify the state in writing about recycle practices and to maintain specific records.

IESWTR/LT1ESWTR/LT2ESWTR

The IESWTR builds on the SWTR by adding protection from Cryptosporidium by requiring filtered
systems to meet new turbidity standards for combined filter effluent (CFE) and individual filter effluent
(IFE). Additionally, the IESWTR requires unfiltcrcd systems to include control of Cryptosporidium in
their watershed control plans. These requirements of the IESWTR apply to systems that serve 10,000
people or more. The IESWTR builds on the TCR by requiring sanitary surveys for all PWSs using surface
water or GWUDI regardless of size. The IESWTR also requires covers for all new finished water storage
facilities and includes disinfection profiling and benchmarking provisions to ensure systems provide
continued levels of microbial protection while taking the necessary steps to comply with the DBF
standards.

The provisions in the LTIESWTR address the concerns covered by the IESWTR as they apply to small
systems (i.e., systems serving fewer than 10,000 people) using surface water or GWUDI. The
LT2ESWTR builds upon the SWTR, IESWTR, and LT IESWTR by supplementing existing microbial
treatment requirements for systems where additional public health protection is needed.

Collectively, the SWTR, IESWTR, LT IESWTR, and LT2ESWTR place stringent treatment requirements
on systems using surface water or GWUDI as a source.

The Multiple Barrier Approach

By building on the foundation of the original SDWA, subsequent amendments to the Act have improved
the quality of drinking water and increased public health protection. The 1996 SDWA Amendments, for
example, require EPA to develop rules to balance the risks presented by microbial pathogens and DBFs.
The LT2ESWTR is one of the most recent rules in the M-DBP Rule Cluster that expands on the
foundation of prior rulemaking efforts.

Since multiple threats require multiple barriers, the LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR expand on the
foundation of the TCR, SWTR, TTHM Rule, Stage 1 DBPR, IESWTR, LT IESWTR, and FBRR
standards to target health risks not addressed by prior regulations. By encompassing these previously

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 6 August 2007

-------
unaddressed health risks from microbials and DBFs, the M-DBP Rule Cluster continues to maximize
drinking water quality and public health protection.

1.1.2   Development of the LT2ESWTR

In March 1999, EPA reconvened the M-DBP Advisory Committee to develop recommendations for the
LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR. This committee also participated in the development of the IESWTR,
LT1ESWTR, and Stage 1  DBPR. The Committee's members represented EPA, state, and local public
health and regulatory agencies, local elected officials, Native American tribes, drinking water suppliers,
chemical and equipment manufacturers, and public interest groups. Technical support for the
Committee's discussions was provided  by a technical workgroup established by the Committee at its first
meeting. The Committee's activities resulted in the collection and evaluation of substantial new
information related to key elements for  both rules. This included new data on pathogenicity, occurrence,
and treatment of microbial contaminants, specifically Cryptosporidium, as well as new data on DBP
health risks,  exposure, and control. The Committee held ten meetings (from September 1999 to July
2000) to discuss issues pertaining to the LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR. There was also an opportunity
for public comment at each meeting.

In September 2000, the Committee signed the Agreement in Principle, a full statement of the consensus
recommendations of the group. The  agreement was published in a December 29, 2000 Federal Register
notice (65 FR 83015) and includes the list of committee members and their organizations. The
Committee's recommendations were incorporated into the LT2ESWTR and the Stage 2 DBPR.

The  M-DBP Committee reached agreement on the following major issues regarding the LT2ESWTR:

        •       Additional Cryptosporidium treatment should be provided for certain systems based on
               source water monitoring results.

        •       Filtered systems that must comply  with additional Cryptosporidium treatment
               requirements may choose from a "toolbox" of treatment and control options.

        •       A reduced monitoring burden should be provided for small  systems.

        •       Future monitoring should be conducted to confirm initial assessments of source water
               quality.

        •       Cryptosporidium inactivation should be provided by all unfiltered systems.

        •       Unfiltered systems should meet overall inactivation requirements using a minimum of 2
               disinfectants.

        •       Criteria and guidance for ultraviolet light (UV) disinfection and other toolbox options
               should be developed.

        •       Existing uncovered  finished water reservoirs should be covered or the discharge treated
               unless the state approves an alternative method to comply.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                1                                     August 2007

-------
1.1.3 Benefits of the LT2ESWTR

1.1.3.1 Quantifiable Benefits

The LT2ESWTR is expected to reduce drinking water related exposure to Cryptosporidium substantially,
thereby reducing both illness and death associated with cryptosporidiosis through source water
monitoring, additional TTs, and higher standards for drinking water quality. Cryptosporidiosis is an
infection caused by Cryptosporidium and is an acute, typically self-limiting illness with symptoms that
include diarrhea, abdominal cramping, nausea, vomiting, and fever (Juranek, 1995). Cryptosporidiosis
patients in sensitive subpopulations, such as infants, the elderly, and AIDS patients, are at risk for severe
illness, including risk of death. The LT2ESWTR is expected to reduce 230,730 to 964,360 illnesses and
52 to 207 deaths annually after full implementation (range based on the Information Collection Rule
Supplemental Surveys of large systems (ICRSSL) and Information Collection Rule (ICR) data sets).
Based on these values, the mean present value of benefits (annualized at a 3 percent discount rate) ranges
from $458 million to $1.9 billion. These values do not take into account confidence limits for non-
quantified benefits.

For filtered systems, benefits to the approximately 195 million people served by filtered surface water and
GWUDI systems range from a mean reduction in annual cases of endemic illness ranging from 84,609 to
464,069 (based on ICRSSL, Information Collection Rule Supplemental Surveys of medium systems
(1CRSSM), and ICR data sets). In addition, deaths are expected to be reduced by an average of 14 to 77
people annually. The 10 million people served by unfiltcred surface water or GWUDI systems will also
sec a significant reduction in cryptosporidiosis as a result of the Rule. The LT2ESWTR is expected to
reduce approximately 146,121 to 500,291 cases of illnesses and 38 to 130 premature deaths annually in
unfiltcred systems (based on the ICR data set). Only the ICR data set is used to directly calculate reduced
illness because it is the only data set that includes sufficient information on unfiltered systems.

1.1.3.2 Non-quantifiable health and non-health related benefits

Although significant benefits will result from the LT2ESWTR in terms of the reduction in illnesses and
death associated with cryptosporidiosis, other health and non-health related benefits associated with this
rule remain unquantificd due to lack of data. Non-quantifiable health and non-health related benefits of
the LT2ESWTR include:

• Reducing outbreak risks and response costs associated with human or equipment failure.

• Reducing averting behavior (e.g., boiling tap water or purchasing bottled water).

• Improving aesthetic water quality (e.g., taste and odor).

• Reducing exposure to other parasitic protozoans and contaminants that EPA regulates or
is considering for future regulation (e.g., pathogenic bacteria, viruses, Giardia lamblia,
Cyclospora sp., members of the Microsporidia class, arsenic, DBFs, and atrazine).

• Increasing source water monitoring that leads to a better understanding of source water
quality and helps systems choose more effective treatment technologies.

• Reducing contamination of storage facilities by covering or treating the finished water.

• Installing UV or microfiltration may allow PWSs to better regulate the amount of
chlorine added to water; thereby reducing the level of DBFs in water. However, systems

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 8 August 2007

-------
adding ozone treatment to comply with rule requirements will have to be aware of the
potential increase in the level of certain DBPs associated with ozone.
1.2 Requirements of the Rule: PWSs

The following section provides a summary of the rule requirements. The rule requirements are from the
Final LT2ESWTR published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 653). For a copy of the
actual rule language, see Appendix B or visit EPA's Web site at wwvv.epa.gov/safcwater/disinrcction/U2.

1.2.1 General Requirements

The flowchart in Figure 1-1 shows the general requirements of the LT2ESWTR. All surface water and
GWUD1 PWSs, including wholesale systems, must characterize their source water to determine what, if
any, additional treatment is necessary to reduce Cryptosporidium. Systems conduct source water
monitoring to determine an average Cryptosporidium concentration. Based on that average, filtered
systems will be classified into one of four possible risk categories (bins). Unfiltered systems will be
classified into one of two categories: one that does not require additional treatment beyond the two
disinfectant requirements; and one that requires additional treatment (beyond the requirement for all
unfiltcrcd systems to provide two forms of disinfection). The LT2ESWTR also includes requirements for
uncovered finished water reservoirs and disinfection profiling and benchmarking.

EPA developed the LT2ESWTR compliance schedule for monitoring, reporting, and treatment
requirements to provide maximum compatibility with the Stage 2 DBPR compliance schedule. The
compliance schedule is divided into the following four schedules based on population served by the
systems treating the water:

• Schedule 1: Systems serving 100,000 people or more

• Schedule 2: Systems serving 50,000 - 99,999 people

• Schedule 3: Systems serving 10,000 - 49,999 people

• Schedule 4: Systems serving fewer than 10,000 people

Wholesale water systems' compliance schedule is based on the population of the largest system in the
combined distribution system.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 9 August 2007

-------
Figure 1-1. General Requirements of the LT2ESWTR
Disinfection Profiling
And Benchmarking
Track disinfection to ensure that
proposed changes in
disinfection practice do not
compromise inactivation of
pathogens.
Source Water
Monitoring
Monitor to determine
Cryptosporidium and/or
indicator levels.
Uncovered Finished Water
Reservoirs
Systems with uncovered
reservoirs must either cover
the reservoir or treat the
facility's discharge.
Adding Treatment
Filtered systems assigned to "bins" based on
monitoring results. Implement treatment based
on the requirements for each bin by choosing
from a set of treatment options.
Unfiltered systems must use two forms of
disinfectants and may be required to provide
additional treatment based on monitoring
results.
T
Future Monitoring
Monitor again to confirm or revise bin
classification 6 years after initial source
water monitoring ends.
1.2.2 Source Water Monitoring |40 CFR 141.701]

Large systems (serving 10,000 people or more) that currently provide filtration or that are unfiltered arid
required to install filtration must conduct source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and
turbidity.

Small systems (serving fewer than 10,000 people) that currently provide filtration or that are unfiltered
and required to install filtration must first monitor for E. coli or an alternative indicator approved by the
state as a screening analysis. Small systems are subsequently required to monitor for Cryptosporidium if
the following trigger events occur:

• The annual mean concentration of E. coli exceeds 10 E. co///100 mL for systems using
lake or reservoir sources;

• The annual mean concentration of E. coli exceeds 50 E. coli/lOQ mL for systems using
flowing stream sources;

• The level of a state-approved alternate indicator exceeds the state-approved alternative
indicator trigger level; or

• The system does not monitor for E. coli at least once every 2 weeks for 12 months as
required.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
10
August 2007

-------
Small filtered systems can forgo E. co/i monitoring and monitor for Cryptosporidium instead.

Large and small unfiltered systems that meet all the filtration avoidance criteria of 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 141.71 must monitor for Cryptosporidium unless they provide 3.0-log
Cryptosporidium inactivation by the time treatment is required.

Large and small filtered systems do not have to conduct source water monitoring if they provide 5.5-log
Cryptosporidium inactivation by the time treatment is required.

Systems that operate for only part of the year must sample their source water during months that the plant
is in operation, unless the state specifies another monitoring period. Systems that must monitor for
Cryptosporidium and operate plants for less than 6 months per year must collect at least six samples per
year for a 24 month period. The samples must be collected at even intervals throughout the period of
operation.

New systems and systems that begin using a new surface water or GWUDI source must contact the state
regarding their requirements and schedule for conducting source water monitoring.

1.2.2.1 When are systems required to begin source water monitoring? |40 CFR 141.701(c)|

Systems serving 100,000 people or more must begin source water monitoring no later than October 1,
2006. System serving from 50,000 to 99,999 people must begin source water monitoring no later than
April 1, 2007. Systems serving from 10,000 to 49,999 people must begin source water monitoring no later
than April 1, 2008. These three system sizes must monitor source water for Cryptosporidium, E. to//, and
turbidity at least monthly for 24 months. Unfiltered systems must monitor for Cryptosporidium at least
monthly for 24 months. Small filtered systems (systems serving fewer than 10,000 people) must begin E.
coli monitoring no later than October 1, 2008 and monitor at least once every 2 weeks for 12 months.
Small unfiltered systems and those small filtered systems that exceeded the E. coli trigger levels must
begin Cryptosporidium monitoring no later than April 1, 2010 and monitor at least twice each month for
12 months or at least monthly for 24 months. Wholesale water systems will begin monitoring according
to the population of the largest system in the combined distribution system.

Systems are required to conduct a second round of source water monitoring approximately 6 years after
the first round of monitoring ends. This will help determine if there has been a significant change in
source water quality that would affect treatment requirements.

1.2.2.2 Where are systems required to sample source water? [40 CFR 141.703]

Systems must collect source water samples for each plant that treats a surface water or GWUDI source at
a location prior to any treatment. The state may allow systems to collect samples after chemical treatment
if the state determines that collecting a sample before treatment is not feasible and if the treatment is
unlikely to have an adverse effect on sample analysis. If more than one plant draws water from the same
influent, the state may allow one set of results to be used for multiple plants. Samples must be collected
prior to the addition of filter backwash for systems that recycle their filter backwash.

Systems using a presedimentation basin or an off-stream raw water storage reservoir should take source
water samples after the presedimentation basin or the off-stream storage reservoir but before any other
treatment. Systems collecting samples after a presedimentation basin may not receive credit for the
presedimentation basin as a toolbox option. Use of bank filtration during monitoring must be consistent
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 11 August 2007

-------
with routine operational practice, and the state may identify additional reporting requirements to verify
operational practices.

Systems using more than one water source must either collect samples at a sampling tap where the
sources are combined prior to treatment or must collect samples at each source near the intake on the
same day. Samples may be composited from each source based on proportionate flows into one sample
prior to sample analysis, or systems may analyze samples separately and calculate a weighted average of
results.

1.2.3 Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Requirements [40 CFR 141.708, 40 CFR 141.709]

1.2.3.1 Which systems need to develop profiles? [40 CFR 141.708]

Systems that plan to make a significant change to their disinfection practices based on the results of their
first round of source water monitoring must develop disinfection profiles and calculate disinfection
benchmarks. Systems must notify the state before making significant changes in their disinfection
practices.

1.2.3.2 What if systems previously collected data? |40 CFR 141.709]

Systems can meet profiling requirements under the LT2ESWTR using previously collected data (i.e.,
grandfathered data). This data must be equivalent in sample number, frequency, and data quality to data
that will be collected under the LT2ESWTR. Use of grandfathered data is allowed if the system has not
made a significant change in disinfection practice or changed sources since the data were collected. This
will permit most systems that prepared a disinfection profile under the 1ESWTR or the LT1ESWTR to
avoid collecting any new operational data to develop profiles under the LT2ESWTR.

1.2.3.3 If a system developed a profile for Giardia, does it have to develop one for viruses? |40
CFR 141.709]

Systems that produced a disinfection profile for Giardia but not viruses under the IESWTR or
LT1 ESWTR must develop a disinfection profile for viruses under the LT2ESWTR. Systems must use the
same monitoring data on which the Giardia profile is based. EPA believes that virus profiling is
necessary because some of the disinfection processes that systems will select to comply with the
LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR (e.g., chloramines, UV) are relatively less effective against viruses than
free chlorine. Systems should refer to EPA's Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual
for details on how to develop a disinfection profile.

1.2.4 Treatment Requirements

1.2.4.1 When do systems have to install additional treatment? (40 CFR 141.713]

Systems serving 100,000 people or more have to meet any additional Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements by April 1, 2012 as shown in Table 1-18 and Figure 1-2. Systems serving from 50.000 to
99,999 people have until October 1, 2012; systems serving 10,000 to 49,999 people have until October 1,
2013; and systems serving fewer than 10,000 people have until October 1, 2014 to meet additional
treatment requirements. The SDWA section 1412(b)(10) allows states to grant systems an additional 2
years to comply when capital investments are necessary (refer to Appendix H for guidance).

Systems must comply with additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements, determined from source
water monitoring, by implementing one or more treatment processes or control strategies from the

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 12 August 2007

-------
microbial toolbox. Most of the toolbox components require submission of documentation to the state
demonstrating compliance with design and/or required implementation criteria to receive credit.

1.2.4.2 What are the requirements for Cryptosporidium treatment for filtered systems? [40 CFR
141.711]

Filtered systems or systems that are unfiltered and required to install filtration must provide the level of
treatment for Cryptosporidium specified in Table 1-1 based on their bin classification.

Table 1-1. Level of Treatment Required for Filtered Systems
If the source
water
Cryptosporidium
concentration in
oocyst/L is...
0.075
(Bin 1)
>().075and<1.0
(Bin 2)
>1.0and<3.0
(Bin 3)
>3.0
(Bin 4)
And the system uses the following Filtration treatment in full compliance with SVVTR,
IESWTR, and LT1ESWTR (as applicable), then the additional treatment
requirements are. . .
Conventional
filtration treatment
(including
softening)
No additional
treatment
1 .0-log treatment
2.0-log treatment
2.5-log treatment
Direct filtration
No additional
treatment
1 .5-log treatment
2.5-log treatment
3. 0-log treatment
Slow sand or
diatomaceous earth
filtration
No additional
treatment
1 .0-log treatment
2.0-log treatment
2.5-log treatment
Alternative
filtration
technologies
No additional
treatment
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) As determined by
(2) As determined by
(3) As determined by
the state such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 4.0-log.
the state such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 5.0-log.
the state such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 5.5-log.
Filtered systems must use at least one of the management and treatment options listed in the microbial
toolbox (see Table 1-2) to meet the additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements identified for each
bin. Systems classified in Bins 3 and 4 (the highest Cryptosporidium levels) must achieve at least 1.0-log
of additional treatment using either one or a combination of the following: bag filters, bank filtration,
cartridge filters, chlorine dioxide, membranes, ozone, or UV as specified in the microbial toolbox.

1.2.4.3 What are the requirements for Cryptosporidium treatment for unfiltered systems? [40
CFR 141.712|

Unfiltered systems with a mean Cryptosporidium concentration of 0.01 oocysts/L or less must provide at
least 2.0-log Cryptosporidium inactivation. Unfiltered systems with a mean Cryptosporidium
concentration of greater than 0.01 oocysts/L must provide at least 3.0-log Cryptosporidium inactivation.

Unfiltered systems must meet the combined Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, and virus inactivation
requirements using a minimum of two disinfectants. Each disinfectant must be able to achieve the total
inactivation required for Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, or viruses. For example, a system may use
UV to meet Cryptosporidium and Giardia inactivation requirements and chlorine to meet virus
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
13
August 2007

-------
inactivation requirements. To meet the Cryptosporidium inactivation requirements, systems must use
chlorine dioxide, ozone, or UV.

Disinfection requirements under the LT2ESWTR are more stringent for unfiltered systems than filtered
systems. The following unfiltered systems will incur a TT violation:

• Systems using chlorine dioxide or ozone that fail to achieve the Cryptosporidium log
inactivation on more than 1 day in the calendar month.

• Systems using UV light that fail to achieve the Cryptosporidium log inactivation required
in at least 95 percent of the water that is delivered to the public during each calendar
month.
1.2.5 Microbial Toolbox Options Available to Systems

Systems can implement a variety of source, pre-filtration, treatment, additional filtration, and inactivation
toolbox components to receive Cryptosporidium credit, as summarized in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2. Microbial Toolbox: Options and Credits
Toolbox option
Cryptosporidium credits
Source Toolbox Components
Watershed control program
Alternative source/intake management
0.5-log credit. (Section 1.2.5.1)
No prescribed credit. (Section 1.2.5.2)
Pre-filtration Toolbox Components
Presedimentation basin with coagulation
Two-stage lime softening
Bank filtration
0.5-log credit during any month that presedimentation basins
achieve a monthly mean reduction of 0.5-log or greater in turbidity
or state-approved performance criteria. Basins must operate
continually with coagulant addition and all plant flow must pass
through the basins. (Section 1.2.5.3)
0.5-log credit for two-stage softening where chemical addition and
hardness precipitation occur in both stages. All plant flow must pass
through both stages. (Section 1.2.5.4)
0.5-log credit for 25-foot setback; 1 .0-log credit for 50-foot setback.
Aquifer must contain granular material and in at least 90 percent of
the length of a core, grains less than 1 .0 mm in diameter constitute
10 percent of the material. Average turbidity must be less than 1
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU). No presumptive credit for
bank filtration that serves as pretreatment when source water
monitoring is performed from the well (after bank filtration).
(Section 1.2.5.5)
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
14
August 2007

-------
Toolbox option
Cryptosporidium credits
Treatment Performance Toolbox Components
Combined filter performance
Individual filter performance
Demonstration of performance
0.5-log credit for CFE turbidity < 0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of
samples each month. (Section 1.2.5.6)
0.5-log credit (in addition to the combined filter performance credit)
for 1FE < 0. 15 NTU in 95% of samples each month and no filter >
0.3 NTU in two consecutive measurements. (Section 1.2.5.7)
Credit based on demonstration to the state. (Section 1.2.5.8)
Additional Filtration Toolbox Components
Bag or cartridge filters (individual filters)
Bag or cartridge filters (in series)
Membrane filtration
Second stage filtration
Slow sand filters
Up to 2.0-log credit based on the removal efficiency demonstrated
during challenge testing with a 1.0-log factor of safety. (Section
1.2.5.9)
Up to 2.5-log credit based on the removal efficiency demonstrated
during challenge testing with a 0.5-log factor of safety. (Section
1.2.5.9)
Log removal credit up to the removal efficiency demonstrated
during challenge test if supported by direct integrity testing.
(Section 1.2.5.10)
0.5-log credit for second separate granular media filtration stage if
treatment train includes coagulation prior to first filter. (Section
1.2.5.11)
2.5-log credit as a secondary filtration step; 3.0-log credit as a
primary filtration process. No prior chlorination for either option.
(Section 1.2.5.12)
liHii-tivation Toolbox Components
Chlorine dioxide
Ozone
UV
Log credit based on measured contact time (CT) in relation to CT
table. (Section 1.2.5.13)
Log credit based on measured CT in relation to CT table. (Section
1.2^5.14)
Log credit based on validated UV dose in relation to UV dose table;
reactor validation testing required to establish UV dose and
associated operating conditions. (Section 1.2.5.15)
1.2.5.1 Watershed Control Program |40 CFR 141.716(a)]

Filtered systems must submit their watershed control programs to the state for approval to qualify for 0.5-
log credit of Cryptosporidium removal. Unfiltcred systems may not claim credit for Cryptosporidium
removal under this option. Systems must notify the state of their intention to apply the watershed control
program no later than 2 years prior to their specific treatment compliance date. The proposed watershed
control program must be submitted to the state at least 1 year prior to their treatment compliance date.

Systems with existing watershed control programs in place prior to January 5, 2006, may also seek the
watershed control credit,.as long as the watershed control plan contains the information outlined below.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
15
August 2007

-------
Initial Watershed Control Plan

A system's watershed control plan must be approved by the state for the system to receive the watershed
control program treatment credit. If the plan is approved or if the system agrees to implement the state's
conditions for approval, the system is awarded a 0.5-log credit for Cryptosporidium removal.

The watershed control plan must include the following elements:

        •      Identification of an "area of influence" (the area to be considered in future watershed
               surveys) outside of which there is little chance for Cryptosporidium or fecal
               contamination to affect the drinking water intake.

        •      Identification of both potential and  actual sources of Cryptosporidium contamination and
               an assessment of the relative impact of these sources of contamination on the system's
               source water quality.

        •      An analysis of control measures that could mitigate the sources of Cryptosporidium
               contamination identified during the vulnerability analysis. The analysis must address the
               measure's relative effectiveness in reducing Cryplosporidium loading to the source water
               and its feasibility and sustainability.

        •      A plan that establishes goals and defines and prioritizes specific actions to reduce source
               water Cryptosporidium levels. The  plan must explain how the actions are expected to
               contribute to specific goals, identify watershed partners and their rolc(s), identify
               resource requirements and commitments, and include a schedule for plan implementation
               with deadlines for completing specific actions identified in the plan.

Maintaining Slate Approval for  Treatment Credit

Initial state approval  of a watershed control plan and its associated treatment credit is  valid unless
withdrawn by the state. Systems must complete the  following actions to maintain state approval and the
0.5-log credit:

        •      Submit an annual watershed control program status report to the state by a date
               determined by the state. The annual watershed control program status report must
               describe the following items:

               -      The system's implementation of the approved plan and an assessment of the
                      adequacy of the plan to meet its goals.

               -      How  the system is addressing any shortcomings in plan implementation,
                      including those previously  identified by the state or as the result of the watershed
                      survey.

               -      A description of any significant changes that have occurred in the watershed
                      since the last watershed survey. A PWS must notify the state  before making any
                      significant changes, and must list actions that the system will take to mitigate any
                      changes that are likely to reduce the level of source water protection.

        •      Conduct watershed sanitary survey every 3 years for CWSs and every 5 years for
               NCWSs and submit the survey report to the state. The survey  must be conducted

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                 16                                     August 2007

-------
according to state guidelines and by qualified persons approved by the state. The survey
needs to cover the area of the watershed identified as the area of influence, assess the
implementation of actions to reduce source water Cryptosporidium levels, and identify
any significant new sources of Cryptosporidium. If the state determines that significant
changes have occurred since the previous watershed sanitary survey, the system must
have another watershed sanitary survey on a state-approved schedule, which may be
earlier than every 3 or 5 years.

• The PWS must make the watershed control plan, annual reports, and watershed sanitary
survey reports available to the public upon request. The state may allow certain
information to be withheld from the above reports based on water supply security
considerations.

If the state determines that the system is not carrying out the approved watershed control plan, the state
may revoke the watershed control program treatment credit.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium TT
requirement in accordance with Table 1-3. The state may include additional reporting requirements, if it
determines they are necessary.

Table 1-3. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Watershed Control Program
Toolbox Option
Systems must submit the following information
Notice of intention to develop or continue an
existing watershed control program.
Submit watershed control program plan to state.
Annual watershed control program status report.
On the following schedule
No later than 2 years before the applicable treatment
compliance date specified in Table 1-18.
No later than 1 year before the applicable treatment
compliance date specified in Table 1-18.
Every 12 months, beginning 1 year after the applicable
treatment compliance date specified in Table 1-18.
1.2.5.2 Alternative Source [40 CFR 141.716(b)]

If approved by the state, a system can be classified into a bin based on additional monitoring that is
conducted concurrently with existing source water monitoring and reflects either a different intake
location (cither in the same source or for an alternate source) or a different procedure for managing the
timing or level of withdrawal from the source.

Sampling and analysis of Cryptosporidium in the concurrent round of monitoring must conform to the
monitoring requirements used to determine bin classification. Systems must submit the results of all their
monitoring to the state along with supporting information that documents the operating conditions under
which the samples were collected.

If the state classifies the system in a bin based on monitoring that reflects a different intake location or a
different procedure for managing the timing or level of withdrawal from the source, the system must
relocate the intake or use the intake management strategy. The deadline for relocation of the new intake is
specified in Table 1 -4. The state may specify additional reporting requirements to verify operational
practices.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
17
August 2007

-------
Table 1-4. Reporting Deadlines for Alternative Source/Intake Management
Systems must submit the following information
Verification that system has relocated the intake or
adopted the intake withdrawal procedure reflected
in monitoring results.
On the following schedule
No later than the applicable treatment compliance date
specified in Table 1-18.
1.2.5.3 Pre-sedimentation with Coagulant [40 CFR 141.717(a)]

Presedimentation basins with coagulant addition may receive 0.5-log Cryptosporidium removal credit
during any month that the system meets the following criteria:

• The presedimentation basin must be in continuous operation and must treat all of the
plant flow taken from a surface water or GWUDI source.

• A coagulant must be continuously added to the presedimentation basin while the plant is
in operation.

• The presedimentation basin must achieve 0.5-log (68 percent) reduction of influent
turbidity. The reduction must be calculated as follows: logio (monthly mean of daily
influent turbidity) - logm (monthly mean of daily effluent turbidity). The system may also
comply with state-approved performance criteria that demonstrate at least 0.5-log mean
removal of micron-si/.cd particulatc material.

Systems must measure presedimentation basin influent and effluent turbidity at least once per day or more
frequently as determined by the state.

Table 1-5. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Presedimentation Toolbox
Option
Systems must submit the following information
On the following schedule
Monthly verification of the following:

- Continuous basin operation.

- Treatment of 100% of the flow.

- Continuous addition of a coagulant.

- At least 0.5-log mean removal of influent
turbidity or compliance with alternative state-
approved performance criteria.
Monthly reporting within 10 days following the month in
which the monitoring was conducted, beginning on the
applicable treatment compliance date specified in Table
1-18.
1.2.5.4 Two-stage Lime Softening |40 CFR 141.717(b)|

The LT2ESWTR requires plants to meet the following criteria in order to receive 0.5-log credit towards
additional Cryptosporidium during any month chemical addition and hardness precipitation occur in two
separate and sequential softening stages prior to filtration: both softening stages must treat all plant flow
from the surface or GWUDI source, and no water flow may bypass either of the treatment stages.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
18
August 2007

-------
Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium TT
requirement in accordance with Table 1-6. The state may include additional reporting requirements, if it
determines they are necessary.

Table 1-6. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Two-stage Lime Softening
Toolbox Option
Systems must submit the following information
On the following schedule
Monthly verification of the following:

- Chemical addition and hardness precipitation
occurred in two separate and sequential
softening stages prior to filtration.

- Both stages treated 100% of the plant flow.
Monthly reporting within 10 days following the month in
which the monitoring was conducted, beginning on the
applicable treatment date specified in Table 1-18.
1.2.5.5 Bank Filtration |40 CFR 141.717(c)l

The LT2ESWTR specifies the following design requirements for systems to receive removal credit for
bank filtration:

• Wells must draw from granular aquifers that arc comprised of clay, silt, sand, or pebbles
or larger particles. Minor cement may be present. Systems must characterize the aquifer
at the well site by extracting a core from the aquifer to demonstrate that grains less than
1.0 mm in diameter arc present in at least 1 - percent of the material in at least 90 percent
of the core length.

• Wells with a ground water flow path of at least 25 feet receive 0.5-log treatment credit;
wells with a ground water flow path of at least 50 feet receive 1.0-log treatment credit.
Only horizontal and vertical wells arc eligible for treatment credit.

- The ground water flow path for vertical wells is the distance from the edge of the
surface water body under high flow conditions (determined by the 100 year
floodplain elevation boundary as defined in Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) flood hazard maps) to the well screen.

- The ground water flow path for horizontal wells is the distance from the river bed
under normal flow conditions to the closest horizontal well lateral screen.

• Turbidity must be monitored at least once every 4 hours when the bank filtration process
is in operation. If at any time the monthly average turbidity levels, based on daily
maximum values in the well, exceed 1 NTU, the system must report the results to the
state and conduct an assessment to determine the cause of the high turbidity levels. This
assessment must be completed within 30 days. If the state determines that microbial
removal has been compromised, treatment credit may be revoked until the system
implements corrective actions approved by the state to correct the problem.

• Springs and infiltration galleries are not eligible to receive bank filtration treatment
credit, but are eligible for credit under Demonstration of Performance (see section
1.2.5.8).
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
19
August 2007

-------
• The state may also offer treatment credit based on a demonstration of performance study.
The credit may be greater than 1.0-log and may be awarded to bank filtration that does
not meet the requirements specified above if:

- The study follows a state-approved protocol and involves Cryptosporidium or a
surrogate for Cryptosporidium and hydrogeologic and water quality parameters
during the full range of operating conditions; and

- The study includes sampling from both the production well(s) and monitoring
well(s) that are screened and located on the shortest flow path between the
surface water source and the production wells.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium TT
requirement in accordance with Table 1-7. The state may include additional reporting requirements, if it
determines they are necessary.

Table 1-7. Reporting Deadline for Systems Choosing the Bank Filtration Toolbox Option
Systems must submit the following information
Initial demonstration of the following:
- Unconsolidated, predominantly sandy aquifer.
- Setback distance of at least 25 ft. (0.5-log
credit) or 50 ft. ( 1 .0-log-credit).
If monthly average of daily max turbidity is greater
than 1 NTU, then system must report result and
submit an assessment of the cause.
On the following schedule
No later than the applicable treatment compliance date
specified in Table 1-18.
Report within 30 days following the month in which the
monitoring was conducted, beginning on the applicable
treatment compliance date specified in Table 1-18.
1.2.5.6 Combined Filter Performance |40 CFR 141.718(a)]

Systems using conventional or direct filtration treatment may obtain an additional 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium removal credit if the CFE turbidity measurements taken for any month are less than or
equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of the measurements. Note that systems may receive both the
CFE and IFE performance credit during any month the system meets the criteria in this section and in
section 1.2.5.7, below.

Compliance with the LT2ESWTR is determined in the same manner as measurements taken for the
IESWTR and LT1ESWTR. In other words, the LT2ESWTR does not require any additional monitoring
from the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR.

The monitoring frequency and compliance calculation requirements consist of measuring turbidity at 4-
hour intervals (or more frequently) with 95 percent of the measurements from each month being less than
or equal to 0.15 NTU.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium TT
requirement in accordance with Table 1-8. The state may include additional reporting requirements, if it
determines they are necessary.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
20
August 2007

-------
  Table 1-8. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Combined Filter Performance
                                       Toolbox Option
Systems must submit the following information
Monthly verification of CFE turbidity levels less
than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of
the 4 hour CFE measurements taken each month.
On the following schedule
Monthly reporting within 10 days following the month in
which the monitoring was conducted, beginning on the
applicable treatment compliance date as specified in Table
1-18.
 1.2.5.7  Individual Filter Performance |40 CFR 141.718(b)]

 The LT2ESWTR allows systems using conventional or direct filtration treatment to claim an additional
 0.5-log Cryptosporidium removal credit for any month in which the plant meets both of the following IFE
 turbidity requirements:

        •      IFE turbidity must be less than or equal  to 0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of the values
               recorded at each filter in each month; and

        •      No individual filter may have a measured turbidity greater than 0.3 NTU in two
               consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart.

 The monitoring frequency and compliance calculation requirements consist of measuring turbidity every
 15 minutes with 95 percent of the measurements from each month being less than or equal to 0.15 NTU.

 As previously mentioned, the LT2ESWTR specifies that no individual filter may have a measured
 turbidity greater than 0.3 NTU in two consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart.  However, if the
 individual filter is not providing water which contributes to the CFE  (i.e., it is not operating, is filtering to
 waste, or its filtrate is being recycled), the system docs not need  to report the turbidity for that specific
 filter.

 If a system received treatment credit for individual filter performance and fails to meet the requirements
 above during any month, the system will not receive a TT violation if:

        •      The state determined that the failure was due to unusual and short-term circumstances
               that could not be prevented through optimizing treatment plant design, operation, and
               maintenance, and

        •      The system has not had more than two such failures  in any calendar year.

 Systems  must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply  with the Cryptosporidium TT
 requirement in accordance with Table 1-9. The state may include additional reporting requirements, if it
 determines they are necessary.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
August 2007

-------
Table 1-9. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Individual Filter Performance
Toolbox Options
Systems must submit the following information
On the following schedule
Monthly verification of the following:
- IFE turbidity levels less than or equal to 0.15 NTU
in at least 95 percent of samples each month in
each filter.
- No individual filter greater than 0.3 NTU in two
consecutive readings 15 minutes apart.
Monthly reporting within 10 days following the month
in which the monitoring was conducted, beginning on
the applicable treatment compliance date specified in
Table 1-18.
1.2.5.8 Demonstration of Performance: What if a system can perform better than the
presumptive credit specified in the toolbox? [40 CFR 141.718(c)]

Systems may also receive treatment credit for drinking water treatment processes based on a
demonstration of performance study. The credit awarded by the state through this process may be greater
than or less than the treatment credits prescribed by the LT2ESWTR. In addition, credits may be awarded
to treatment processes that do not meet the criteria for prescribed credits. The study must follow a state-
approved protocol and must demonstrate the level of Cryptosporidium reduction the treatment process
will meet under the full range of operating conditions.

State approval must be in writing and may include monitoring and treatment performance criteria for the
system to demonstrate and report routinely to maintain the treatment credit. The state may also designate
criteria to verify that the system is meeting the demonstration of performance conditions.

The demonstration of performance applies to the physical removal processes at a treatment plant. The
LT2ESWTR docs not allow systems to claim presumptive credit for the toolbox options listed below if
that component is included in the demonstration of performance credit.
• Presedimentation

• Two-stage lime softening

• Bank filtration

• Combined or individual
filter performance
Membrane filters

Bag and cartridge filters

Second stage filtration
For example, if a plant receives a demonstration of performance credit for a treatment train (which may
include presedimentation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, disinfection, etc.), the system may not
also receive credit for a presedimentation basin or for achieving the lower finished water turbidity of the
combined filter performance option. Note that demonstrating performance for a disinfection process
(chlorine dioxide, ozone, or UV) is addressed under the disinfectant toolbox option and not this option.

States may award a lower level of Cryptosporidium treatment credit towards compliance for the
LT2ESWTR to a system where, based on site-specific information, a plant or a unit process achieves
Cryptosporidium treatment efficiency less than a presumptive credit specified in the LT2ESWTR.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
22
August 2007

-------
 Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium TT
 requirement in accordance with Table 1-10. The state may include additional reporting requirements, if it
 determines they are necessary.

 Table 1-10. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Demonstration of Performance
                                        Toolbox Option
Systems must submit the following information
Results from testing following a state-approved
protocol.
As required by the state, monthly verification of
operation within conditions of state approval for
demonstration of performance credit.
On the following schedule
No later than the applicable treatment compliance date
specified in Table 1-18.
Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring
was conducted, beginning on the applicable treatment
compliance date specified in Table 1-18.
 1.2.5.9   Bag and Cartridge Filtration |40 CFR 141.719(a)]

 Bag and cartridge filtration processes that meet the EPA definition and demonstrate Cryptosporidium
 removal through challenge testing may receive Cryptosporidium removal credit of up to 2.0-log for
 individual bag or cartridge filters and up to 2.5-log for bag or cartridge filters operating in scries by
 meeting the following conditions:

        •      The treatment credit awarded must be based on the removal efficiency demonstrated
               during challenge testing.

        •      A  1.0-log factor of safety for individual bag or cartridge filter and a 0.5-log for bag or
               cartridge filters in scries must be applied to challenge testing results to determine the
               removal credit.  The safety factor is applied because bag and cartridge filters cannot have
               their integrity directly tested; hence, there arc no means of verifying their removal
               efficiency during routine use. Results from challenge testing conducted prior to January
               5, 2006, may be used if the testing meets all of the criteria described in this section.

               -      Challenge testing must be performed under the same conditions and
                      configurations that the system will  use for Cryptosporidium removal. For
                      instance, the challenge test must be conducted on full-scale bag or cartridge
                      filters and filter housing and pressure vessels must be identical in material and
                      construction to those used by the system.

               -      Systems may conduct challenge testing using Cryptosporidium or a surrogate that
                      is not removed more efficiently than Cryptosporidium. This challenge particulate
                      must be measured using an analytical method capable of quantifying the specific
                      microorganism or surrogate used in the test (i.e., turbidity may not be used to
                      determine the concentration of the challenge particulate).

               -      The  maximum feed water concentration that can be used during a challenge test
                      must be based on  the detection limit of the  challenge particulate in the filtrate
                      (i.e., filtrate detection  limit) and must be calculated using the following equation

                              Maximum Feed Concentration = 1  x 104 x (Filtrate Detection Limit)
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
23
August 2007

-------
The maximum design flow rate for the filter as specified by the manufacturer
must be used during testing.

Each filter must be tested for a duration that is sufficient to reach 100 percent of
the terminal pressure drop, which will establish the maximum pressure drop for
the filter.

The removal efficiency of a filter is calculated from the challenge test results
using the following equation:

LRV = LOG,o(Cf) - LOG,o(Cp)

where LRV = log removal value; Cf = feed concentration measured during the
challenge test; and Cp = the filtrate concentration measured during the challenge
test. Where the challenge particulate is not detected in the filtrate, Cp will be the
detection limit. The same units must be used for the feed and filtrate
concentrations.

Challenge testing on each filter must be conducted during three periods over the
filtration cycle: within 2 hours of new filter start-up; when the pressure drop is
between 45 and 55 percent of terminal pressure drop; and at the end of the cycle
when the pressure drop has reached 100 percent of the terminal pressure drop.
The LRV must be calculated for each of these three periods. The lowest observed
LRV for the filter (LRVni,cr) must be used.

The overall removal efficiency for the filter product line must be set equal to the
lowest LRVfiiter if less than 20 filters arc tested. The removal efficiency is set to
the 10lh percentilc of the set of LRVfi|,er values for various filters tested when 20
or more filters arc tested. The percentilc is calculated as follows:
where i is the rank of n individual data points ordered lowest to highest. The 10th
percentilc may also be calculated using linear interpolation.

- If a filter is modified in a way that could change the removal efficiency of the
filter, challenge testing must be conducted to demonstrate the removal efficiency
of the modified filter.

All reporting requirements for the SWTR, IESWTR, and LT1ESWTR are still applicable; the
LT2ESWTR does not modify or replace any previous rule requirements. The location of filter effluent
turbidity monitoring for compliance with the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR does not change with the
installation of a bag or cartridge filter as a secondary filtration process. Therefore, a system would still
monitor filter effluent turbidity after the primary filters for compliance with the IESWTR and
LT IESWTR.

For routine compliance reporting, the Rule requires verification that all flow was treated by the bag or
cartridge filter. One possible approach states may elect to use for flow verification is to have operators
certify each month that all flow was treated by the filter. States may require additional reporting at their
discretion.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 24 August 2007

-------
Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium TT
requirement in accordance with Table 1-11. The state may include additional reporting requirements, if it
determines they are necessary.

Table 1-11. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Bag Filters and Cartridge
Filters Toolbox Option
Systems must submit the following information
Demonstration that the following criteria are met:
- Process meets the definition of bag or cartridge filtration.
- Removal efficiency established through challenge testing
that meets criteria in this section.
Monthly verification that 100% of plant flow was filtered.
On the following schedule
No later than the applicable treatment
compliance date specified in Table 1-18.
Within 1 0 days following the month in
which monitoring was conducted, beginning
on the applicable treatment compliance date
specified in Table 1-18.
1.2.5.10 Membrane Filtration |40 CFR 141.719(b)]

Systems receive treatment credit for membrane filtration. Membrane cartridge filters (MCF) that meet the
definition of membrane filtration arc also eligible for this credit. The treatment credit awarded is equal to
the lower of the values determined as follows:

• The removal efficiency demonstrated during challenge testing, described below.

• The maximum removal efficiency that can be verified through direct integrity testing
used with the membrane filtration process.

Membrane filters used by systems must undergo challenge testing to evaluate removal efficiency.
Challenge testing conducted prior to January 5, 2006 may be used if it meets the criteria outlined below.
Challenge testing results must be reported to the state and must be conducted according to the following
criteria:

• Challenge testing must be conducted on cither a full-scale membrane module, identical in
material and construction to the membrane modules used in the system's treatment
facility, or on a smaller-scale membrane module, identical in material and similar in
construction to the modules used in the system's treatment facility.

• Challenge testing must be conducted using Cryptosporidium oocysts or a surrogate that is
not removed more efficiently than Cryptosporidium. This challenge paniculate must be
measured using an analytical method capable of quantifying the specific microorganism
or surrogate used in the test (i.e., turbidity may not be used to determine the
concentration of the challenge particulate).

• The maximum feed water concentration used is based on the detection limit of the
challenge particulate in the filtrate and is determined using the following equation:

Maximum Feed Concentration = 3.16 x 106 x (Filtrate Detection Limit)
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
25
August 2007

-------
               Challenge testing must be conducted under representative hydraulic conditions at the
               maximum design flux and maximum design process recovery specified by the membrane
               module manufacturer.

               Removal efficiency must be calculated from the challenge test results using this equation:

                                     LRV = Log,0(Cf) - Loglo(Cp)

               where LRV = the log removal value demonstrated during the challenge test; Cf = the feed
               concentration; and Cp = the filtrate concentration. The units for feed and filtrate
               concentration must be the same. If the Cp is less than the detection limit, the value of the
               detection limit must be used for Cp. The LRV must be calculated for each membrane
               module evaluated by challenge testing.

               The overall removal efficiency for the membrane filtration process must be set equal to
               the lowest removal efficiency (LRVC-test) if less than 20 modules are tested. The removal
               efficiency is set to the 10th percentilc of the set of LRVc.tesl values when 20 or more
               modules are tested. The percentile is calculated as follows:
               where i is the rank of n individual data points ordered lowest to highest. The 10th
               percentilc may also be calculated using linear interpolation.

        •       A quality control release value (QCRV) for a non-destructive performance test that
               demonstrates the Cryptosporidium removal capability must be established by challenge
               testing (e.g.,  bubble point test, diffusive airflow test, pressure/vacuum decay test). The
               test must be applied to all production membrane modules that were not directly challenge
               tested to verify Cryptosporidium removal. If the QCRV is not met by a production
               module, the production module is not eligible for the treatment credit.

        •       If a membrane module is modified in a way that could change the removal efficiency of
               the module, challenge testing must be conducted to demonstrate the removal efficiency of
               the modified module, and a new QCRV value must be established. All results must be
               submitted to  the state.

Direct integrity testing must demonstrate removal efficiency equal to or greater than the removal credit
awarded to the membrane filtration process and must meet the requirements outlined below:

        •       The test must be independently applied to each membrane unit in service, where a unit is
               a group of membrane modules that share common valving that allows the unit to be
               isolated from the rest of the system.

        •       The test method must have a resolution of 3  micrometers or less.

        •       The test must be sensitive  enough to verify the log treatment credit awarded to the
               membrane filtration process by the state using one of the two approaches described
               below:
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                26                                     August 2007

-------
               -       If the direct integrity test uses an applied pressure or vacuum, the test sensitivity
                       must be determined using this equation:

                                      LRVDIT = Loglo(Qp/(VCF x Qbreach))

                       where LRVD1I = the sensitivity of the direct integrity test; Qp = total design
                       filtrate flow from the membrane unit; Qbreach = flow of water from an integrity
                       breach associated with the smallest integrity test response that can be reliably
                       measured, and VCF = volumetric concentration factor. The VCF is the ratio of
                       suspended solids concentration on the high pressure side of the membrane
                       relative to that in the feed water.

               -       If the direct integrity test uses a particulate or molecular marker, the test
                       sensitivity must be determined using this equation:

                                      LRVDIT = Loglo(Cf)-Log,o(Cp)

                       where LRV|)n = the sensitivity of the direct integrity test; Cf = the typical feed
                       concentration of the marker used in the test; and Cp = the filtrate concentration of
                       the marker from an original membrane unit.

        •      A control limit must be established within the sensitivity limits of the  test that is
               indicative of a membrane unit that was used in the integrity test and can meet the removal
               credit awarded by the state.

        •      If the test results exceed the control  limit established, the membrane unit must be
               removed from service. A new test must be conducted, and the unit may be returned to
               service when the test results arc within the established control limit.

        •      Direct integrity testing must be conducted on each membrane unit at least once each day
               the unit is in operation. Less frequent testing  may be approved by the  state.

Systems must conduct continuous indirect integrity monitoring on each membrane unit. All results of
indirect integrity monitoring that triggered direct integrity testing and the corrective action taken in each
case must be submitted monthly to the state.

        •      Unless the state approves an alternative parameter, continuous indirect integrity
               monitoring must include continuous filtrate turbidity monitoring.

        •      Monitoring must be conducted at least once every 15 minutes on each membrane unit.

        •      If filtrate turbidity is above 0.15 NTU in two consecutive 15-minute readings, direct
               integrity testing must be performed immediately.

        •      If the state-approved parameter exceeds the state-approved control limit for a period
               greater than 15 minutes, direct integrity testing must be performed immediately.

Additional requirements and guidance for conducting the tests to comply with the LT2ESWTR are
provided in EPA's Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                27                                     August 2007

-------
Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium TT
requirement in accordance with Table 1-12. The state may include additional reporting requirements, if it
determines they are necessary.

Table 1-12. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Membrane Filtration Toolbox
Option
Systems must submit the following information
On the following schedule
Results of verification testing demonstrating the following:

- Removal efficiency established through challenge
testing that meets criteria in this section.

- Integrity test method and parameters including
resolution, sensitivity, test frequency, control limits,
and associated baseline.
No later than the applicable treatment compliance
date specified in Table 1-18.
Monthly report summarizing the following:

- All direct integrity tests above the control limit.

- If applicable, any turbidity or state-approved indirect
integrity monitoring results triggering direct integrity
testing and the corrective action that was taken.
Within 10 days following the month in which
monitoring was conducted, beginning on the
applicable treatment compliance date specified in
Table 1-18.
1.2.5.11 Second Stage Filtration [40 CFR 141.719(c)|

Under the LT2ESWTR, a system that employs a second, separate filtration stage meeting the following
criteria may receive 0.5-log credit for Cryptosporidium removal:

• The first stage of filtration is preceded by a coagulation step.

• The second stage of filtration is comprised of sand, dual media, granular activated carbon
(GAC), or other fine grain media.

• Both filtration stages treat 100 percent of plant flow.

A cap, such as a GAC, on a single stage of filtration is not eligible for this removal credit. The treatment
credit must be based on the state's assessment of the design characteristics of the filtration process.

Reporting requirements for the LT2ESWTR do not take the place of the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR
reporting requirements. Specifically, the turbidity of the combined and IFE from the first filtration stage
must be reported as required by the IESWTR and LTIESWTR.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium TT
requirement in accordance with Table 1-13. The state may include additional reporting requirements, if it
determines they are necessary.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
28
August 2007

-------
Table 1-13. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Second Stage Filtration Toolbox
Option
Systems must submit the following information
Monthly verification that 1 00% of flow was filtered
through both stages and that the first stage was
preceded by a coagulation step.
On the following schedule
Within 1 0 days following the month in which
monitoring was conducted, beginning on the applicable
treatment compliance date specified in Table 1-18.
1.2.5.12 Slow Sand Filters |40 CFR 141.719(d)]

A system integrating a slow sand filtration process for the second stage of filtration meeting the following
criteria can receive 2.5-log credit for Cryptosporidium removal:

• No disinfectant residual is present in the influent to the slow sand filtration process.

• Both filtration stages treat 100 percent of plant flow.

The treatment credit must be based on the state's assessment of the design characteristics of the filtration
process. However, this does not apply to treatment credit awarded to slow sand filtration as a primary
filtration process.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium TT
requirement in accordance with Table 1-14. The state may include additional reporting requirements, if it
determines they arc necessary.

Table 1-14. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Slow Sand Filtration Option
Systems must submit the following information
Monthly verification that both a slow sand filter and a
preceding separate stage of filtration treated 100% of
flow from Subpart H sources.
On the following schedule
Within 10 days following the month in which
monitoring was conducted, beginning on the applicable
treatment compliance date specified in Table 1-18.
1.2.5.13 Chlorine Dioxide |40 CFR 141.720(a) through (c)]

Systems using chlorine dioxide must calculate CT to determine their inactivation credit for
Cryptosporidium. CT is the product of the disinfectant concentration (C, in mg/L) and disinfectant contact
time (T, in minutes). Systems must calculate CT values for each day based on measurements of C and T
during peak hourly flow and use the table in § 141.720(b)( 1) to determine their inactivation credit or use
alternative CT values approved by the state for a system. Systems with several disinfection segments (i.e.,
a treatment unit process with a measurable disinfectant residual level and a liquid volume) may calculate
CT values for each segment and sum those values to obtain a total CT value, then use the table in
§141.720(b)(l) to determine their inactivation credit.

Systems may also conduct a site-specific inactivation study to determine the CT values necessary to meet
a specified Cryptosporidium log inactivation level using a state-approved protocol. The alternative CT
values determined from the site-specific study and the method of calculation must be approved by the
state to ensure that the CT values are adequate to achieve the inactivation required under the LT2ESWTR.
EPA's LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual provides guidance for conducting a site-specific
inactivation study.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
29
August 2007

-------
Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium TT
requirement in accordance with Table 1-15. The state may include additional reporting requirements, if it
determines they are necessary.

Table 1-15. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Chlorine Dioxide Toolbox
Option
Systems must submit the following information
Summary of CT values for each day as described in
§141.720(b)(l).
On the following schedule
Within 10 days following the month in which
monitoring was conducted, beginning on the applicable
treatment compliance date specified in Table 1-18.
1.2.5.14 Ozone [40 CFR 141.720(a) through (c)l

Systems using ozone must calculate CT values using methods similar to those for chlorine dioxide.
Unless the state approves alternative CT values for a system, systems must use the table in §141.720(b)(2)
to determine Cryptosporidium log inactivation credit. Systems should refer to EPA's LT2ESWTR Toolbox
Guidance Manual for guidance on calculating CT values for different disinfection reactor designs and
operations.

As with chlorine dioxide, systems may also conduct a site-specific inactivation study to determine the CT
values necessary to meet a specified Cryptosporidium log inactivation level using a state-approved
protocol. The alternative CT values determined from the site-specific study and the method of calculation
must be approved by the state to ensure that the CT values arc adequate to achieve the inactivation
required under the LT2ESWTR.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium TT
requirement in accordance with Table 1-16. The state may include additional reporting requirements, if it
determines they are necessary.

Table 1-16. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Ozone Toolbox Option
Systems must submit the following information
Summary of CT values for each day based on the
table in § 141. 720(b)(2).
On the following schedule
Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring
was conducted, beginning on the applicable treatment
compliance date specified in Table 1-18.
1.2.5.15 Ultraviolet Light [40 CFR 141.720(d)]

Systems may claim credit for UV processes for inactivation of Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, and
viruses. The allowable inactivation credit for each pathogen must be based on the UV dose delivered by
the system's UV reactors in relation to the UV dose table in §141.720(d). The UV dose values in the dose
table are only applicable to post-filter application of UV in systems that filter and to unfiltered systems
that meet all the filtration avoidance criteria of §141.71. Systems may be able to receive credit for up to
4.0-log inactivation of Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, and viruses. The log credits included in the UV
dose table are for UV light at a wavelength of 254 nm, as produced by a low pressure mercury vapor
lamp.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
30
August 2007

-------
Systems can apply the dose table to UV reactors with other lamp types through reactor validation testing
(e.g., performance demonstration). The validation testing must demonstrate the operating conditions
under which the reactor can deliver the necessary UV dose, including flow rate, UV intensity, and UV
lamp status. Systems must account for the following:

• The UV absorbance of the water

• Lamp fouling and aging

• Measurement uncertainty of on-line sensors

• UV dose distributions from the velocity profiles through the reactor

• Failure of UV lamps or other system components

• Inlet and outlet piping or channel configurations of the UV reactor.

Validation testing must include full scale testing for a reactor that conforms to the UV reactors used by
the system and inactivation of a test microorganism whose dose response characteristics have been
quantified with a low pressure mercury vapor lamp. The state may also approve an alternative approach to
validation testing.

Systems must monitor their UV reactors to demonstrate that they maintain validated operating conditions
during routine use. Systems must monitor for UV intensity as measured by a UV sensor, flow rate, and
lamp status and for any other parameters required by the state. In addition, systems need to check the
calibration of UV sensors and recalibrate them in accordance with a protocol approved by the state.
EPA's UV Disinfection Guidance Manual provides a protocol for validating reactors and guidance on the
design and implementation of UV systems. Systems must treat at least 95 percent of water delivered to
the public each month to receive treatment credit.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryplosporidium TT
requirement in accordance with Table 1-17. The state may include additional reporting requirements, if it
determines they are necessary.

Table 1-17. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the UV Toolbox Option
Systems must submit the following information
Validation test results demonstrating operating
conditions that achieve required UV dose.
Monthly report summarizing the percentage of water
entering the distribution system that was not treated
by UV reactors operating within validated conditions
for the required dose as specified in § 141 .720(d).
On the following schedule
No later than the applicable treatment compliance date
specified in Table 1-18.
Within 10 days following the month in which monitoring
was conducted, beginning on the applicable treatment
compliance date specified in Table 1-18.
1.2.6 Uncovered Finished Reservoir Requirements |40 CFR 141.714]

Systems using uncovered finished water storage facilities must notify the state of any uncovered finished
water storage facilities no later than April 1, 2008.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
August 2007

-------
By April 1, 2009, systems must either:

        •      Cover any uncovered finished water storage facility; or

        •      Treat the discharge from the uncovered finished water storage facility to the distribution
               system to achieve at least 4.0-log virus, 3.0-log Giardia lamblia, and 2.0-log
               Cryptosporidium inactivation and/or removal using a state-approved protocol.

1.2.7    PWS Recordkeeping Requirements [40 CFR 141.722]

Systems must keep results from the initial round and the second round of source water monitoring until 3
years after either bin classification (filtered systems) or determination of the mean Cryptosporidium level
(unfiltered systems). Systems must keep a record of any notification to the state that they will not conduct
source water monitoring because they are a filtering system that will provide at least 5.5-log treatment or
a ground water system that will provide 3.0-log inactivation for 3 years. Systems must keep the results of
treatment monitoring associated with microbial toolbox options and with uncovered finished water
reservoirs for 3 years.

1.2.8    Public Notification of Drinking Water Violations [40 CFR 141.211, Subpart Q, 40 CFR 141
        Appendix A]

Under  LT2ESWTR there are two types of violations that require Tier 2 or Tier 3 notification. Tier 2
notifications arc for TT violations, and failure to take at least three Cryptosporidium samples. Tier 3
notifications arc for monitoring, analytical methods, and reporting violations.

1.2.8.1   What are examples of a violation requiring Tier 2 notification?

A Tier 2 public notification is required for failure to:

        •      Collect 3 or more  Cryptosporidium samples.

        •      Determine and report the bin classification or the mean Cryptosporidium level after initial
               or second round of source water monitoring. However, public notice is not required if the
               system is complying with a state-approved schedule to address the violation.

        •      Notify the state of an uncovered finished water reservoir and install treatment or cover
               the reservoir by the appropriate treatment compliance date.

        •      Report source water monitoring results and meet TT requirements for unfiltered systems.

        •      Install the level and type of treatment appropriate for the system's bin classification by
               the appropriate treatment  compliance date.

1.2.8.2   What are examples of a violation requiring Tier 3 notification?

A Tier 3 public notification of monitoring and testing procedure violations is required for failure to:

        •      Conduct source water monitoring (except when a Tier 2 notice is required due to failure
               to collect 3 or more Cryptosporidium samples).

        •      Submit a sampling schedule to the state.

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               32                                      August 2007

-------
• Collect samples in accordance with the sampling schedule (e.g., sampling location,
sampling within 2 days before or after the scheduled date).

• Use an approved laboratory and an approved analytical method.

• Notify the state before making a significant change in disinfection.

• Develop disinfection profiles and benchmarks.

• Report source water monitoring results (initial or second round).

More information on public notification requirements can be found at www.cpa.gov/safewater/pri.html.

1.2.9 Consumer Confidence Reports Requirements

The LT2ESWTR does not specifically modify the CCR Rule requirements. However, CCRs must contain
any violations of TT requirements or other violations of NPDWR requirements. This includes any such
violations of the LT2ESWTR.
More information can be obtained from:
• The Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 71 FR
653 (January 5, 2006); and vvww.cpa.go\v'salcwatcr/disin('cction/lt2

• The EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline, Telephone: 1.800.426.4791

• EPA's CCR Web site: wwvv.cna.gov/sal'cwalcr/cerl.lumi
1.3 Requirements of the Rule: States or Other Primacy Agencies

The following rule requirements are from the LT2ESWTR published in the Federal Register on January
5, 2006 (71 FR 653). For a copy of the actual rule language, see Appendix B, or visit EPA's Web site at
www.epa.gov/safcwalcr/disinfcction/lt2 for a copy of the Federal Register notice.

1.3.1 Special Primacy Requirements |40 CFR 142.16)

In order to receive primacy for the LT2ESWTR, states must adopt regulations no less stringent than this
rule. States must submit a primacy application consisting of revisions to their programs, regulations, or
authorities no later than January 5, 2008, although states may request an extension of up to 2 additional
years.

In addition, states that choose to incorporate the following provisions must describe how they will
implement them in their primacy applications (see Chapter 4, section 4.4):

• Approve an alternative to the E. coli levels that trigger Cryptosporidium monitoring by
filtered systems serving fewer than 10,000 people.

• Assess significant changes in the watershed and source water as part of the sanitary
survey process and determine appropriate follow-up action.

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 33 August 2007

-------
• Approve watershed control programs for the 0.5-log watershed control program credit in
the microbial toolbox.

• Approve protocols for treatment credits under the demonstration of performance toolbox
option and for alternative ozone and chlorine dioxide CT values.

• Approve an alternative approach to UV reactor validation testing in the microbial
toolbox.

1.3.2 State Recordkeeping Requirements [40 CFR 142.14]

The current regulations in §142.14 require states with primacy to keep various records including
analytical results to determine compliance with MCLs, MRDLs, and TT requirements; system
inventories; state approvals; enforcement actions; and variance and exemption status. The LT2ESWTR
requires that the state keep records related to any decisions made pursuant to the requirements in
§141.700-§141.724. In addition, states must keep records of:

• Results of source water E. coli and Cryptosporidium monitoring.

• The bin classification after the initial and after the second round of source water
monitoring.

• Any changes in treatment requirements for filtered systems due to watershed assessment
during sanitary surveys.

• Determination of whether each unfiltcred system has a mean source water
Cryptosporidium level above 0.01 oocysts/L after the initial and the second round of
source water monitoring.

• The treatment processes or control measures that each system employs to meet
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under the LT2ESWTR.

• A list of systems required to cover or treat the effluent of an uncovered finished water
storage facility.

1.3.3 State Reporting Requirements [40 CFR 142.15)

The current regulations in §142.15 require states to report certain information to EPA, including:

• Bin classification after the initial and second round of source water monitoring.

• Changes in treatment requirements as a result of a watershed assessment during sanitary
surveys.

• Determination of whether the mean Cryptosporidium level is greater than 0.01 oocysts/L
after initial and second round of source water monitoring for unfiltered systems.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 34 August 2007

-------
1.4 Summary of Action Dates
1.4.1 Applicability and Compliance Dates

The LT2ESWTR applies to systems using surface or GWUDI as a source and focuses on source water
conditions and the appropriate level of treatment [§141.700]. Table 1-18 summarizes key compliance
dates required (in bold) by the LT2ESWTR, as well as suggested action dates. Systems must comply with
treatment requirements based on their specific risk characterizations, as determined through source water
monitoring. The compliance dates are designed to allow systems to comply simultaneously with the Stage
2 DBPR and the LT2ESWTR in order to balance risks associated with DBFs with risks associated with
microbial pathogens.

Note the term "state" or "states" is used in the following and is used to refer to all types of primacy
agencies including U.S. territories, Indian tribes, and EPA Regions.

Table 1-18. Summary of Action Dates for the LT2ESWTR
Date
January 5, 2006
LT2ESWTR Action
Final rule is published in Federal Register.
STATES
January 5, 2006
January 5, 2006
January 5, 2006
January 5, 2006
January 5, 2006
January 5, 2006
December 1,2006
April 1 , 2007
June 1,2007
June 1,2008
April 1,2009
December 1,2008
June 1,2010
States should begin determining how they will assess significant changes in the watershed
and source water as part of the sanitary survey process and appropriate follow-up actions.
States should begin determining how they will approve watershed control programs for the
0.5-log watershed control program credit in the microbial toolbox.
States should begin specifying any alternative E. coli indicator values for small systems.
States should begin determining how they will approve protocols for treatment credits
under the demonstration of performance toolbox option, for alternative ozone and chlorine
dioxide CT values, and for UV reactor validation testing.
States should begin awarding Cryptosporidiiim treatment credit for primary treatments in
place.
States are encouraged to communicate with affected systems regarding LT2ESWTR
requirements.
States are encouraged to review grandfathered data for Schedule 1 systems as soon as
possible.
States are encouraged to update their data management systems.
States are encouraged to review grandfathered data for Schedule 2 systems as soon as
possible.
States are encouraged to review grandfathered data for Schedule 3 systems as soon as
possible.
States should oversee large system bin assignments.
States are encouraged to review grandfathered data for Schedule 4 filtered systems as soon
as possible.
States are encouraged to review grandfathered data for Schedule 4 unfiltered systems as
soon as possible.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
35
August 2007

-------
Date
October 1,2012
April 1,2013
October 1,2015
LT2ESWTR Action
States should oversee small system bin assignments.
States should award Cryptosporidium treatment credit to large systems for toolbox option
implementation.
States should award Cryptosporidium treatment credit to small systems for toolbox option
implementation.
SCHEDULE 1 SYSTEMS
July 1, 2006
July 1, 2006
October 1, 2006
December 1,2006
April 1, 2009
April 1,2009
April 1,2012
January 1,2015
April 1,2015
October 1,2017
October 1,2017
Systems on Schedule 1 must submit to the state their sampling locations and sampling
schedule that specifies the dates of sample collection for initial source water
monitoring. [§141.702(a)[
Systems on Schedule 1 must notify EPA (or the state if the state wishes to have
systems report to them) of their intent to submit results for grandfathering data.
[§141.707]
Systems on Schedule 1 must begin initial source water monitoring. [§141.701(b)|
Systems on Schedule 1 must submit monitoring results for grandfathering. (§141.707)
(States are encouraged to review grandfathered data as soon as possible.)
Filtered systems on Schedule 1 must report their initial bin classification to the state
for approval. I§141.710(e)(l)]
Unfiltered systems on Schedule 1 must report the mean of all initial round
Cryptosporidium sample results to the state. |§141.712(a)(l)|
Based on first round of source water monitoring, Systems on Schedule 1 must meet
any additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements.1 |§141.713(c)|
Systems on Schedule 1 must submit to the state their sampling locations and sampling
schedule for the second round of source water monitoring. |§141.702(a)|
Systems on Schedule 1 must begin second round of source water monitoring.
[§141.701(b)]
Filtered systems on Schedule 1 must report their bin classification after the second
round of monitoring to the state for approval. |§141.710(e)(2)|
Unfiltered systems on Schedule 1 must report the mean of all second round
Cryptosporidium sample results to the state. [§141.712(a)(2)]
SCHEDULE 2 SYSTEMS
January 1, 2007
January 1, 2007
April 1,2007
June 1, 2007
October 1, 2009
Systems on Schedule 2 must submit to the state their sampling locations and sampling
schedule that specifies the dates of sample collection for initial source water
monitoring. |§141.702(a)j
Systems on Schedule 2 must notify EPA (or the state if the state wishes to have
systems report to them) of their intent to submit results for grandfathering data.
|§141.707|
Systems on Schedule 2 must begin initial source water monitoring. |§141.701(b)|
Systems on Schedule 2 must submit monitoring results for grandfathering. [§141.707]
(States are encouraged to review grandfathered data as soon as possible.)
Filtered systems on Schedule 2 must report their initial bin classification to the staite
for approval. [§141.710(e)(l)l
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
36
August 2007

-------
Date
October 1, 2009
October 1,2012
July 1, 2015
October 1,2015
April 1,2018
April 1, 2018
LT2ESWTR Action
Unl'iltered systems on Schedule 2 must report the mean of all initial round
Cryptosporidium sample results to the state. |§141.712(a)(l)]
Based on first round of source water monitoring, Systems on Schedule 2 must meet
any additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements.1 |§141.713(c)l
Systems on Schedule 2 must submit to the state their sampling locations and sampling
schedule for the second round of source water monitoring to the state. [§141.702(a)j
Systems on Schedule 2 must begin second round of source water monitoring.
[§141.701(b)l
Filtered systems on Schedule 2 must report their bin classification after the second
round of monitoring to the state for approval. |§141.710(e)(2)]
Unfiltered systems on Schedule 2 must report the mean of all second round
Cryptosporidium sample results to the state. |§141.712(a)(2)]
SCHEDULE 3 SYSTEMS
January 1,2008
January 1,2008
April 1,2008
June 1,2008
October 1,2010
October 1,2010
October 1,2013
July 1, 2016
October 1,2016
April 1, 2019
April 1, 2019
Systems on Schedule 3 must submit to the state their sampling locations and sampling
schedule that specifies the dates of sample collection for initial source water
monitoring. |§141.702(a)|
Systems on Schedule 3 must notify EPA (or the state if the state wishes to have
systems report to them) of their intent to submit results for grandfathering data.
|§I4I.707|
Systems on Schedule 3 must begin initial source water monitoring. |§141.701(b)|
Systems on Schedule 3 must submit monitoring results for grandfathering. |§141.707|
(States arc encouraged to review grandfathered data as soon as possible.)
Filtered systems on Schedule 3 must report their initial bin classification to the state
for approval. |§141.710(e)(l)|
Unfiltered systems on Schedule 3 must report the mean of all initial round
Cryptosporidium sample results to the state. |§141.712(a)(l)]
Based on first round of source water monitoring, Systems on Schedule 3 must meet
any additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements.1 |§141.713(c)|
Systems on Schedule 3 must submit to the state their sampling locations and sampling
schedule for the second round of source water monitoring to the state. [§141.702(a)|
Systems on Schedule 3 must begin second round of source water monitoring.
|§141.70l(b)|
Filtered systems on Schedule 3 must report their bin classification after the second
round of monitoring to the state for approval. (§141.710(e)(2)]
Unfiltered systems on Schedule 3 must report the mean of all second round
Cryptosporidium sample results to the state. |§141.712(a)(2)]
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
37
August 2007

-------
Date
LT2ESWTR Action
SCHEDULE 4 SYSTEMS (E. coll monitoring only)
July 1, 2008
July 1, 2008
October 1, 2008
December 1, 2008
July 1, 2017
October 1, 2017
Filtered systems on Schedule 4 must submit to the state their sampling locations and
sampling schedule that specifies the dates of sample collection for initial source water
monitoring. (§141.702(a)]
Filtered systems on Schedule 4 must notify the state of their intent to submit results
for grandfathering data. [§141.707]
Filtered systems on Schedule 4 that monitor for E. coll must begin source water
monitoring. |§141.701(b)|
Filtered systems on Schedule 4 must submit monitoring results for grandfathering.
|§141.707] (States are encouraged to review grandfathered data as soon as possible.)
Filtered systems on Schedule 4 must submit to the state their sampling locations and
sampling schedule for the second round of E. coll monitoring to the state.
[§141.702(a)]
Filtered systems on Schedule 4 that monitor for E. coll must begin second round of
source water monitoring. |§141.701(b)|
SCHEDULE 4 SYSTEMS (Cryptosporidium monitoring and Unfiltered Systems)
January 1, 2010
January 1,2010
April 1,2010
June 1,2010
October 1,2011 or
October 1,2012
October 1,2011 or
October 1, 2012
October 1,2014
January 1,2019
April 1,20 19
October 1,2021 or
October 1, 2020
Filtered systems on Schedule 4 that monitor for Cryptosporidium and unfiltered
systems must submit to the state their sampling locations and sampling schedule that
specifies the dates of sample collection for initial source water monitoring.
|§141.702(a)]
Filtered systems on Schedule 4 that monitor for Cryptosporidium and unfiltered
systems must notify the state of their intent to submit results for grandfathering data.
|§141.707|
Filtered systems on Schedule 4 that monitor for Cryptosporidium and unfiltered
systems must begin initial source water monitoring. [§141.701(b)|
Filtered systems on Schedule 4 that monitor for Cryptosporidium and unfiltered
systems must submit monitoring results for grandfathering. |§141.707| (States are
encouraged to review grandfathered data as soon as possible.)
Filtered systems on Schedule 4 that monitor for Cryptosporidium must report their
initial bin classification to the state for approval. [§141.710(e)(l)|
Unfiltered systems on Schedule 4 must report the mean of all initial round
Cryptosporidium sample results to the state. [§141.712(a)(l))
Based on first round of source water monitoring, systems on Schedule 4 must meet
any additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements.1 [§141.713(c)|
Filtered systems on Schedule 4 that monitor for Cryptosporidium and unfiltered
systems must submit to the state their sampling locations and sampling schedule for
the second round of Cryptosporidium monitoring to the state. (§141.702(a)]
Filtered systems on Schedule 4 that monitor for Cryptosporidium and unfiltered
systems must begin second round of source water monitoring. |§141.701(b)]
Filtered systems on Schedule 4 that monitor for Cryptosporidium must report their
bin classification after the second round of monitoring to the state for approval.
[§141.710(e)(l)l
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
38
August 2007

-------
Date
October 1,2021 or
October 1,2020
LT2ESWTR Action
Unfiltered systems on Schedule 4 must report the mean of all second round
Cryptosporidium sample results to the state. |§141.712(a)(l)]
UNCOVERED RESERVOIRS
April 1,2008
April 1, 2009
Systems must notify the state of all uncovered treated water storage facilities.
(§141.714(b)|
Uncovered finished water storage facilities must be covered, or the water must be
treated before entry into the distribution system. I§141.714(c)]
 1. The state may grant 2-year extensions for capital improvements. See Appendix H for guidance on reviewing
 extension requests under Section 1412(b)(10) of the SOW A.
 Note: Wholesale systems must follow the schedule based on the population of the largest system in their combined
 distribution system.

 1.4.2   Timeline for the LT2ESWTR

 Figure 1-2 depicts the LT2ESWTR requirements and implementation timeline for states and systems for
 the four schedules (based on population served by systems).
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
39
August 2007

-------
H

£
t/3


H

 o>
 S
H
 e
 e
 o>
 S
—
"a
 DC

CD
O
CM

LO
O
CM

O
CM


O
CM

CM
T— •
O

0
CM

O


GJ
o
0
CM


00
O
0


O
O
CM
CD
O
O
CM



































CD
.a
'co
CO
n


-4— >
C
(1)
F
"co
1—

*1
SA

en
'd

o
E
fi
|L
O i
(OH
T™







r~
tensio
X


c
o
CO
"co





UJ
CO
Q

sview
jbmission

•
•0










.2
~" u.
0











9








.LJ
'to
o
a.



jatment
Ir
H-

N»
SA
O)
~
_o
'c
o
b
.y
CN
1

iss
(





r
c
c
c
c
">
U



.c
c
*<£
_£
T
t





r/
C


ID
IX.

N






D
0
g
<
J



5
**
g
D
0



(c

•3
j
••
C
"55
C/l
(0
1

1









5
" ' £•






)





D





S-2
S CO
CO C
CO CD
O -tt
D_ -ft
LLJ


-^ C
S-2
E J5
S 2
2 "co
1- c
j.

?— 
1
i
»

€




A
ft
3
A




i





^0
u 3
c §
.2 2
l|





>)











f ^\
O
CM

O
CM

O
CM

CO
0
CM

CM
O
CM

T—
O
CM

O
O
CM


OJ
0
O
CM


00
0
o
CM


O
O
CM
CD
O
O
CM

                                                                                                          CO
                                                                                                          CD


                                                                                                         1
                                                                                                          co

                                                                                                          CD
                                                                                                          O
                                                                                                          CD
                                                                                                          CO

                                                                                                          O
                                                                                                          O
                                                                                                          O
                                                                                                          C
•o
 e
 03
 a

 o
CO
0
o
CO
CO
CO
CO
CD
-^
OD
C
O

'£
£
o
*j
r^






T3
T3
U
 S  
^
(U
03
If.
c:
(L)

E
'5
a-
•o
e
3
2
•a
o
o
OJ
CB
J3
"„
1
tr
^
0!
"3
.. *=
(G o
t5
Z, -
ij
*O
.5
o

~p
^
^
'-+-*
• »--
T3
k->
1
o
.«
1
•;-
s
§"
0
^
\,J
UH
o
c
o
'S
o
s
—
*o
03
(L>
^H
s'
s
:5
i^
0

•S
&,
£
£
.1
o
^
£
g
»
I
^
^*
"O
H
S
c
'"-^
(N

-------
References
Barwick, R.S., D.A. Levy, G.F. Craun, M.J. Beach, and R.L. Calderon. 2000. Surveillance for
waterborne-disease outbreaks - United States, 1997-1998. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
49(SS04):l-35.

Craun, F. and R. Calderon. 1996. Microbial risks in groundwater systems: Epidemiology of waterborne
outbreaks. Under the Microscope: Examining microbes in groundwater. Proceedings of the Groundwater
Foundation's 12th Annual Fall  Symposium, Boston. September.

Juranek, D. 1995. Cryptosporidiosis: sources of infection and guidelines for prevention. Clinical
Infectious Diseases 21(1).

Levy, D.A., M.S. Bens, G.F. Craun, R.L. Calderon, and B.L. Herwaldt. 1998. Surveillance for
Waterborne Disease Outbreaks - United States, 1995-1996. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
47(55-5): 1-34.

Mac Kenzie, W.R., N.J. Hoxie, M.E. Proctor, M.S. Gradus, K.A. Blair, D.E. Peterson, J.J. Kazmierczak,
D.A. Addiss, K.R. Fox, J.B. Rose, and J.P. Davis. 1994. A massive outbreak of Cryptosporidium
infection transmitted through the public water supply. New England Journal of Medicine 331(3): 161-167.

USEPA. 1999. Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual. EPA 815-R-99-013.

USEPA. 2005. Economic Analysis for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Proposal. Prepared by The Cadmus Group, Inc. EPA 815-R-06-001.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               41                                    August 2007

-------
                                  This page intentionally left blank
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                42                                     August 2007

-------
Section 2	
Resources and Guidance

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
In addition to this Implementation Guidance, a variety of resource materials and technical guidance
documents have been prepared by EPA to facilitate understanding and implementing the LT2ESWTR.
This section is an overview of each of these resources and includes instructions on how to obtain the
documents.
2.1   Technical Guidance Manuals	

EPA is developing technical guidance manuals to support the LT2ESWTR. These manuals will aid EPA,
state agencies, and affected PWSs in implementing this rule and will help ensure that implementation
among these groups is consistent.

        •      The Source Water Monitoring Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA 815-R-06-005,
               February 2006) provides guidance on activities related to Cryptosporidium and E. coli
               monitoring under the LT2ESWTR, such as laboratory contracting, sample collection
               procedures, and data evaluation and interpretation.

        •      The Microbial Laboratory Manual for the LT2ESWTR (EPA 815-R-06-006, February
               2006) provides guidance to laboratories on procedures for analyzing Cryptosporidium
               and E. coli samples under the LT2ESWTR to ensure compliance and maximize data
               quality and consistency.

        •      The Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidance Manual (EPA 815-R-06-007, November 2006)
               provides guidance on the validation, selection, design, and operation of UV disinfection
               systems to comply with treatment requirements under the Rule.

        •      The Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual (EPA 815-R-06-009, November 2005)
               provides guidance on the selection, design, and operation of membrane filtration to
               comply with treatment requirements under the Rule.

        •      The LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual (publication to be announced later) provides
               guidance on the selection, design, and operation of treatment and management strategies
               in the LT2ESWTR "microbial toolbox" to comply with treatment requirements under the
               Rule.

        •      The Guidance on Generation and Submission of Grandfathered Cryptosporidium Data for
               Bin Classification Under the LT2ESWTR (publication to be announced later) provides
               guidance to PWSs that elect to monitor for Cryptosporidium prior to their compliance
               dates required by LT2ESWTR. The guidance describes how PWSs can perform
               grandfathered Cryptosporidium monitoring such that the results should be equivalent to
               data generated under the LT2ESWTR and, therefore, acceptable for use in bin
               classification.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               45                                   August 2007

-------
The Simultaneous Compliance Manual for Long Term 2 and Stage 2 DBF Rules (EPA
817-D-06-003) describes the various potential treatment and operational conflicts that
may arise as systems comply with these two rules in addition to other existing rules.

The Small Entity Compliance Guidance Manual (publication to be announced later) is
intended for small PWSs, as required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996. This guide contains a general introduction and background for the
LT2ESWTR, describes the specific requirements of the LT2ESWTR, and provides
information on how to comply with those requirements.
For more information, contact EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline, (800) 426-4791 or see the Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) Web page. The Rule and guidance documents are
located at (www.epa.gov/safcwalcr/disinfection/lt2).
2.2 Rule Presentation
Presentations that may be useful for workshops on the LT2ESWTR will be available in PowerPoint
format on EPA's Web site: www.cpa.aov/safcwatcr/'disinfcction/h2.
2.3 Fact Sheet/Quick Reference Guide

A Fact Sheet/Quick Reference Guide for the LT2ESWTR may be useful in conveying basic information
to water systems, new personnel, and for educating stakeholders about the Rule. The following arc stand-
alone documents and are included in Appendix C of this guidance:

* Fact Sheet: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.

v^ LT2ESWTR Source Water Monitoring for Systems Serving At Least 10,000 People.

v^ LT2ESWTR Source Water Monitoring for Systems Serving Less Than 10,000 People.

v' LT2ESWTR Data Collection and Tracking System.

v' LT2ESWTR Laboratory Fact Sheet.

» Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule: A Quick Reference Guide For
Schedule 1 Systems.

^ Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule: A Quick Reference Guide For
Schedule 2 Systems.

v Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule: A Quick Reference Guide For
Schedule 3 Systems.

^ Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule: A Quick Reference Guide For
Schedule 4 Systems.

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 46 August 2007

-------
               List of Laboratories Approved for the Analysis of Cryptosporidium under the SDWA.

               LT2 Rule: Cryptosporidium & E. coli Sample Collection Recommendations Pocket
               Guide.
2.4   Frequently Asked Questions
Questions and Answers (Q&As) on the LT2ESWTR are provided in this section. These questions have
been asked of EPA through the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, implementation training, and/or other
means.

Schedule

Ql:   What are the population ranges of the four schedules?
Al:   The population ranges of the four schedules arc:
If you have a Subpart H source and are this kind of system:
System serving 100,000 or more people OR a wholesale system in
a combined distribution system that contains a system serving
100,000 or more people
System serving 50,000 to 99,999 people OR a wholesale system in
a combined distribution system with the largest system serving
50,000 to 99,999
System serving 10,000 to 49,999 people OR a wholesale system in
a combined distribution system with the largest system serving
10,000 to 49,999
System serving fewer than 1 (),()()() people
You are on schedule number:
1
2
3
4
Q2:   Should a system adjust its source water monitoring schedule if its population increases or
       decreases during initial monitoring so much that the system is moved into a different
       schedule?
A2:   It is important for systems to conduct at least 24 consecutive months of monitoring. If a system's
       population changes so much that the system is shifted into a different schedule, the system should
       remain on its original schedule for the duration of initial monitoring.

Q3:   How will the LT2ESWTR affect new water systems? What should a new system do if it
       does not have 2 years of source water data prior to installing treatment?
A3:   New systems should work with the primacy agency to determine applicable compliance dates.
       The LT2ESWTR docs not require systems to have 2 years of data if they have sufficient
       treatment in place to achieve 5.5-log of treatment (if a filtered system) or 3.0-log inactivation (if
       an unfiltcred system).

Combined Distribution Systems

Q4:   How does a wholesale system differ from a purchased system?
A4:   A wholesale system is a PWS that treats source water to produce finished water and sells that
       water to another PWS. A purchased system buys finished water from a wholesale system.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
47
August 2007

-------
Q5:    What is a combined distribution system?
AS:    A combined distribution system is the interconnected distribution system consisting of the
       distribution systems of wholesale systems and of the consecutive systems that receive finished
       water.

Q6:    How should a system in a combined distribution system determine its schedule?
A6:
If your system:
Sells finished water and has
source
its own Subpart H
Sells finished water but does not have its own
Subpart H source
Does not sell finished water
Subpart H source
Docs not sell finished water
own Subpart H source
but has its own
and docs not have its
You must comply with the schedule and
monitoring requirements of:
The largest system in your combined distribution
system
The largest system in your combined distribution
system*
The population of your own system
The population of your own system*
*// is important to note that systems with no Subpart H source in a combined distribution system are not
required to conduct source water monitoring; however, they must comply with other requirements of the
LT2ESWTR (i.e.,  covering finished water reservoirs or treating the discharge and complying with
disinfection profiling and benchmarking requirements).

The summed population of all the systems in the combined distribution system is not used to determine
compliance schedule.

Q7:     If a wholesale system serving fewer than 10,000 people has its own Subpart H source and
        purchases finished water from a Schedule 1 system, can the small system still conduct E. coll
        trigger level monitoring, or is the small system required to conduct Cryptosporidium, E. coli,
        and turbidity monitoring?
A7:     Systems in a combined distribution system that have their own Subpart H source and sell finished
        water arc required to monitor for the same contaminants as required of the largest system in the
        combined distribution system. The small system in this example both purchases and sells finished
        water and has its own Subpart H source; therefore it will be required to meet the monitoring
        requirements of the Schedule 1  system. The small system would not have the option of
        conducting only triggered E. coli monitoring; it would be required to monitor for
        Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity. Wholesale systems, regardless of size, must comply w ith
        the schedule and monitoring requirements of the largest system in their combined distribution
        system.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
48
August 2007

-------
 Q8:    If a purchased system boosts its disinfectant level but does not otherwise treat purchased
        water, would this system be considered a consecutive system or, due to the addition of
        disinfectant, would this system be considered wholesale system?
 A8:    There arc four possibilities for this system:
If the purchased system:
Does not have its own Subpart H source
but does sell finished water
Has its own Subpart H source and sells
finished water
Does not sell finished water and does
not have its own Subpart H source
Does not sell finished water but does
have its own Subpart H source
The system is:
Consecutive
Wholesale
Consecutive
Consecutive
And would be on:
The schedule of the largest system in
the combined distribution system
The schedule of the largest system in
the combined distribution system
The schedule of its own population
class
The schedule of its own population
class
Q9:    What is the definition of "interconnection"? If a system purchases water from a wholesale
        system and also treats and distributes its own water from a Subpart H source, is it
        considered an interconnected system?
A9:    Interconnection is defined as "the state of being connected." In terms of PWSs, if two systems arc
        connected to each other, then they arc interconnected. Yes, the system described in this question
        would be considered interconnected (i.e., part of a combined distribution system, a consecutive
        system). If"this system sells finished water to another system, it must follow the compliance
        schedule of the largest system in the combined distribution system. If this system docs not sell
        finished water to another system, it would follow the compliance schedule of its own population
        class (sec Q8).

Removal/Inactivation Requirements

Q10:   What is log turbidity removal?
A10:   Log turbidity removal is a base 10 log value based on the influent and effluent turbidity
        concentrations. For example, a 0.5-log reduction corresponds to a 68 percent reduction in
        turbidity (influent turbidity is equal to 100 and effluent turbidity is equal to 32):

        0.5-log = log (100/32)

        Log removal values are used because they can be determined for each treatment unit in a
        treatment train. Then the individual values can be added to obtain a total log removal for the
        treatment train.

Qll:   When providing maximum treatment instead of conducting source water monitoring, why
        must filtered systems provide 5.5-log Cryptosporidium removal/inactivation while unfiltered
        systems must only supply 3.0-log inactivation?
All:   Filtered systems must provide 5.5-log Cryptosporidium removal/inactivation to avoid source
        water monitoring because they most likely do not have the same high quality source water as
        unfiltered systems. Unfiltered systems must only provide 3.0-log inactivation to avoid source
        water monitoring because these systems have higher quality source water and are able to meet the
        filtration avoidance criteria in 40 CFR 141.71.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
49
August 2007

-------
Q12: Depending on their source water Cryptosporidium concentration, unfiltered systems must
provide at least 2.0-log or 3.0-log inactivation. Can this protection be provided by one
disinfection method or must it come from a combination of treatment?
A12: Systems must use at least two disinfectants to meet the combined Cryptosporidium, Giardia
lamblia, and virus inactivation requirements. One disinfectant must be chlorine dioxide, ozone, or
ultraviolet (UV) light. Cryptosporidium inactivation can be accomplished by any one of these
three disinfection methods. For example, using free chlorine to meet virus and Giardia
inactivation requirements and using UV light to provide 2.0-log Cryptosporidium inactivation is
sufficient.

Q13: Currently, conventional treatment plants receive a 2.0-log treatment credit for
Cryptosporidium. Under the LT2ESWTR, the base removal/inactivation requirement will
change to 3.0-log. Will systems in Bin 1 be required to provide an extra 1.0-log of
treatment?
A13: Under the LT1ESWTR and the IESWTR, conventional treatment plants receive a 2.0-log
reduction credit for Cryptosporidium. Subsequent to the promulgation of these rules, EPA has
come to believe that conventional treatment plants operating under the conditions of the
LT1ESWTR and the IESWTR are capable of providing 3.0-log Cryptosporidium removal. Under
the LT2ESWTR, conventional treatment plants will receive a 3.0-log Cryptosporidium removal
credit. Systems in Bin 1 will not be required to provide any additional treatment.

Grandfathering

Q14: What criteria must grandfathered data meet to be allowable under the LT2ESWTR?
A14: Grandfathered data must meet the following criteria to be allowable under the LT2ESWTR:

• Data must have been analyzed using approved laboratory methods.

• For each Crypiosporidium sample, the laboratory must have analyzed at least 10 L of
sample or at least 2 mL of packed pellet volume.

• Sampling locations must meet the conditions of 40 CFR 141.703.

• Samples must have been collected no earlier than January 1999.

States also have discretion in approving or rejecting data submitted for grandfathering.

Q15: If a system wishes to grandfather Cryptosporidium source water data, does this data have to
include E. coli and turbidity data as well, or is Cryptosporidium data alone sufficient? How
much data needs to be grandfathered?
A15: If a system submitting Crvpiosporidium data for grandfathering has E. coli and turbidity data
available, these data should be submitted as well. If a system does not have E. coli and turbidity
data, it can still submit Cnptosporidium data for grandfathering. A system can grandfather as
much data as it has, as long as it meets the grandfathering requirements.

Q16: Can systems delay source water monitoring if they have submitted grandfathered data for
approval?
A16: EPA anticipates there will be some variability in the amount of source water data systems will
submit for grandfathering - some systems will have several sequential months of data, others will
have focused their monitoring during a limited time of year, such as during just the fall or spring,
and others will have most of the data they need with some data gaps. 40 CFR 141.701(h)

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 50 August 2007

-------
        specifies that grandfathered data may substitute an equivalent number of months at the end of the
        monitoring period. Therefore, systems with sequential months of grandfathered data would begin
        source water monitoring according to the schedule in the LT2 rule, and could stop monitoring
        during the months represented by their grandfathered data. Similarly, 40 CFR 141.707(e)(l)
        indicates a system may only need to monitor to fill-in gaps in the grandfathered data. In this
        scenario, a system may not need to begin monitoring on the start date specified in the rule if they
        have adequate grandfathered data representative of that calendar month.

Q17:   If a system has submitted a request to grandfather previously collected data but they have
        not heard whether their request is approved, must they begin source water monitoring on
        the date required by the LT2ESWTR?
A17:   If a system's previously collected data meets all of the requirements for grandfathering data and
        would be representative of source water quality at the time the source water samples would be
        collected, the system would not need to begin monitoring. However, if the state subsequently
        rejects some of the data submitted for grandfathering, the system must begin additional
        monitoring 2 months after being notified of the inadequate samples and in accordance with a
        state-approved schedule.

Source Water Monitoring

Q18:   Are systems required to conduct source water  monitoring on a specific date, such as the 5th
        of each month, or can systems choose a flexible date,  such as the first Monday of each
        month to collect their samples? How should systems  handle weekend sampling
        (particularly for E. coll monitoring when the maximum sample holding time is 30 hours)?
A18:   Systems can monitor on a specific date or on a flexible date as long as samples arc taken at
        approximately the same time every month. Systems should work with  labs to coordinate sampling
        schedules and to avoid sampling on weekends and holidays.

Q19:   How can a system that switches between sources seasonally sample in a way that fulfills the
        LT2ESWTR requirements? Can the system subsequently change  the way it switches
        between the two sources, or will the system be  locked into using the sources exactly as they
        were used during initial monitoring?
A19:   The system should follow standard operating procedures and sample from whichever source is in
        use on the scheduled day of sampling. As long as the system follows these requirements, it can
        later change the way it uses those sources.

Q20:   When creating a composite source water sample from multiple sources, assuming a blended
        tap is not available, what volumes must be collected from each source? Also, what should
        the total composite sample volume be?
A20:   When creating a composite sample, the system should collect the volume contributed from each
        source based on the proportion of flow that the sources contributed to the plant on the day of the
        sampling (e.g., if Source A contributed 75  percent of flow to the plant  on the day of sampling and
        Source B contributed 25 percent of flow, the composite sample would be 75 percent from Source
        A and 25 percent from Source B). The composite sample should represent the stream being
        treated by the plant. The total sample volume for  a composite sample is the same as for any
        sample: 10 L sample volume or  2 mL packed pellet volume.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               51                                   August 2007

-------
Q21:  What is an example of an acceptable reason for not collecting a source water sample within
       2 days of the scheduled sampling date? Are problems in the distribution system or high
       turbidity events acceptable reasons for missing a source water sampling date?
A21:  Issues with the source such as a very large rain event that poses danger to the sample collector are
       acceptable reasons for missing a source water monitoring deadline. Also, weather conditions,
       such as ice, that prevent access to the intake justify missing a source water monitoring deadline.
       A high turbidity event alone would not justify missing a source water monitoring deadline, and
       neither would issues in the distribution system. The primacy agency has additional discretion in
       determining acceptable justifications for missing samples.

Q22:  If a system misses their January source water sample, can the system replace the sample in
       the following months or must the system wait until the following January to replace the
       sample?
A22:  These situations must be handled on a case-by-case basis by the primacy agency. If the system
       can take a replacement sample that will be representative of the seasonal conditions of the omitted
       month, it may be possible to replace the sample. The Information Processing and Management
       Center (IPMC) and the LT2ESWTR data collection system will help systems and states identify
       source water samples that have been missed; if systems are notified early enough they can collect
       a replacement sample before seasonal conditions change.

Q23:  If a system commits to providing treatment instead of conducting source water monitoring,
       can they later decide to conduct source water monitoring?
A23:  Systems may decide to conduct source water monitoring before the applicable source water
       monitoring deadline has passed. However, after the deadline has passed, it may  be difficult for the
       system to meet subsequent deadlines. Therefore a system must be very confident that it will be
       able to meet future deadlines before retracting its intent to treat notice and beginning source water
       monitoring.

Q24:  Where would a system that uses a presedimentation basin without coagulant collect source
       water samples?  If this system began to use coagulant after the first round of monitoring,
       where would it collect its second round samples?
A24:  This system would collect first round samples after the presedimentation basin (as long as no
       coagulant is used). If the system starts to add coagulant to meet bin requirements, it would be
       required to collect samples before the presedimentation basin for second round monitoring.

Toolbox Options

Q25:  If a system meets both the CFE and the IFE criteria, can the system receive Cryptosporidium
       treatment credit for both treatment options?
A25:  Yes, systems meeting both CFE and IFE requirements may receive a 0.5-log Cryptosporidium
       treatment credit for each treatment, for a total of 1.0-log treatment credit.

Q26:  If a system receiving the 0.5-log CFE turbidity toolbox credit exceeds 0.15 NTU more than 5
       percent of the time, is there a grace period for the system to return to compliance without
       losing treatment credit?
A26:  No, there is no grace period. The system would be out of compliance for the month when the
       exceedance occurred. The system would receive a TT violation and have to comply with public
       notification requirements. It would be up to the primacy agency to determine if the system would
       be allowed to continue receiving treatment  credit for that toolbox option.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               52                                   August 2007

-------
Q27: Are combined filter performance and individual filter performance standards based on
measurements taken every 4 hours?
A27: No. Combined filter performance standards arc based on measurements taken every 4 hours, but
individual filter performance standards are based on measurements taken every 15 minutes as
required by the IESWTR and the LT1ESWTR.

Q28: If a single process (e.g., UV light) is conducted in series, can a system receive additional
Cryptosporidium log removal credit?
A28: Yes, systems can add processes together for additional Cryptosporidium treatment credit.

Laboratories.

Q29: Is there a list of monitoring laboratories certified to analyze Cryptosporidiuml
A29: A list of approved labs can be found at
www.epa.gov/saf ew'atcr/disinfectkm/lt2/lah_aprvlabs.html

Q30: How will labs be trained to use the Stage 2/LT2ESWTR database?
A30: Labs will be trained to use the database as part of the lab certification program.

Q31: Do labs need to report sample results to the systems? Is this required by the LT2ESWTR?
A31: The LT2ESWTR requires that systems report monitoring results, and that systems serving 10,000
people or more submit results electronically, unless the primacy agency specifics otherwise.

Information Collecting and Reporting

Q32: Will the Data Collecting and Tracking System (DCTS) migrate violations to Safe Drinking
Water Information System/Federal (SDWIS/Fed) or will states need to download violations
manually?
A32: EPA received feedback from most states expressing interest in the ability to migrate violations
and is working on this functionality.

Q33: Can states request that systems send reports to the state directly?
A33: States can require direct reporting for systems. EPA believes that states will not immediately have
primacy and that, until then, reports will come to the state through the IPMC.

Support

Q34: Will systems be trained to use the Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR database?
A34: Yes, there will be Web casts to train systems on the databases. Also, states and regions will
receive a module on the database at train-the-trainer sessions, so that they can train their systems
on how to use the databases.

Q35: Will there be a guidance manual for the source water monitoring process? If so, when will
it be available?
A35: Yes, there is a source water monitoring guidance manual. It is available electronically at
www.cpa.gov/safcwater/disinfcction/lt2/compliance.html and can be requested in hard copy by
contacting EPA (contact information is available on the Web site).
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 53 August 2007

-------
Violations

Q36:   Does the LT2ESWTR include specific public notification requirements?
A36:   The LT2ESWTR requires public notification for a number of violations, but requires systems to
       provide special notice if they fail to collect three source water monitoring samples or if they miss
       the bin classification deadline.

Q37:   If a system fails to meet the required monthly IFE or CFE turbidity limits as described in
       §141.718(a) and §141.718(b), are additional requirements triggered beyond the PN
       requirements associated with a TT violation?
A37:   No, but the state has discretion to impose additional requirements if it feels that the system cannot
       meet the treatment requirements on a consistent basis.

Q38:   If a system receives a TT violation, is it required to use supplementary toolbox options to
       provide additional log removal credit to ensure that necessary protection is achieved?
A38:   If a system receives a TT violation, it can provide additional treatment or directly correct the
       problem that led to the TT violation. This is the same action recommended for a TT violation
       under the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR. If the state believes that the system will not be able to
       remedy the cause of the TT violation, a selection of additional toolbox treatment options may be
       warranted.

Other

Q39:   If systems do not cover finished water storage facilities, what are the options? Is a risk
       mitigation plan still an option?
A39:   Systems that cannot cover finished water storage facilities can provide at least 4.0-log virus,
       3.0-log  Giardia lamblia, and 2.0-log Cryplosporidium rcmoval/inactivation using a protocol
       approved by the state and still be in compliance with the LT2ESWTR. However, there is no
       longer a risk mitigation option.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               54                                    August 2007

-------
Section 3	
State Implementation

-------
EPA expects to undertake necessary rule implementation activities
during the period of early implementation. During the early
implementation period the state may elect to undertake some, or all,
of the implementation activities, in cooperation with EPA. This will
facilitate continuity of implementation and ensure that system-specific
advice and decisions are made with the best available information and
are consistent with existing state program requirements.

-------
3.1 Overview of Implementation
The LT2ESWTR applies to all systems using surface water and GWUDI. Requirements and compliance
dates differ between system types (i.e., population served and existing treatment). Primacy agencies
should clearly define monitoring, reporting, performance, and follow-up requirements to help systems
understand how the Rule will affect them and what they must do to comply. The main implementation
activities for primacy agencies include the following:

• Address special primacy conditions.

• Identify affected systems.

• Communicate LT2ESWTR requirements to affected systems.

• Update data management systems.

• Approve laboratories for Cryptosporidium analysis.

• Specify any alternative E. coli indicator values for small systems.

• Oversee bin assignments.

• Award Crvplosporklhim treatment credit for treatments already in place (primary
treatment).

• Award Cryptosporkliuin treatment credit for implementation of options from the
microbial toolbox.

• Oversee disinfection profiling and benchmarking.

To help state implementation efforts, the guidance in this section and in section 4 makes suggestions and
provides alternatives that go beyond the minimum primacy agency requirements specified in the
subsections of § 142.16. Such suggestions arc prefaced by "may" or "should" and are to be considered
advisory. They are not required elements of states' applications for program revision.

3.2 Identify Special Primacy Conditions

There are provisions of the LT2ESWTR that allow states discretion in establishing decision-making
criteria. The special primacy requirements for the LT2ESWTR, which address the most important
discretionary items, arc discussed in section 4.4 of this guidance. Although that section describes how a
state might satisfy the requirements and obtain primacy, states should inform the systems of their specific
requirements with sufficient lead time to meet the compliance dates.

The main provisions for which states must make a timely decision regarding system requirements include
the following:

• States must establish criteria for approving watershed control programs for the 0.5-log
watershed control program credit in the microbial toolbox. To allow adequate time for
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 57 August 2007

-------
               decision-making and planning, systems should be aware of state criteria for the watershed
               control program treatment credit 2 years before their treatment compliance date.

               If states intend to allow an alternative to E. coli levels that trigger Cryptosporidium
               monitoring by filtered systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, they must develop
               appropriate alternative criteria. Small systems should be aware of the alternative
               indicator, trigger values, and acceptable analytical methods prior to conducting
               monitoring, which begins as early as October 1, 2008.

               States must establish protocols for awarding Cryptosporidium removal credits (both
               higher and lower) under the demonstration of performance toolbox option. At a
               minimum, systems will need to know the protocols in time to apply for demonstration of
               performance credit prior to the deadline for new treatment requirements (as early as April
               1, 2012, for large systems). If a system's request for  Cryptosporidium removal credits is
               not accepted by the state, the system could incur a TT violation if there is not enough
               time to implement another toolbox option.

               If states intend to allow alternative disinfectant protocols, they must establish the
               alternative ozone and chlorine dioxide CT values and an alternative approach to UV
               reactor validation testing, as applicable. Systems should be aware of these alternative
               procedures before new treatment requirements go into effect (April 1, 2012).

               Finally, states must establish criteria for assessing changes in the watershed and source
               water during the sanitary survey process.
3.3   Identify Affected Systems
As mentioned previously, the LT2ESWTR applies to all systems that use surface water or GWUDI as a
source. The subsections below summarize the four main provisions of the LT2ESWTR (i.e., source water
monitoring, treatment, disinfection profiling and benchmarking, and uncovered finished reservoirs) as
they apply to different system types. The Rule generally presents four compliance schedules, which are
based on the population served by systems, as summarized in Table 3-1.

                               Table 3-1. Compliance Schedules
If you have a Subpart H source and are this kind of svstem:
System serving 100,000 or more people OR a wholesale system in a
combined distribution system that contains a system serving 1 00,000 or
more people
System serving 50,000 to 99,999 people OR a wholesale system in a
combined distribution system with the largest system serving 50,000 to
99,999
System serving 10,000 to 49,999 people OR a wholesale system in a
combined distribution system with the largest system serving 1 0,000 to
49,999
System serving fewer than 1 0,000 people
You are on schedule number:
1
2
3
4
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
58
August 2007

-------
 Wholesale PWSs must comply with Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR requirements based on the
 population of the largest PWS in the combined distribution system. This approach will ensure that PWSs
 have the same compliance schedule under both the LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR. Although
 consecutive systems without their own source are not required to conduct source water monitoring, they
 do need to cover any uncovered reservoirs or treat the discharge, and meet disinfection profiling and
 benchmarking requirements.

 The state has discretion with respect to new systems and sources, but these systems will be required to
 conduct source water monitoring unless they provide 5.5-log of treatment for Cryptosporidium (filtered
 systems) or 3.0-log treatment (unfiltered systems) using options from the toolbox. Therefore, new systems
 and systems with new sources must contact the state regarding their requirements and schedule for source
 water monitoring.

 Figure 3-1 shows a timeline with system activities on the top and primacy agency activities on the
 bottom.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               59                                    August 2007

-------
CO

CU
f>
•fc^
o
o


CU
CJD
a

S
'u
cu

•B
C
R

S
at
O

CU
S


"«

S

N
CU



5JC
ADN3OV AOVWidd
          IAJ31SAS

-------
Uj
.E
& ^ ~
•D "n: _
^ 5
to a> „ 	
3 t" i'1 ' ' '
£s S a
w s ';§
S IS S [ S »...
p II 1"" 	
3) « m 1 ~ j

/,; s ni «* * o -
" o 3 t ?- 8 »•!
^ i g i c -S 2 j fe o 	
C ;«, r: S: .p ^ ^ u?
S ^ ^ 1 1 1 i 1
S S i 1 ^ —
• •• O IS W 5
*- BI "'' c E
" E £ ° K -
< I » E E
g, s fc -
« 1 ^ J |, 1
C ^ '* 	 ;
D£
^
^ £ K
CJ ^ r "~
CC ^ h -H:
£ | | S 	 »- -
I* S^ oj ^
a- 3 1 1
e v> ?
« t?5' e
s L —
o»
•*•*
K
^ i • ~i :
V- _ -J, z !-J (
4* u £"3 E £'? | | \
JS § » 'P; '£ £ 'M -s | i _
"2 §, 1 6 | 1 ;" <^ 1 Ml
E^ ^f r: ^' ^r "H 5; . ^ c^ i: ^
t -2?"^ = Sill
H |lllllls-il
-7 pw -u.,0 .SU, r ,.|
^ f ; n o> —
OJ | * " * 1 -B ^ -^

• «M O 3;, •£;
to ^ E |r
1 P
on

W31SAS I
IX
k

- , c
fa;
^ i
» v Tr
- !!l

1 —
f
: 1
1
- u
— CI-O^'l/l I





1
1
1,
II
-------






•*•*
C
O
u

(U
• •4
-M
>
•M
U
<
>>
U
c
 ^~
CM S -S
O £05
O
(U
s
H
Si
s
OJD
fa-







Q
4ems on
refxxt 2"'" ?
« Filtered »y
Scfisdisls • =
to «


c x ^ >
1*11
n £ E '"
U "I i- fj
% ?l 1
•gll^
fc «= i i
1^«£
*








w;



i
?
i
X5
3
§










^. ;
<

r






c
t
1
t
t
£
i
_!
U
3


LT
n»| OjMjy a
n'xtej jsjiuj
UO SLUSiSA-
• Uflfiltered
Schedule '
raund rnea










T
* S- '"*
- SP "-1
r ^j -^
f'" ^ r~
!' J Ui






3 submit
*r s^nnplirg
ft i> ^
^i:
J.S,

























Ji
§
B
>5
4
z
^
U
«•


	 E
l l 1
n | 5 1 « I
— R -a P •=, : —
,3 i e a g1 —
_J ^ o P 3 cs ~
g S « g -D .c -
I "g S 'g € -•= ! _
fill |1 1 E
•S 0 E Q -ftS A I •"""
£ £L{2 Ct, ^w 1 —
* » » ""


> ^
j tf> g | —


>
Lrf
jjTOOJ/U



I20&'1./L

- KOBl11-





















-<
\ •§tas/in







^1
^- --. © £S
^ ^ "O
1 E'S Q
"^_ ™^ (75 £
1 fc.2 |
d S R *
8|
tn'




^
•s '5; *> .
1 1 1 p,
> * -S 'c
E "2 tft q
f: o-,6 5
— -£ « i
s = .2 P
iT


"K '» J
> "5 -i
ff T3 ^
* J^ s
- 5J w |
1 -?5 S,
t;i: ys B)
_' 3- g


^ON3
AOVWI^d
-------
3.3.1   Source Water Monitoring

Under the LT2ESWTR, all systems that use surface water or GWUDI as a source arc required to conduct
source water monitoring which may include Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and/or turbidity.

Systems that already provide 5.5-log (filtered systems) or 3.0-log (unfiltered systems) total treatment for
Cryptosporidium, or that commit to providing this level of treatment by the applicable compliance
deadline, are not required to conduct source water monitoring.

        •       Large systems (those serving 10,000 or more persons) that filter are required to monitor
               all three parameters.

        •       Small systems (those serving fewer than 10,000 people) that filter are required to monitor
               for E. coli initially and, depending on those results, may be required to monitor for
               Cryptosporidium.

        •       Large and small unfiltered systems are required to monitor for Cryptosporidium on the
               same schedule as their filtered counterparts, unless they elect to provide 3.0-log
               Cryptosporidium inacti vati on.

Previously collected ("grandfathcred") data may be acceptable in some cases in lieu of monitoring, as
long as  specified criteria arc met. EPA  or the state must receive the grandfathered data no later than 2
months  after the system is required to begin monitoring. EPA or the state can disapprove the data if it was
generated during conditions that were not normal for the system (e.g., during a drought).

3.3.2   Cryptosporidium Treatment

For all systems required to conduct source water monitoring, the results of the source water monitoring
determine whether additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements will be necessary beyond those
required by the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR. As shown in Table  1-1 on page  12, the lowest "bin" for
filtered  systems docs not require any additional treatment. However, unfiltered systems must provide at
least 2.0-log inactivation of Cryptosporidium  for source water concentration of < 0.01 oocyst/L and 3.0-
log for > 0.01 oocysts/L. Additionally, all unfiltered systems must provide at least two methods of
disinfection. Each of the methods must provide either 4.0-logs of virus inactivation, 3.0-logs ofGiardia
inactivation, or 2.0-logs of Cryptosporidium inactivation. The disinfection processes provided by
unfiltered  systems must collectively meet all  3 inactivation requirements (i.e.,  for viruses, Giardia, and
Cryptosporidium).

3.3.3   Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking

The IESWTR and LTIESWTR required disinfection profiling and benchmarking for CWS and
nontransient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWS) that exceed TTHM or HAAS levels of 0.064
mg/L and  0.048 mg/L, respectively. Under these rules,  profiling and benchmarking was calculated for
Giardia lamblia inactivation. If ozone, chloramines, or chlorine dioxide was used as the primary
disinfectant then profiling and benchmarking for viruses was also required. The LT2ESWTR extends the
requirements to all CWS and NTNCWS that must monitor for Cryptosporidium (i.e., not just those that
exceed the TTHM or HAAS triggers) and small CWS and NTNCWS  that only conduct E. coli
monitoring. In addition, all systems required to conduct disinfection profiling and benchmarking must
include virus inactivation under the LT2ESWTR. Systems that have previously conducted profiling under
IESWTR or LT IESWTR and have not made a significant change to disinfection practices and sources
since the data was collected may use that data in calculating benchmarks under LT2ESWTR, assuming

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                63                                     August 2007
-------
that the data are substantially equivalent to those required under LT2 (i.e., equivalent in sample number,
frequency, and data quality).

The LT2ESWTR disinfection profiling and benchmarking requirements apply to SWTR CWSs and
NTNCWSs that plan to make a significant change to their disinfection practices. Significant changes
include:

       •       Changes to the point of disinfection,
       •       Changes to the disinfectant(s) used in the treatment plant,
       •       Changes to the disinfection process, or
       •       Any other disinfection modification the state identifies as significant.

3.3.4   Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs

The IESWTR and LT1ESWTR prohibit the construction of new uncovered reservoirs for finished water
but did not address existing uncovered reservoirs. The LT2ESWTR requires systems with existing
uncovered finished water reservoirs to either cover the reservoir or treat the reservoir discharge to achieve
4.0-log virus, 3.0-log Giardia, and 2.0-log Cryptosporidium  inactivation using a protocol approved by the
state.
3.4   Communicate LT2ESWTR Requirements to Affected Systems	

If not already done by EPA or the state, states should consider notifying PWSs of the source water
monitoring and resulting treatment requirements under the LT2ESWTR as soon as possible.

3.4.1   Source Water Monitoring Requirements

Table 3-2 summarizes the source water monitoring requirements and compliance dates for all systems.

         Table 3-2. Source Water Monitoring Requirements and Compliance Dates
Requirement
Compliance Date (System Size)
Large filtered systems must monitor their source water for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity, and
large unfiltered systems must monitor for only Cryptosporidium.'' 2
Submit sampling schedule
Sample/monitor on at least a monthly basis for a 24
month period
Schedule 1: July 1,2006
Schedule 2: January 1 , 2007
Schedule 3: January 1, 2008
Begin no later than:
Schedule 1: October 1, 2006
Schedule 2 .-April 1,2007
Schedule 3: April 1,2008
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
64
August 2007
-------
Requirement
Conduct second round of source water monitoring on
at least a monthly basis for a 24 month period
Compliance Date (System Size)
Begin no later than:
Schedule //April 1,2015
Schedule 2: October 1 , 20 1 5
Schedule 3: October 1, 2016
Small filtered systems must first monitor for E. coli or an alternative state-approved indicator of
Cryptosporidium.1' 2 They may choose to monitor for Cryptosporidium in lieu of E. coli.
Submit E. coli sampling schedule
Sample for E. coli or alternative indicator on at least a
biweekly basis for a 12 month period
Schedule 4: July 1,2008
Schedule 4: Begin no later than October 1 , 2008
If the average indicator concentration exceeds the trigger level,3' 4 then the small filtered system must
monitor for Cryptosporidium. Small unfiltered systems must monitor for Cryptosporidium.
Submit Cryptosporidium sampling schedule
Sample for Cryptosporidium in accordance with
sampling schedule
Second round of source water E. coli monitoring2
Second round of source water Crvptosporidium
monitoring
Schedule 4: January 1, 2010
Schedule 4: Begin no later than April 1,2010
Schedule 4: Begin no later than October 1, 2017
Schedule 4: Begin no later than April 1, 2019
 1. Systems may be eligible to use previously collected (grandfathered) data to meet Cryptosporidium monitoring
 requirements if specified quality control criteria are met.
 2. Systems are not required to monitor if they will provide at least 5.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment and notify
 EPA or the state.
 3. Trigger levels are E. coli annual mean concentration of 10/100 mL for systems using lakes/reservoir sources and
 50/100 mL for systems using flowing stream sources.
 4. Systems that do not exceed the E. coli trigger level are classified in Bin 1 and are not required to provide
 Cryptosporidium treatment beyond LT1ESWTR levels.

 States should consider how they will implement source water monitoring and treatment requirements. For
 example, if a large system finds high levels of Cryptosporidium in their source water, the state should
 encourage or require small systems that obtain water from the same source to provide additional
 treatment, regardless of their monitoring results (especially if large systems upstream are classified in Bin
 4).

 Although systems that provide 5.5-log (filtered systems) or 3.0-log (unfiltered systems) total treatment for
 Cryptosporidium are not required to conduct source water monitoring, states should ensure the treatment
 meets the requirements of the toolbox options as well as any state standards. Systems should be aware
 that the treatment may trigger profiling and benchmarking requirements, change disinfection byproduct
 formation, and affect consecutive systems. States should refer systems that intend to provide the
 maximum treatment level to EPA's Simultaneous Compliance Manual for LT2 and Stage 2 DBF Rules.

 3.4.1.1   Crandfathered Data

 Systems may elect to use Cryptosporidium data collected before the system is required to begin
 monitoring. Because deadlines for larger systems that request state approval of grandfathered data occur
 soon after rule promulgation, states are encouraged to work with EPA to ensure systems are informed of
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
65
August 2007
-------
the requirements in time to meet the associated deadlines and make arrangements with an approved
laboratory.

Systems that plan to use previously collected monitoring results must report that they intend to submit
these results for grandfathering. This report must specify the number of previously collected results the
system will submit, the dates of the first and last sample, and whether the system intends to conduct
additional monitoring to meet the initial source water monitoring requirements of §141.701(a). Systems
must report this information no later than 3 months prior to the date that they must begin their first round
of source water monitoring. Systems must then report previously collected monitoring results for
grandfathering, along with the associated documentation listed below, no later than 2 months after the
date  that they must begin their first round of source water monitoring.

A PWS's grandfathered data package must address the following conditions [§141.707]:

       •       Samples must have been collected from the location(s) that complies with §141.703.

       •       The data set must include  and the system must certify that the samples were
               representative of a plant's source water(s) and the source water(s) has not changed.

       •       The system must certify that all samples that were collected during the time period
               beginning with the first reported result and ending with the last reported result were
               submitted.

       •       Samples must have been collected no less frequently than each calendar month on a
               regular schedule, beginning no earlier than January 1999 (when EPA Method 1622 was
               first released as an inter-laboratory validated method). (The state may grant exceptions to
               this requirement based on §141.707(e)(l).)

       •       Samples must have been collected in equal intervals of time over the entire collection
               period (e.g., weekly, twice-per-month, monthly). (The state may grant exceptions to this
               requirement based on §141.707(e)(2).)

       •       For Cryptosporidium, sample volumes of at least  10 L must have been analyzed  or, in
               cases where 10 L were not analyzed, at least 2 mL of packed pellet volume must have
               been analyzed.

       •       The data must have been generated by approved laboratories using approved analytical
               methods (for£. co//), and using the validated versions of EPA Methods  1622 or  1623 (for
               Cryptosporidium).

       •       For Cryptosporidium, the data are fully compliant with the QA/QC criteria specified in
               the LT2ESWTR and the laboratory or laboratories that analyzed the samples must
               provide a letter certifying that the quality control criteria specified in the methods listed
               in paragraph (c)(l) of this section were met for each sample batch associated with the
               reported results. Alternatively, the laboratory may provide bench sheets and sample
               examination report forms.

Requirements and guidance associated with the above recommendations are discussed in more detail in
EPA's Source Water Monitoring Guidance for Public Water Systems. In addition, the guidance provides
information  on criteria for grandfathered data.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                66                                     August 2007
-------
States may allow systems to conduct further monitoring to supplement incomplete data, or to replace
results that do not appear to be representative of normal source water conditions. To make this
determination, states should review the reported data to ensure that samples were evenly spaced
throughout the monitoring period, especially during periods where runoff normally occurs. If monitoring
was not conducted during runoff periods (or other periods normally associated with reduced water quality
conditions, such as seasonal wastewater discharges), additional monitoring should be conducted.
States should review the submitted reports as soon as possible to allow systems to make arrangements for
additional source water monitoring, where necessary. Where additional monitoring is required by the
state, systems are not required to begin this additional monitoring until 2 months after notification that
data have been rejected or that additional monitoring is necessary.

3.4.1.2   Sampling Schedule and Locations

States should ensure systems select locations and times that meet the requirements discussed in section
1.2. Systems' schedules should coincide with obvious water quality events, such as runoff and seasonal
wastewater discharges. For example, if stream flow records indicate that the heaviest seasonal runoff is at
the end of March or early April, then the system should consider monitoring during this period or conduct
additional monitoring to ensure this period is represented. More frequent monitoring may also be
appropriate during seasonal periods of heavy rainfall. Note that if states wish to require more frequent
monitoring, they should ensure that they have authority to do  so.

Systems must collect source water samples for each plant at a location prior to any treatment, unless EPA
or the state determines that collecting a sample before treatment is not feasible and the treatment is
unlikely  to have an adverse effect  on sample analysis. EPA  or the state may allow one set of results to be
used for  multiple plants if more than one plant draws water  from the same influent.

Treatment plants may use multiple surface water sources and  blended surface water and ground water
sources.  The use of multiple sources during monitoring must be consistent with routine operational
practice. If there is a sampling tap after the sources arc combined but prior to treatment, the sample  should
be collected from that tap. If no such tap is available, the system has two options:

        1.      Collect separate samples from each source and have the laboratory analyze each sample
               independently and calculate a weighted average concentration based on the relative
               contribution to total influent flow by each source; or

       2.      Manually collect bulk water samples from each source and mix the samples to create a
               composite bulk sample based on the proportional contribution of each source to the
               plant's influent flow.

If either of these two methods is used to manually create a representative source water sample from more
than one source, states may wish to review the system's proposal for obtaining a valid sample. If one or
more  of the raw water sources are  of low quality,  the source(s) should not be under- or over-represented.
For example, if a system typically uses a low quality source in combination with another source(s),  but
occasionally uses the low quality source by itself, the state should determine whether sampling should
occasionally represent only that low quality source. This issue could be a critical concern for systems with
sources of varying quality and may be necessary to ensure normal operating practices are captured
through monitoring.

States should remind systems to make arrangements with laboratories as soon as possible to ensure  their
source water monitoring needs can be met. In addition, systems should ensure their laboratory will
perform the necessary sample filtration if the system does not  intend to filter their samples in the field.

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               67                                     August 2007
-------
Finally, states should remind systems to use an approved analytical method and an approved laboratory.
EPA's Web site provides information on laboratories approved for Cryptosporidium analysis:
wvvw.cpa.gov/safcwatcr/disinfcction/lt2/lab_aprvlabs.html.

3.4.1.3   Calculating Average Cryptosporidium Concentrations

Individual Cryptosporidium sample concentrations are calculated using the total number of oocysts
counted, unadjusted for method recovery, divided by the volume assayed. If no oocysts are found in a
sample, then the concentration value for that sample is zero (i.e., not the detection limit). The range of
Cryptosporidium concentrations that define LT2ESWTR bins reflects consideration of analytical method
recovery and the percent of Cryptosporidium oocysts that are assumed to be infectious. Consequently,
sample analysis results will not be adjusted for these factors.

Cryptosporidium bin concentrations are calculated by averaging individual sample results from one or
more years of monitoring. For unfiltered systems, the average is the mean of all the sample
concentrations. For filtered systems, the method used to determine the average differs based on the
number of samples collected as follows:

        1.      For  systems that collect a total of at least 48 samples, the bin concentration is equal to the
               arithmetic mean of all sample concentrations.

        2.      For  systems that collect a total of at least 24 samples, but not more than 47 samples, the
               bin concentration is equal  to the highest arithmetic mean of all sample concentrations in
               any  12 consecutive months during which Cryptosporidium samples were collected.

        3.      For  systems that serve fewer than 10,000 people and monitor for Cryptosporidium for
               only one year (i.e., collect 24 samples in 12 months), the bin concentration is equal to the
               arithmetic mean of all sample concentrations.

        4.      For  systems with plants operating only part of the year that monitor fewer than 12 months
               per year under §141.701(e), the bin concentration is equal  to the highest arithmetic mean
               of all sample concentrations during any year  of Cryptosporidium monitoring.

        5.      If the monthly Cryptosporidium sampling frequency varies, systems must first calculate a
               monthly average for each month of monitoring; then use these monthly average
               concentrations, rather than individual sample concentrations, and one of the previous 4
               procedures to calculate average Cryptosporidium concentration.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                68                                     August 2007
-------
             Example 3-1. Bin Classification for System Operating Part of Year
   A system collects a sample every 2 weeks during the 3 months that its plant operates. If the number
   of samples or sampling frequency varied, the system would have to calculate its bin classification
   differently.
Plant Crypto Results (oocysts/L)
Month 1
N/A
Month 7
0.035
0.002
Month 13
N/A
Month 19
0.002
0.005
Month 2
N/A
Month 8
0.000
0.003
Month 14
N/A
Month 20
0.072
0.002
Month 3
N/A
Month 9
N/A
Month 15
N/A
Month 21
N/A
Month 4
N/A
Month 10
N/A
Month 16
N/A
Month 22
N/A
Month 5
N/A
Month 11
N/A
Month 17
N/A
Month 23
N/A
Month 6
0.081
0.072
Month 12
N/A
Month 18
0.046
0.055
Month 24
N/A
     •   Add up all results in year 1  (Month 1  through Month 12) =
         (0.081 +0.072+0.0354 0.0()2+().()0()+0.003) - 0.193 oocysts/L

     •   Add up all results in year 2 (Month 13 through Month 24) =
         (0.046+0.055+0.002 I 0.005 1 0.072 f 0.002) = 0.182 oocysts/L

     •   Divide sum by total number of results in year 1 = 0.093/6

     •   Result is arithmetic mean - 0.032 oocysts/L

   Bin classification is based on year 1 because it has the highest average of all sample concentration
   during any  12-month period.

   This system would be classified in Bin 1, since its Cn'ptosporidium level is less than 0.075
   oocysts/L.
Although PWSs are responsible for monitoring and calculating their own bin classification, states should
plan on reminding PWSs of the requirements and verifying the calculated bin classifications.

3.4.2  Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements and Compliance Dates

Unfiltered systems will use their average Crvplosporidium concentration from source water monitoring to
determine their bin assignments and additional Ciyptosporidium treatment requirements. Unfiltered
GWUDI  systems can fall into one of two categories:

       •      Systems that receive filtration  credit for filtration through the soil are treated as filtered
               systems.

       •      Systems that do not receive credit for filtration, but meet filtration avoidance, are treated
               as unfiltered systems.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
69
August 2007
-------
Table 3-3 shows the treatment requirements for filtered systems according to existing treatment processes.
Table 3-4 shows the treatment requirements for unfiltered systems.

         Table 3-3. Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements for Filtered Systems
If the source water
Cryptosporidium
concentration in oocyst/L
is...
< 0.075 	 Bin 1
> 0.0075 and < 1.0.. ..Bin 2
> 1 0 and < 3 0 Bin 3
>3.0 	 Bin 4

And the system uses the following filtration treatment in full compliance with
SWTR, IESWTR, and LT1ESWTR (as applicable), then the additional
treatment requirements are...
Conventional
filtration treatment
(including softening)
None
1.0-log treatment...
2.0- log treatment. . .
2.5-log treatment. . .
Direct filtration
None
1.5-log treatment...
2.5-log treatment...
3.0-log treatment...
Slow sand or
diatomaceous
earth filtration
None
1.0-log treatment...
2.0-log treatment...
2.5-log treatment...
Alternative
filtration
technologies
None
(D
(2)
(3)
1. As determined by the state
2. As determined by the state
3. As determined by the state
such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and
such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and
such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and
inactivation is at least 4.0-log.
inactivation is at least 5.0-log.
inactivation is at least 5.5-log.
        Table 3-4. Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements for Unfiltered Systems
If the source water
Cryptosporidium concentration in
oocyst/L is...
<0.01
>0.01
Cryptosporidium inactivation with
either chlorine dioxide, ozone, or
UV
2.0-log inactivation
3.0-log inactivation
Filtered systems can use at least one of the treatment and management techniques in the "microbial
toolbox" (described in section 3.8). Those in Bins 3 and 4 must achieve at least 1.0-log credit towards
additional treatment using at least one of the following: bag filters, bank filtration, cartridge filters,
chlorine dioxide, membranes, ozone, or UV.

Unfiltered systems are required to use at least two different disinfectants to meet their overall inactivation
requirements for viruses (4.0-log), Giardia lamblia (3.0-log), and Cryptosporidium (2.0 or 3.0-log). Each
of the disinfectants must separately achieve the total inactivation required for at least one of the three
pathogen types. The disinfection processes provided by unfiltered systems must collectively meet all 3
inactivation requirements (i.e., for viruses, Giardia and Cryptosporidium). For example, a system may
use chloramines to meet virus inactivation requirements and UV to meet Cryptosporidium inactivation
requirements; the system can meet Giardia inactivation requirements using UV or chloramines separately.

Compliance Dates

Filtered and unfiltered systems must achieve the additional treatment by the following dates:

        •      Systems serving 100,000 people or more, no later than April 1, 2012.
        •      Systems serving 50,000 to 99,999 people, no later than October 1, 2012.
        •      Systems serving 10,000 to 49,999 people, no later than October 1, 2013.
        •      Small systems fewer than 10,000 people, no later than October 1, 2014.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                       70
                     August 2007
-------
 Wholesale systems must follow the schedule based on the population of the largest system in their
 combined distribution system. For systems making capital improvements, states may grant up to 2
 additional years to comply.

 3.4.3   Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking

 Disinfection profiling is conducted over a 12-month period and must be completed if a system plans to
 make a significant change to its disinfection practice. Previously collected data (i.e., disinfection profiles
 prepared to satisfy the requirements of the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR) may be used by systems that have
 not made significant changes  in disinfection practices nor changed sources since the data were collected.
 Significant changes are defined as:
        1.
Moving the point of disinfection (does not include routine seasonal changes approved by
the state);
        2.      Changing the type of disinfectant;

        3.      Changing the disinfectant process; or

        4.      Making other modifications designated as significant by the state.

Systems that developed Giardia disinfection profiles, but not virus disinfection profiles, under the
IESWTR or LT1 ESWTR may calculate virus profiles from the same operational data used to develop the
Giardia profiles.

Under the IESWTR and LT1 ESWTR, disinfection profiles and benchmarks arc required to be kept on file
for the state to review during the sanitary survey. In addition, any systems required to develop a
disinfection profile for Giardia and viruses that plan to make significant changes in disinfection practice
arc required to calculate a benchmark and submit to the state for review: an evaluation of the disinfection
profile; and an analysis of how the proposed change will affect the current benchmark.

EPA developed the Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manuals for the IESWTR and
LT1 ESWTR. These manuals provide instruction to systems and states on the development of disinfection
profiles, identification and evaluation of significant changes in disinfection practices, and considerations
for setting an alternative benchmark.

3.4.4    Uncovered Finished Water Reservoir Requirements

Systems with uncovered finished reservoirs must cover the reservoir or treat reservoir discharge to 4.0-log
virus, 3.0-log Giardia, and 2.0-log Cryptosporidium  inactivation and/or removal by April 1, 2009, or be
in compliance with a state-approved alternative schedule.
L T2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               11                                     A ugust 200 7
-------
3.4.5   Methods of Communication

3.4.5.1   Written Notification

Providing written notice of a final rule for PWSs serves two purposes: 1) the receiving system obtains a
formal notice of upcoming regulatory requirements and a timeline for compliance (in addition to EPA"s
publication of the Rule in the Federal Register); and 2) the primacy agency has a hard-copy document
that it may file and use in subsequent compliance tracking efforts.

Written notification can be in the form of a letter from the state to affected systems. The letter should
include a summary of rule requirements and timeframes and direct the reader to an appropriate contact if
questions arise. States should consider including fact sheets or other summary materials with the letter.
Appendix C of this guidance includes additional publications that are intended to be distributed to water
systems through mailings, training sessions, or other educational forums. These publications are also
available at www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2. They provide overviews of the LT2ESWTR to help
systems understand the provisions of the Rule and determine which provisions apply to their system.
They also describe the benefits and general implications of the Rule. Although valuable, these resources
do not substitute for official rule language. States should consider mailing official rule language with the
letter or including in the letter the Web site address where the regulatory language can be accessed. States
should also consider posting these materials on their Web sites for easy access.

A sample letter notifying systems of their schedule number and LT2ESWTR requirements is provided in
Example 3-1. States may wish to develop similar letters and tailor the messages for the appropriate size
categories covered by the Rule, or to accommodate those systems for which the provisions arc cither
limited or unique.

In addition to notifying systems of their requirements,  states may also want to consider providing written
notice to a system on the status of their LT2ESWTR submitted compliance documents. Templates for
these letters can be found in Appendix E. Written notification should include:

        •       Summary of the issue.
        •       Appropriate contact if questions arise.
        •       Fact sheet or other summary materials (optional).
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                72                                     August 2007
-------
              Example 3-2. Sample Letter Notifying Systems of Schedule Number
                                             State Letterhead
System Name                                                                            October 15, 2006
System Address
City State Zip

                             * * *  Important New Rule Roll Out * * *
            Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) - Schedule 3

The LT2ESWTR was published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2006. The goal of the new LT2ESWTR is to
reduce the risk of disease caused by Cryptosporidium and other microorganisms by identifying the systems at the
greatest risk for source water contamination. EPA finalized both the LT2ESWTR and the Stage 2 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR) at the same time. Together, these rules will improve protection
against microbial contamination while reducing risks from disinfection byproducts. Please be sure to also read the
enclosed  information regarding the Stage 2 DBPR.

Under the LT2ESWTR, filtered systems will need to collect source water Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity
samples once per month from every surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water
(GWUDI) source for a period of 24 months. However, if you already have monitoring data for these contaminants,
you may  be able to "grandfather" the data. The LT2ESWTR will also allow you to grandfather just Cryptosporidium
data without the associated E. coli and turbidity data.

Unfiltered systems will need to collect source water Crvptosporidium samples at least once per month for 24 months.
However, if you already have monitoring data for Crvptosporidium, you may be able to "grandfather" the data.

Instead of conducting source water monitoring or submitting grandfathered data,  systems may choose to provide the
maximum treatment  required by the LT2ESWTR. Download the LT2ESWTR from EPA's website at
\vwvv.epa.gov7safcvvatci7disinfeciioii/li2.'rejj;ulali(
-------
  Enclosed is a Quick Reference Guide that provides information on the requirements of the LT2ESWTR. In
  addition, EPA has developed a number of guidance documents and factsheets to help systems through this
  process that may be found at www.epa.gov/safevvater/disinfection/lt2/compliance.html.

  LT2ESWTR Guidance Material

      •    Source Water Monitoring Guidance Manual for Public Water Systems for the Long-Term 2
          Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (EPA 815-R-06-005) - Provides surface water systems,
          laboratories, states, and Tribes with a review of the source water monitoring provisions. This guidance
          manual provides direction to the systems regarding how, where, and when to monitor, how to report the
          data, how to submit "grandfathered" data (e.g., previously collected data), and how evaluate data and
          determine risk bin classification for filtered systems and treatment requirements for unfiltered systems.

      •    LT2ESWTR Factsheets - EPA has developed several factsheets that summarize information on
          various topics pertaining to the  LT2ESWTR. The factsheets are:
          •   Factsheet: Source Water Monitoring for the LT2ESWTR: Systems Serving At Least 10,000 People
          •   Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule: Data Collection and Tracking System
          •   Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule: Lab Fact Sheet

  Other LT2ESWTR Guidance Materials

  For additional guidance on implementing the LT2ESWTR, you can refer to the following EPA materials located
  at: www.epa.gov./safewater disint'ection/lt2/compliance.html.

      •    On-line Sample Collection Module (wvvw.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/training/index.html).

  Your state  may have state-specific materials to assist you in complying with the LT2ESWTR.

  How to get copies of EPA guidance materials	

  To obtain copies of the materials listed above you can:

      •    Download materials at www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2/compliance.html.
      •    Call the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1 -800-426-4791.
      •    Call the National Service Center for Environmental Publications at 1-800-490-9198  or visit their Web
          site at www.epa.gov/'ncepihom.

  To determine if your state drinking water agency or EPA is implementing the LT2ESWTR you may contact the
  Safe Drinking Water Hotline, or visit the LT2ESWTR website at
  www.epa.Kov/safewater/disinfection/lt2/compliance.html.

  Training Opportunities	

  EPA will present webcasts on the LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR and Compliance Assistance Tools for Water
  Systems.

  These webcasts will be open to system operators and regulators. Registration information maybe found on the
  Drinking Water Academy website at www.epa.gov/QGWDW/dwa/calendar.html.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                74                                        August 2007
-------
3.4.5.2   Slide Presentation

Slide presentations of the LT2ESWTR may be used by state staff, technical assistance, or other training
providers to present the background of the Rule, rule requirements, and its benefits.

EPA developed a "Train the Trainer" program, Webcasts, and in-person training sessions to assist with
implementation of the LT2ESWTR. States should coordinate with technical assistance providers for any
training sessions. Materials used for the training sessions are available on EPA's Web site at
www.epa.gov/safewatcr/disinfcction/training.htm].

The EPA Drinking Water Academy compiles PowerPoint training sessions on the LT2ESWTR. Copies of
the presentations may be used to train other state personnel and technical assistance resources, water
system personnel, and the public. EPA's Drinking Water Academy slides are available electronically on
EPA's Web Site at www.cpa.gov/safcwatcr/dwa.html.

3.4.5.3   Guidance Documents and Seminars

Technical guidance documents developed for the LT2ESWTR are useful for conveying rule requirements
and specific aspects of rule implementation to state staff and system staff and operators. These aspects
include source water monitoring and selecting and implementing options from the microbial toolbox. The
guidance documents can be used as stand-alone references or as supporting materials in LT2ESWTR-
spccific training events. Sec section 2  of this manual for more information on these references. Links to
these documents can be provided on state Web sites.
3.5   Update Data Management Systems	

Although state data management systems vary to suit state-specific requirements and needs, EPA
recommends that all states update their data systems in light of the LT2ESWTR to enable efficient
tracking of affected systems, compliance status, and other information useful in implementing this rule.

As required under § 142.14, records to be kept by states under the LT2ESWTR include the following:

        •      Results of source water Cryptosporidium and E. co/i monitoring.

        •      Cryptosporidium bin classification for each filtered system, including any changes to
               initial bin classification based on the watershed assessment conducted during the sanitary
               survey or the second round of monitoring.

        •      For each unfiltered system, the determination of whether the mean source water
               Cryptosporidium level is above 0.01 oocysts/L and whether that determination changes
               with the second round of monitoring.

        •      The treatment processes or control measures that each system employs to meet
               LT2ESWTR requirements.

        •      A list of systems required to cover or treat the discharge of an uncovered finished water
               reservoir.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                75                                     August 2007
-------
While many of these records may be maintained through hard-copy files, it may be helpful to have data
systems that easily identify systems for which these records exist.

Because source water monitoring by large systems will begin 9 months following promulgation of the
LT2ESWTR, EPA expects to act as the primacy agency with oversight responsibility for large system
sampling, analysis, and data reporting. To facilitate collection and analysis of large system monitoring
data, EPA is developing an internet-based electronic data collection and tracking system. This approach is
similar to that used under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR). Analytical results for
Cryplosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity will be reported directly to this database using web forms and
software that can be downloaded free of charge. EPA will make large system monitoring data available to
states when states assume primacy for the LT2ESWTR, or earlier under a state agreement with EPA.
3.6  Ensure that Ongoing Watershed Assessment is Conducted and Adjust
     Treatment Requirements	

Because treatment requirements are related to the degree of source water contamination, the LT2ESWTR
contains provisions to assess changes in a system's source water quality following initial bin
classification. After completion of the initial round of Cryptosporidium monitoring, EPA requires that
states conduct a follow-up source water assessment as part of the ongoing sanitary survey process. During
the sanitary survey, the state must determine whether significant changes have occurred in the watershed
that could lead to increased contamination of the source water and what appropriate follow-up action is
needed.

Developing a plan to assess the watershed and determine appropriate follow-up action is a special
primacy condition of the LT2ESWTR (sec section 4.4.1 for guidance to address this special primacy
condition).
3.7  Award Cryptosporidium Removal Credit for Primary Treatments in Place

Under IESWTR and LT1ESWTR, conventional treatment systems and slow sand or diatomaceous earth
filtration systems received 2.0-log Cryptosporidium removal credit. As stated in the preamble to
LT2ESWTR, EPA estimated (based on the review of numerous studies) that these systems that arc
incompliance with IESWTR and LT IESWTR are capable of achieving 3.0-log removal; therefore, EPA
recommends a 3.0-log removal credit be awarded. Additionally, EPA recommends that direct filtration
plants (that lack a sedimentation basin) be awarded 2.5-log removal credits. It is the states' discretion to
determine how to address these changes in their regulations.  EPA is unable to recommend an average log
removal credit for alternative filtration technologies like membranes, bag filters, and cartridge filters due
to variability among products. As a result, credit for these devices must be determined by the state.

EPA's Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual provides guidance for conducting and evaluating
challenge tests, as well as routine integrity testing and monitoring requirements to ensure the necessary
level of treatment is maintained. Most membrane processes will likely achieve 5.5-log Cryplosporidium
removal that allows systems to avoid source water monitoring requirements.

EPA's LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual provides guidance for challenge testing bag and cartridge
filters. Note that the guidance is directed towards testing of bag and cartridge filters that follow primary
filtration and provide an additional 2.0-log and 2.5-log credit. While most of the guidance is still
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               76                                    August 2007
-------
applicable to primary treatment, states should evaluate all aspects of the bag or cartridge filter process
with respect to actual source water quality.

As described in §141.718, a state may award greater credit to a system that demonstrates through a state-
approved protocol that it reliably achieves a higher level of Cryptosporidium removal. Conversely, a state
may award less credit to a system where the state determines, based on site-specific information, that the
system is not achieving the degree of Cryptosporidium removal indicated in Table 3-5.

        Table 3-5. Suggested Cryptosporidium Removal Credit Towards LT2ESWTR
                   Requirements for Well-Run Water Treatment Plants1
Plant type
Treatment
credit
Conventional
treatment (includes
softening plants)
3.0-log
Direct filtration
2.5-log
Slow sand or
diatomaceous earth
filtration
3.0-log
Alternative
filtration
technologies
Determined by state
1. Applies to plants in full compliance with the SWTR, IESWTR, and LT1ESWTR as applicable


3.8  Award Cryptosporidium Removal Credit for Implementation of Options from
     the Microbial Toolbox

In order to achieve the Cryptosporidium removal requirements of the bin categories, systems must
supplement the removal credit they receive for primary TTs by implementing options from the microbial
toolbox. Each toolbox option is associated with a certain log removal or inactivation credit. Table 3-6
summarizes presumptive credits and associated design and implementation criteria for microbial toolbox
components.

           Table 3-6. Microbial Toolbox: Options, Log Credits, and Summary of
                             Design/Implementation Criteria
Toolbox Option
Cryptosporidium log credit with design and implementation criteria
Source Toolbox Components
Watershed control program
Alternative source/intake
management
0.5-log credit for state-approved program including EPA-specified elements.
(Section 3. 8.1)
No presumptive credit. Systems may conduct simultaneous monitoring for
LT2ESWTR bin classification at alternative intake locations or under
alternative intake management strategies. (Section 3.8.2)
Pre-filtration Toolbox Components
Pre-sedimentation basin with
coagulation
0.5-log credit with continuous operation and coagulant addition; basins must
achieve a monthly mean reduction of 0.5-log or greater in turbidity or
alternative state-approved performance criteria; all flow must pass through
the basins. (Section 3.8.3)
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
77
August 2007
-------
Toolbox Option
Two-stage lime softening
Bank filtration
(as pretreatment)
Cryptosporidium log credit with design and implementation criteria
0.5-log additional credit for two-stage softening (single-stage softening is
credited as equivalent to conventional treatment). Chemical addition and
hardness precipitation must occur in both stages, and both stages must treat
100% of the flow. (Section 3.8.4)
0.5-log credit for 25 ft. setback; 1.0-log credit for 50 ft. setback; aquifer
must contain granular material and in at least 90 percent of the length of a
core, grains less than 1.0 mm in diameter constitute 10 percent of the
material; average turbidity must be less than 1 NTU; no presumptive credit
for bank filtration that serves as pretreatment when source water monitoring
is performed from the well (after bank filtration). (Section 3.8.5)
Treatment Performance Toolbox Components
Combined filter performance
Individual filter performance
Demonstration of performance
0.5-log credit for CFE turbidity < 0. 1 5 NTU in 95 percent of samples each
month. (Section 3.8.6)
0.5-log credit (in addition to 0.5-log combined filter performance credit) if
IFE turbidity is < 0. 1 5 NTU in at least 95 percent of samples each month in
each filter and is never greater than 0.3 NTU in two consecutive
measurements in any filter. (Section 3.8.7)
Credit awarded to unit process or treatment train based on demonstration to
the state, through use of a state-approved protocol. (Section 3.8.8)
Additional Filtration Toolbox Components
Bag filters
Cartridge filters
Membranes (micro filtration.
ultrafiltration, nanofiltration,
reverse osmosis)
Second stage filtration
Slow sand filters
Up to 2.0-log credit based on the removal efficiency demonstrated during
challenge testing with a 1 .0-log factor of safety (for individual bag filters);
up to a 2.5-log credit based on the removal efficiency demonstrated during
challenge testing with a 0.5-log factor of safety (for bag filters in series).
(Section 3.8.9)
Up to 2.0-log credit based on the removal efficiency demonstrated during
challenge testing with a 1 .0-log factor of safety (for individual cartridges) ;
up to a 2.5-log credit based on the removal efficiency demonstrated during
challenge testing with a 0.5-log factor of safety (for cartridges in series).
(Section 3.8.9)
Log credit equivalent to removal efficiency demonstrated in challenge test
for device if supported by direct integrity testing. (Section 3.8.10)
0.5-log credit for second separate granular media filtration stage; treatment
train must include coagulation prior to first filter. (Section 3.8.1 1)
2.5-log credit as a secondary filtration step; 3. 0-log credit as a primary
filtration process. No prior chlorination for either option. (Section 3.8. 12)
Inactivation Toolbox Components
Chlorine dioxide
Ozone
UV
Log credit based on measured CT in relation to CT table. (Section 3.8.13)
Log credit based on measured CT in relation to CT table. (Section 3.8.14)
Log credit based on validated UV dose in relation to UV dose table; reactor
validation testing required to establish UV dose and associated operating
conditions. (Section 3.8.15)
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
78
August 2007
-------
 Each component is described in more detail in the LT2ESWTR language. EPA developed the following
 guidance manuals to assist systems with implementing toolbox components: UVDisinfection Guidance
 Manual, Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual, and LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual.

 States award credit for toolbox options that are satisfactorily implemented. States should be prepared to
 assist systems in understanding the requirements associated with each toolbox option and selecting
 appropriate toolbox options. For most options, systems must monitor and/or report operating data to the
 state, on a monthly basis, verifying proper treatment was achieved. Sections 3.8.1 to 3.8.15 briefly
 describe each option and the associated requirements.

 3.8.1   Watershed Control Program  |40 CFR 141.716(a)]

 Watershed control programs arc intended to reduce source water Cryptosporidium levels. A system's
 watershed control program must be approved by the state. Only filtered systems are eligible for watershed
 control program credits since unfiltcrcd systems are already required to maintain a watershed control
 program that minimizes the potential for contamination by Cryptosporidium as a criterion to avoid
 filtration.

 States will base their approval of a system's watershed control program on their review of the system's
 proposed watershed control plan and supporting documentation. States may revoke Cryptosporidium
 treatment credit for a watershed control program at any point if the state determines that a PWS is not
 implementing the approved watershed control plan.

 3.8.1.1   What are the Requirements for State Approval of Watershed Control Programs?

 States must receive notification from systems that intend to pursue a 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment
 credit for a watershed control program no later than 2 years before the applicable treatment compliance
 date. Notification includes the system proposing to develop a watershed control plan and submitting it for
 state approval.

 States should ensure that systems' applications for initial program approval include the following
 minimum elements:

        •       Identification of an "area of influence,"  outside of which Cryptosporidium or fecal
               contamination arc significantly less likely to affect the treatment plant intake.

        •       Identification of sources of Cryptosporidium contamination and an assessment of the
               impact of these sources on the system's  source water quality.

        •       An analysis of control measures that could address the identified potential and actual
               sources of Cryptosporidium contamination.

        •       A plan that specifics goals and defines and prioritizes specific actions to reduce source
               water Crvplosporidiitm levels.

 States must receive systems' proposed watershed control plan, a request for program approval, and a
request for 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit no  later than 1 year before the system's applicable
treatment compliance date.

States will review the system's initial proposed watershed control plan and either approve or reject the
plan. If the state approves the plan, the system will be awarded 0.5-log credit towards LT2ESWTR

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               79                                     August 2007
-------
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements. If the state rejects the plan, the state may work with the system
to resolve the issues. If the state fails to respond to a system and the system meets all the requirements.
the watershed control plan will be considered approved and 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit will
be awarded. The state may subsequently withdraw this approval.

3.8.1.2   What are the System's Requirements for Maintaining State Approval of Watershed
         Control Programs?

After the state has approved a system's watershed control program, the state should receive the following
information from the system to continue to be eligible for the 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit:

        •      An annual watershed control program status report.

        •      A state-approved watershed sanitary survey report every 3 years for CWSs and every 5
               years for NCWSs.

The annual watershed control program status report must describe the system's implementation of the
approved plan and  assess whether the plan achieved its goals. It must explain how the system is
addressing any shortcomings in plan implementation, including any previously identified by the state or
identified during the watershed sanitary survey. In addition, the plan must describe any significant
changes that have occurred in the watershed since the last watershed sanitary survey. If the system
determines  changes to the watershed control program arc necessary, the system must notify the state  in
advance of any changes and list any actions that may reduce the level of source water protection. Actions
to mitigate any reductions in source water protection must also be identified.

The watershed sanitary survey must be conducted every 3 year for CWSs and every 5 years for NCWSs
according to state guidelines and by persons approved by the  state to conduct watershed surveys. The
survey must encompass the area of the watershed that was identified in the state-approved watershed
control plan as the  area of influence and, at a minimum, assess the implementation of actions to reduce
Cryptosporidium levels and identify any significant new sources of Cryptosporidium.

The annual status reports, watershed control plan, and annual watershed sanitary surveys must be made
available to the public upon request. These documents must be in a plain language format and include
criteria for evaluating the success of the program in achieving plan goals. The state may withhold portions
of the annual status report, watershed control plan, and watershed sanitary  survey from the public based
on security considerations.

3.8.1.3   What Resources are Available to Systems and  States?

Source water assessments conducted by states under section 1453 of the SDWA can provide a foundation
for assessing the vulnerability of a watershed by providing  the preliminary analyses of watershed
hydrology,  a starting point for defining the area of influence,  and an inventory and hierarchy of actual and
potential contamination sources.

EPA developed the LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual to assist water  systems in developing their
watershed control programs and states in their assessment and approval of these programs. The guidance
addresses contamination by Cryptosporidium and other pathogens from both non-point sources (e.g.,
agricultural  and urban runoff, septic tanks) and point sources  (e.g., sewer overflows, publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs), and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)). In addition, the
guidance manual incorporates available information on the effectiveness of different control measures to
reduce Cryptosporidium levels and provides case studies of watershed control programs. The manual also

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                80                                     August 2007
-------
includes resources available to assist systems in building partnerships and implementing watershed
protection activities.

3.8.2   Alternative Source |40 CFR 141.716(b)]

Plants may be able to reduce influent Ciyptosporidium levels by changing the intake placement (either
within the same source or to an alternate source) or by managing the timing or level of withdrawal.
Because the effect of changing the location or operation of a plant intake on influent Cryptosporidium
levels will be site-specific, states may  not grant presumptive credit for this option. Rather, if a system is
concerned that Cryptosporidium levels associated with the current plant intake location and/or operation
will result in a bin assignment requiring additional treatment under the LT2ESWTR, the system may
conduct concurrent Cryptosporidium monitoring reflecting a different intake location or different intake
management strategy.

States should ensure that systems' concurrent monitoring conforms to the sample frequency, sample
volume, analytical method, and other requirements that apply to the system for Cryptosporidium
monitoring. The system must monitor its current plant intake in addition to any alternative intake  location
or withdrawal strategy, and must submit sampling plans for both strategies to the state 3 months prior to
the start of sampling. In addition to all monitoring results, states should also receive supporting
information from the system documenting the conditions under which the alternative intake
location/management samples were collected. The state will then make a determination as to whether the
plant may be assigned to an LT2ESWTR bin using alternative intake location/management monitoring
results.

If a plant's bin assignment is based on a new intake operation strategy,  it is important for the plant to
continue to use this new strategy in routine operation. Therefore, the state must receive  documentation
from the system on its new intake operation strategy along with additional monitoring results.

3.8.3   Pre-sedimentation with Coagulant |40 CFR 141.717(a)]

States may grant 0.5-log Cryptosporidium  treatment credit to a system with a prescdimentation process
that achieves at least 0.5-log influent turbidity reduction [logm (monthly mean of daily influent turbidity)
- logm (monthly mean of daily effluent turbidity)]. The system may also comply with state-approved
performance criteria that demonstrate at least 0.5-log mean removal or micron-sized particulate material.
In addition, the presedimentation process must comply with the following on a monthly basis: (1)
continuous operation while the treatment plant is in use; (2) treat 100 percent of the plant flow; and (3)
continuous addition of a coagulant. To be eligible for credit, PWSs must report compliance with these
conditions to the state each month.

Alternatively,  states may grant the 0.5-log  Cryptosporidium treatment credit for presedimentation
processes based on a demonstration of performance. Demonstration of performance provides an option
for PWSs with prescdimentation processes that do not meet the conditions for treatment credit previously
discussed and  for PWSs that wish to receive more than 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit for their
prescdimentation  processes. Demonstration of performance criteria are described in section 3.8.8.

3.8.4   Two-stage Lime Softening [40 CFR 141.717(b)]

States may grant 0.5-log credit to systems with two-stage lime softening plants. Lime softening is a
process  in which chemical addition and hardness precipitation  occur in a clarifier prior to a filtration
process. Lime  softening can be categorized into two  general types: (1) single-stage softening that includes
a primary clarifier and filtration process; and (2) two-stage softening, which has a secondary clarifier after

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                81                                     August 2007
-------
the primary clarifier prior to the filtration process. Single-stage softening plants are not eligible for the
0.5-log credit. To grant the 0.5-log credit, the state must ensure that the plant has a second clarification
stage between the primary clarifier and filtration process that is operated continuously and that both
clarification stages treat 100 percent of the plant flow. Chemical addition and hardness precipitation must
occur in both clarifiers.

3.8.5  Bank Filtration [40 CFR 141.717(c)]

In order for a state to grant a system Cryptosporidium treatment credit, its wells must be drilled in an
unconsolidated, predominantly sandy aquifer.  Wells with a ground water flow path of at least 25 feet will
receive 0.5-log credit and at least 50 feet will receive 1.0-log credit. Only horizontal and vertical wells are
eligible for this credit. Springs and infiltration galleries are not eligible for treatment credit for bank
filtration.

The ground water flow path for vertical wells is the distance from the edge of the surface water body
under high flow conditions (determined by the 100 year floodplain elevation boundary as defined in
FEMA flood hazard maps) to the well screen.  The ground water flow path for horizontal wells is the
distance from the river bed under normal flow conditions to the closest horizontal well lateral screen.

Systems must characterize the aquifer by collecting core samples. Core samples should be collected from
the surface to at least the bottom of the well screen. From grain analyses, at least 90 percent of the core
length, the recovered core  material must contain at least 10 percent fine-grained material (grains less than
1.0 mm diameter).

Bank filtration devices must be monitored for  turbidity at least once every 4 hours at the wellhead. The
state must receive notification if a system's monthly average exceeds 1 NTU using the daily maximum
turbidity values. The state  must determine whether previously allowed credit is still appropriate based on
the system's assessment identifying the cause  of the high turbidity levels in the well.

States may also approve Cryplosporidium treatment credit for bank filtration based on a demonstration of
performance study. The study must meet the following criteria:

        •       It must follow a state-approved protocol.

        •       It must involve the collection  of data on the removal of Cryptosporidium (or a surrogate
               for Cryplosporidium) and related hydrogeologic and water quality parameters during the
               full range  of operating conditions.

        •       It must include sampling from both the production well and monitoring wells that are
               screened and located along the shortest flow path between the surface water source and
               production wells.

3.8.6  Combined Filter  Performance |40 CFR  141.718(a)]

States may grant additional Cryplosporidium treatment credit to certain plants (e.g., conventional or direct
filtration processes) that maintain finished water turbidity at levels significantly lower than previously
required (e.g., 0.3 NTU). Conventional and direct filtration plants may receive  an additional 0.5-log
towards Cryptosporidium treatment requirements if the CFE is less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least
95 percent of the measurements taken each month for compliance with the SWTR and IESWTR or
LT1ESWTR. Compliance  with this criterion must be based on turbidity measurements of the CFE every 4
hours (or more frequently) while the plant system serves water to the public. States may not grant this

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                82                                     August 2007
-------
credit to systems with membrane, bag/cartridge, slow sand, or diatomaceous earth plants, due to the lack
of documented correlation between effluent turbidity and Cryptosporidium removal in these processes.

3.8.7   Individual Filter Performance |40 CFR 141.718(b)]

States may grant systems with conventional or direct filtration processes 0.5-log Cryptosporidium
treatment credit (in addition to credit for combined filter performance) if turbidity measurements collected
for IESWTR or LT1ESWTR compliance meet the following turbidity criteria: (1) filtered water turbidity
less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of the 15-minute values recorded at each filter in
each month; and (2) no individual filter has a measured turbidity level greater than 0.3 NTU in two
consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart.

3.8.8   Demonstration of Performance |40 CFR 141.718(c)]

The state may award treatment credits other than the prescribed treatment credit based on a demonstration
of performance study that meets the following criteria:

        •      The study must follow a state-approved protocol.

        •      The study must demonstrate the level of Cryptosporidium reduction the treatment process
               will achieve under the full  range of expected operating conditions for the system.

Where a system can demonstrate that a plant, or a unit process within a plant, achieves a Cryptosporidium
removal (or inactivation) efficiency greater than the presumptive credit specified in the LT2ESWTR, it
may be appropriate for the state  to grant the system a higher Cryplosporidium treatment credit. States may
award a higher level of Cryptosporidium treatment credit to a system where the state determines, based on
site-specific testing with a state-approved protocol, that a treatment plant (or a unit process within a plant)
reliably achieves a higher level of Cryptosporidium removal on a continuing basis.

Alternatively,  states may award a lower level  of Cryplosporidium treatment credit to a system where a
state determines, based on site-specific information, that a plant (or a unit process within a plant) achieves
a Cryptosporidium removal efficiency less than a presumptive credit specified in the LT2ESWTR.

State approval must be in writing. The state may require systems to report operational data on an ongoing
basis (e.g.,  monthly or quarterly) to establish that the conditions  under which demonstration of
performance credit was awarded are maintained during routine operation. EPA's LT2ESWTR Toolbox
Guidance Manual describes potential approaches to demonstration of performance testing.

Note that plants receiving Cryplosporidium treatment credit through a demonstration of performance are
not eligible for the presumptive credit associated with some microbial toolbox components. For example,
if a conventional filtration plant receives a demonstration of performance credit of 4.0-log for
Cryptosporidium removal, the plant may not receive additional presumptive credit for the CFE toolbox
option.

3.8.9    Bag and Cartridge Filtration |40 CFR 141.719(a)]

States can grant systems using bag and cartridge filters for secondary filtration (i.e., they have a primary
filtration process that meets the SWTR, IESWTR, or LTIESWTR finished  water turbidity requirements)
up to 2.0-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit for individual filters and up to 2.5-log Cryptosporidium
treatment credit for filters operated in series. To be eligible for removal credit, the filtration process must
be a pressure-driven separation process that removes paniculate matter larger than 1 urn using an

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                83                                     August 2007
-------
engineered porous filtration media through either surface or depth filtration. Removal efficiency must be
demonstrated through a challenge test with an applied safety factor conducted on a full-scale bag or
cartridge filter.

Challenge testing involves evaluating each bag or cartridge filter for its removal efficiency of
Cryptosporidium oocysts (or a surrogate that is removed no more efficiently than Cryptosporidium
oocysts). Challenge testing is not required to be site-specific; rather, it is intended to be product-specific.
Due to the variability in performance, the LT2ESWTR requires a safety factor of 1.0-log for individual
bag or cartridge filters and 0.5-log for bag or cartridge filters in series. States may use their discretion in
considering data from challenge studies conducted prior to promulgation of this regulation in lieu of
additional testing. Requirements and guidance for conducting challenge studies on bag and cartridge
filters are presented in the LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual.

3.8.10  Membrane Filtration [40 CFR 141.719(b)]

To grant removal credit to systems using membrane filtration, states must ensure that the membrane
technology is a pressure-  or vacuum-driven separation process in which particulate matter larger than
1 um is rejected by an engineered barrier, primarily through a size exclusion mechanism. The membrane
technology must also allow for routine direct integrity testing while in operation that verifies the removal
efficiency demonstrated through challenge testing is being achieved. The definition of membrane
filtration includes the common membrane technologies of microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration,
and reverse osmosis.

Criteria for determining the level of treatment credit for membrane filtration include:

        •      Challenge test—a test of the membrane's  ability to remove introduced Cryptosporidium
               oocysts or surrogates in simulation of operational conditions.  Challenge testing is
               required for specific products and is not intended to be site-specific.

        •      Direct integrity test—a physical test applied to the membrane unit in order to identify and
               isolate integrity breeches. Direct integrity testing includes routine testing of each
               membrane unit that demonstrates removal efficiency equal to or greater than that awarded
               from the  challenge test. Systems must conduct testing at least once per day while in
               operation (unless the state approves a lesser frequency) and submit a monthly report to
               the state summarizing all direct integrity test results above the control limit associated
               with the Cryptosporidium removal credit and the corrective action that was taken in each
               case.

        •      Indirect integrity monitoring—monitoring an aspect of filtered water quality that indicates
               how much particulate matter is removed (e.g., turbidity monitoring, particle monitoring).
               Indirect integrity monitoring includes continuously monitoring each membrane unit.
               Since direct integrity testing is continuous, systems are not subject to integrity testing
               requirements.

The removal efficiency demonstrated during challenge testing establishes the maximum removal credit
that a membrane filtration process is eligible to receive, provided this value is less than or equal to the
maximum log removal value that can be verified by the direct integrity test. The system may use data
from challenge studies conducted prior to promulgation of the LT2ESWTR in lieu of additional testing if
the data meet the criteria in the Rule.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               84                                      August 2007
-------
Additional requirements and guidance for conducting the three tests to comply with the LT2ESWTR is
provided in EPA's Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual.

3.8.11  Second Stage Filtration |40 CFR 141.719(c)]

States can grant systems using a second filtration stage an additional 0.5-log Cryptosporidium removal
credit if the secondary filtration consists of rapid sand, dual media, GAC, or other fine grain media in a
separate stage following rapid sand or dual media filtration. A cap, such as GAC, on a single stage of
filtration will not qualify for this credit. The first stage of filtration must be preceded by a coagulation
step, and both stages must treat 100 percent of the flow.

3.8.12  Slow Sand Filters [40 CFR  141.719(d)]

States can grant systems using slow sand filtration as a secondary filtration step following a primary
filtration process (e.g., conventional treatment or direct filtration) an additional 2.5-log Cryptosporidium
treatment credit. There must be no disinfectant residual in the influent water to the slow sand filtration
process, and all flow must be treated by both filtration processes to receive credit. Note that this credit
differs from the credit for slow sand filtration as a primary filtration process, where states can grant plants
a Cryptosporidium removal credit of 3.0-log  for the LT2ESWTR.

While the removal mechanisms that make slow sand filtration effective as a primary filtration process
would also be operative when used as a secondary filtration step, EPA has little data on this specific
application. The 2.5-log credit for slow sand  filtration as a secondary filtration step, in comparison to 3.0-
log credit as a primary filtration process, is a  conservative measure reflecting greater uncertainty in its
effectiveness.  In addition, the 2.5-log credit for slow sand  filtration as part of the  microbial toolbox is
consistent with recommendations in the Stage 2  M-DBP Agreement in Principle.

3.8.13  Chlorine Dioxide |40 CFR 141.720(b)|

Inactivation credit for Cryptosporidium is dependent on the "CT" achieved on a daily basis. CT is the
product of the disinfectant concentration, C (mg/L) and disinfectant contact time, T (minutes). Systems
must calculate CT at least once each day, based on measurements of C and T during peak hourly flow,
and use the CT values presented in § 141.720 and EPA's LT2ESWTR Toolbox  Guidance Manual to
determine log  inactivation credit. Systems with several disinfection segments (i.e., a treatment unit
process with a measurable disinfectant residual level and a liquid volume) may calculate CT values for
each segment and sum those values to obtain a total CT, then use the table in §141.720(b)(l) to calculate
the total log inactivation credit.

Alternatively,  states may consider CT values other than those specified in the LT2ESWTR  if the system
can demonstrate, through the use of a state-approved protocol for on-site disinfection challenge studies,
that the CT values are adequate to achieve the inactivation required under the LT2ESWTR. EPA's
LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual provides guidance for conducting a site-specific inactivation
study.

3.8.14  Ozone [40 CFR 141.720(b)]

As with chlorine dioxide, the CT values are used to determine the level of Cryptosporidium inactivation
by ozone disinfection. States should refer to either the rule language or EPA's LT2ESWTR Toolbox
Guidance Manual for CT values for various log  inactivation credits. The LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance
Manual also provides guidance on calculating CT values for different disinfection reactor designs and
operations.

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                85                                     August 2007
-------
States may consider CT values other than those specified in the LT2ESWTR if the system can
demonstrate, through the use of a state-approved protocol for on-site disinfection challenge studies, that
the CT values are adequate to achieve the inactivation required under the LT2ESWTR. EPA's
LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual provides guidance for conducting a site-specific inactivation
study.

3.8.15   Ultraviolet Light [40 CFR 141.720(d)]

States may award credit to systems using UV disinfection processes for inactivation of Cryptosporidium,
Giardia, and viruses. To be eligible for UV disinfection credit, the system must demonstrate a delivered
UV dose using the results of a reactor validation test and on-line monitoring. Validation testing must
determine a range of operating conditions under which the reactor delivers the required UV dose and can
be monitored by the system.

        •       Operating conditions must include flow rate, UV intensity, and lamp status, at a
               minimum.

        •       Validated conditions determined by testing  must account for UV absorbance of the water,
               lamp fouling and aging, measurement uncertainty of on-line sensors, UV dose
               distributions arising from the velocity profiles through the reactor, failure of UV lamps or
               other critical system components, and inlet and outlet piping or channel configurations of
               the UV reactor.

UV reactors may be validated for a specific system or under a wide range of conditions, thus providing
disinfection credit for a variety of applications. Monitoring is used to demonstrate that the system
maintains  validated operating conditions  during routine use. Validation testing and on-line monitoring
results may be available from the UV technology provider. EPA's UV Disinfection Guidance Manual
provides a protocol for validating reactors and guidance on the design and implementation of UV
systems.

The LT2ESWTR presents the UV doses required to receive  credit for up to 3.0-log inactivation of
Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia and up to 4.0-log inactivation of viruses. These dose values are for
UV light at a wavelength of 254 nm as delivered by a low pressure mercury vapor lamp and intended for
post-filter applications of UV in filtration plants and for systems that meet the filtration avoidance criteria.
However,  the dose values can be applied  to other UV applications (e.g., medium pressure mercury vapor
lamps),  as described in EPA's UV Disinfection Guidance Manual.
3.9   Oversee Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking

The state should review the system's disinfection profiling data during the sanitary survey process. In
addition, when a system plans to make a significant change to their disinfection process, it is required to
conduct profiling and must calculate a benchmark. The profile and benchmark must be submitted to the
state with an evaluation of how the new process will affect the current benchmark. Significant changes in
disinfection practice are defined as: 1) moving the point of disinfection (this is not intended to include
routine seasonal changes already approved by the state); 2) changing the type of disinfectant; 3) changing
the disinfection process; or 4) making other modifications designated as significant by the state.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               86                                     August 2007
-------
3.10 Review Changes in Treatment or Control Measures Used to Meet
      Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements	

Depending on the toolbox option, systems are required to submit plans, testing data, and monitoring
results to ensure the additional treatment is appropriate. System reporting requirements are described for
each toolbox option in §141.721, and arc included in section 1 of this manual. Systems will also submit
documentation supporting any change in their disinfection process. States should develop reporting
protocols, review procedures, and follow-up steps to ensure all documentation and reported information is
addressed in a timely  manner.
3.11  Review Covers and Treatment for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs

Systems must notify the state if they use uncovered reservoirs by April 1, 2008, and cover or treat
uncovered finished water reservoirs by April 1, 2009, or be in compliance with an alternative state-
approved schedule. The LT2ESWTR requires that systems with uncovered finished water reservoirs
must: 1) cover the reservoir; or 2) treat reservoir discharge to the distribution system to achieve a 4.0-log
virus, 3.0-log Giardia, and 2.0-log  Cryptosporidium inactivation and/or removal.
3.12 Approve Laboratories for Monitoring Cryptosporidium

Given the potentially significant implications in terms of both cost and public health protection of
microbial monitoring under the LT2ESWTR, analytical work must be accurate and reliable within the
limits of approved methods.

Because states do not currently approve laboratories for Cryptosporidium analysis and LT2ESWTR
monitoring will begin as early  as October 1, 2006, EPA will initially assume responsibility for
Cryptosporidium laboratory approval. EPA expects, however, that states will include Cryptosporidium
analysis in their state laboratory certification programs in the future.

EPA established the Laboratory Quality Assurance (QA) Evaluation Program for Cryptosporidium
analysis to identify laboratories that can meet LT2ESWTR data quality objectives. This is a voluntary
program open to laboratories involved in analyzing Cryptosporidium in water. Under this program, EPA
assesses the ability of laboratories to reliably measure Cryptosporidium occurrence with EPA Methods
1622 and 1623 using both performance testing samples and an on-site evaluation. For more information
on the program, visit EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov/safcwaler/disinf'ection/lt2/lab_homc.html.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               87                                   August 2007
-------
                                 This page intentionally left blank
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                88                                     August 2007
-------
Section 4   	
State Primacy Revision
Application
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
40 CFR Part 142 sets out requirements for states to obtain and/or retain primary enforcement
responsibility (primacy) for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program as authorized by
Section 1413 of the SDWA. The 1996 SDWA Amendments updated the process for states to obtain
and/or retain primacy. On April 28, 1998, EPA promulgated the Primacy Rule to reflect these statutory
changes (63 PR 23361).
4.1   State Primacy Program Revision
Pursuant to §142.12, Revision of State Programs, complete and final requests for approval of program
revisions to adopt new or revised EPA regulations must be submitted to the EPA Administrator no later
than 2 years after promulgation of the new or revised federal regulations (see Table 4-1). Until those
applications are approved, EPA Regions have responsibility for directly implementing the LT2ESWTR.
The state and EPA can agree to implement the Rule together during this period. However, if a state is
eligible for interim primacy, it will have full implementation and enforcement authority. States that have
primacy for all existing NPDWRs are considered to have interim primacy for any new or revised
regulation. Interim primacy for the LT2ESWTR would begin on the date the final and complete primacy
revision application is submitted or the effective date of the new state regulation (whichever is later), and
ends when EPA makes a final determination.

A state may be granted an extension of time, up to 2 years, to submit its application package. During any
extension period, an extension agreement outlining the state's and EPA's responsibilities is required.

     Table 4-1. State Rule Implementation and Revision  Timetable for the LT2ESWTR
EPA/State Action
Rule published by EPA
State and region establish a process and agree upon a schedule for application
review and approval (optional)
State, at its option, submits draft program revision package to region including:
Preliminary Approval Request, Draft State Regulations and/or Statutes,
Regulation Crosswalk
Regional (and Headquarters if necessary) review of draft
State submits complete and final program revision package to region including:
Adopted State Regulations
Regulation Crosswalk
§142. 10 Primacy Update Checklist
§142.14 and 142.15 Reporting and Recordkeeping
§142.16 Special Primacy Requirements
Attorney General's Enforceability Certification
States with approved extensions submit complete and final program revision
package
Time Frame
January 5, 2006
March 5, 2006
July 5, 2006
(Recommended)
Completed within 90 days of
state submittal of draft
(Recommended)
January 5, 2008*
January 5, 20 10**
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
91
August 2007
-------
                           EPA/State Action
       Time Frame
 EPA final review and determination:
    Regional Review (program and Office of Regional Counsel (ORC))
    Headquarters Concurrence and Waivers (OGWDW)
    Public Notice
    Opportunity for Hearing
    EPA's Determination
Completed within 90 days of
   state submittal of final
         package
     (45 days Region)
 (45 days Headquarters)
***
* EPA suggests submitting an application by October 5, 2007, to ensure timely approval. EPA regulations allow
states until January 5, 2008, for this submittal.
** EPA suggests submitting an application by October 5, 2010 for states with approved extensions to ensure timely
approval.
*** At least one state application per region.

4.1.1    The Revision Process

EPA recommends a two-step process for approval of state program revisions. The steps consist of
submission of a draft request (optional) and submission of a complete and final request for program
approval. Figure 4-1 diagrams these processes and their timing.

Draft Request—The state may submit a draft request for EPA review and tentative determination. The
request should contain drafts of all required primacy application materials (with the exception of a draft
Attorney General's Statement). A draft request should be submitted as soon as practicable; EPA
recommends submitting it within 6  months of rule promulgation. EPA will make a tentative determination
as to whether the state program meets the applicable requirements.  EPA intends to make a tentative
determination within 90 days.

Complete and Final Request—This submission must be in accordance with §142.12(c)(l) and (2) and
include  the Attorney General's statement. The state should also include its response to any comments or
program deficiencies identified in the tentative determination (if applicable). Submission of only a final
request may make it more difficult for states to address any necessary changes within the allowable time
for state rule adoption.

EPA recommends that states submit their complete and final revision package within 21 months (by
October 5, 2008) of rule promulgation. This will ensure that states will have interim primacy as soon as
possible and will prevent backlogs of revision applications to adopt future federal requirements.

The state and region should agree to a plan and timetable for submitting the state primacy revision
application as soon as possible after rule promulgation—ideally within 5 months of promulgation.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                92                                     August 2007
-------
 4.1.2    The Final Review Process

 Once a state application is complete and final, EPA has a regulatory (and statutory) deadline of 90 days to
 review and approve or disapprove the revised program. OGWDW will conduct a detailed concurrent
 review of the first state package from each region. The regional office should submit its comments with
 the state's package within 45 days for review by Headquarters (HQ). When the region has identified all
 significant issues, OGWDW waives concurrence on all other state programs in that region, although EPA
 HQ retains the option to review additional state programs, as appropriate. The Office of General Counsel
 (OGC) has delegated its review and approval to the Office of Regional Counsel (ORC).

 In order to meet the 90-day deadline for packages undergoing review by HQ, the review period is equally
 split by giving the regions and HQ 45 days each to conduct their respective reviews. For the first package
 in each region, regions should forward copies of the primacy revision applications and their evaluations to
 the Drinking Water Protection Division Director in OGWDW no later than 45 days after state submittal.
 The Drinking  Water Protection Division Director takes the lead on the HQ review process.

   Figure 4-1.  Recommended Review Process for State Request for Approval of Program
                                              Revisions
                                           EPA Promulgates the Stage 2
                                                  DBF'R
                                           Establish Process and Tentative
                                             Schedule for State Rule
                                                 Approval
                                            State Submits E'laft Primacy
                                            Revision Application to EPA
                                            (optional) §142 12(d](lKl)
                                                                           Timeline

                                                                            Start
              January 3, 2006
               March 5,2006
                July.', 2006
                              2 Months
                              6 Months
                                            EPA Review and Tentative
                                          Determination (suggested with
                                            90 days) 8142 12(dXl)(ii)
                                            State Submits Complete and
                                             Final Primacy Revision
                                              Application to EPA
                                                §142 n
-------
4.2   State Primacy Program Revision Extensions
4.2.1   The Extension Process

Under §142.12(b), states may request that the 2-year deadline for submitting the complete and final
packages for EPA approval of program revisions be extended for up to 2 additional years in certain
circumstances. The extension request must be submitted to EPA within 2 years of the date that EPA
published the regulation. The Regional Administrator has been delegated authority to approve extension
applications. Concurrence by HQ on extensions is not required.

Therefore, the state must either adopt regulations pertaining to the LT2ESWTR and submit a complete
and final primacy revision application or request an extension of up to 2 years by January 5, 2008.

4.2.2   Extension Request Criteria

For an extension to be granted under §142.12(b), the state must demonstrate that it is requesting the
extension because it cannot meet the original deadline for reasons beyond its control and despite a good
faith effort to do so. A critical part of the extension application is the state's proposed schedule for
submission of its complete and final request for approval of a revised primacy program. The application
must also demonstrate at least one of the following:

       (i)      That the state currently lacks the legislative or regulatory authority to enforce the new or
               revised requirements;

       (ii)     That the state currently lacks the program capability adequate to implement the new or
               revised requirements; or,

       (iii)    That the state is requesting the extension to group two or more program revisions in a
               single legislative or regulatory action.

In addition, the state must be implementing the EPA requirements to be adopted in its program revision
within the scope of its current authority and capabilities.

4.2.3   Conditions of the Extension

Until the State Primacy Revision Application has been submitted, the state and EPA regional office will
share responsibility for implementing the primary  program elements as indicated  in the extension
agreement.  The state and the EPA regional office should discuss these elements and address terms of
responsibility in the agreement.

These conditions will be determined during the extension approval process and are decided on a case-by-
case basis. The conditions must be included in an extension agreement between the state and the EPA
regional office.

Conditions  of an extension agreement may include:

        •      Informing PWSs of the new EPA  (and upcoming state) requirements and the fact that the
               region will be overseeing implementation of the requirements until they approve the state
               program revisions or until the state submits a complete and final revision package if the
               state qualifies for interim primacy.

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                94                                    August 2007
-------
        •      Collecting, storing, and managing laboratory results, public notices, and other
               compliance and operation data required by the EPA regulations.

        •      Assisting the region in the development of the technical aspects of enforcement actions
               and conducting informal follow-up on violations (e.g., telephone calls, letters).

        •      Providing technical assistance to PWSs.

        •      For states whose request for an extension is based on a current lack of program capability
               adequate to implement the new requirements, taking steps agreed to by the region and the
               state to remedy the deficiency during the extension period.

        •      Providing the region with all the information required under § 142.15 for state reporting.

Example 4-1 provides a checklist the region can use to review state extensions or to create an extension
agreement.

Until states have primacy, EPA is the primacy enforcement authority. However, historically states have
played a role in implementation for various reasons—most importantly, since states have the local
knowledge and expertise and have established relationships with their systems.

The state and EPA should be  viewed as partners in this effort, working toward two very specific public
health-related goals. The first goal  is to achieve a high level of compliance with the regulation. The
second goal is to facilitate efficient co-regulation during the transition period before the state has primacy,
including interim primacy, for the Rule. In order to accomplish these goals, education, training, and
technical assistance will need to be provided to water suppliers on their responsibilities under the
LT2ESWTR.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                95                                     August 2007
-------
                       Example 4-1. Example Extension Request Checklist

{Datet

{Regional Administrator}
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA Region {Region}
{Street Address}


RE: Request/approval for an Extension Agreement


Dear {Regional Administrator}.:

        The State ofjStalel is requesting an extension to the date that the final primacy revisions are due to EPA
for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) until {insert date - no later than.
January 5t 2010}, as allowed by 40 CFR 142.12 and would appreciate your approval. Staff of the .[State
Department/Agenda! have conferred with your staff and have agreed to the requirements listed below for this
extension. This extension is being requested because the State of j
D      Is planning to group two or more program revisions into a single legislative or regulatory action.
D      Currently lacks the legislative or regulatory authority to enforce the new or revised requirements.
D      Currently lacks adequate program capability to implement the new or revised requirements.

        {State Department/Agency^ will be working with EPA to implement the LT2ESWTR within the scope of
its current authority and capability, as outlined in the six areas identified in §142.12(b)(3)(i-vi):

i)  Informing PWSs of the new EPA (and upcoming state) requirements and the fact that EPA will be overseeing
implementation of the requirements until EPA approves the state revision.

State    EPA
	    	    Provide copies of regulation and guidance to other state agencies, public water systems (PWSs),
                technical assistance providers, associations, or other interested parties.
	    	    Educate and coordinate with state staff,  PWSs, the public, and other water associations about the
                requirements of this regulation.
	    	    Notify affected systems of their requirements  under the LT2ESWTR.
	    	    Other:

ii) Collecting,  storing and managing laboratory results, public notices, and other compliance and operation data
required by the EPA regulations.

State    EPA
	    	    Devise a tracking system for PWS reporting pursuant to the LT2ESWTR.
	    	    Keep PWSs informed of reporting requirements during development and implementation.
	    	    Report LT2ESWTR violation and enforcement information to SDWIS as required.
	    	    Other:

iii) Assisting EPA in the development of the technical aspects of the enforcement actions and conducting informal
follow-up and violations (telephones calls, letters, etc.).

State    EPA
	    	    Issue notices of violation (NOVs) for treatment technique, MCL, and monitoring/reporting
                violations of the LT2ESWTR.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                 96                                        August 2007
-------
                 Provide immediate technical assistance to PWSs with treatment technique, MCL, and/or
                 monitoring/reporting violations to try to bring them into compliance.
                 Refer all violations to EPA for enforcement if they have not been resolved within 60 days of the
                 incident that triggered the violation. Provide information as requested to conduct and complete any
                 enforcement action referred to EPA.
                 Other:
iv) Providing technical assistance to PWSs.

State   EPA
                Conduct training within the state for PWSs on LT2ESWTR requirements.
                Provide technical assistance through written and/or verbal correspondence with PWSs.
                Provide on-site technical assistance to PWSs as requested and needed to ensure compliance with
                this regulation.
                Coordinate with other technical assistance providers and organizations to provide accurate
                information and aid in a timely manner.
                Other:
v) Providing EPA with all information prescribed by the State Reporting Requirements in §142.15.

State   EPA
	   	    Report any violations incurred by PWSs for this regulation each quarter.
	   	    Report any enforcement actions taken against PWSs for this regulation each quarter.
	   	    Report any variances or exemptions granted for PWSs for this regulation each quarter.
                 Other:
vi) For states whose request for an extension is based on a current lack of program capability to implement the new
or revised requirements, taking the following steps to remedy the capability deficiency.

State    EPA
	    	    Acquire additional resources to implement these regulations (list of specific steps being taken
                 attached as {List A}).
         	    Provide quarterly updates describing the status of acquiring additional resources.
	    Other:

1  affirm that the {State Department/Agency^ will implement provisions of the LT2ESWTR as outlined above
JAeencv Director or Secretary!                                                   Date
{Name of State ApencyJ,

I  have consulted with my staff and approve your extension for the aforementioned regulation. I affirm that EPA
Region {Region! will implement provisions of the LT2ESWTR as outlined above.
Regional Administrator                                                            Date
EPA Region.
This Extension Agreement will take effect upon the date of the last signature.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                  97                                        August 2007
-------
4.3   State Primacy Package
The Primacy Revision Application package should consist of the following sections:

D     State Primacy Revision Checklist
D     Text of the State's Regulation
D     Primacy Revision Crosswalk
D     State Reporting and Recordkeeping Checklist
D     Special Primacy Requirements
D     Attorney General's Statement of Enforceability

4.3.1   The State Primacy Revision Checklist

This section is a checklist of general primacy requirements, as shown in Table 4-2. In completing this
checklist, the state must identify the program elements that it has revised in response to new federal
requirements. If an element has been revised, the state should indicate a "Yes" answer in the
"Revision to State Program" column and should submit appropriate documentation. For elements
that did not require revision, the state need only list the citation and date of adoption in the "Revision to
State Program" column. During the application review process, EPA will insert findings and comments in
the final column.

The 1996 SDWA Amendments include new provisions for PWS definition and administrative penalty
authority. States must adopt provisions at least as stringent as these new provisions, now codified at
§142.2 and 142.10. Failure to revise these elements can affect primacy for the LT2ESWTR.

States may bundle the primacy revision packages for multiple rules. If states choose to bundle
requirements, the Attorney General's Statement should reference all of the rules included.

4.3.2   Text of the State's Regulation

Each primacy application package should include the text of the state regulation.

4.3.3   Primacy Revision Crosswalk

The Primacy Revision Crosswalk, in Appendix A, should be completed by states in order to identify state
statutory or regulatory provisions  that correspond to each federal requirement. If the state's provisions
differ from federal requirements, the state should explain how its requirements are no less stringent.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               98                                     August 2007
-------
                         Table 4-2. State Primacy Revision Checklist
Required Program Elements
§141.2
§142.10(b)(6)(iii)
§142.10(b)(6)(iv)
§142.lO(b)(6)(v)
§142.10(b)(6)(vi)
§142.10(b)(6)(vii)
§142.10(c)
§142.10(d)
§142.10(e)
§142.10(f)
Definitions
Right of entry
Authority to require records
Authority to require public notification
Authority to assess civil and criminal
penalties
Authority to require CCRs
Maintenance of records
Variance/exemption conditions (if
applicable)*
Emergency plans
Administrative Penalty Authority**
Revision to State
Program










EPA
Findings/Comments










* Regulations published in the August  14. 1998 Federal Register.
** Requirement from the 1996 Amendments. Regulations published in the April 28, 1998 Federal Register.

4.3.4   State Recordkeeping and Reporting Checklist |40 CFR 142.14, 40 CFR 142.151

The LT2ESTWR adds state reporting and state rccordkccping requirements. The state should use the
Primacy Revision Crosswalk in Appendix A to demonstrate that state reporting and reeordkceping
requirements arc consistent with federal requirements. If state requirements are not the same as federal
requirements, the state must explain how its requirements arc "no less stringent" as per §142.10. States
may want to include in their State Primacy Revision Application how long the state will keep the records
and in what format the data will be kept.

The Primacy Revision Crosswalk includes state rccordkeeping and reporting requirements indicating that
the state must:

        •       Keep records of the results of E. call and Cryptosporidium monitoring.

        •       Keep records of the Cryptosporidium bin classification for each filtered system, including
               any changes to initial bin classification based on watershed survey or second round of
               monitoring.

        •       Keep records of the determination of whether each unfiltered system has a mean source
               water Cryptosporidium level  above 0.01 oocysts/L, along with any changes in this
               determination due to the second round of source water monitoring.

        •       Keep records of the treatment processes or control measures that each system employs  to
               meet their Cryptosporidium treatment requirements.

        •       Keep a list of systems required to cover or treat the effluent of an uncovered finished
               water reservoir.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
99
August 2007
-------
        •      Report to EPA the initial bin classification for each system and any changes in bin
               classifications due to watershed assessment during sanitary surveys or the second round
               of Cryptosporidium monitoring.

        •      Report to EPA the determination of whether each unfiltered system meeting filtration
               avoidance criteria has a mean source water Cryptosporidium level above 0.01 oocysts/L,
               along with any changes in this determination due to the second round of source water
               monitoring.

4.3.5   Special Primacy Requirement [40 CFR 142.16]

The Special Primacy Requirements section of the crosswalk is where the state has the opportunity to
describe how it will satisfy these provisions. Special primacy conditions pertain to specific regulations
where implementation of the rule involves activities beyond general primacy provisions. States must
include  these rule-distinct provisions in an application for approval or revision of their program. Section
4.4 provides guidance on how states may choose to meet the special primacy requirements of the
LT2ESWTR.

4.3.6   Attorney General's Statement of Enforceability [40 CFR 142.12(c)(2)]

The complete and final primacy revision application must include an Attorney General's Statement
certifying that the state regulations were duly adopted and arc enforceable (unless EPA has waived this
requirement by letter to the state).  The Attorney General's Statement should also certify that the state
docs not have any audit privilege or immunity laws, or if it has such laws, that these laws do not prevent
the state from meeting the requirements of the SDWA. If a state has submitted this certification with a
previous revision package, then  the state should indicate the date of submittal and the Attorney General
need only certify that the status of the audit laws has not changed since the prior submittal. An example of
an Attorney General's Statement is presented in Example 4-2.

4.3.6.1   Guidance for States on Audit Privilege and/or Immunity Laws

In order for EPA to properly evaluate the state's request for approval, the State Attorney General or
independent legal counsel should certify that the state's environmental audit immunity and/or privilege
and immunity law does not affect its ability to meet enforcement and information gathering requirements
under SDWA. This certification should be reasonably consistent with the wording of the state audit laws
and should demonstrate how state  program approval criteria are satisfied.

EPA will apply the criteria outlined in its "Statement of Principles" memo issued on February 14, 1997,
(www.cpa.gov/epaoswcr/hazwastc/statc/policy/policics.lnm) to determine whether states with audit laws
have retained adequate enforcement authority for any authorized federal programs.  The principles
articulated in the guidance are based on the requirements of federal law, specifically the enforcement and
compliance and state program approval provisions of environmental statutes and  their corresponding
regulations. The Principles provide that if provisions of state law are ambiguous,  it will be important to
obtain opinions from the State Attorney General or independent legal counsel interpreting the law as
meeting specific  federal requirements. If the law cannot be so interpreted, changes to state laws may be
necessary to obtain federal program approval. Before submitting a package  for approval, states with audit
privilege and/or immunity laws should initiate communications with appropriate  EPA regional offices to
identify and discuss the issues raised by the state's audit privilege and/or immunity law.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                100                                    August 2007
-------
The guidance for states on Audit Law Privilege and/or Immunity Laws is currently under review. If
amended, EPA will issue an addendum to this document with the revised guidance.

                    Example 4-2. Example of Attorney General's Statement
  Model Language

  I hereby certify, pursuant to my authority as (1) and in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act as amended,
  and (2), that in my opinion the laws of the [State/Commonwealth of (3)] [or tribal ordinances of (4)] to carry out
  the program set forth in the "Program Description" submitted by the (5) have been duly adopted and are
  enforceable. The specific authorities provided are contained in statutes or regulations that are lawfully adopted at
  the time this Statement is approved and signed and will be fully effective by the time the program is approved.

  I.      For States with No Audit Privilege and/or Immunity Laws

  Furthermore, I certify that [State/Commonwealth of (3)] has not enacted any environmental audit privilege and/or
  immunity laws.

  II.      For States with Audit Laws that do Not Apply to the State Agency Administering the Safe Drinking
         Water Act

  Furthermore, 1 certify that the environmental [audit privilege and/or immunity law] of the [State/Commonwealth
  of (3)] does not affect the ability of (3) to meet enforcement and  information gathering requirements under the
  Safe Drinking Water Act because the [audit privilege and/or immunity law] does not apply to the program set
  forth in the "Program Description." The Safe Drinking Water Act program set forth in the "Program Description"
  is administered by (5); the  [audit privilege and/or immunity law] does not affect programs implemented by (5),
  thus the program set forth in the "Program Description" is unaffected by the provisions of [State/Commonwealth
  of (3)] [audit privilege and/or immunity law].

  111.     For States with Audit Privilege and/or Immunity Laws that Worked with EPA to Satisfy Requirements
         for Federally Authorized, Delegated, or Approved Environmental Programs

  Furthermore, I certify that the environmental [audit privilege and/or immunity law] of the [State/Commonwealth
  of (3)] does not affect the ability of (3) to meet enforcement and  information gathering requirements under the
  Safe Drinking Water Act because [State/Commonwealth of (3)] has enacted statutory revisions and/or issued a
  clarifying Attorney General's Statement to satisfy requirements for federally authorized, delegated, or approved
  environmental programs.
  Seal of Office
                         Signature
                         Name and Title
                         Date

  (1) State Attorney General or attorney for the primacy agency if it has independent legal counsel.
  (2) 40 CFR 142.1 l(a)(6)(i) for initial primacy applications or 40 CFR 142.12(c)(l)(iii) for primacy program
     revision applications.
  (3) Name of state or commonwealth.
  (4) Name of tribe.
  (5) Name of primacy agency.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                101                                       August 2007
-------
4.4   Guidance for the Special Primacy Requirements of the LT2ESWTR	

To ensure that a state program includes all the elements necessary for an effective and enforceable
program under the LT2ESWTR, a state primacy application must include a description of how the state
will accomplish the following:

        •       Approve an alternative to E. coli levels that trigger Cryptosporidium monitoring by
               filtered systems serving fewer than 10,000 people.

        •       Assess significant changes in the watershed and source water as part of the sanitary
               survey process and determine appropriate follow-up action.

        •       Approve watershed control programs for the 0.5-log watershed control program credit in
               the microbial toolbox.

        •       Approve protocols for removal credits under the demonstration of performance toolbox
               option and for alternative ozone and chlorine dioxide values.

        •       Approve an alternative approach to UV reactor validation testing in the microbial
               toolbox.

This section contains information and guidance that states can use when addressing these special primacy
requirements of the LT2ESWTR. The guidance addresses special primacy conditions in the same order
that they occur in the Rule. Additional information related to these requirements is available in EPA's
LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual.

4.4.1    Establishment of Alternative to E. coli Levels that Trigger Cryptosporidium Monitoring

§142.16 Specialprimacv requirements, (n): Requirements for states to adopt § 141, subpart W. In addition
to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in this part, including the requirements that stale
regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for approval of a state
program revision thai adopts $ 141. subparl W, must contain a description of how the state will
accomplish the following program requirements where allowed in stale programs. 1) Approve an
alternative to the E. coli levels thai trigger Cryptosporidium monitoring by filtered systems serving fewer
than 10,000 people.

Guidance

To reduce the monitoring burden for  small filtered systems, the LT2ESWTR includes a 2-phase
monitoring strategy for small systems. This approach is based on ICR and Information Collection Rule
Supplemental Surveys (ICRSS) data  indicating that systems with low source water E. coli levels are likely
to have low Cryptosporidium levels.  Under this approach, small filtered systems must initially sample for
E. coli beginning October 1, 2008 (unless they elect to monitor for Cryptosporidium), and, if results are
above the trigger levels (sec section 1.2.2), conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring.

As recommended by the Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee, EPA will evaluate Cryptosporidium
indicator relationships in the LT2ESWTR monitoring data collected by large systems. If these data
support the use of different indicator  levels to trigger small system Cryptosporidium  monitoring, EPA
will issue  guidance with recommendations.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               102                                   August 2007
-------
 Under the LT2ESWTR, states may also approve source water monitoring for filtered systems serving
 fewer than 10,000 people using an indicator other than E. coli. It also allows states to approve alternatives
 to the threshold annual mean E. coli concentrations provided in §141.701(a)(4)(i), (ii), and (v) that trigger
 source water Cryptosporidium monitoring for filtered systems serving fewer than 10,000 people. When
 approving an alternative, the state must include in its approval the basis for its determination that the
 alternative indicator and/or trigger level will provide a more accurate identification of whether a water
 system will exceed  the Bin 1 Cryptosporidium level (0.075 oocyst/L) than the applicable E. coli trigger
 value in the rule (i.e.,  10 E. co///100 mL for systems using lake/reservoir sources; 50 E. co///100 mL for
 systems using flowing stream sources).

 The LT2ESWTR requires all filtered systems  serving 10,000 people or more to begin source water
 monitoring at least  18 months before filtered water systems serving fewer than 10,000  people. Systems
 serving 10,000 people or more will be required to sample for Cryplosporidium, E. coli and turbidity. The
 E. coli and turbidity data collected by the larger systems will be used by EPA to confirm or, if necessary,
 refine the use of E.  coli and turbidity as indicators for monitoring by filtered systems serving fewer than
 10,000 people. The  EPA will review the indicator data collected by the larger systems  and, if appropriate,
 issue guidance to states on alternative triggers. This guidance may be issued prior to when filtered
 systems serving fewer than 10,000 people are  required to begin monitoring.

 States intending to approve alternative indicators or alternative E. coli trigger concentrations must
 describe in their primacy application how they will decide whether the alternative indicator or trigger
 value is an effective indicator of Ciyptosporidium contamination. States should consider any additional
 EPA guidance on alternative indicators and triggers, developed using the indicator data collected by the
 larger systems, when reviewing alternative approaches to indicator monitoring. States should also
 consider the most recent peer-reviewed research on the relationships between Cryplosporidium  surface
 water concentrations and indicator parameters.

 4.4.2    Assessment of Significant Changes in Watershed and Source Water

 §142.16 Special primacy requirements, (n): Requirements for states to adopt §141, subpart W. In addition
 to the general primacv requirements elsewhere in this part, including the requirements that state
 regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for approval of a state
program revision that adopts §141, subpart W, must contain a description of how the state will
 accomplish the following program requirements where allowed in stale programs. 2) Assess significant
 changes in the watershed and source water as part of the sanitary survey process and determine
 appropriate follow-up action.

 Guidance

 States must conduct sanitary surveys for all surface  water and GWUD1 systems that assess the condition
 of eight primary water system components, including the source water [§142.10(b)(2) and 142.16(b)].
 §142.16(n)(l) requires states to  "assess significant changes in the watershed and source water as part of
 the sanitary survey process and  determine appropriate follow-up action." Examples of significant changes
 are new point source discharges, new non-point source discharges,  and changes to land use such as land
 development changes  in farming and logging practices.

 During a sanitary survey, the state must assess whether significant changes have occurred in the
 watershed since the  system conducted source water monitoring for  bin classification  that could lead to
 increased contamination of the source water. In cases where a significant change has occurred, states must
 decide whether corrective measures or additional  treatment are needed and determine appropriate follow-
 up action. States should first require that corrective measures be taken to address the source of

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               103                                    August 2007
-------
contamination. Where this is not feasible or not successful, states may reclassify the system into a higher
treatment bin. If a system is re-classified as the result of the sanitary survey, states must report the re-
classification to EPA [§142.15].

This section of the guidance discusses three components of the watershed and source water assessment
process: preparing for the sanitary survey, conducting the survey, and determining follow-up action.

Preparation for the Survey

The following aspects of source water protection are discussed in the EPA guidance documents Guidance
Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys ofPWSs; Surface Water and Ground Water Under the Direct
Influence (GWUDI) and State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance. The state or
state-approved surveyor may wish to review or address these items before conducting a sanitary survey of
a watershed:

        •       The state source water delineation and assessment for the watershed.

        •       Historical and current raw water quality records, particularly microbial analyses.

        •       Water system drawings and design information.

        •       Water quality violation history.

        •       Previous sanitary survey reports.

        •       Complaints received by local, state, and federal  agencies regarding water quality or
               potential contamination within the watershed.

        •       Updates from local, state, or federal regulatory agencies regarding their monitoring of
               permitted discharges within the relevant watershed(s) (e.g., National Pollutant Discharge
               Elimination System (NPDES) and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) programs).

        •       Updates from state and federal land-management agencies regarding their monitoring of
               on-going activities within the relevant watershed(s).

        •       Where applicable, states may also wish to request that the system personnel that were
               involved in preparation of a watershed control plan accompany the surveyor during the
               survey.

Where available, the inspector should also review the following  information from unfiltered systems or
from filtered systems that receive 0.5-log Cryptosporidium removal credit for watershed control under the
LT2ESWTR:

        •       The system's watershed control plan.

        •       The annual watershed control program status reports submitted by the system, where
               applicable (systems that have received 0.5-log Cryptosporidium credit for watershed
               control under the LT2ESWTR must submit an annual report).

Copies of relevant information should be taken along during the survey for on-site review and comparison
to existing conditions. Potential changes in the watershed or source  water conditions that are identified

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               104                                     August 2007
-------
from these references should then be evaluated during the survey. States may wish to require that their
surveyors take specific equipment (e.g., cameras/camcorders, sampling/analysis equipment, and GPS
devices) to document the status of potential threats to water quality. Chapter 2 of the Guidance Manual
for Conducting Sanitary Surveys ofPWSs; Surface Water and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence
(GWUDI) contains a more detailed list of equipment.

Evaluation During the Survey

Chapter 3 of the Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys ofPWSs; Surface Water and Ground
Water Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI) discusses the source component of a sanitary survey. The
following topics are addressed:

        •      Watershed management program.
        •      Source vulnerability assessment.
        •      Source water quality.
        •      Source water quantity.
        •      Location of source facilities.
        •      Capacity of source facilities.
        •      Design of source facilities.
        •      Condition of source facilities.
        •      Transmission of source water.

Also, Chapter 2 of EPA's LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual provides recommendations for
implementing the watershed sanitary survey required by the §141.725(a)(4)(ii) and suggests activities to
complete during the survey. While these recommendations were developed for systems that have an
approved watershed control plan for supplemental Cryptosporidium treatment credit, they also address
several issues that should be considered when evaluating watersheds.

        •      Review the effectiveness  of the watershed control program to date. (For example, have
               water quality monitoring  results indicated a change in water quality?)

        •      Identify any new significant actual or potential sources of Cryptosporidium.

        •      Verify and re-evaluate the applicability of the area of influence, potential and existing
               sources of Cryptosporidium, monitoring locations and results, and the implementation of
               control measures.

        •      Verify that the system has control and practices such control over watershed areas and
               activities as described in the watershed protection plan.

        •      Confirm  that public access is properly restricted from areas identified in the watershed
               control plan. Review  the means by which the system monitors and enforces restrictions.

        •      Confirm  that fencing  and signs have not been vandalized or removed.

        •       Identify any significant hydrological changes in the watershed that could affect
               Cryptosporidium loading.

        •       Inspect the intake structure and identify any modifications to its location or design.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               105                                    August 2007
-------
Finally, existing vulnerabilities and elements of watershed control plans that require on-going efforts by
the system should be evaluated during the survey. High-risk sources should be assessed and discussed
with system staff. Site visits to the more critical sources may be appropriate. Development patterns should
be reviewed because urban and suburban growth is difficult to control in some areas. Water quality
control measures that rely upon "gentlemen's agreements," public education, or even best-management
practices are often difficult to enforce and should be reviewed for adequacy. Because funding for such
efforts is often reduced during tight budgetary conditions, the surveyor may wish to assess such efforts if
they are a significant component of watershed protection. The surveyor should also assess whether the
system is regularly evaluating the effectiveness of its watershed control program (if one has been
implemented).

Follow-up Action

States should also develop criteria for assessing whether changes within watersheds require corrective
measures by the systems. Certain changes may warrant immediate action (i.e., changes that can have an
immediate impact upon water quality). Examples of those warranting immediate action include:

        •       Inadequate implementation of best management practices.

        •       NPDES permit violations at wastewatcr treatment plants, confined animal feedlot
               operations, etc.

        •       Dramatic natural events (floods, forest fires, earthquakes, ice flows, landslides) can
               transport or expose contaminants (e.g., fine-grained sediments, mining wastes, animal
               and septic system wastes).

        •       Prolonged drought conditions may warrant special preparatory measures to minimize
               impacts from waste accumulations that arc washed  into source waters when precipitation
               returns.

        •       Lack of a current emergency response plan.

        •       Accidental or illegal waste discharges and spills.

Other changes may not result in immediate impacts, but may still warrant corrective measures to
minimize long-term impacts. Examples include the following:

        •       New NPDES permits or changes in existing NPDES permits that involve increased
               loading of contaminants.

        •       Changes in land use patterns.

        •       Changes in agricultural cropping, chemical application, or irrigation practices.

        •       Unattended soil erosion.

        •       Changes in other non-point discharge  source activities (e.g., grazing, manure application,
               commercial or residential development).
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                106                                    August 2007
-------
        •      Stream or riverbed modifications.

        •      A watershed public education program that no longer receives adequate funding and/or
               that has poor stakeholder participation.

As discussed earlier, corrective measures should generally be progressive in nature. In any case, states
should have the authority to require corrective measures, and to enforce all original and subsequent
conditions of watershed protection. Where land in the watershed is publicly owned, state or federal land-
management agencies can often help states and systems to implement corrective actions.

Following is a discussion of appropriate follow-up actions from the Guidance Manual for Conducting
Sanitary Surveys of PWSs; Surface Water and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI).

        "Deficiencies of a minor nature may require no more response than to notify the system operator
        of the violation and set a time frame for the operator to correct the situation. A  moderate
        deficiency could prompt the state to require the operator to respond within 30 days with a
        proposed solution to the deficiency and a schedule for correcting the situation.  For significant
        deficiencies, the state must immediately inform the system operator of the deficiency. In some
        cases, the deficiency may be such that a boil water notice must be issued to the customers in order
        to protect public health. In all cases, the state should indicate the required time  frame for a
        response, the required  action for the response, and the consequences of failing to respond. The
        consequences could include revocation of the operating permit, suspension of the permit until the
        deficiency is corrected, and fines or penalties levied against the system operator.  When
        significant deficiencies exist, a consent agreement, administrative order, or litigation by the
        appropriate court may  be necessary to ensure prompt and proper correction. The state should
        make regular and continued inspections of the facility until all deficiencies have been corrected . .
        The system operator, upon receipt of the sanitary survey report, should prepare a response to the
        state addressing the survey findings which may include deficiencies of varying degrees of
        severity. The water system's response should be returned to the state within 45 days, and must be
        returned within the 45-day timcframe when the sanitary survey findings include significant
        deficiencies."

EPA's Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of PWSs; Surface Water and Ground Water
Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI) discusses all aspects of sanitary surveys from survey preparation
through follow-up compliance activities. In particular, the manual discusses source water vulnerability,
protection, quality, and quantity and evaluation of infrastructure, including the location, design, capacity
and condition of critical source water collection facilities. Citations and locations of this manual and other
helpful references are listed below.

References for more detailed guidance

        \.      LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual. USEPA, N.d.e. Forthcoming.
               (www. epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2)

        2.      Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems; Surface
               Water and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI). USEPA, 1999. EPA
               815-R-99-016. (www.epa.gov/safcwatcr/mdbp/pdf/sansurv/sansurv.pdf)
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               107                                    August 2007
-------
        3.      Watershed Sanitary Survey Guidance Manual. Cal-Nevada Section AWWA, 1993.
               (wwvv.ca-nv-awwa.org/)

        4.      State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance. USEPA, 1997. E!PA
               816-R-97-009. (www.epa.gov/safcwater/sourcc/swpguid.html)

4.4.3   Approval of Watershed Control Programs

§142.16 Special primacy requirements, (n): Requirements for states to adopt §141, subpart W. In addition
to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in this part, including the requirements that state
regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for approval of a state
program revision that adopts §141, subpart W, must contain a description of how the state will
accomplish the following program requirements where allowed in state programs. 3) Approve watershed
control programs for the 0.5-Iog watershed control program credit in the microbial toolbox.

Guidance

Filtered systems that develop a state-approved watershed control program designed to reduce the level of
Cryptosporidium in the watershed can receive a 0.5-log credit towards the Cryplosporidium treatment
requirement of LT2ESWTR. EPA has specified the elements that must be included in a watershed control
program to obtain this credit. The required elements are found in § 141.716(a) and are briefly described
below:

        •      An  analysis of Cryptosporidium vulnerability, including characterization of watershed
               hydrology, identification of the area of influence to be considered in future watershed
               surveys, identification of both potential and actual sources of Cryptosporidium
               contamination, and an assessment of the relative impact of the sources of
               Cryptosporidium on the system's source water, and an estimate of the seasonal variability
               of the contamination.

        •      An  analysis of control measures that could mitigate contamination.

        •      A plan that establishes goals and defines and prioritizes specific actions to reduce source
               water Cryptosporidium. The plan must explain expectations, partners and their roles,
               resource requirements and commitments, and  provide a schedule for plan
               implementation.

Systems must notify the state of their intent to develop a watershed control program. Notification must
occur no later than 2 years before the systems' treatment compliance date listed in §141.713(c). Systems
must submit a proposed initial watershed control plan and a request  for plan approval. The proposal is due
no later than  1 year  before the systems' treatment compliance date. If the state does not respond to a
system regarding approval of the watershed control program and it meets the necessary requirements, it
will be considered approved. However, the state may subsequently withdraw the approval.

To meet this special primacy requirement, states must provide a description of how they will approve a
watershed control program for the 0.5-log credit. A key element of the approval should be that the system
provides to the state sufficient information to indicate at least 0.5-log reduction of the source water
Cryptosporidium concentration is feasible through implementation of the watershed control program. If a
watershed program  is already in place, the description must include  any additional measures that will be
implemented to reduce source water contamination. The description of the state's approach to this
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                108                                     August 2007
-------
 approval process should include the elements of the review process, resources, as well as criteria for
 granting approval.

 Chapter 2 of EPA's LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual provides information intended to assist
 systems in developing their watershed control programs and to assist states in assessing these programs.
 The chapter includes case studies on successful programs,  system steps in applying for approval, required
 components of the program, and suggestions for maintenance of the program. The guidance addresses
 assessments of plans by the state, including an extensive checklist containing potential assessment criteria
 that will help states review systems' watershed control plans (Table 2.1 in the LT2ESWTR Toolbox
 Guidance Manual) and evaluations of annual status reports. The guidance also includes suggested
 components of a watershed sanitary survey.  An adequate response to this special primacy requirement
 could include reference to the use of this guidance document for evaluating and approving proposed
 plans.

 In addition to the LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual, states may utilize EPA's new Watershed
 Initiative to help formulate effective watershed control programs. The Watershed Initiative was conceived
 to encourage successful community-based approaches to restore, preserve, and protect the nation's
 watersheds. This is a competitive grant program that provides funding to watershed organizations to
 encourage the protection and restoration of water resources. EPA plans to select up to 20 watersheds
 throughout the country for grants to support promising watershed-based approaches to improving water
 quality. More information on the program as well as criteria for nomination materials and the process for
 applying for these grant monies are available through the Watershed Initiative Web site indicated below.

 EPA is developing a strategy for Watcrbornc Microbial Disease Control. Objectives of the strategy arc  to
 address all important sources of contamination, anticipate emerging problems, and use program and
 research activities  to unite the influences of both the SOW A and the Clean Water Act on microbial
 contamination of the nation's waters.  A presentation titled, "Developing a Strategy for Watcrbornc
 Microbial Disease Control," from the November 6, 2001, Waterbornc Microbial Disease Stakeholder
 Meeting is available at the Web site provided below.

 References for more detailed guidance

        1.       LT2ESWTR Toolbox  Guidance Manual. USEPA, N.d.c. Forthcoming.
                (vvww.cpa.gov/safcwatcr/disinfcction/ll2)

        2.       EPA Watershed Initiative, as proposed in 67 FR 36172, January 15, 2002.
                (wxvw.cpa.gov/owowvvtrl/vvatershcd/initiativc/backgroiind.html)

        3.       Developing a Strategy for Waterborne Microbial Disease Control. USEPA, 2002.
                (www.epa.gov/ost/humanhcalth/microbial/proccedings/stratcgy/)

 4.4.4   Establishment of Protocols for Approving Removal Credits Under the  Demonstration of
        Performance Toolbox Option

 §142.16 Special primacy requirements,  (n):  Requirements for states to adopt §141, subpart W. In
 addition to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in this part, including the requirements that state
 regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for approval of a state
program revision that adopts §141, subpart  W, must contain a description of how the state will
 accomplish the following program requirements where allowed in state programs. 4)  Approve protocols
for demonstration  of performance treatment credits in the microbial toolbox.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               109                                    August 2007
-------
Guidance

As discussed in detail in section 3.8.8, when a system can demonstrate that a plant (or a unit process
within a plant) achieves a Cryptosporidium removal efficiency greater than the presumptive credit
specified in the §141.711 and §§141.715 through 141.719 the system may be able to receive a higher
Cryptosporidium treatment credit based on site-specific testing with a state-approved protocol. The
treatment plant (or a unit process within a plant) must reliably achieve a higher level of Cryptosporidium
removal on a continuing basis. States may also award a lower level of Cryptosporidium treatment credit
to a system if the state determines, based on site-specific information, that a plant or a unit process within
a plant achieves a Cryptosporidium removal efficiency less than a presumptive credit specified in the
LT2ESWTR.

The demonstration of performance toolbox option applies to physical treatment processes including
presedimentation, coagulation/flocculation, sedimentation, filtration (including bank filtration and
secondary filtration), and two-stage softening. Treatment credit for disinfection processes is based on
system performance (i.e., CT values).

Since demonstration of performance applies to physical removal processes at a treatment plant, systems
may not claim  credit for the toolbox options listed below if that component is included in the
demonstration  of performance credit.

       •      Presedimentation
       •      Two-stage lime softening
       •      Bank filtration
       •      Combined or individual filter performance
       •      Membrane filters
       •      Bag and cartridge filters
       •      Second stage filtration

Additionally, some treatment options may enhance Cryptosporidium treatment while reducing the
effectiveness of other aspects of treatment. For example, under certain circumstances, changes in the
coagulation, flocculation, and/or sedimentation processes that result in better sedimentation performance
may interfere with effective performance of the filters causing short filter runs or reduced filter removal
efficiency. The resulting overall performance of the plant may not be an improvement over the
presumptive credit. Therefore, systems and states should carefully evaluate the overall treatment process
in addition to the portion addressed in the demonstration of performance.

States must establish criteria for determining how additional credits will be granted. States also have the
authority to request additional information not specified by the Rule to document that systems are in
compliance [§141.718(c)(3)]. The demonstration of performance process for microbial treatment is
discussed in Chapter 12 of the LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual. Chapter 12 discusses critical
aspects of developing and administering a demonstration of performance process, including criteria
development and evaluation, testing protocol, monitoring, and reporting. States are encouraged to use the
manual in preparing their demonstration of performance program and primacy revision applications.

Systems serving 10,000 people or more must report the results of their demonstration of performance
testing to the primacy agency by April  1, 2012, October 1, 2012, or October 1, 2013 (depending on
system size). Systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must report the  results of their demonstration of
performance testing to the primacy agency by October 1, 2014.  If states  are interested in this
demonstration  of performance toolbox option, state primacy regulations should be developed, reviewed,
and approved in advance of these deadlines to allow systems adequate time to pursue the option.

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                110                                     August 2007
-------
References for more detailed guidance

        1.      LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual. USEPA, N.d.e. Forthcoming.
               (www.cpa.gov/satcvvatci7disinfcction/lt2)

4.4.5   Establishment of Protocols for Approving Alternative Ozone and Chlorine Dioxide CT
        Values

§142.16 Special primacy requirements,  (n): Requirements for states to adopt §141, subpart W. In
addition to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in this part, including the requirements that state
regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for approval of a state
program revision that adopts §141, subpart W,  must contain a description of how the state will
accomplish the following program requirements where allowed in state programs. 5) Approve protocols
for alternative ozone and chlorine dioxide CT values in the microbial toolbox.

Guidance

Systems that use chlorine dioxide or ozone may receive inactivation credit under LT2ESWTR based on
CT values. To receive treatment credit, systems must measure the water temperature, disinfectant contact
time, and residual disinfectant concentration at least once each day and determine the log inactivation
credit using the CT Tables in 5jl41.720(b). Specific criteria arc as follows:

        •      The temperature of the disinfected water must be measured at least once per day at each
               residual disinfectant concentration sampling point.

        •      The disinfectant contact time (T) must be determined for each day during peak hourly
               tlow.
        •      The residual disinfectant concentration (C) of the water before or at the first customer
               must be measured each day during peak hourly flow.

        •      The CT Tables in § 141,720(b) arc used to determine Cryptosporidium log inactivation
               credit based on the water temperature and the product of disinfectant concentration and
               CT.

The LT2ESWTR allows states to approve alternative CT values for chlorine dioxide and ozone on a site-
specific basis [§141.720]. Inactivation rates may be sensitive to water quality and operational conditions
at individual systems. Therefore, states may allow systems to perform a site-specific inactivation study to
generate CT tables specific to their facility. The study would involve measuring actual Cryptosporidium
inactivation performance under site conditions. If accepted by the state, the system would then be
required to meet the CT values established  in the site-specific inactivation study and maintain the
operating conditions used in  the site-specific study. Guidance on site-specific studies is provided in
Appendix A of the LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual.

States that intend to approve alternative CT values for systems must describe in their primacy application
what protocols they will require for site-specific studies.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                111                                     August 2007
-------
References for more detailed guidance

        1.      LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual. USEPA, N.d.e. Forthcoming.
               (www.cpa.gov/safcwater/disinfcction/lt2)

4.4.6   Establishment of Alternative Approach to UV Reactor Validation Testing

§142.16 Special primacy requirements, (n): Requirements for states to adopt §141, subpart W. In
addition to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in this part, including the requirements that state
regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for approval of a state
program revision that adopts §141, subpart W,  must contain a description of how the state will
accomplish the following program requirements where allowed in state programs. 6) Approve an
alternative approach to UV reactor validation testing in the microbial toolbox.

Guidance

The LT2ESTWR requires that systems use UV reactors that have undergone validation testing to
determine the operating conditions under which the required UV dose will be delivered [§141.720(d)(2)].
The operating conditions must include flow, UV intensity as measured by a UV sensor, and UV lamp
status. The following specific factors, as described  in §141.720(d)(2)(i), must be addressed when
determining the operating conditions:

        •      UV absorbancc of the water.
        •      Lamp fouling and aging.
        •      Measurement uncertainty of on-line sensors.
        •      UV dose distributions arising from the velocity profiles through the reactor.
        •      Failure of UV lamps or other critical system components.
        •      Inlet and outlet piping or channel configurations of the UV reactor.

The LT2ESTWR also allows states to approve an alternative approach to validation  testing
[§141.720(d)(2)(iii)]. States that intend to approve  an alternative approach must describe in their primacy
application how they will determine whether the alternative approach  will assess reactor performance at
least as well as the validation approach in  the Rule. This flexibility was included to allow consideration of
new technology developments that were not widely accepted at the time that this rule was written.
Acceptance of an alternative approach should reflect EPA guidance and/or peer reviewed research and be
consistent with generally accepted engineering practices for the treatment scenario under consideration.

For example, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling has been used to estimate the UV dose
distribution in specific reactor configurations. However, at the time that the LT2ESWTR was developed,
CFD modeling was generally regarded by regulators as insufficient to replace full-scale reactor testing
because uncertainty and error ranges for CFD models are not known. Also, synthetic microspheres may
someday be useful as replacements  for challenge microorganisms that could be used in full-scale
validation testing.

States should note that UV reactors previously validated under certain existing protocols (i.e..  prior to
publication of this document) may receive log inactivation credit. The validation test must provide data
on UV dose delivery and monitoring for a documented UV reactor and the proper analysis of those data
must relate the measured performance to the required level of pathogen log inactivation credit. Acceptable
protocols include the Austrian Standards ONORM  M 5873-1 and M 5873-2, and the German Guideline
DVGW W294. UV reactors certified by DVGW and ONORM for a B. sub tills RED of 40 mJ/cm2 can be
granted 3.0-log Cryptosporidium and 3.0-log Giardia inactivation credit (DVGW 1997, ONORM 2003).

LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                112                                    August 2007
-------
However, validation under NWRI/AwwaRF Guidelines and NSF Standard 55 (NWRI/AwwaRF 2003,
NSF 2002) may not meet the requirements of the Rule. States that use NWRI/AwwaRF Guidelines and
NSF Standard 55 should describe how these validations would be evaluated to ensure that the
requirements of the Rule arc met.

References for more detailed guidance

        1.      Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidance Manual. USEPA, 2006. EPA 815-R-06-007.
               (www.cpa.gov/safcwater/disinfcction/lt2)
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance              113                                   August 2007
-------
                                 This page intentionally left blank
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
114
August 2007
-------
Section 5	
SDWIS Reporting and SNC
Definitions
Note: This section is under development.
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Section 6	
Public Notification and Consumer
Confidence Report Examples
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
 This section provides examples of violations that systems may incur under the LT2ESWTR. These
 examples address the public notification and CCR requirements for systems that incur these kinds of
 violations. Public notification and notification in the CCR are required follow-up activities for violations
 of the NPDWR. Also included in the examples are sample public notices and sample excerpts from CCR
 reports that would meet these public notification and CCR requirements. In the public notification
 samples, the language in italics is required in Appendix B to Subpart Q of §141.211.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               119                                   August 2007
-------
Issue 1: Failure to Take Action on Uncovered Finished Water Reservoir

System Description - System A

System A is a Subpart H system serving 12,000 people. The system has five finished water reservoirs,
two of which are uncovered.

Situation

On April 1, 2008, System A submits plans to the state detailing how and when it plans to cover its two
uncovered finished water reservoirs. Systems are required to have a cover or treatment in place for all
uncovered finished water reservoirs by April 1, 2009 or on a schedule approved by the state. However,
System A does not cover its finished water reservoirs until January 27, 2010, returning to compliance
with the LT2ESWTR one year after the schedule submitted to the state.

Public Notification and CCR Requirements

System A has committed a TT violation as a result of the system's failure to have both of its uncovered
finished water reservoirs covered by April 1, 2009. The system could have chosen to either cover the
reservoir or treat the discharge from its uncovered finished water reservoirs to achieve inactivation and/or
removal of 4.0-log virus, 3.0-log Giardia lamblia, and 2.0-log Cryplosporidium by the April 1, 2009
compliance date. System A also could have asked the state to approve an alternative schedule.  However,
since System A failed to implement any of the above options with regard to its finished water reservoirs
before the April 1, 2009 deadline, the system is in violation of the LT2ESWTR. This is a TT violation
and requires Tier 2 public notification.  The system must provide public notification within 30 days of
learning of the violation. Notification must be provided by mail or other direct delivery method (such as
hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected individuals that may not have received
the information by mail or the direct delivery method used. For any unresolved violation following an
initial Tier 2 notice, notice must be repeated every 3 months for as long as the violation persists. The
system was aware of the violation on April 1, 2009. Repeat public notification would  be required in this
example until the violation is resolved on January 27, 2010.

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6-1.

All TT violations must also be included in the system's annual CCR. An explanation of how the system
returned to compliance could also be included. An example of a report of this violation that could be used
in the system's CCR is shown in Example 6-2.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                120                                     August 2007
-------
 Example 6-1. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for Failure to Take Action on Uncovered
                                     Finished Water Reservoir
                 IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
        System A Failed to Cover the Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs by the Required Date

      Our water system recently violated a standard that requires all finished water reservoirs to be covered or the
      discharge from the reservoirs to be treated. Although this incident was not an emergency, as our customers,
      you have a right to know what happened and what we did to correct this situation.
      We were required to cover or treat the discharge of all uncovered finished water reservoirs by April 1, 2009.
      Although we did not cover or treat the discharge of our uncovered finished water reservoirs by this date, we
      are developing plans to cover them. We expect to have them covered by the end of January 2010.
      What should 1 do?
      There is nothing you need to do unless you have a severely compromised immune system, have an infant, or
      are elderly. These people may be at increased risk and should seek advice about drinking water from their
      health care providers. General guidelines on ways to lessen the risk of infection by microbes are available
      from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1 (800) 426-4791. If you have specific health concerns, consult
      your doctor.
      You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. If a situation arises where the water is no
      longer safe to drink, you will be notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22
      or Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).
      What does this mean?
      This is not an emergency. If it had been an emergency, you would have been notified within 24 hours.
      An uncovered reservoir used to store treated water is susceptible to contamination from animals, such as
      birds or insects. Inadequately treated water may contain disease-causing organisms. These organisms include
      bacteria, viruses, and parasites which can  cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated
      headaches.
      What is being done?
      We have initiated the project to cover the  uncovered finished water storage reservoirs. We expect to have the
      reservoirs covered by the end of January 2010. Until our finished water reservoirs are covered, you will
      receive a notice similar to this every 3 months.
      For more information, please contact John Johnson,  manager of System A, at 555-1234 or write to 2600
      Winding Rd., Townsville. GA 12345.
      Please share this information with all the  other people who drink this  water, especially those who may not
      have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and
      businesses). You can do this hy posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.
      This notice is being sent to you by System A.
                                                       State Water System ID# GA1234582. Sent: 4/15/2009
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                121                                       August 2007
-------
  Example 6-2. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Take Action on Uncovered
                                     Finished Water Reservoir
                                         Water Quality Data
Contaminant


Giardia lamb/ia,
Heterotrophic plate
count bacteria,
Legionella,
Cryptosporidium
MCL/
MRDL/
TT
TT
MCLG


0
Value



Date


April 2009
Violation


Yes*
Source


Sewage treatment
plants, septic systems,
agricultural livestock
operations, and
wildlife.
     *System A incurred a treatment technique violation for failing to cover or treat the discharge from its
     uncovered finished water storage reservoirs by April 1, 2009. More information about this violation is provided
     in the violation section.


                                               Vioiation

     •   We had begun the project but were unable to meet the deadline to cover our uncovered finished water
         storage reservoirs. All uncovered finished water storage reservoirs are required to be covered or the
         discharge treated  by April  1, 2009. We did not have a state-approved schedule in place to extend  the
         deadline. The system is planning to complete the project to install covers on the reservoirs in January
         2010.
         An uncovered reservoir used to store treated water is susceptible to contamination from animals, such as
         birds.  Inadequately  treated water or treated water that is contaminated may contain disease-causing
         organisms. These organisms include bacteria, viruses, and parasites which can cause symptoms such as
         nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated headaches.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
122
August 2007
-------
Issue 2: Failure to Notify the State before Making a Significant Change in Disinfection Practice

System Description - System B

System B is a large Subpart H system serving 109,000 people. It currently uses a conventional filtration
treatment plant as defined in §141.2 and chlorinates its water at the entry to the presedimentation basin
and after the filtration process. System B created a disinfection profile under §141.708.

Situation

On January 1, 2010, System B modifies its disinfection process by eliminating the presedimentation basin
chlorine application point and increasing the post-filtration chlorine dose. The PWS developed a
disinfection profile that contains all the elements described in §141.708(a)(l) through (3), however, the
system did not submit the plan to the state before making the change. System B submitted the plan to the
state on March  1,2010.

Public Notification and CCR Requirements

Although System B appropriately prepared the necessary significant disinfection practice modification
plan,  it did not notify the state prior to changing disinfection practices. System B has committed a
monitoring and reporting (M/R) violation as a result of the system's failure to notify the state prior to
making a  significant change to its treatment process. This  M/R violation requires Tier 3 public
notification, unless the state  requires a higher tier notification. Notification must be provided by mail or
other direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected
individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used.
Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill  and other service connections to which water is
delivered.

Since System B is a CWS, it could use the CCR to inform the public of the Tier 3 violation if the CCR is
released within 1 year of the system learning of the violations. For this particular example, the system
became aware of the violation on February 1, 2010 and returned to compliance on March 1, 2010. The
public could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced for calendar year 2010 if the
CCR  is released prior to February 1, 2011 (the CCR for calendar year 2010 is required to be released by
July 1, 2011, for compliance with the CCR Rule). In this situation, additional public notification would
not be required. However, if public notification is provided by other means, this violation would still have
to be reported by the system in the CCR produced for calendar year 2010,  since all violations of National
Primary Drinking Water Rules must be reported in the CCR for the calendar year in which the system
became aware of the violation. The violation report in the  CCR should include similar  information
contained in the public notice.

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public  notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6-3. An example of a report of these violations in the CCR is shown in Example 6-4.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               123                                     August 2007
-------
  Example 6-3. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Receive Approval Before
                     Making a Significant Change in Disinfection Practice
                 IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
  System B Failed to Receive Approval Before Making a Significant Change to our Disinfection Practice

     Our water system recently failed to notify the state prior to significantly modifying our disinfection practices.
     Although this incident was not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right to know what happened and
     what we did to correct this situation.
     On January 1, 2010, we made some changes at the water treatment plant to reduce disinfection byproducts in
     the distribution system. We stopped chlorinating at the presedimenation basin and increased the amount of
     chlorine we add after the water is filtered. This is considered a significant change to our disinfection practice
     and we were required to notify the state before making the change. We prepared a plan with specific
     information on proposed changes to our disinfection practices, including a description of the proposed
     change, specific disinfection records, and an analysis of how the proposed change would affect the levels of
     disinfection in our system. However, we did not submit a copy of the report to the state before making any
     Changes to our disinfection practices.
     What should I do?
     There is nothing you need to do. Although this change modified our treatment process, our facility continues
     to provide more than the minimum required inactivation treatment for disease-causing organisms.
     You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions.  If a situation arises where the water is no
     longer safe to drink, you will be notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22
     or Radio Station KMMM (97.3  I'M).
     What does this mean?
     This is not an emergency.  If it had been an emergency, you would have been notified within 24 hours.
     This change to our disinfection practices without notifying the state did not  adversely impact our water
     quality and we have met all treatment requirements. Inadequately treated water may contain disease-causing
     organisms. These organisms include bacteria, viruses, and parasites which can cause symptoms such as
     nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and  associated headaches. However, we are not aware of any health effects on you,
     our customer, as a result of this  modification.
     What is being done?
     We submitted our plans to the state on  March 1. 2010. The state approved the changes to disinfection process
     on April 1,2010.
     For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System B, at 555-1234 or write to 2600
     Winding Rd., Townsville, GA  12345.
     Please share this information  with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who  may not
     have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and
     businesses).  You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.
     This notice is being sent to you  by System B.
                                                  State Water System ID#  GA 1234582. Sent: April 10, 2010
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                 124                                      August 2007
-------
     Example 6-4. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Notify the State before
                      Making a Significant Change in Disinfection Practice
                                               Violation

          On January 1, 2010 we stopped adding chlorine to the early stages of our treatment process and
          increased the amount of chlorine we add before the water is distributed to consumers. We prepared a
          plan with specific information on the proposed changes, including a description of the proposed changes,
          specific disinfection records, and an analysis of how the proposed change would affect the levels of
          disinfection in our system. However we did not submit a copy of the report to the state before making
          the changes.
          A change to our disinfection practices without state approval did not adversely impact our water quality
          and we continue to meet all treatment requirements. Inadequately treated water may contain disease-
          causing organisms. These organisms include bacteria, viruses, and parasites which can cause symptoms
          such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated headaches. However, we are not aware of any health
          effects that occurred as a result of this modification.
          We submitted our plans on March 1, 2010. The state approved the changes to disinfection process  on
          April 1, 2010. This violation is now resolved.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                125                                      August 2007
-------
Issue 3: Failure to Provide the Level of Treatment Appropriate for Bin Classification

System Description - System C

System C is a small Subpart H system using surface water and serving 7,500 people. It currently uses a
conventional filtration treatment plant as defined in §141.2 and uses chlorine as its primary disinfectant.

Situation

System C, which monitors for Cryptosporidium, meets its source water monitoring requirements since it
begins 24 months of monthly source water monitoring by April 1, 2010. System C finishes this monthly
monitoring for its initial round of source water monitoring by April 1, 2012. The system determines that
its Cryptosporidium bin concentration is 0.9 oocysts/L, which classifies it as Bin 2. System C therefore
needs to provide an additional 1.0-log of Cryptosporidium treatment by October 1, 2014 or be in
compliance with a state-approved alternative schedule. System C chooses to install UV disinfection to
achieve the necessary treatment credits. Since UV will meet Giardia and Cryptosporidium requirements,
System C may be able to decrease the amount of chlorine currently used. The system is required to submit
its plans to the state for approval. After receiving approval of its plan from the state, System C proceeds
to install and operate its additional treatment. On April 1, 2015, System C installs and begins operating
UV disinfection applied as the last step of treatment.

Public Notification and CCR Requirements

System C has committed a TT violation. The required treatment was not installed and operational prior to
the compliance date of October 1, 2014. Treatment should have been installed by  October 1, 2014. The
system could have been granted a 2 year extension, but in this example it was not. This is a TT violation
and requires Tier 2 public notification. The system must provide public notification within 30 days of
learning of the violation. Notification must be provided by mail or other direct delivery method (such as
hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected individuals that would not have
received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used. For any unresolved violation
following an initial Tier 2 notice, notice must be repeated every 3 months for as long as the violation
persists. System C became aware of the violation on November 2, 2014. Repeat public notification is
required in this instance since the violation was not resolved until April, 1 2015.

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6-5.

All TT violations must also be included in the system's annual CCR. An explanation of how the system
returned to compliance could also be included. An example of a report of this violation that could be used
in the system's CCR is shown in Example 6-6.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               126                                    August 2007
-------
     Example 6-5. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for Failure to Provide the Level of
                          Treatment Appropriate for Bin Classification
                 IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
     System C Failed to Provide the Appropriate Level of Treatment Within the Required Time Frame

     Our water system failed to install our new UV disinfection system by the required treatment date of October
     1, 2014. Although this incident was not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right to know what
     happened and what we did to correct this situation.
     We are required to install and have additional treatment operating to provide additional Cryptosporidium
     inactivation or removal by October 1, 2014. We anticipate the system will be operational in April, 2015.
     What should I do?
     There is nothing you need to do unless you have a severely compromised immune system, have an infant, or
     are elderly. These people may be at increased risk and should seek advice about drinking water from their
     health care providers. General guidelines on ways to lessen the risk of infection by microbes are available
     from  EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1 (800) 426-4791. If you have specific health concerns, consult
     your doctor.
     You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. If a situation arises where the water is no
     longer safe to drink, you will be notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22
     or Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).
     What does this mean?
     This is not an emergency. If it had been, you would have been notified within 24 hours.
     Inadequately treated water may contain disease-causing organisms.  These organisms include bacteria,
     viruses, and parasites which can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated
     headaches.
     What is being done?
     We are currently under construction  for the project and we expect to have the additional treatment operating
     by April, 2015.
     For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System C, at 555-1234 or write to 2600
     Winding Rd., Townsville, GA 12345.
     Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not
     have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools,  and
     businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.
     This notice is being sent to you by System C.
                                             State Water System 1D# GA1234582. Sent: November 20, 2014
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                 127                                      August 2007
-------
      Example 6-6. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Provide the Level of
                         Treatment Appropriate for Bin Classification
                                        Water Quality Data
Contaminant


Cryptosporidium

MCL/
MRDL/
TT
TT

MCLG


0

Value




Date


October
2014
Violation


Yes*

Source




    *System C incurred a treatment technique violation for failing to provide the level of treatment appropriate for
    our system's treatment classification. More information about this violation is provided in the violation section.


                                              Violation

    •   Our water system failed to provide the level of treatment appropriate for our system's treatment
        classification. We were required to install and have additional treatment operating to provide additional
        Cryptosporidium removal by October 1, 2014. The system became operational in April, 2015. You were
        notified of this violation in November, 2014 and again in February, 2015.
    •   Inadequately treated water may contain disease-causing organisms. These organisms include bacteria,
        viruses, and parasites which can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated
        headaches.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
128
August 2007
-------
Issue 4: Failure to Conduct Source Water Monitoring (Initial or Second Round)

System Description - System D

System D is a small Subpart H system serving 3,000 people that uses a small lake as a source: Small
systems that provide filtration or are required to provide filtration must initially conduct 1 year of
bi-weekly sampling (one sample every 2 weeks) for E. coli, beginning October 1, 2008. These systems
are triggered into Cryptosporidium monitoring only if the initial E. coli monitoring indicates a mean
concentration greater than 10 E. coli/\00 mL for systems using a reservoir or lake as their primary source.
The small systems that exceed these E. coli trigger values must either monitor for Cryptosporidium
twice-per-month for  1 year, or at least monthly for 2 years beginning April 1, 2010.

Situation

System D begins conducting E. coli  monitoring on October 1, 2008.  After 1 year of monitoring, System
D determines that its annual mean E. coli concentration is 31 E.  coli/100 mL. System E does not conduct
any further source water monitoring and docs not intend to install TTs to achieve 5.5-log of treatment for
Cryptosporidium.

Public Notification and CCR Requirements

System D has committed an M/R violation during the first 3 months  for failure to collect three or more
Cryptosporidium samples and report the results to EPA or the state. Based on the annual mean
concentration of E. coli determined by the initial source water monitoring (31 E. coli/100 mL is greater
than 10 E. co/i/\00 mL), System D is required to begin source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium at
least monthly for 2 years no later than April 1, 2010. Failing to take three or more samples is an M/R
violation that required special notice at the same level as Tier 2 public notice within 30 days of learning
of the violation. The  system became aware of the violation on July 12, 2010. Notification must be
provided by mail or other direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable
method to reach affected individuals that would not have received the information by mail  or the direct
delivery method used. Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill and other service
connections to which water is delivered. Repeat notices must be provided every 3 months as long as the
violation exists.

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements  is shown in  Example 6-7.
An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in  Example 6-8.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               129                                    August 2007
-------
   Example 6-7. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for Failure to Conduct Source Water
                 Monitoring (Initial or Second Round) and Report the Results
                IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                    Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System D

     We are required to monitor the source of your drinking water for Ciyptosporidium. Results of the monitoring
     are to be used to determine whether water treatment at Plant A is sufficient to adequately treat the water for
     Cryptosporidium. We are required to complete this monitoring and make this determination by April 1, 2012.
     We did not monitor or test on schedule and, therefore, we may not be able to determine by the required date
     what treatment modifications, if any, must be made. Missing this deadline may, in turn, jeopardize our ability
     to have the required treatment modifications,  if any, completed by the deadline required, October 1, 2014.
     What should I do?
     There is nothing you need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. You
     may continue to drink the water. If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be
     notified within 24 hours. We will  announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or Radio Station KMMM (97.3
     FM).
     Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population.
     Immuno-compromised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy,  persons who have
     undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, and
     infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should  seek advice about drinking water from
     their health care providers. EPA/CDC guidelines on appropriates means to lessen the risk  of infection by
     Ciyptosporidium and other microbial contaminants are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-
     800-426-4791).
     What was done?
     On August 2, 2010, we will begin collecting the required source water monitoring samples.
     For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System D, at 555-1234 or write to 2600
     Winding Rd., Townsville, GA 12345.
     Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not
     have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and
     businesses). You can do this bv posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.
     This notice is being sent to you by System D.
                                                  State Water System ID# GA 1234589. Sent: July 20, 2010
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                130                                      August 2007
-------
     Example 6-8. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Conduct Source Water
                 Monitoring (Initial or Second Round) and Report the Results
                                             Violation

         Our water system recently failed to conduct additional source water monitoring as required. We were
         required to begin source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium at least once each month for 2 years no
         later than April 1,2010. On August 2, 2010 we began collecting the required source water monitoring
         samples.
         Inadequately treated water may contain disease-causing organisms. These organisms include bacteria,
         viruses, and parasites which can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated
         headaches.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                131                                     August 2007
-------
Issue 5: Failure to Submit a Source Water Monitoring Schedule 3 Months Prior to Date System is
Required to Begin Monitoring

System Description - System E

System E is an unfiltered Subpart H system serving 2,500 people that meets all the criteria for avoiding
filtration found in § 141.71.

Situation

System E submits a sampling schedule to the state for the initial round of source water monitoring
January 1, 2010, however, it forgets about the second round of source water monitoring that is required
and does not submit a sampling schedule. On March 1, 2019, 1 month before System E is required to
begin the second round of source water monitoring, a neighboring water system reminds System E that it
is required to conduct a second round of source water monitoring. System E develops a sampling
schedule and fulfills its source water M/R requirements in accordance with the schedule in §141.701(c).

Public Notification and CCR Requirements

System E has committed an M/R violation for failing to submit a sampling schedule to the state for the
second round of source water monitoring before January  1, 2019 (i.e., 3 months before the second round
of source water monitoring), even if it conducts the required monitoring and reported the results to the
state. This is an M/R violation and the system must provide Tier 3 public notice of the violation. The
system must provide public notification within 1 year of learning of the violation. Notification must  be
provided by mail or other direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable
method to reach affected individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct
delivery method used. Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill and other service
connections to which water is delivered.

Since System E is a CWS, it could use the CCR to inform the public of the Tier 3 violations if the CCR is
released within 1 year of the system's learning of the violations. For this particular example, the system
became aware of the M/R violation on March 1, 2019. The public could therefore be informed of the
violation in the CCR produced for calendar year 2019 if the CCR is released prior to March 1, 2020  (the
CCR for calendar  year 2019 is required to  be released by July 1, 2020, for compliance with the CCR
Rule). In this situation, additional public notification would not be required. However, whether public
notification is provided by other means, the violation would still have to be reported by the system in the
CCR produced for calendar year 2019, since all violations of National Primary Drinking Water  Rules
must be reported in the CCR for the calendar year in which the system became aware of the violation. The
violation report in the CCR should include similar information contained in the public notice.

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6-9. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-10.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               132                                    August 2007
-------
   Example 6-9. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Submit a Source Water
   Monitoring Schedule 3 Months Prior to Date System is Required to Begin Monitoring
                IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                    Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System E

     Our water system recently failed to submit a source water monitoring schedule 3 months before the date we
     were required to begin the monitoring. Although this incident was not an emergency, as our customers, you
     have a right to know what happened and what we did to correct the situation.
     What should I do?
     There is nothing you need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. You
     may continue to drink the water. If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be
     notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or Radio Station KJVIMM (97.3
     FM).
     What was done?
     On March 10, 2019, 1 month before we were required to begin the source water monitoring, we developed a
     monitoring schedule and fulfilled our source water monitoring and reporting requirements as required.
     For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System E, at 555-1234 or write to 2600
     Winding Rd.. Townsville, GA 12345.
     Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not
     have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and
     businesses). You can Jo this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.
     This notice is being sent to you by System E.
                                               State Water System ID# GA1234589. Sent: March 20, 2019
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                133                                      August 2007
-------
   Example 6-10. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Submit a Source Water-
   Monitoring Schedule 3 Months Prior to Date System is Required to Begin Monitoring
                                           Violation

         We failed to submit a source water monitoring schedule 3 months before the date we were required to
         begin the source water monitoring.

         On March 10, 2019,  1 month before we were required to begin the source water monitoring, we
         developed a sampling schedule and fulfilled our source water monitoring and reporting requirements as
         required.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               134                                   August 2007
-------
Issue 6: Failure to Collect Samples in Accordance with Sampling Schedule

System Description - System F

System F is a small filtered Subpart H system serving 9,000 people.

Situation

System F has two qualified operators. While System F is conducting its required source water monitoring
for E. coli, the operator that usually collects the bi-weekly E. coli sample goes on vacation for 1 month.
System F's other operator decides to wait until his/her colleague returns to work to continue the required
source water monitoring instead of collecting the samples themselves. Therefore, System F does not
collect samples for the month of December 2008.

Public Notification and CCR Requirements

System F has committed an M/R violation for failing to sample within 2 days before, or 2 days after the
scheduled date. The LT2ESWTR allows systems that face "extreme conditions," situations "that may
pose danger to the sampler," "unforeseen" situations, or  situations that "cannot be avoided" to sample as
close to the scheduled date as is feasible and to submit an explanation for the alternative  sampling date
with the analytical results. A vacationing operator docs not satisfy any of these scenarios. Since the
system failed to collect the sample, this is an M/R violation and the system must provide Tier 3 public
notice of the violation. The system must contact the state to revise their  sampling schedule by adding
dates for missed samples. Notification must be provided by mail or other direct delivery  method (such as
hand delivery) and any other reasonable method to reach affected individuals that would not have
received the information by mail or the  direct delivery method used.  Notice must be provided to each
customer receiving a bill and other service connections to which water is delivered.

Since System F is a CWS, it could use the CCR to inform the public  of the Tier 3 violation if the CCR is
released within 1 year of the system's learning of the violations. For  this particular example, the system
became aware of the  M/R violation on January 1, 2009. The public could therefore be informed of the
violation in the CCR produced for calendar year 2009 if the CCR is released prior to January 1, 2010 (the
CCR for calendar year 2009 is required to be released by July 1, 2010, for compliance with the CCR
Rule). In this situation, additional public notification would not be required. However, whether public
notification is provided by other means, the violation would still have to be reported by the system in the
CCR produced for calendar year 2009, since all violations of National Primary Drinking Water Rules
must be reported in the CCR for the calendar year in which the system became aware of the violation. The
violation report in the CCR should include similar information contained in the public notice.

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6-11. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-12.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                135                                    August 2007
-------
     Example 6-11. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Collect Samples in
                              Accordance with Sampling Schedule
                IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                    Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System F

     Our system is required to collect one year of bi-weekly source water samples. In the month of December
     2008, we failed to collect the source water samples. We are required to collect these samples to determine if
     additional treatment of our source water is necessary. Although this incident was not an emergency, as our
     customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we did to correct this situation.
     What should 1 do?
     There is nothing you need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. You
     may continue to  drink the water. If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be
     notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or Radio Station KMMM (97.3
     FM).
     What was done?
     On January 10, 2009, we submitted a request to the state to sample our source water next December so that
     we will have representative samples from each month. The state approved our request for this change on
     January 24, 2009. This adjusted schedule will not affect our ability to determine if more treatment is needed,
     or to install such treatment  within the required time frame, if it is necessary.
     For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System F, at 555-1234 or write to 2600
     Winding Rd., Townsville, GA 12345.
     Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not
     have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and
     businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.
     This notice is being sent to you by System F.
                                               State Water System ID# GA 1234589. Sent: January 26, 2009
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                136                                      August 2007
-------
      Example 6-12. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Collect Samples in
                             Accordance with Sampling Schedule
                                           Violation

         We failed to collect two source water samples in December 2008 in accordance with our sampling
         schedule. Our system is required to collect bi-weekly source water samples.
         In January 2009, we negotiated with the state a schedule for sampling in December 2009. These samples
         were collected as required and no additional treatment needs are necessary for our system.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               137                                    August 2007
-------
Issue 7: Failure to Sample at an Appropriate Location

System Description - System G

System G is a large Subpart H system serving 15,000 people. System G uses bank filtration to meet the
source water filtration requirement of § 141.173(b). The water body adjacent to the collector well is a
large river.

Situation

On April 1, 2008, System G begins to conduct monthly monitoring for Cryptosporidium. System G
collects its first two samples from the well, after bank filtration. The system source water monitoring plan
indicated it would collect samples from the river. The state identifies the sample location error and directs
the system to begin sampling from the adjacent river, beginning June 1, 2008. The state further directs the
system to collect source water samples for April and May of 2010 (at the end of the 2-year monitoring
period) to ensure representative samples are obtained for each calendar month for 2 years.

Public Notification and CCR Requirements

System G has committed an M/R violation. Systems using bank filtration as an alternative filtration to
meet the Giardia lamblia and virus inactivation and Cryptosporidium removal requirements of
§414.173(b) or 141.552(a) must take surface water samples prior to bank filtration. Only unfiltered
GWUDI systems meeting the filtration avoidance criteria in §141.71 and bank filtered systems that
receive no treatment credit for bank filtration can collect samples from  the well (after bank filtration).
This is an M/R violation and the system must provide Tier 3 public notice  of the violation.  The system
must provide notification within 1 year of learning of the violation. Notification must be provided by mail
or other direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach
affected individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method
used. Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill and other service connections to which
water is delivered.

Since System G is a CWS, it could use the CCR to inform the public of the Tier 3 violations if the CCR is
released within 1 year of the system's learning of the violation. For this particular example, the system
became aware of the violation on May 10, 2008. The public could therefore be informed of the violation
in the CCR produced for calendar year 2008 if the CCR is released prior to May 10, 2009 (the CCR for
calendar year 2008 is required to be released by July 1, 2009, for compliance with the CCR Rule).  In this
situation, additional public notification would not be required. However, whether public notification is
provided by other means, this violation would still have to be reported by the system in  the CCR
produced for calendar year 2008, since all violations of National Primary Drinking Water Rules must be
reported in the CCR for the calendar year in which the system became aware of the violation. The
violation report in the CCR should include similar information contained in the public notice.

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6-13. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-14.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                138                                     August 2007
-------
 Example 6-13. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Sample at an Appropriate
                                              Location
                 IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                System G Did Not Collect Source Water Samples at the Correct Location

      Our system is required to collect source water samples once each month for two years. These samples are to
      be collected prior to any treatment and will be used to determine if additional treatment is necessary. On
      April 1, 2008, we began to conduct the required monitoring for Cryptosporidium. However, the first two
      samples were collected at the wrong location. Although this incident was not an emergency, as our
      customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we did to correct this situation.
      What should I do?
      There is nothing you need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. This
      monitoring violation did not affect our water treatment system and was only intended to indicate the quality
      of our source water before any treatment is applied. You may continue to drink the water. If a situation arises
      where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be notified within 24 hours. We will announce any
      emergencies on Channel 22 or Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).
      What was done?
      On May  10, 2008, we determined the samples were collected at the wrong location. The sampling location
      has been corrected and the samples will now be collected at the appropriate location. This situation is now
      resolved.
      For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System G, at 555-1234 or write to 2600
      Winding Rd., Townsville, GA 12345.
      Please share this information  with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not
      have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and
      businesses).  Yon can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.
      This notice is being sent to you by System G.
                                                  State Water System 1D# GA1234589. Sent: May 15, 2008
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance                139             .                         August 2007
-------
  Example 6-14. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Sample at an Appropriate
                                             Location
                                             Violation

         We failed to collect the first two source water monitoring samples at the appropriate location. Our
         system uses bank filtration to meet the Giardia lamblia and virus inactivation and Cryptosporidium
         removal requirements and must take surface water samples. On April 1, 2008, we began to conduct
         monitoring for Cryptosporidium, however, the first two samples collected were collected at the wrong
         location in the system.
         On May 10, 2008, we determined the samples were collected at the wrong location. The sampling
         location has been corrected and the samples will now be collected at the appropriate location. The
         situation is now resolved. This issue had no affect on the treatment system or the quality of the water we
         provide.
LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance               140                                      August 2007
-------
Appendix A	
Primacy Revision Crosswalk
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
 O
U
 o

b
 H
 Z
 U
O*
Q
U
U.
-
t/3
        U
        <<
        C£
        U

        bd
        a

        •<  >

1






s

§
r ,
J




(N
s,







s
oo
PS
CO




2
S,







Bank filtration




(N
S>







C/D
O
oo
"2
C3
U




(N
S,







Flowing stream




2
Z>







Lake/reservoir




(N
£





C
O
.*^
Membrane filtra




(N
vn







-------
« H ^
g z t-
Q w z H
Oi 2 O w
1* u SB 1
^, H z (/j 1
W 3 j H
S a £, 3
w w x os
to Pi y •<
U. . C- 0.1
Z Q W
O W «3
u. 1
1
1
w ^
w K
^ a 5^
o - 3
H J g- O
£ H ffl 5
u g s |
Slg|
H 3 H
1/3 y U
o S
S
z
0
£•
1_
u
^
Bi
U
a
u.



SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
_j






I
\ 1
i i
!
I I
1 1
i
i
1
I
|
J




|
1
>





C/3
O
f P
j
O
;>
C£
UJ
SUBPART Q-PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF DRINKING WAT








1 O
i ^
g.

I 5
! ce:
I O
i b
a
u
H
^
l s
I pi
I 0
I V)
1 w
1 * J
' *"" [I
o S
5 §
H £
z §
O a
s g
o p«
o £
O z
u <
o S
U £
r/ ^
§141.211 SPECIAL NOTICE FOR REPEATED FAILUI
AND OR FAILURE TO DETERMINE BIN CLASSIFICATION (































, 	 ^
-S
(N
—
_
c£»


^•o £ c" o
•— c o cs J^
E 0 5? -o 0 ^- ^-,
1 II flit
O *7~- c/} ^— "~" ^"^
O , ^~> f^ oOc c<^"
'E 'E o J-J ^2 -a -a
3 o > Q. o o
P P b P £ c c
E r- " 5 B 'u 'o
g S CA U £ GJ_ t
^ "p | o ^ " "
° 3- n."S t3 oo -c
i- p ^ 0 o C 1
a .'£. '"• "" w 2 '
O •— tn OC rt 2 i
o £ p -c o v. "2
t. cj — O m o
! I S 1 1 1 ..
r" ^ - — ' 03 iS C































^
^
fN
^
-H
«73


Systems must give special notice for failure to determine
bin classification or mean Cryptosporidium level































^
^
(N
^
—
iff)


fe -a
H g
2^
£ D.^
(DO
.fa ^-v fN
£T f> ^
" o —
U ^ «73
"5 5- c
£ ~ -5
O W) ^
Iff
'•S 0, C
o ., u
r^ QJ c/
G 0 u
.y 'C £
O O ,_




























^^
Q
^;
X
i^
fN
^
—

O K^
(U *- >1
Mandatory language must be included in the special notic
The special notice for repeated failure to conduct
monitoring must contain the following language:
We are required to monitor the source of your drinking
water for Cryptosporidium. Results of the monitoring are
be used to determine whether water treatment at the
(treatment plant name) is sufficient to adequately remove
Cryptosporidium from your drinking water. We are
required to complete this monitoring and make this
determination by (required bin determination date). We
"did not monitor or test" or "did not complete all
monitoring or testing" on schedule and, therefore, we ma

-------
DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)
STATE CITATION
(DOCUMENT TITLE, PAGE
NUMBER,
SECTION/PARAGRAPH)
FEDERAL CITATION

H
Z
W
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIRED
1!
II
II


3
C/}
.s~ g
. -c 2
not be able to determine by the required date
treatment modifications, if any, must be made



S i S §
3 -1 it
8-3|!a
^ §"^ ~ *
•~ £J _e ^ ^
? ^ -S o p
T^ <1> ^
adequate Cryptosporidium removal. Missing
may, in turn, jeopardize our ability to have th
treatment modifications, if any, completed by
required, (date). For more information, please
water system contact) of (name of water syste





number).



.1 ^
classifica
the follow
The special notice for failure to determine bin
or mean Cryptosporidium level must contain





language:



tr
.S ^ "aT
43 D C
^ c *->
We are required to monitor the source of youi
water for Cryptosporidium in order to determ
whether water treatment at the (treatment plar



o
|l
sufficient to adequately remove Cryptosporid
drinking water. We have not made this detern



;-< <•
O G
|fe
n. o
O 'S
•~-> u
?*»«
1^
2
.2 G
j: *-
*^ c
o u
-o £
0 rt
•^ ID
y fc
3 -a
711 n>
^ •-
^ g.
0 2
. 
U. *^H
i> ^3
^^



<*H
O
o CT
S o
o «
i §
MH C
completed by the required deadline of (date).
information, please call (name of water syster
(name of water system) at (phone number).



"5
<4- ~
O C
II
D.T3
'C C
« S
T3 ,0
rt rt
||
l|
"« ^
S 0
CH -4-.
11
15 • —
'5 S
OJ OJ
Cu «
c/5 ^
J3 M




O
system expects to return to compliance or rest
situation.
-------

2
o
Pi
H
Z

pi
U
u.
u.
5


O
H
H
0
H
W3




































'H
z

u
HM
^^
o-
w
Pi

Q*
a
O
e.
-J
NM
H
Z
U

S




































2
O
Z
^
^
a-
X

^*,




tf
CO

Z





































/— «. li
t-
u
u
K
u
H

cc
^
0.
u
CB

O
a.
O
pi
P.
O
U
u






1




c
o
Z
i y
3
CO
1 U>
h
z
1 i

^
z
i 2
1 H
Z 1 H
o
H p pi
•< | W
t If *
J P Q

^ I £
£ " <
u | z
fa 1 O
H
»> o
II >
11 *
H
z
1


N-
^
o*
u
05
j
•*•
O
z
1
^H

^^
Pi
f ^-
i ^
•< H to-
pi |1 O
|| ex

fa pi

2 «
51 s
<
s
s
t/5

2
X
5
APPEN

\













i
1
!
'
!
.






<
X
•3
C o
CL. ""•
9" ^
i—
C1 ^/^ ON £?
rs o o £ ;
r^ r^- r^- ^
^J" ^1" ^i" "*. (L>
i i i a, •&
CO S3 — i OO 5 o
o — o o o 2 c
•c r^ ^ -c t^ r^ ^ ^
Cy r~ H C\J , . ^.7 ra
! • •""" LH -M *""' '~™ f* .12

O •— - •— o -—i — * o y
CC t-l OH
« «s S,
S- ^ c
•^ 
O I** 'S U 'S * tt  [^z^Sz04 1 .« 1
^ Q 3 60S 0 rt I
w ^ «£ -S £ ^ •- 1
H I's s's If!
k— 4 1— J f"1 . ' S **^
rr t-. 5 *-< c^ -— i
*^^ QJ O U f i .. W !
2 2P SH * §|
I
|
I
(
?


>
§141.700 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS


o'
o
on CH
dj o
The requirements of this subpart W are NPDWR. T
regulations in this subpart establish or extend TT
requirements in lieu of MCLs for Cryptosporidium.
requirements are in addition to requirements for filt
and disinfection in subparts H, P, and T of this part.


o"
0
"^ 8 y
2^ ^ ^
Applicability. The requirements of this subpart appl
subpart H systems, which are PWSs supplied by a s
water source and PWSs supplied by a ground water
under the direct influence of surface water.
-------
ilzd!
£ ** ° X 1
L_ B Z . CB |l
Z S 3 u l
W U j H
tf O1 £ •< •
W W X K ,
fe os S •< ;-
ta . >_/ &, t'
S O W -
MM »a .
u.
u '..
O " ^ i1
H J -J- O
H ~ W ^ '
iiii-
cfl U U
O w
Q x
o •-
H s
f- ' ^
U X
tJ ' £-
• C
""""> C
3 
en ^
en '3
c cr
1 a
en tiD
•S 0
c —
~ (2
§ 




















^
J^
O
o"
O
r-
— '
s.
Systems must conduct an initial and a second round of
source water monitoring for each plant that treats a surface
water or GWUDI source. This monitoring may include
sampling for Ciyptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity as
described in §§141 .701 through 141.706, to determine what
level, if any, of additional Cryptosporidium treatment they
must provide.




















r7
-^
o
0
o
f^
_ ;
s
Systems that plan to make a significant change to their
disinfection practice must develop disinfection profiles and
calculate disinfection benchmarks, as described in
§§14 1.708 through 141.709.
 SP
<
 R
 r->
 a
 s
E
-------
t: 11
s £ PI
O w z w if
g S o g |
H § £ t«
Z s < w
W U j H
os O1 &, ^
U U X 05
u. a! S <
u. . C- c-
X Q u
H U (/I
U,
U
< £
2 S ^
H J j- O
S ^
M H ea ^
H i i ^



j


5i


|
i
1

i



&> O U i)
O w
a M i
0
H ,
< H
-1 i 2
•< o
K 0

o _:
U ^f
u. — <

C
' ^^ -*— •
T3 £^ O T"
s: C m o C .s
[MARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
S
^^
ff>

ms must determine their Cryptosporidiw
classification as described in §141.710 a
lonal treatment for Cryptosporidium, if
escribed in §141.71 1. All'unfiltered syst<
treatment for Cryptosporidium as descril
tered and unfiltered systems must impler
ium treatment according to the schedule
1 u c ."S "^ 4> ~ "^3
| "*r? -^ -^ .— -Q ri^ '^*
>> "2 "° rt '> -3
1 "oS '3 ts - p;-


























^
§
o"
0

^^
•^-
1— *
ctfj

UH
O
(U >>
uncovered finished water storage faciliti
with the requirements to cover the facilit
large from the facility as described in
•S >• o

^ &*3
to g u 2
to 2 S ^
>, g OJ -H


























^^
O
^)
o
r-.
, 	 \
T^J-
1 	 1
«»




ired to provide additional treatment for
ium must implement microbial toolbox
re designed and operated as described in
rough 141.720.
3 ~Q * £
cr -r- *. *^
JJ o _g >n
e li^
1 =x§5
en S'S — i
>^ r1-- O.C03
t/3 U O «»


























^
^
o'
0
r-
_;
•^~
^-*
<&>
j.
oc
*-,n ^
a* P
: comply with the applicable recordkeepi
requirements described in §§141.721 thi
vi 00
3 C
S t
« ° CN
S S1 p!
CO -Q . — 1
>. c •*
cn co — '


























,-v
'c?
o"
0
r-
. 	 \
^j-
^^
«w

C5
•"•
-o
: address significant deficiencies identifk
:ys performed by EPA as described in
-^^ yj
^t CH
<*><*{
O g _ '
fo 'S T*'
OO S C03
-------
e^ ||j
r_.... p|
* z Pp
O H z U 1
£ s o a i
£ S z £ M
™ OH ••> ' '
Z ~ < W s
td S j H f!
P2 O 5. < II
td W X «
U. Bj rvi <
fc. . S- 0- il
S Q td SI
O U I» 1
U.
II
UJ (
< £ i
z SS 5
2 « 31
< ^g < P
t H g « 1
u H s £ 1
td Z 3 > II
H u Z S *f
< ? 2 |!
S- 3 *- \\
 u u is
O w pi
S ll
^^ Ij
ill
U« 1;-
si!

U I1'
5 '•
^ii
U |si
Q 1'
u K
ta, |!


SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
§141.701 SOURCE WATER MONITORING




























r 	 ^
CO
o
r-
^ 	 ^
•^f
5i


Systems must conduct the following monitoring on the
schedule in paragraph (c) of this section unless they meei
the monitoring exemption criteria in paragraph (d) of this
section.


























/ 	
^^
^^
03
O
I--
^
^
an
_OJ
n.
E
03
c/}
" "c
I3-
Ji "5
n. ^
w tq
OH
§1-5
|| |
i is
«j 2 ^
~ 5^^
«» e ^
^^
'^ ^ ^
g«8 |
1/1 fe E
§1 a
S Ji
c/^ CL> ^
>> o w
^ §^
g 8 ^
^•S^e
E 6 3


























^_^
(N

C3
O
r-
..,
Tt
S


t^ t«
3 CS
£ Ji
•jl 13
DH ~
0 5
 ^
^^
o r-
§1
2 S
ll
J> U
CO o
g>t
.tl u
H|
ia |
5 3 e
^S?i
^•- fc
T3 Jj <2
a - x
a ja 2
^ 1 §
D S E
























, 	 ,
x
ri

'^s
O
r-~
, 	 ;
^t
W
o
£
tS >-.
C «
E >
u <"
uy
0 C
B.2
o ^5
§ «
2 S
§|
J3 °
t kj
^ >-
S ,0
.0 '"
^ !_
60 S
C c3
"> $• w
& S -
00 " S
tn -3 O
i i s
" u, 

























.-^
^^
m

'c?
O
r~~
'
Tf
C&>
-*— fl>
« fi
^H T~! [/I
A filtered system serving fewer than 10,000 people may
avoid E. coli monitoring if the system notifies the state tl
it will monitor for Cnptosporidium as described in
paragraph (a)(4) of this section. The system must notify t
state no later than 3 months prior to the date the system i:
otherwise required to start E. coli monitoring under §
141.701(c).


























/ 	
^f

'c?
O
r~-
4
•*f
un


Filtered systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must
sample their source water for Cnptosporidium at least
twice per month for 12 months or at least monthly for 24
months if they meet one of the following, based on
monitoring conducted under paragraph (a)(3) of this
section:


K
O
I-
-------

5 z P
O w z u
g S o gj
[_ 3 Z t/3
z 2 3 w
£ 3 j H
PS O1 ft, ^
W W X PS
to Ki £ <
W" • ^^ Cu
r Q u
M U W5
U.
 >
H W Z s
< S 8 Ii
H U Hi
03 U U
O w
0 •;
P
< l -O
H j X

U 5;
i * C3
^_-
Qj O
U t-
Q ' _;
U ' Tfr
w

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
For systems using lake/reservoir sources, the annual mean
E. coli concentration is greater than 10 E. coli/ 100 mL.

























, — .
i ^
^^

;— ;
C8
O
r^
*
^l-
w>

For systems using flowing stream sources, the annual mear
E. coli concentration is greater than 50 E. coli/ 100 mL.

























.-^
:^
^i

;—
«'
O
r-
p 	 ,
Tf
5^

The system does not conduct E. coli monitoring as
described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

























^^
.»
^^

j^
•2-
0
r~~-
_ *
•*
£

Systems using ground water under the direct influence of
surface water (GWUDI) must comply with the
requirements of paragraph (a)(4) of this section based on
the E. coli level that applies to the nearest surface water
body. If no surface water body is nearby, the system must
comply based on the requirements that apply to systems
using lake/reservoir sources.



























^-^

^x^
•3-
0
r~-
^^
^f
w
OJ
For filtered systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, the
state may approve monitoring for an indicator other than E
coli under paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The state also
may approve an alternative to the E. coli concentration in
paragraph (a)(4)(i), (ii) or (iv) of this section to trigger
Cryptosporidium monitoring. This approval by the state
must be provided to the system in writing and must includ
the basis for the state's determination that the alternative
indicator and/or trigger level will provide a more accurate
identification of whether a system will exceed the Bin 1
Cryptosporidium level in § 141.710.
-------
H< - II
* z Hi!
O £ Z W 1!
F"" Ct MM
7 £•* ^ LlJ
fjj ^ T ^M
OS O1 a. < 1|

fa OS td •< I
b. . C- ft.
r Q U
U U t/3 j
U, if
w Hi
3 «
z 2 <%ll
O - £ fi
H U .J- O i)
•< H ™ •< l|
- H aa ^ II
a z a -5! j;
H S z 6 -


Systems may sample more frequently than required under
this section if the sampling frequency is evenly spaced
throughout the monitoring period.
n




























2r
0
r-
-;
*>
_C en _
Systems must conduct a second round of source water
monitoring that meets the requirements for monitoring
parameters, frequency, and duration described in paragrap
(a) of this section, unless they meet the monitoring
exemption criteria in paragraph (d) of this section. System
must conduct this monitoring on the schedule in paragrapl
(c) of this section.





























2
0
r-
^
v>

03 O
^ 03
o -a
. — i -C
'3 c
sc"f!
c •£
|j
c S c
"— 03 o
&0 J?*, .-H
C/D "Ji
3 -2 £
S o ^
ryo ^ —
c ^ .S
l-f-1
C^ ^^^^ "^3
"K T3 £
>-t g C/3
—



























-— .
§
0

-;
*>
o
Monitoring Avoidance. Filtered systems are not required t<
conduct source water monitoring under this subpart if the
system will provide a total of at least 5.5-log of treatment
for Cn'ptosporidium, equivalent to meeting the treatment
requirements of Bin 4 in § 141.711.

-------

•5 H ^v
« Z H
§ W Z g
^* W *^ j>I
^r MM j» y
U & J H
a: a £ 3
W W X B
^ Q bd
to ^
i
1
1




i
j
j

W P
o pli
Z fc *• P
o - ^
H J j- O
^ h" *^ ^
H p g a
td Z 3 "i
H S Z K
< S 2
H 3 H
tf) u o
O w
\
i

\
1


\
1
s
r
Z
O
H
H ^
0 x
j ;" 2.
S . o

o _;
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Unflltered systems are not required to conduct source water
monitoring under this subpart if the system will provide a
total of at least 3-log Cryptosporidillm inactivation,
equivalent to meeting the treatment requirements for
unflltered systems with a mean Cryptosporidillm
concentration of greater than 0.01 oocysts/L in § 141.712.




























^
X
2
o
t--
S.
If a system chooses to provide the level of treatment in
paragraph (d)(l) or (2) of this section, as applicable, rather
than start source water monitoring, the system must notify
the state in writing no later than the date the system is
otherwise required to submit a sampling schedule for
monitoring under § 141.702. Alternatively, a system may
choose to stop sampling at any point after it has initiated
monitoring if it notifies the state in writing that it will
provide this level of treatment. Systems must install and
operate technologies to provide this level of treatment by
the applicable treatment compliance date in § 141.713.





























^
'oT
0

£>
Plants operating only part of the year. Systems with
subpart H plants that operate for only part of the year must
conduct source water monitoring in accordance with this
subpart, but with the following modifications:




























^
O
'oT
o

s.
Systems must sample their source water only during the
months that the plant operates unless the state specifies
another monitoring period based on plant operating
practices.
-------
5 z P'
O u z u
H § £ <" <;
Z « <5 U '
U 3 j H '>,•
& O1 ft. < --
U W X PS ,
to . S- Q- i:
S Q • w s;
M U to i.
UH |[
1!
u I
'5' X !
Z e. *• !
O " £
""• i- uf ^ I
M H ffi ^ ^
U H S | •'
£ 1 * P
^ U U
O W
Q to ,
z
o
H
b '~^
u S
< ^
OS 0
U r^
o —•
W Tf
i_ ro O -a
m 4- r- o
^- ^ c_> ^

£ K rt o
— ' § s u -^
S « 5 a. | 2
^ :' - I" S s |
<; QJ o — ^ o
gg ^ +2 -^ CX "p ^-
to r ° ^ s ^ o
U. ^3,0 S; &J) —
o ^ t :§ .s ^
>• c^ 0 C g 0
* § 1 I'H g.
f^, P_, G ^ £• ,. ,
^ '? •£ C S 3
t« T3 X Jg 0
t/s Jj t/j o o

























— '
C
o

, 	 \
^
'!= ° o
^ Q 3 ,.; ^^ o , 	 ] 'Q
SJT3~r>i«c«JL-i
stem that begins using a new soui
WUDI after the system is rcquirci
.inder paragraph (c) of this section
surce on a schedule the state appn
itoring must. meet the requirement
m must also meet the bin classific
urn treatment requirements of §§
41.712, as applicable, for the new
state approves.
Jf- £ =* £ 1^'C'^-fi
2'gl~^sou
SoEoutiC''~:'S
s <2 'Sj'S 3 ^-n ^ «
























^^
(N
£
o
r-
1 	 |
s>
o>
« .23
"O -C
TH « 'S
1 I E
2§ g
^E S-
CX OJ j_
rt t! "S
— .1 '"
-ll
't— O M
The requirements i
systems that begin
applicable to the s;
section.
























^
C2-
£
o

a
s>
3
OJ
S
0 a) jj
0 ^ 'S .§
§S § g;
§•-'•§ *
G O " r-!
3 ^3 (U
03 E ^ 3
C cC ^^ ^^
The system must h
monitoring no late
classification unde
Cryptosporidium 1


























"So
o

'
s
•-^T ^O
h £"°
•a „ 2 ^

.ny source water sample required i
)rdance with the sampling schedu
analytical method, approved labc
irementsof§§ 141.702 through 1
)lation.
Failure to collect a
this section in accc
sampling location,
and reporting requ
is a monitoring vie

-------
H 3
^ z HI!
O u z w II
g S 5 g j
H a £ *> 1
y N» ^f M II
W S J H 1
B O* a, <
U W X B
b K Ed •<
fc • C- ft.
r Q H
O u t/3
b.
u
i. s
z a. e-
2 w £
H J - O
S ^
^ H § CL
1 1 gi
^ u u
O w
O C/3





I

i
i
i
i
i
1
\

2 •
H
H I

0 • ^
j || .C
*? li •— '
QM i ^ f*~^
u p r~~
Q 1 —•
W ': Tf
UH } —
11 Cff>
II ^ "S _ _
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT

Systems may use (grandfather) monitoring data collected
prior to the applicable monitoring start date in paragraph (
of this section to meet the initial source water monitoring
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section. Grandfathen
data may substitute for an equivalent number of months al
the end of the monitoring period. All data submitted unde
this paragraph must meet the requirements in § 141.707.





































§141.702 SAMPLING SCHEDULES



























/ 	 ^
C3
r?
0
r~~-
, 	 j
^~
^^
«73
1)
"O vi
C U
3 IH
oo'o
•^ 0. o
^ C/) CO
2 „  ^_t -*-* 1>
*-* cn cd -— *
'3 g *o o-

























^^
,— 1
^
CO
r^f
o
t — -
,__;
T^J-
^H
-
c^ E £
























^^
x
(N

03
c-T
o
t>~
, 	 ;
^~
^H
C^3

Ui
! fc *
*-• *j _>>
3 S
S 'o "u
O 3^ pi
f^ cQ
0 '£ cs
°. 'S ^r -,-
o •- o 

"3 g
VI to
^- C4_^
1 "§
u 3 aJ
§• 2 S
1,1 s
o •£ -S
^^ ^^ ^^"^
"c o ^
JH°
^H — Z^
c£J ^c co°
l^l
^, • i—« -^-i

 3
^
I
-------

«- H ,—,
g Z H
O uj z w •'
QM ^ ^ W
u« ^ ffi
i_ 3 Z (*
z « 3 u
W 3 J H ,.
a! C' E- < i
W W X OS 1
U, £ u < II
fc • O & li
5s u li
Z oS °- ill
IS *
< J of ° P
t E ffl |||
» H* «t Cu P
w z a ^
H w z g |
*r s H |
t/3 y u
O w 1
z
o
H
H - ^
J ' ^
<( oT
as o
U r~~~~
e _;
W TJ-
b —

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Systems must submit sampling schedules for the second
round of source water monitoring § 141.701(b) to the stat
























^
^
(N
O
f-^
, 	 '<
^j-
&

&
U->
S rt
4) Ji
to n,
li
n, S
o cT
"2 1
1/1 O -a
OJ f OJ
LH •— ' t/5
fT1 C^ O

























S~
(N
O
t^
__;
^-
v>
-^ r7
Systems must collect samples within two days before or
two days after the dates indicated in their sampling
schedule (i.e., within a five-day period around the schedu]
date) unless one of the conditions of paragraph (b)(l) or (:
of this section applies.
























' ^
S
r^f
O
r-
~—<
^-
v>
u ™
If an extreme condition or situation exists that may pose
danger to the sample collector, or that cannot be avoided
and causes the system to be unable to sample in the
scheduled five-day period, the system must sample as clo:
to the scheduled date as is feasible unless the state approv
an alternative sampling date. The system must submit an
explanation for the delayed sampling date to the state
concurrent with the shipment of the sample to the
laboratory.























, — ,
r?
2T
CN"
o
r^
*
*^-
*>
a P
If a system is unable to report a valid analytical result for
scheduled sampling date due to equipment failure, loss of
or damage to the sample, failure to comply with the
analytical method requirements, including the quality
control requirements in § 141.704, or the failure of an
approved laboratory to analyze the sample, then the systei
must collect a replacement sample.
-------
S z *P
O w z u
S s o g

Z -< ^ W
W ^ J H
2 a S 3
W W X PS
fa Pi Ed <
U. . d ft,
•• O U
Q w as
u.
a '
-*t BE
Z 6. *•
2 w 3
H J „- U
^* ^ S ^
U ^ i *
M Z p -^
^« [±j *y ^-H
5 s * 2
H U H
5« U U
O U
Q 03
s*"/
z
o
H

0
_J
-^
pi
U
o
w
U.


SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
1
I
i
|
i
i
I
1
I
I
|
1
|
I
I

I
I

j
|
'"





_
0
fN

-O
CN
o
t--
, 	 \
•r^
^^
W
, ^ 13 J9 JJ S §
* " .y -5 a, > -
The system must collect the replacement sample not la
than 1 1 days after receiving information that an analyti
result cannot be reported for the scheduled date unless
system demonstrates that collecting a replacement sam
within this time frame is not feasible or the state appro
an alternative resampling date. The system must submi
explanation for the delayed sampling date to the state
concurrent with the shipment of the sample to the
laboratory.






























f 	 ^
o
fN
O
r-
, 	 \
•^
^*
<&>
•J « a a
T3 (\j -^ *&
M-O S p -2 ^
C^ QJ — •* "^ >— ' QJ
g^ '^ "O g — • O-
1 llfll
S z2 JU §
,rt ->^ s-< ^ *T5
^^ r^ •+-» 7t ^
rrt ^ -5 r~j CD •*-«
?«§!'§•§ £
u o ^ "o  ~* s- > «








































§141.703 SAMPLING LOCATIONS






























^^.^
03
ro
0
r-
^
•^j-
^-i
C£0
1 « Sj§~
si i2 « .9- 3 "3
Systems required to conduct source water monitoring \
§ 141.701 must collect samples for each plant that trea
surface water or GWUDI source. Where multiple plani
draw water from the same influent, such as the same pi
intake, the state may approve one set of monitoring res
to be used to satisfy the requirements of § 141.701 for
plants.




























f 	

^*
-C^
01
0
r-
, 	 ;
Tj1
^_
W)

Systems must collect source water samples prior to
chemical treatment, such as coagulants, oxidants and
disinfectants, unless the system meets the condition of
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
-------
r- H ^
O u z w
OS 5 o W '
fc " Z x ;:
I?! S 5 W
U & j H
o£ o* & °*c
U W X K
fc tf td •<
U. . C- CM
Q1" O W
y (/3
u.
Z oS ft. ,
2 H * !-
H J of ° '
^ ^ rl "^
H^* [^ _j '
r^ 2J PJ
C H S C-
H W Z 5
< s 2
f- a H
O w
S "^
1
H
f- ' ^
,"- 01
u x
-J -°
•^ ^x
OS 0

Q - _:
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
The state may approve a system to collect a source water
sample after chemical treatment. To grant this approval, the
state must determine that collecting a sample prior to
chemical treatment is not feasible for the system and that
the chemical treatment is unlikely to have a significant
adverse effect on the analysis of the sample.



























u
rn
O
f-
5.
Systems that recycle filter backwash water must collect
source water samples prior to the point of filter backwash
water addition.
























t 	 .
^^
X;
3-
r*"}
O

5.
Bank filtration. Systems that receive Cryptosporidium
treatment credit for bank filtration under § 141 . 173(b) or §
141 .552(a), as applicable, must collect source water
samples in the surface water prior to bank filtration.
























/ 	 ,
(N
^;
"O
r*~)
0
r-
*>
Systems that use bank filtration as pretreatment to a
filtration plant must collect source water samples from the
well (i.e., after bank filtration). Use of bank filtration
during monitoring must be consistent with routine
operational practice. Systems collecting samples after a
bank filtration process may not receive treatment credit for
the bank filtration under § 141.717(c).


























^_^
'i>
r*~>
O
r-
s>
Multiple sources. Systems with plants that use multiple
water sources, including multiple surface water sources and
blended surface water and ground water sources, must
collect samples as specified in paragraph (e)(l) or (2) of
this section. The use of multiple sources during monitoring
must be consistent with routine operational practice.
-------
^* 1 ;;
$Z H I
O w z w i
OS 5 n w
fc W S ffi
HS Z t/3
OS £•
£ e < w
W & j H
(V Cv Sr *?
B* w^ P« '
w w x os
fc OS a •<
te . S S
r o H
O u v*.
u.
u
3 £
z 2- ^
2 w 3
t- J .r O
< H OS ^.
i_ ** a cj> \
E H BQ 5
^ H S 2;
W fc S >
H g z Z
< S 2
H U) f-
Cfl (j U
O W
£, *>
i
i
i
|
i
1
j
I
1
i



1
1
1

i
Z \l
o H
Si
r^ '& \
{j II "^
J 11 S
< 11 X
05 II 0
tj II r-
O 1 —
U l> ^f
fe II -
p «w
ji
if ^
II Ji
i C-
I C
i *-^
i! rt
H ! o M
z n * t>
DERAL REQUIREME
u
u.
u.
o
SUMMARY
le where the sources
t, systems must colle
I | S
! l 3
I « K
I tn -^
1 Z 2
I ^ S
| f§.&
I IIS
1 «S 'o *^
1 s|i
1 fa S^




















S
'oT
r<->
0
t--
(
Ti-
S>

o « ^
, t« ,O
0 ^ « ^"
'C £• 3 0
a 6 c -2
T3 ^ C 0
^ O  •= &
-S ^ u g
^ > •£ &
ex * i- 2 .
c« •*-* cd c^ c«
Sou cx-^
2P h >^
•S .2 «^-«
-r <_, c t; c
& c 3 53 rt
S a o :; u
ca c M ^ -^
«= £ j- g EX
* 2 g| i
i— ( £3 
c .c ^
O CJ *->
2 S^
•S £ c -2
o § .2 J>
y tfc C ex
l-a 8,1
° & 2 s
-c 5 o- w
O ^3 .. ^C
sc:| ^
| 2s J
* 1 ^S
t« -7; ^= 's
u>1 ts
E j= H &
S H- « ,2
S .ss "S ^
'« s? .S §
0 2^ 00 —
EX cs -r CX
»-" — QJ ^^
§ § & |
0 £ r> "H "2  jj J> ca -a •-
« >- -^ cu g g
111111
en C  r« [— i ^5 fe
U> .^M C — ^ Q &
^sf ^
g £-§ g^ 1
rt « 00 C C CS
>> (U C >^ O t"
|5^^'S^
c 3 e ^J rt *-•
"3 o § S tfcj ~. r; JS
t/) cS 1) O X> T3 >
-------
% z P
O H Z W
D£ 2 O S
^ u ^ S
H K _ ^
Z "~" *(* W
W S J H
C* O £ <
U W X 05
(fa Of td < *
fc .C^a,'
X o u
Q fcd «5 '
I w" i i
P hJ -T O '
< H p- <
t H ffl * f
gill:-
<*> U U '
O w
o
H
f-
0
.j C^
^ r^i
tf 0
LJ r^-
Q _ ;
W ^J-
coo
a ^ 'S'^S s
- « a ^ ««
H-. 4- -i <=; 0
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Additional Requirements Systems must submit a
description of their sampling location(s) to the state a
same time as the sampling schedule required under §
141.702. This description must address the position o
sampling location in relation to the system's water soi
and treatment processes, including pretreatment, poin
chemical treatment, and filter backwash recycle. If th
does not respond to a system regarding sampling
location(s), the system must sample at the reported
location(s).



























§141.704 ANALYTICAL METHODS




















03
O
r-
^_^
•*
con
§ ,
IS
Cryptosporidium. Systems must analyze for
Cryptosporidium using Method 1623: Cryptosporidh
Giardiain Water by Filtration/IMS/FA (EPA-815-R-
002) or Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in Water by
Filtration/IMS/FA (EPA-815-R-05-001), which are
incorporated by reference.


















, — ,
^
03
O
r^
*
^t
&>
cyo O
~O O Q "^ OH
03 g 3 £ >• o
u § §" ~5
2 -s 3 § i y
0 ^ c M o %
_OJ -0 | -g S •]=
g~ £ B, g CO**-"
C/5 flj ^ t , /*• v, ^"""i
i r™ i— « GJ ^ C
0 S).| N^C ^ 2
c/3 *""5 c/D ^3 c^
QJ J^H CA ^(^1 C^ ^
-^S •-G' S"^ " ~
§ "o 2 ^ -^ ~ «
« 0 bb _) a *« w
S g 2 o S| =
u « -a ^ £ -c "o
£^ s 8^ r |
>> u « c o o
OO DH — D^ > 4S 03


















x
X
03
O
t~~^
'
Tf
5!)
.s -^ s
^•§1
Matrix spike (MS) samples, as required by the metho
paragraph (a) of this section, must be spiked and filte
a laboratory approved for Cryptosporidium analysis i
§ 141.705.
-------
2 H ^'
g Z H -
O u z u \
£ ^ 0 g
h" 3
z « 3 u
u g j H
PS , ^

-4— • QJ ^^ "£j ^H *^2
^l^i=l
"^ ^ — ~ ^ &•
£ It t'l s
S ^ o ° « t*-
1 §, « jj 2 1 2
j 'oj 'Q -0 " ^ J
' is-lf2!
1/5 " B- g 60 •£
C/3 3 C O _C *J
iliilii
j »_^ ^ ^ 2^

























m

cs
O
r—
, 	 ',
^~
^^
<&
•OB?
3 O
OJ ' — ^

P °
C o
c a
0 T3
'K S
c w
oj c
CX 0
SSI --H
3 .23
f O
60 P
.S a,
-^ 60
'n. c
•" 'o
•O 60
(U c
c o
3 -a
o c
o re
u «
s —
"S "S,
s s
O cS
>, •" «
y VD u
^S &
0 u C
E .2 S


























, 	
£,
0
r-
^
^j-
^^
«w

kj „
r^ T"f
•ll
2 c:
(U O
|s
tn CO:
J.s
ll
S s
1/5 &,
3 a,
— . re
3 D
E 13
^ 1
"5 '."
°S

























• — •
X
S
o
r--
, 	 .'
T^-
f—
COO

•35
>^
"re •£
O  c/3
C/5
' w -^ ^
2 J3 IS
J i 'o
" "3 rT
.2 § X
O t« :£,
|o 1,
re r^1 re
§1-1
1 "i

























(N
^^
^
0

, 	 \
"^
^^
COT
c* <« 1
^ u 3
2 - -S o S "S
o ex p 3 £ re
^ 1 S -2 ||
2 § f i 2? ^ S
t« O iJ O ~ *g —
1 1 1 3 1 1 ?
'^ ^C • ^H •> >^ G ro
i ^fi -^ IT;
o oo >^ d> o w ^o
•^ r- -^- — ^ <~! C/3
OM g c3 e3 •"* ^ rt
1 kj 1 "fjj -1^
£ ^ ? J i o £
H o u *: « ^3 f<

























r^
J<
. .c,
0
r-
, 	 '
^-
,^
coo

U
o
O
•o
C
re
U
0
C 0
11
l|
C C
. S 5
2 c
E rt
^_, m
«) 60
3 re
•E o
S 60
cn'-o


























^ 	 ^
^
O
r-
, 	 't
•*$•
^^
COT



&
•3
^
S
Turbidity. Systems must use methods for
measurement approved in § 141.74(a)(l).
-------

S £ P
O a •?• w
g g O H
s- tt S ^
z - •* w
U 3 j H
pj O1 a. <
U W X Qi
u. oi 3 •<
U. . C, £.
Q O U
u.
-r —
z 2 *•
2 w ^

H p | oi
W H S eu
u z s -g
(~* S Z ^
< S 2
H UJ H
(^ U U
O u
s ^
o
. H
H
G


Cryptosporidium. Systems must have Cryptosporidium
samples analyzed by a laboratory that is approved under
EPA's Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program
for Analysis of Cryptosporidium in Water or a laboratory
that has been certified for Clyptosporidium analysis by an
equivalent state laboratory certification program.





























^ 	 ^
r\
•J^
0

i 	 J
^-4-
u>
E. coli. Any laboratory certified by the EPA, the National
Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference or the
state for total coliform or fecal coliform analysis under §
141.74 is approved for.E'. Coli analysis under this subpart
when the laboratory uses the same technique for E. Coli
that the laboratory uses for § 141.74.






























cj
in
O
r-
^
^j.
*>
Turbidity. Measurements of turbidity must be made by a
party approved by the state.































t/3
H
_
3
1/3
U
r n
§141.706 REPORTING SOURCE WATER MONITORINC

1




























03
vS'
O

i 	 J
^-*-
S.
un
O £
~ -S
| -S |
QJ "~~ ' >^
,jr; CD O
C ' O
2 — 43
Oj C to -ri
^ 3 (S S
TH "^ (J
C C 'U — -<
« -c  {— r tn ^Tl
& § 2 0
co 6 cs -5


























^v
C-
O
Co'
o

'
^-
M
All systems serving at least 10,000 people must report the
results from the initial source water monitoring required
under § 14 1.701 (a) to EPA electronically at
https:/7intranet. epa.gov/lt2/.
	 1 	
 §3

S
s


I

-------
f-
«- H ^
s z H
O id z u
f* § o S
r-r.. P-" *"^ >T«
H § S *
Z S < W
U » J H
Pi O> 0. <
a w x pi
fc. Di H •<
fc .So.
rr ° u
O w ^
U.
[d
^ IE
Z^ |
2 w *
HJ.rO
< H Pi <
fc P S«
u H s £
Id Z S >
H W z S
< s 2
H S H
<" U U
O U
s
Z
o
z
g
^
^M

u
toJ
<
«
U
Q
U.



SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT



\
1
I
|
|
\
|
|
1
I
|

|
|
I
]
i
^
1
i


|
|
I
i ^ 	 k
1 

"O
^. o>
i- —
o •=
i-l
i ^
11
ex c
0 0
ct e
§1
°, > .
o & , " "2
•^ fll -H
C/3 S 3



























^ 	 ^
2-
^
o
t-~
— <
^1"
s>
u
VH -^
O 0
•o X
§e
o —
>- 0
-o r-
15
 zcn
OJ u.
J3 1>
*- -a
6 §
*1
£J .—
"? a-
S H
fe.l°
8-2
11
VI 
vo'
0
r-
—
•^1"
<&>


ms must report the applicable information in
;raphs (e)(l) and (2) of this section for the source
• monitoring required under § 141.701.
 ••=
S 111
« OH 0 U
•o « 2  .a ^ s TS
• S i: J 5 «
^ 2 ^ ~o c
o w E •£ > 3
^"^ t-u* ^ , Q
S « -S | 1 1 2
^^ §^^|^
SI '§ ^ i ^ 8
0 c3 JJ o!>2;
S C^^rNTr'-r^-virisCosf~^
u5 !>7 ^.^ ^-.^ v 'j ^-j *~-j ^-s '-—^
>,P
oo U
























^^
'O
,
^
O
^
0
r-~
— ;
•^i"
w

 H
g ^ t3
e o. u
Ui C •%
0 § E,
[J^ CA C/5
-------
S z "P "
O u z w i
Qa *^ ^*i tij ""
FT ^ W> —
* UJ >• *
h" ^ E
z ^ < S
W 3 j H
OS O* E 3
U W X 05 '
U. Pi W •< >,-
tfa • s^— ' QH 1 1
= P u I
•^ u ^ PI
f I
1 w" ^ 1
H J (^ u I

bv 5? P5 \ \
^^ ^M |S- p_, ^
H Z U j? f-
H S H
 r- d>
5 f, S XI
c ^ c
S : — ^ S
3 * u _e C
^ — - u
£ "o -2 o
S "•? t; £




















:9
^^
""~
^i
O
1^
, 	 ;
^>
s.

'o .5
£ j^
^ o
0 u_ C.
> o £
O o i/i <-"
"B. £ H 5
^ ^j ^ *^

S P ^£ «

"^ *" c/:
S-^ -^ <~ •'—
h less than 10(
nust also rcpoi
tratc and volui
nmunomagnet
For samples in whic
examined, systems r
resuspcndcd conccnl
processed through ir





















r 	 ,
rg
o
O
r^
,___*
T-J-
5.
 .b
1 8 f
O Q, ,__ _«.<
^ .b 0 1 £>
P I ^ ^1
I~ ^ rt . __ ^
^~ rv -G _Q j^*
J2 ^  c2 J£
OXJ p L* /"-i
*~™ t-i bf) o
1 "P - '^ '1 ""
O (L) G t/l tn O ^
— ; "-1 3 _„ 1> c 'S
^ ea g OX) en C 3
1 |1 1 I i 5
t; ooj -^ ^^"bc
o _u p oj ' — ' £ f-jT" ' 3 51
^^J^-s^^_^^^^s^ ^_,^^«
 SP
 §1



I
 S
 o
 S
-Si
"5,
-------
£ Z H if
O uj x W I
F S o S
ta ^ [33 ll
L« S 2^ t^3 l|
z = < w
W 3 j H
« O1 a, <\\
w u x B n
ta • ^ e- II
O W GO
w ^^
IS i
H J oT u
S ^

^^ P* &i CU
td Z 3 "^
i
i
i
i
i
i
\
• H U Z 5 P
< z °n
H S H 1
C« U U 1
° "I

O (
P ;
h* *
u "
^
< '
K <
U r' H
Q . <
-' 2
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
| §141.707 GRANDFATHERING PREVIOUSLY COLLECT























^
C-
OS
j^T
o
I--
'
s.
Systems may comply with the initial source water
monitoring requirements of § 141 .701 (a) by grandfathering
sample results collected before the system is required to
begin monitoring (i.e., previously collected data). To be
grandfathered, the sample results and analysis must meet
the criteria in this section and the state must approve.























^
X
ra
rC'
o
r--
'
5,
A filtered system may grandfather Cryplosporidhim
samples to meet the requirements of § 141.701(a) when the
system does not have corresponding E. Coli and turbidity
samples. A system that grandfathers Cryptosporidium
samples without E. Coli and turbidity samples is not
required to collect E. Coli and turbidity samples when the
system completes the requirements for Cryptosporidium
monitoring under§141.701(a).
























^_^
X)
pr^
o
t~~-
^^
S,
E. coli sample analysis. The analysis ofE. Coli samples
must meet the analytical method and approved laboratory
requirements of §§ 141.704 through 141.705.

























o
pT^
O
r-.
, 	 '
z>
Cryptosporidium sample analysis. The analysis of
Cryptosporidium samples must meet the criteria in this
paragraph.























,-^
C^
o
f^T
o
r^~
'
Z>
Laboratories analyzed Cryptosporidium samples using one
of the analytical methods in paragraphs (c)(l)(i) through
(vi) of this section, which are incorporated by reference.






















, 	 .
x
C-
o
I--
o
r~^
, 	 \
z>
Method 1623: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water by
Filiration/IMS/FA, 2005, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-815-R-05-002.
-------
^ z Pi
O w z w i
? S o S i
H § S ^ i
Z 2 < u i
D« Q^ g^ ^J i
W td X OS I
Lfa Qs r-rl -
fa
u

^ X i
Z P. *! i
2 w SI
H J j- O I
•< H * <( j
H p g pj |
^ H S ft! '
W Z B > -
S!zi'
cc "' H
O W -
s "^
z
o
H
H
U
_J
B
U
U
fa r





1—
z
s

u
£
EJ
a
tu
C£
- :
S
UMMARY OF FEDE
> ^ ••—
-O ,£•* -*-*
1 5 $
S> ~z o
^ £ Pu



























i^-H^
ix
C-
2
o
r~:
^
^H
«73

-c' __
~ s
•^ "c
k5-* GJ
s 5
•S o
t-
11
^ w .
;? « ^
C^ 

-S'_
S^ 03
•^. c
.G GJ
1
•S o
L-
11
fc w .
5 ssS
? S9
1 1 s
IPS
§ Ox' <
^S; p-
-2 — w
&-V X
s'ls
al^
Method \ 6
FUtration/i
Protection




























o
X
^^
u
o
r-
^
•
vr>


13
"^
tu
S
0

^1
1 S o
^ S 9
%.!£.&
22: Cryptosporidhi
'MS/FA, 1999, Unil
Agency, EPA-82 1-
Method 16
Filtration/i
Protection





























^_^
(N
S
O
•"I
^:
,^
(On
1 °<2
>> ^ OH *-
"Trt '^ f T1 C^H
G ^ *-*
co CX cS - — •
>-> -a ~S d-
o Jd S2 S

o &« "§•
"o J j^ 2
*^ " XJ CX

S ~ o .22
S ui — -t en
a o 2 T3
'1 "H. 0 •£
&. § ^§ s
rs ^ QJ QJ
•*— ^(-H CH -^
^ ^ *-*
1 i 1 1 1
OJ r^ t '
*—• ,—^ ^ o *\
O *j en CX CD






























^
3
O
f~:
~
, 	 ,
«75

U
•*-*
OJ
GJ
P
In
3
S
,0
CJ
o
00
"H.
E
CS
^
aj f>
4= 0
H I"-;
1 5
~ **
^ C
O -3
Sampling 1
conditions

-------
f" i
^^ ^j ^ t^
£ s o g
f_ 9 Z t/3
z S 5i w
W 3 j H
oi o> 5. <
w u x es
u. a: td <
th . C' OH
.ST ft W
W [zj (73
to
O ^ ^
*• U P£
H 3 - o |
•^ H ^ -^3
t H CO 5 1
0 H § S<
w z -> z !
< 1 z 2
H 5 H
j
j
1
\













1

^^ O W ^1
0 w 1
s *
o '
H
H;
u ^

•«* r-^
o£ i o
u . r-
o — ;
fe , S
cfl ir. M
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Sampling frequency. Cryptosporidium samples were
collected no less frequently than each calendar month on
regular schedule, beginning no earlier than January 1999.
Sample collection intervals may vary for the conditions
specified in § 141.702(b)( 1 ) and (2) if the system provide
documentation of the condition when reporting monitorin
results.

























	
_
'o
f^T
^i
r^
—
5>
CJ
The state may approve grandfathering of previously
collected data where there are time gaps in the sampling
frequency if the system conducts additional monitoring th
state specifies to ensure that the data used to comply with
the initial source water monitoring requirements of §
14 1.701 (a) are seasonally representative and unbiased.

























^^
CN-
'o?
f^
O
t —
— '
iff)
to >/~) Q
Systems may grandfather previously collected data where
the sampling frequency within each month varied. If the
Cryptosporidium sampling frequency varied, systems mu
follow the monthly averaging procedure in § 141.710(b)(
or § 141.712(a)(3), as applicable, when calculating the bii
classification for filtered systems or the mean
Cryptosporidium concentration for unflltered systems.



























s
r--
o
t~~-
5:
£>
. eo "S
Reporting monitoring results for grandfathering. System!
that request to grandfather previously collected monitorir
results must report the following information by the
applicable dates listed in this paragraph. Systems serving
least 10,000 people must report this information to EPA
unless the state approves reporting to the state rather than
EPA. Systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must
report this information to the state.
-------
O tti z w
OS ^ n W
fa u 2 BC
^« S 2 C^ t
£ S 5 w
LiJ ^* , 1 h"
pi a S < i|
W fa1 X Q" ^
fa Pi td < II
fa . S- Bu 1
Q W " 1
fa 1
o '-^y if
< * P
z o- 5? ii
2 H OS II
H _) - o li
< H K < j

w w 3 "z i

H 3 H ^<
t/3 y U *;
o w ;
s
z
o
H
H ' ^
U^^
•^_^
-J ' ^
< r=r
BE 0

D —•
U ; Tf
COO
<-
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Systems must report that they intend to submit previously
collected monitoring results for grandfathering. This repor
must specify the number of previously collected results th<
system will submit, the dates of the first and last sample,
and whether a system will conduct additional source watei
monitoring to meet the requirements of § 141.701(a).
Systems must report this information no later than the date
the sampling schedule under § 141.702 is required.


























^
(N

£
o
1 —
, 	 ^
^t
5>

Systems must report previously collected monitoring
results for grandfathering, along with the associated
documentation listed in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (iv) o;
this section, no later than two months after the applicable
date listed in § 141.701(c).

























^
'^
r^

£
0
r-
'
Tf
S>

_u
CS
o
"H.
D,
ea
Cr
'^
(N

£
0

'
^f
000
T3
Systems must certify that the reported monitoring results
include all results the system generated during the time
period beginning with the first reported result and ending
with the final reported result. This applies to samples that
were collected from the sampling location specified for
source water monitoring under this subpart, not spiked, an
analyzed using the laboratory's routine process for the
analytical methods listed in this section.
-------
^ z H"
O a z w ;
g S o g
^. H z i/i
U 3 j H
oi a £ <
w u x a
b Qj M <




\

i
U, . C- 0, 1
Q— Q U
U to
u.
a
C_5 "^^
Z fc *
2 w i
H J af u
t H ffl 5

1
\
1

1

U & s SS 1
td Z ^ "^ jl
H g Z §
< s 2
S u H '1
o w I
O t» |P
^"^ i
O .
H .O
u > Ci-
-i £
K O

Q _'
U T^-
UH —
• £03
s -s on ^
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Systems must certify that the samples were representative
of a plant's source water(s) and the source water(s) have nc
changed. Systems must report a description of the samplin
location(s), which must address the position of the
sampling location in relation to the system's water source(;
and treatment processes, including points of chemical
addition and filter backwash recycle.






















o
£T
£
o
r-
_;
^j-
^^
<&>
^ -n _c
For Clyptosporidium samples, the laboratory or
laboratories that analyzed the samples must provide a lette
certifying that the quality control criteria specified in the
methods listed in paragraph (c)(l) of this section were met
for each sample batch associated with the reported results.
Alternatively, the laboratory may provide bench sheets an<
sample examination report forms for each field, matrix
spike, IPR, OPR, and method blank sample associated wit!
the reported results.
























'Si
o
r-
'
T^J-
^^
<&>

If the state determines that a previously collected data set
submitted for grandfathering was generated during source
water conditions that were not normal for the system, such
as a drought, the state may disapprove the data.
Alternatively, the state may approve the previously
collected data if the system reports additional source water
monitoring data, as determined by the state, to ensure that
the data set used under § 1 4 1.7 10 or § 141.712 represents
average source water conditions for the system.
-------
5 | P
z ~ < w •
U 3 j E~
C£ O1 Cu •< 1
U U X K ^
ti, Q2 ^o ^ i
t. . d. ft, 1
.z; — u i
Q w to i
to |
u
1 w" i
H- J .J- O S
< H « J
^
Q£
U
Q
U
to



SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT



i
\

i
\

i

i
i
*
i
\

I
\












, — .
^,
j^
o
J^-
j.
—
C03


If a system submits previously collected data that fully
meet the number of samples required for initial source
water monitoring under § 14 1.701 (a) and some of the data
are rejected due to not meeting the requirements of this
section, systems must conduct additional monitoring to
replace rejected data on a schedule the state approves.
Systems are not required to begin this additional
monitoring until two months after notification that data
have been rejected and additional monitoring is necessary.













u
y
u

a-



P
u
u
L-
IZ
£
Q
£
u
O
z
•^
ffi
U
H
Z
•^J
U
u.
1 §141.708 REQUIREMENTS WHEN MAKING A SIGNI






























, — ,
03
OO
O
^
1
, 	 ,
un

60
Following the completion of initial source water monitorin
under § 14 1.701 (a), a system that plans to make a
significant change to its disinfection practice, as defined in
paragraph (b) of this section, must develop disinfection
profiles and calculate disinfection benchmarks for Giardia
lamblia and viruses as described in § 141.709. Prior to
changing the disinfection practice, the system must notify
the state and must include in this notice the information in
paragraphs (a)(l) through (3) of this section




























	 	
• — <
X
•2s
oo
O
^
J.
_H
C00


A completed disinfection profile and disinfection
benchmark for Giardia lamblia and viruses as described in
§ 141.709.




























^_^
C\J
^^
-5-
oo
o
^
^J.
^_l
C#3


A description of the proposed change in disinfection
practice.
-------
O td x W ^
X 5 n W i
fc a ffi 1

Z e- < w I
W 3 J H
st Cf o- < \
W W X Ps
Q1™ Q S^ U
u v>
U. |
o - ^
H J - O
"^ H S  1
Slz|!
t/5 U U 1
O w i
s ^ s
0 '
H
H

U
d
P2
U
a
u
u.


SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
I




%
1

I
I

j
1
|
i

I
I
I




u~.
X
oo'
o

	 J
i^t"
^^
Ctf>
^
An analysis of how the proposed change will affect the
current level of disinfection.
























£-
oo'
o

!
•^-
-—
<0>

Significant changes to disinfection practice are defined as
follows:






















f 	 ^
^_^
x
oo
o
r-
*
^j-
^^
<&>

Changes to the point of disinfection;






















^^
O~l
X
oo'
0

, 	 \
^•J-
,— <
Ufi

Changes to the disinfectant(s) used in the treatment plant;






















/ 	 ^
m

ocT
0
t—
'(
^>
. — i
«75

Changes to the disinfection process; or






















	 	
^^
X
oo
o
r-
*
^>
^~i
<&>

Any other modification identified by the state as a
significant change to disinfection practice.

































§141.709 DEVELOPING A PROFILE
























1?
SC
0

, 	 :
^>
^^

_ VH -3
Systems required to develop disinfection profiles under §
141.708 must follow the requirements of this section.
Systems must monitor at least weekly for a period of 12
consecutive months to determine the total log inactivation
for Giardia lamblia and viruses. If systems monitor more
frequently, the monitoring frequency must be evenly
spaced. Systems that operate for fewer than 1 2 months pe
year must monitor weekly during the period of operation.
Systems must determine log inactivation for Giardia
lamblia through the entire plant, based on CT99.9 values
Tables 1.1 through 1.6,2.1 and 3.1 of § 141.74(b)as
applicable. Systems must determine log inactivation for
viruses through the entire treatment plant based on a
protocol approved by the state.
-------
^i pi
O M Z W j
0- 2 O — 1
H QJ 2 <« |
Z K < a *
W g J H I
as a a, <
w u X PS
ta 05 [jQ < i
S O ^ W i
M UJ !» f











U ^ fl
^ S* i
Z 2 *• |
2 &T ot 1
H J j- O t
< *- s < i
t H B 55 1
u H s £ -
w Z l= Z
H 3 Pi
<*> U Us
O W
Z
O
H
H

u
_J
•*f
QM
u
a
u
b
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
















^^
XJ
ON
O
r~~~
i _*
TT"
S»
Systems with a single point of disinfectant application prior
to the entrance to the distribution system must conduct the
monitoring in paragraphs (b)(l) through (4) of this section.
Systems with more than one point of disinfectant
application must conduct the monitoring in paragraphs
(b)(l) through (4) of this section for each disinfection
segment. Systems must monitor the parameters necessary to
determine the total inactivation ratio, using analytical
methods in § 141.74(a).

























, 	 .

^
-£^
ON
O
I
'
^*.
Z>
For systems using a disinfectant other than UV, the
temperature of the disinfected water must be measured at
each residual disinfectant concentration sampling point
during peak hourly flow or at an alternative location
approved by the state.


























, 	 .
(N

-C_
ON
O
r^-
	 	 ^
_!.
£>
For systems using chlorine, the pH of the disinfected water
must be measured at each chlorine residual disinfectant
concentration sampling point during peak hourly flow or at
an alternative location approved by the state.


























^

^^
Q
ON
O
r^
*
T_4.
*>
The disinfectant contact time(s) (t) must be determined
during peak hourly flow.


























, 	 ,

^
Q
oC
o
r--
i 	 ^
,_^.
*>
The residual disinfectant concentration(s) (C) of the water
before or at the first customer and prior to each additional
point of disinfectant application must be measured during
peak hourly flow.




























CJ
ON'
O
C--
•
_!.
^
In lieu of conducting new monitoring under paragraph (b)
of this section, systems may elect to meet the requirements
of paragraphs (c)(l) or (2) of this section.

-------
c- 1
^ Z P
O u z w i
Z ~ 5 w
W 3 j H !
PS a s. <
w w x PS
fa OS faj <
fa . ^ &.
SO U
t^ ^ c/^
x ai *
0 - £
H j -r o
< H p- •<
fc H B *
W H § S
w "z
< 1 z 2
H D H
t/3 u U
O w
s
z |
2 *
H
H
U |
U
K ;
U '
a •
u
u.


SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT

j
\

!"




|
j
1
?
I

I
1
I
1
I
j
!

^
; C
2
0
r-
t 	 't
^t.
£>

P i) ca ,»i
Systems that have at least one year of existing data that ar
substantially equivalent to data collected under the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this section may use these
data to develop disinfection profiles as specified in this
section if the system has neither made a significant chang
to its treatment practice nor changed sources since the dat
were collected. Systems may develop disinfection profile;
using up to three years of existing data.























^
X
o
O
r-
*
"vt"
*>
so
«X OJ C
O O r ,— 1 *"3 !•**?
-a -a ^ -^ Jj ;S
B 2 so cs rs -5
3 E C £ to; Sg g
o 'Q a3-G <« >-"n,~~
*§ ^ H *•' "^ ^ S"S
| 2 u ^.C rt -g, 2 ^3
C J-H CJ) 4_» G Q1 r^ £ _O
t/) ^H >. G —5 j_ i ^^ ,»
•^L. • Cifl ^ 7^ . QJ O
i1^* ^j uJ ;Tj O ^ ^T" t~! tn
^O 1— ^ "^ t/5 C^ CH T""^ fc^J f*i ,
























s—-^.
^E
o
r-
^ *
r-4-
JS


Systems must calculate the total inactivation ratio for
Giardia lamblia as specified in paragraphs (d)(l) through
(3) of this section.























^
C-
S
o
r--
'
^j-
W


Systems using only one point of disinfectant application
may determine the total inactivation ratio for the
disinfection segment based on either of the methods in
paragraph (d)(l)(i) or (ii) of this section.
-------
1
^ ^ j
f-4 ^ P™* 1
O U z td 1
£ s o a
•* y _ B5
Z S < W
U 3 j H .
at o* E < .
w u x tf
fa Si Ed <
fc- . C' B.
SO U
M U 
5 | z o
H S H '
or u u
O U
s ^
2 '
H ,
H

U
j
^
c:
u
o
u
Uu




SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT




























^~.
^
«M
5^
"O.
ON'
O
r-
't
•^
*>

0

.0
Determine one inactivation ratio (CTcalc/CT9g g) bef
at the first customer during peak hourly flow.

1 1 1


























—
x
^^
x
3
Os
o
r--
,
^-J-
Z>

DXJ
C —
• «— [/:
C >— -g~
Determine successive CTcalc/ CTqq q values, represc
sequential inactivation ratios, between the point of
disinfectant application and a point before or at the t
customer during peak hourly flow. The system must
calculate the total inactivation ratio by detcnnining
(CTcalc/CTgq g) for each sequence and then adding tl
(CTcalc/ CTqq q) values together to determine (X
(CTcalc/CTqq.q)).



























, 	
fN

3
ON"
O
r-
, 	 \
^4-
3.
H y ^
^ ~ "3 -S
O o ~~* "rt
- u ... * -0 2
Systems using more than one point of disinfectant
application before the first customer must determine
value of each disinfection segment immediately prio
next point of disinfectant application, or for the final
segment, before or at the first customer, during peak
flow. The (CTcalc/ CTgqq) value of each segment an
(I(CTcalc/CTgg 9)) must be calculated using the metl
paragraph (d)(l)(ii) of this section.



























^
rn

3
ON
o
r--
'A
,-j.
3,
^
-£>
c
0 i_
*= O
The system must determine the total logs of inactiva
multiplying the value calculated in paragraph (d)(l)
(d)(2) of this section by 3.0.



























^^
^^
^
-o
oC
0
r~-
r_^
^-4-
s.

to
OJ
i
Systems must calculate the log of inactivation for vii
using a protocol approved by the state.
	 1 	 1 	 1 	
-------
i& F
^? ^J ^ W"
H § £ ^
Z e < w
H & J H
BS O- h ^
W W X K
t*> ON ^J ^
fa^ • ^^^ ^±
SO W
Q w x
u
<• =
z 5 fc !
IS 21


5 m
Following completion of the initial round of source water
monitoring required under § 141.701(a), filtered systems
must calculate an initial Cryptosporidium bin concentratic
for each plant for which monitoring was required.
Calculation of the bin concentration must use the
Cryptosporidium results reported under § 14 1.701 (a) and
must follow the procedures in paragraphs (b)(l) through (
of this section.
-------
5 H ^
g Z H
O u z u
H § 2 *
W 5 j H
as o* a, < I
a w x PS
fa PS td -«;
r Q ~ w
UM CA
u.
'5 — i
z fc 2; I
2 w £
f- J -r O
£ fc g 3
C H SO 2
U H S £
td Z -j "^ 1
< 1 z o
f- U> H '
<* U Us
O w '
S ^ '
o
H
H

U
_
•^
Of
U
o
u
u. f
^

[REMENT
3
O>
u
Qt -
—
<
C£ .
SUMMARY OF FEDEI
!









1
1
\












s-*^.
I— H
^
-C^
^5
^~
r~^
^— -
rf



t/a" ^
1 «
1/1 P
OO "
T}- U
to 'S
ra e
OJ ^H
— ' *S
"S 'C
"O o>
For systems that collect a total
bin concentration is equal to tl
sample concentrations

























^^
fN

-£>
o"

r-
'
T^-
&
0 C K
*-* "*""* '"~ ^
^ill
s - s |
•cL.ss $ &
S c S S
S -2 ^ &•
^ P3 ° r"V
^, fc o U
^ C n 1-1
CO 
ca u &,.y

0 0

^ 1
•o °^l
§ s -2
^ 2 «
Q- 5J i: i-
Pi!
nis
53 ,P ^ -a
For systems that serve fewer tl
monitor for Cryptosporidium i
24 samples in 12 months), the
the arithmetic mean of all sam
























^^
^^
^^
^>
o'

r--
'
^j-
*>
4- ^
r" ^2i
J3 — ^ oj
ill |
O >• OJ "O
£?£^ s
.5 a, o o
For systems with plants operal
monitor fewer than 1 2 months
the bin concentration is equal 1
mean of all sample concentrati
Cryptosporidium monitoring.
























	 	 ^
V°)
^^
-O
o"

r-
, 	 \
^j.
5i
» ^
.3^ ^c
rt r* CM
llstll
g'lf -3«2^
^ o 3-D O ^
c > c '> '5 M
.S rt (L> "q _2 D
l||||I
If the monthly Cryptosporidiu,
systems must first calculate a i
month of monitoring. Systems
average concentrations, rather
concentrations, in the applicab
classification in paragraphs (V
section.

-------
S | P
O w z w
£ S o S
U ^
h" ^ ^*
z S ^ w
W 3 j H
t± O1 E. •<
U U X OS
fa oi a <
fa • ^^ Cu
SO U
CM ^
U.
U ^^
o - ^
H J r O
£ES|
^ H S S
^ 2 ^ T^r
^1Z1
H a H
& U U
O w
S
0
P
H
U
j
•<
o:
w
Q
U
to



AL REQUIREMENT
e:
U
SUMMARY OF FEE
j
1
|
S
1
i"




1
I
I
1
1

I
I



1





o
o'

r~-
(
^i-
s>




o C
III « 1
0 £. | cO: 1" g £
3 Jf 0 U 5U £ G £
—-5 »— E "O ^ "S cj
^ ^"— •— Cj s— -1
— r _O •«— C/) C ££) „
•3 '"""" f-. ^~" ^ C "^
t- ^— ' ^ Q_ 3 "55 c/3 c3
» - | s S" -| s ^
Following completion of the
monitoring required under §
must recalculate their Crypt*
using the Ciyptosporidium r
141. 701(b) and following th
(b)(l) through (4) of this sec
redetermine their bin classif
concentration and the table i

























^
~^


r- ~S
o >
•^^ t-
S & o M
% 0 "" §
J2 **" -3 T3
CJ U 3 OJ
3 ^ (D KJ
	 , o .22 60
=« -C — S
'•5 t^ c 'C
'£2^2
'5 •§ ^ 2
-£ o ^ S
° .2 2 "S
' ' 2 tn ' — '
^ -C G -^-
S g-^o .2 ^
« 2 Q .5 =0=
to 00 § C c
*"O O ^ Qi *""*?
Q.J QJ . i ^
" C O O o
tu 3 G 0 tn

























^^
X
D
o'
•— '
r
^ -i
^
£>
OJ
*™J fli
o "5. -^
lassification under
the state for approval n
stem is required to com
er monitoring based on
0 o >. ts
3 *- " >
Systems must report their bi
paragraph (d) of this section
later than 6 months after the
the second round of source ^
schedule in § 141.701(c).

























^
X
(U
o'
^—>
t
, 	 ^
•*
w>

'
^5
the state must include a
toring data and the
etermine bin classificat
2=^
•" o o
The bin classification report
summary of source water m
calculation procedure used t
-------
*•• ll
*- H '—v \\
£ Z H!
O U Z u M
£ S o £ Ii
— ' « rv] ,__ K l\
t- & £ *> ll
z S ^ w ii
W S j H
<* O- £, < i
w u x * H
fa. ei td •< M
fa. . S, 0- i
r a w i
M u wa L!
U. i
Ii
U {
< £ i
z P. ?: t!
O - J
— M K
H J - O I
< H P- •< K
i— •• u «/ ii
- H ffl 3
u H s ^ n
td Z 3 ^ ||
u. U 5r Z Ii
5 2 O I
^ *^ b«H * f
H 3 Hi)
C/3 U U Si
O w p
s x ll
~ E!

z ll
2 i'
P i!


*e -a
-------
*5 z H
O u z u
(± 3 n W
£ 1 ° BC
|
i
I
1
H « £ <«
Z s < w
H 3 j H
£ O- ft, <
a w x a
b 04 H <
b . C* Bu

O w i»
O *• ^
H J ^ O
§ ^
- p « <
a Z & >
5 H z °




«
I
I

i
i
\

\
H U H if
c« U Up
O W II
s x I

I
p
II
O !
H i
<( |

^j
•J 3
a! 1 ^

D _:
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
If the state determines during a sanitary survey or an
equivalent source water assessment that after a system
completed the monitoring conducted under § 141.701(a) or
§ 141.701(b), significant changes occurred in the system's
watershed that could lead to increased contamination of the
source water by Cryptosporidium, the system must take
actions specified by the state to address the contamination.
These actions may include additional source water
monitoring and/or implementing microbial toolbox options
listed in § 141.715.





















V5
H
z
u
u
3
a
iV
H
U

H
§141.712 UNFILTERED SYSTEM CRYPTOSPORIDIUM J





























'c?
—
t~~-
2.
Determination of mean Cryptosporidium level.



























/ 	 	
—
CB
^
r^
S.
Following completion of the initial source water monitoring
required under § 141.701(a), unfiltered systems must
calculate the arithmetic mean of all Cryptosporidium
sample concentrations reported under § 14 1.701 (a).
Systems must report this value to the state for approval no
later than 6 months after the month the system is required
to complete initial source water monitoring based on the
schedule in § 141.701(c).



























^ 	 ^
(N
S
Ci
r-
S
Following completion of the second round of source water
monitoring required under § 141.701(b), unfiltered systems
must calculate the arithmetic mean of all Cryptosporidium
sample concentrations reported under § 141 ,701 (b),
Systems must report this value to the state for approval no
later than 6 months after the month the system is required
to complete the second round of source water monitoring
based on the schedule in § 141.701(c).
-------
5 fe P
O Ed Z W
£ I o £,
z £ 3 u I
w 5 j M
ps O* a. <
5 u x s! 11
to OS td < 11
(* . C< a, P
X Q US
Q u i» t
to '"
O - 3 {!
H J * O I
<( [_ K ^ jl
— P aa ^ II
U £ S 2 j|
a z 3 -5:
£ 1 Z 1
c^ u u i
O u
s ^ ^
o
H '
H ' ^~-

< S
a ' ^
Q _;
U Tf
S>
s ^
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
If the monthly Ciyptosporidium sampling frequency vari
systems must first calculate a monthly average for each
month of monitoring. Systems must then use these montl
average concentrations, rather than individual sample
concentrations, in the calculation of the mean
Ciyptosporidium level in paragraphs (a)(l) or (2) of this
section.
























/ 	
^
§
-*
j ^
•3-
&>
yi
The report to the state of the mean Ciyptosporidium leve
calculated under paragraphs (a)( 1) and (2) of this section
must include a summary of the source water monitoring
data used for the calculation.
























^^
>/-v
'c?
rt
'
^4-
V>

Failure to comply with the conditions of paragraph (a) oi
this section is a violation of the treatment technique
requirement.


























e
—
't
•*t
&>
'C *2
Cryptosporidium inactivation requirements. Unfiltered
systems must provide the level of inactivation for
Cryptosporidium specified in this paragraph, based on th
mean Cryptosporidium levels as determined under
paragraph (a) of this section and according to the schedu
in§ 141.713.
























^
-p—«
e
—
*
•
-------
f- ll
5. H /-v 1
i z HP
O W z W I
2 1 ? *
H S S <» !
Z S3 < W jl
W g J H 1
B: a £ <$ 1
W W X K
fa. OS H <
(b . ^ D.
r o u
H U 
H U 2 Z
< s 21
H 3 H !
V3 o U |
O ^ i
S ^ !




1
|
1
j
\
.
I
1
I
I
1
j
\

i
?• t
f-< i
o I
H l[
•< I
H P
0 il _
j i ^
^ il r*~\
a II -•
w 11 f~-
0 II ~
w i •*
ta-
il vr>

ii
1: T3
n: aj
M S;
f! <"
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Inactivation treatment technology requirements. Unfili
systems must use chlorine dioxide, ozone, or UV as
described in § 141.720 to meet the Cryptosporidium
inactivation requirements of this section.



























^
C-
o
fN
r-
]
^t-

<&>



OJ
OJ 3
.c cr
Systems that use chlorine dioxide or ozone and fail to
achieve the Cryptosporidium inactivation required in
paragraph (b) of this section on more than one day in t
calendar month are in violation of the treatment techni
requirement.



























, — .




<^H
O S-^

Systems that use UV light and fail to achieve the
Cryptosporidium inactivation required in paragraph (b
this section by meeting the criteria in § 141.720(d)(3)(
are in violation of the treatment technique requirement




























^ 	 ^
S
fN
1—
'
Tt

c£)


(U ^

•S <*- S
— O _ oj
Use of two disinfectants. Unflltered systems must meei
combined Cryptosporidium inactivation requirements <
this section and Giardia lamblia and virus inactivation
requirements of § 141 .72(a) using a minimum of two
disinfectants, and each of two disinfectants must separ
achieve the total inactivation required for either
Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, or viruses.
















tyi
H

U
S
U
oi
3
CK
u
tt
^,
z
u
§
H
•<
U
a.
H
1
§
5
o
0,
3
O
i-.
&
pj
r8!



o
^ f-H


. ^ 2
Following initial bin classification under § 141.710(c),
filtered systems must provide the level of treatment foi
Cryptosporidium required under § 141 .71 1 according 1
schedule in paragraph (c) of this section.
-------
k-. H ^^
* Z H !
O U Z W I
£ 5 0 "
W ~r
H Qi & ^
U 3 J H
pi o S. <
U U X K
b OS y < *
S O U
Q u SA
u.
u
2 u ^ i
H J ^ O 1
- p I <
w z a -| !
< 1 z 2
^ U U
^5 bJ
Z
o
H
H -
U
i
u
Q
U
u.




SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT

1
1
i








i
i

1






2~
rn
^.
^J-
^^
c^o


 0
O -------
e- I
§ H £-s i
O u z w
£ s 5 ffi
UJ -^ ** 1
H « & ^
W 3 J H
B! o* ft. •<
tu w x tf
U. BS td <
(*• . C' a.
•TQ W 1
Q w ffi
W ^^ |
< *"
1 w- i
H J _? O
H - W 2
C H ca *
^ H § £
H W Z Q I
^ *t N"" 1
H 3 H
C/5 (J (J S
s ^ -


z
0 !
H '

H s

o .
U f
c:

Q '
U
u.


SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
































^
;*
r--
'
2
<&>

Systems must meet the conditions of paragraph (c)( 1) or (2}
of this section for each uncovered finished water storage
facility or be in compliance with a state-approved schedule
to meet these conditions no later than April 1, 2009.





























, 	 ^
,
^ — '
o
2
r-;
'
2;
<&>

Systems must cover any uncovered finished water storage
facility.





























, 	 .
(N

2
2;
i —
*
2;
<0>

Systems must treat the discharge from the uncovered
finished water storage facility to the distribution system to
achieve inactivation and/or removal of at least 4-log virus,
3 -log Giardia lamblia, and 2-log Cryptosporidium using a
protocol approved by the state.































^ 	 ^
S-
2
r-
, 	 \
^
<0>

Failure to comply with the requirements of this section is a
violation of the treatment technique requirement.











H
Z
u
tf
G
a
'&
H
Z
LJ
§
<
ol


**,
**.
cc
0
c.
S
B
a.
as

O
Z
u
§141.715 MICROBIAL TOOLBOX OPTIONS FOR ME





























, 	 ,
^^
* — '
S
~
r~~
'
2
<&>

Systems receive the treatment credits listed in the table in
Systems receive the treatment credits listed in the table in
paragraph (b) of this section by meeting the conditions for
microbial toolbox options described in §§ 141.716 through
141.720. Systems apply these treatment credits to meet the
treatment requirements in§ 141. 711 or§ 141.712, as
applicable.





























, 	 .
o^
* — '
03
!2
r~^
*
2;
C03

Unflltered systems are eligible for treatment credits for the
microbial toolbox options described in § 141.720 only.































^_^
Q
1Q
t--
_^
3;
«73

The table in this section presents microbial toolbox options
treatment credits, and criteria.
-------
C-- i
— H ^ !
« Z H !
O U Z w ^
£ 1 ° E
H § S *
Z S <( W
M £> j H
OS O> ft, ^
U W X OS 1
fc OS Ed <
fc . S, 0- r
r o H }
H U (/>
u. (
i
w j
^ 3?'
Z £ |l
2 w ell
H J •• O
< i_ a: ;;
t H g * 1
u H 1 25!
u z u> > I
f- S ^ n
•< S ^ •
H S PS
&fl (J y |
0 w S
0 <*> f
^ 1
1
Z !
O |
H !
< j

•• P
U f
 r*
:: CL
^ L_
1 ^*
: g
: -^
•^H
i1 C
:' **>«
;: as
; o
. a.
, to
iS
; a,
^<
Cc
:C
0
• S
H"
'•• UJ
U
;S
HAL TOOLBOX OPTIONS FOR
-- M
) 0
- as
u
i
^c
v»*
l"--
*•«
2
C0>

































03
^o
r~
. 	 ;
^1-
"K, — t; -^X.
s-^ y •=
G. •— J=
o 1 i 1
"^ •*-• U. C/3
1 S.2 fr
a E n. o
'i| g i
•£ o >> o
to p O X)
1 f5 B S
v r, " •-
^.S =3 &
c/3 n, ~ cs






























^— .
r\i

C3
VO
r^
. 	 ;
•*
vn

CJ 1>
•a •£ tS -c
aj -^ 3 H
| .3 E 2 ^ a
S "H, " E ^ ^
ca 0. 2 u H c •
% ^ en "55 u >«>;„ oo c .-
1 §2|||5
ijMls c i
•*— * -i~ *rt *— i G r"
*- •" u o S 03 -S
E « g-S 8-E-
-§ JS ^ fe "S "o ^
S 0 -ETS -S i —
i = 1 * £ §s
1^5^!^^
S^S aj C^ &
S o c ^ > 2 hi
-Si is S S •" o3 &1
dil Isl I





























^^"
^^
rN

03
'O
r^
, 	 ~t
*3-
vr>
OJ
4^ ^
t^ 15
of influence" outside of which
idium or fecal contamination
!ant intake is not significant. T
d in future watershed surveys
) of this section.
iflcation of an "area
hood of Cryptospor
ting the treatment pi
• area to be evaluatei
r paragraph (a)(5)(ii
•£ US o -H *T"
S ^^ S
20 £ !
-------
O W 2 U i
fa 1 ° 3: I
z ~ < w
W P J H
« o* ft, <
W W X K

fa . s< ft.
N* C5 ^] !
P H t/5
W ^ 1
O " ^
•< f- p- •<
H H ffl " '
W H S b I
til Z £> ~^ <.
g|zl!
t/5 U U |
O bJ
a "»
~ t
z
o
H
H
•"
U
J
U
Q
U
b

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
j
1
1


\
\
i
|

|



:.t
\
j




o
>r^
CN

CS
r-
^ '
^-4-
^H
003
An analysis of the effectiveness and feasibility of control
measures that could reduce Clyptosporidium loading from
sources of contamination to the system's source water.





















^^
x:
rN

^
r-
__ *
TJ-
^H
«W
A statement of goals and specific actions the system will
undertake to reduce source water Clyptosporidium levels.
The plan must explain how the actions are expected to
contribute to specific goals, identify watershed partners and
their roles, identify resource requirements and
commitments, and include a schedule for plan
implementation with deadlines for completing specific
actions identified in the plan.






















r 	 ^
rn

'at
f^
^
•^-J-
— 1
C03
Systems with existing watershed control programs (i.e.,
programs in place on January 5, 2006) are eligible to seek
this credit. Their watershed control plans must meet the
criteria in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and must specify
ongoing and future actions that will reduce source water
Clyptosporidium levels.






















f 	 ^
^j-
^
CS
— '
]
^j-
__M
C05
If the state does not respond to a system regarding approval
of a watershed control plan submitted under this section
and the system meets the other requirements of this section,
the watershed control program will be considered approved
and 0.5 log Clyptosporidium treatment credit will be
awarded unless and until the state subsequently withdraws
such approval.






















f 	 ^
\f~\
^
S
r-
, 	 ;
^j-
^_H
vr>
Systems must complete the actions in paragraphs (a)(5)(i)
through (iii) of this section to maintain the 0.5-log credit.
-------
h^ /-••s \
O tiJ V" W |
£ S o S 1

H ^ i
z s- < w
W 3 J H
BJ O* 0. •< I
W W X K 1
fc 02 u <<
u. . C' a. 1
= a w I
MM 5/3 j
Z b 2?
2 u £ 1
< H g < I
t H 0 ^ 1
Slg!H
H S H
t/5 u u -
O td ,
s ^
O
H
f-
u t
-J
u
O
u.

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT























, 	 ,
x
'Cl
a
—
— '
^
Wo
Submit an annual watershed control program status report
to the state. The annual watershed control program status
report must describe the system's implementation of the
approved plan and assess the adequacy of the plan to meet
its goals. It must explain how the system is addressing any
shortcomings in plan implementation, including those
previously identified by the state or as the result of the
watershed survey conducted under paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of
this section. It must also describe any significant changes
that have occurred in the watershed since the last watershed
sanitary survey. If a system determines during
implementation that making a significant change to its
approved watershed control program is necessary, the
system must notify the state prior to making any such
changes. If any change is likely to reduce the level of
source water protection, the system must also list in its
notification the actions the system will take to mitigate this
effect.























.0
x
>=;
§
—
—
^
«73
Undergo a watershed sanitary survey every three years for
community water systems and every five years for
noncommunity water systems and submit the survey report
to the state. The survey must be conducted according to
state guidelines and by persons the state approves.





















-
>5
x
X
§
—
—
^
-------
§ z "P '
O H z w !
Mil
z S- 3 w 11
W => J H 11
ai a £ <\\
a w x K 1
SO U ||
Q u ID ;
fa I
UJ
<< —
z 5 a.
luT ^
H iJ ^ O
H - W ^
C H eo 5
U H g ^
Id Z 3 "^
H u Z £
< s 2
H U H
C« (j u
O w
S t/2





I
I
i
1
?
1
i
i
1
I
o £"
H > X
u - x
J ' ^W,
uJ r~~~-
o —
U ' ^t
fc s>

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
If the state determines that significant changes may have
occurred in the watershed since the previous watershed
sanitary survey, systems must undergo another watershed
sanitary survey by a date the state requires, which may be
earlier than the regular date in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this
section.
























'^k
*Cl
C3
^
'
•<3-
Ctf>
•£ 0 
G Ofl
Alternative source. A system may conduct source water
monitoring that reflects a different intake location (either i
the same source or for an alternate source) or a different
procedure for the timing or level of withdrawal from the
source (alternative source monitoring). If the state
approves, a system may determine its bin classification
under § 141 .710 based on the alternative source monitorin
results.
-------
*. H° ^
«* Z E-
° W Z g ;
H § Z * ''
z S 3 u s
U 3 j H -
pi O> a. < \
a w x K :
ta Pi ^J ^ P
tfc • CJ, OH *'
5 § * «'
u. !
u
o £•.
IS el /
f- -J -J- O \
t £ g 1 1;
^ H S 2- t
r^J Z ^ "^ <'
^ 1 z o<
E- 3 H
C/3 jj u
O w
s ^
1 ''
H
H ^
W X
J -°
^ ^O
Be! —

e —
w ^
ta ' S,

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
If systems conduct alternative source monitoring under
paragraph (b)(l) of this section, systems must also monitor
their current plant intake concurrently as described in §
141.701.
























£-
~^Z^
.0
*o
^H
r-
\
•*3~
Z>

Alternative source monitoring under paragraph (b)( 1 ) of
this section must meet the requirements for source
monitoring to determine bin classification, as described in
§§ 141.701 through 141.706. Systems must report the
alternative source monitoring results to the state, along witF
supporting information documenting the operating
conditions under which the samples were collected.
























^r
^
-O
^D
^^
f~-
'
Tj-
5>

If a system determines its bin classification under §
141 .710 using alternative source monitoring results that
reflect a different intake location or a different procedure
for managing the timing or level of withdrawal from the
source, the system must relocate the intake or permanently
adopt the withdrawal procedure, as applicable, no later than
the applicable treatment compliance date in § 141.713. §
141.717 Pre-filtration treatment toolbox components.

























CAJ

Z
u
z
o
a.
'S.
O
u
§141.717 PRE-FILTRATION TREATMENT TOOLBOX

























^ 	
CS
p 	
^_,
r^
	 	 ;
•3-
W

Presedimentation. Systems receive 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a presedimentation
basin during any month the process meets the criteria in
this paragraph.
























^
X
S3
* —
^H
I 	 .
'
T^-
cco

The presedimentation basin must be in continuous
operation and must treat the entire plant flow taken from a
surface water or GWUDI source.
-------
•3 H ^
g Z H
^? ^J y1 bJ
£i°£
H CS S "*
Z S ^ W
W 3 J H
Pi O" 5. <
W W X B
jr O ^ W
Q uJ x
U.
< £
z e- 5=
2 w 2
H J of °
— H BB 5
u H s 2.
w u 3 Z
< S z 2
t- & H
^ u u
o w
s x
o
P
<;
H
C
_
-<*
ci
u
Q
U
U-



SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT

1
|
1
|

|
•
\
I
1
|
|
i
1
j
i



|
^
1

|


^^
X
c3
|-^
4_H
f--
'
^-4-
<— >
vn


Fhe system must continuously add a coagulant to the
jresedimentation basin.
I


























^-.
X
ca
f-^
^^
r —
, 	 ;
^4-
^H
W


Fhe presedimentation basin must achieve the performanc
:riteria in paragraph (3)(i) or (ii) of this section.


























.—
^^
Ci
CC
r^
^H
r~^
•^
•^-
<— i
«w


Demonstrates at least 0.5-log mean reduction of influent
:urbidity. This reduction must be determined using daily
oirbidity measurements in the presedimentation process
nfluent and effluent and must be calculated as follows:
.ogio( monthly mean of daily influent turbidity) -
iOgio( monthly mean of daily effluent turbidity).

























, — ,
! ^
^^
^2-
-2-
p~^
~—i
i —
*
^j-
^^
«w
-a
D
Complies with state-approved perfonnance criteria that
demonstrate at least 0.5-log mean removal of micron- siz
jarticulate material through the presedimentation process




























	 	 ^
^
i — .
^«
r —
^^
^j-
— -,
vn
*c n

Two-stage lime softening. Systems receive an additional
3.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a two-stage
lime softening plant if chemical addition and hardness
precipitation occur in two separate and sequential softeni;
stages prior to filtration. Both softening stages must treat
;he entire plant flow taken from a surface water or GWU1
source.




























^
Q
r-

r-
*
^j-
^-H
«w
C fl>

^ ~*~* c3 o tn '^
t! c so 3 — -^
S: QJ cd o Cl- ^
~ B ii tn C O
• S C eS C VH
'C o ^ '5b " 2
ex, 'o -S jo _oj 'Si
(5' <8 ' J "^ 3 C
0 W 5 _O ^ §
•-1 *-• ^ "S r- c:-
S c -5 ij _; 2-
E o u P rt <^)
OJ 'S (U ^ — < O
« 2 S -* ^^
* ^ ^ tfl "e IX.
o c c c § ^-
*-S P3 TO ." 5^
^**"* *^ "^ S ^~* ' c "*"*
CQ i^j t^ c/) c "^ o

t\

o

C5

•N



 2



 l>


•^
^D
^r
<
 
-------
— H -^
O W z W '
PS 5 fe W -
t*« i ffi *
H « £ ^
Z K < W
W S j H
BS O1 5- <
U W X PS
S Q ^ a [i
W W W 1
U. i
i
u (
^ "? 1
ly s_^ ^^ 1 1
o - 3
HJ.rO
^ - u ** '
t H ffl ^
u H s SS :»
w z 3 ^ ;s
< 1 z o ''
H 3 H
^ U U
O W
Z
2 '
s- ' ^
c s
J CJ
^ r^
OS —
u r--
Q _;
u •*
to —

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Wells with a ground water flow path of at least 25 feet
receive 0.5-log treatment credit; wells with a ground water
flow path of at least 50 feet receive 1.0-log treatment credit.
The ground water flow path must be determined as
specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section.


























fN
CJ
r-

f-
^
T-j-
— H
vn
Only wells in granular aquifers are eligible for treatment
credit. Granular aquifers are those comprised of sand, clay,
silt, rock fragments, pebbles or larger particles, and minor
cement. A system must characterize the aquifer at the well
site to determine aquifer properties. Systems must extract a
core from the aquifer and demonstrate that in at least 90
percent of the core length, grains less than 1.0 mm in
diameter constitute at least 10 percent of the core material.


























X
o
f^
,— H
r-
'(
T-J-
_,
Ctf>
Only horizontal and vertical wells are eligible for treatment
credit.


























X
o
r^
^H
t~~-
'f
TJ~
, 	 1
«W
For vertical wells, the ground water flow path is the
measured distance from the edge of the surface water body
under high flow conditions (detennined by the 100 year
floodplain elevation boundary or by the floodway, as
defined in Federal Emergency Management Agency flood
hazard maps) to the well screen. For horizontal wells, the
ground water flow path is the measured distance from the
bed of the river under normal flow conditions to the closest
horizontal well lateral screen.


























X
u
[^
^^
1 —
'
,-j.
, 	 1
«73
tn _cn
(U tn S „.
. — tn O D
•*-* CJ -T3 -^
"2 c - 1
3 ^5 >• i
o r^ T" o
<*- ^ >> "
||||
2 b j^T" 3
'c o •£ "3
O J3 C >
6 $ 1 g
1 ^.il
C D .^ G
P*^ C OH C3
to o o -o
 fv.
 O
 O
 -j
-------
— H ^
§ Z H
O w z w
ta 1 ° ffi
Z - < W
W U j H
W W X 6S
ta OS fcd <
fc . *£, a.
O U cr
u.

UJ
° " «
H J -r O
^ £ w <
B H 1 *
y §1
H 3 H
t* U U
O w
£ ^
0
H
H

U
U
K
U
Q
U
U.

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
j
I
1
j
|
1
\
i
1
I
J

|
|
|
1
|
1
|
j







i





system must report this result to the state and conduct an
assessment within 30 days to determine the cause of the
high turbidity levels in the well. If the state determines that
microbial removal has been compromised, the state may
revoke treatment credit until the system implements
corrective actions approved by the state to remediate the
problem.























f 	 	
^o
^
^.
,
r^
,__j
•^j-
i—
<&
•3
o
U*
3 !§>
*- OJ
O ^
C 3
OJ -0
^H
03 C
vi O
U 'S
= "
60 IS
C3 ^M ^™~N
t § s^
E .ti 22
c
OXJ ri
c S o3
'C os -a
n, y c
c« h 3























/ 	
j — .
5<
u
H;
r-
. 	 ',
t$-
, — ,
un
Bank filtration demonstration of performance. The state
may approve Cryptosporidium treatment credit for bank
filtration based on a demonstration of performance study
that meets the criteria in this paragraph. This treatment
credit may be greater than 1 .0-log and may be awarded to
bank filtration that does not meet the criteria in paragraphs
(c)(l)-(5) of this section.






















^
^;
r-

o
JH;
r--
, 	 \
^3-
__H
C00
The study must follow a state- approved protocol and must
involve the collection of data on the removal of
Cryptosporidium or a surrogate for Cryptosporidium and
related hydrogeologic and water quality parameters during
the full range of operating conditions.






















^
^
t--'

CJ
H;
1 —
, 	 4
^~
__l
«73
O
'*2 -o 4)
J § eg
^ -a £
S.S »
„, 4> 4>
* H^
-^ o —
S M o3
o H g
* «* B ^
60 33 S
C OJ & C
e" 60 j2 "5
" '§ 1 "o
|| | o.
"2 o ^ §
3 r*-H ^X)
P c H
>>"§ -2
-a os "3 §
3 , — - T3 tn
U ^ 03 ^^
J5 1) O 03
IV


^
oo
•^r
 !\)

 U




I
O

 C
 o
 cu
 S
 cu

I-
>c;



I

3

PI
^J
-------
11
5 z P
O u z u
OS 2 O w
fa- u K
H § £ ">
^ N«* ^f1 b^
W P J H
as o1 £ <
U W X OS
fa. OS td <
fa. .._.&.
so u
Q M x
t.
u ^_^
z a. 5?
° " «
H J r O
"*• - w "^
N- h™ 03 *3
U H S £
w z & >
< 1 Z °
H 3 H
O W
s ^
o
|_
H

U
J
•#,
0-
W
O
u
u.


t-
U-
RAL REQUIREM
SUMMARY OF FEDE

#






I
1
|
\
\


1
)
\
\










H
Z

Z
' 0
S
o
u
TOOLBOX
PERFORMANCE
1 §141.718 TREATMENT




























f 	 ^
CC
oo'
^«
C--
^^
2
«x>
^oo c
c3 C c _: S • —
C * 'C "S S T3
003 &-S o
'C > T3 2 „, ^
c -5 ^ ao M 'C
^§^32^ a
g i g §.^^^
u C JL " *- tt^ «!
oo a c s 2 o "*
c s y - 3 :: -o
'3 5 6 .5 £ g a
^S g .2 .^ § §
g a i= o3 3 « S
T) —
>, g .~ ° 3 ^ ^
w ^ ^ a — « •?
Combined filter performance.
filtration treatment or direct fi
additional 0.5-log Ciyptospon
any month the system meets tl
Combined filter effluent (CFE
or equal to 0. 1 5 NTU in at lea;
measurements. Turbidity must
§ 141.74(a)and(c).




























	 s
,Q
oo"
— ^
r^
'
2
W
,
JLiiJ
g 'S «u C ^ "S o
| 8 ^ ° 'g 3 3
C t-, c O ° e «
0 ~ S sS w C ea
0 S ° j= -S * M
°0 C ^5 "D, « ^ =
C C o rt 2 aj 'C
's « S M " -c 2 .
^a^raco--^
SS^'JS^woS
g C .-S g, g « p'rt
tlllllll
00 ^ « C K1^ TD 0-
Individual filter performance.
filtration treatment or direct fi
log Cryptosporidium treatmen
addition to the 0.5-log credit u
section, during any month the
this paragraph. Compliance wi
based on individual filter turbi
in§ 141. 174 or § 141.560, as;




























^-^
,-D
oo'
i-H
(--.
, 	 '
2
<£n

c/: o
!l
^^ ^
2 ^
75. "
S H -g
The filtered water turbidity foi
be less than or equal to 0. 1 5 N
the measurements recorded ea



























(N

_D
oo"
^^
r~—
'
TJ-


u m
03 —
a c
(DO JJ
^ S
•Q c/D
a measured turbi
ive measuremen
No individual filter may have
than 0.3 NTU in two consecut
minutes apart.
-------
S *~ ^ <
O w z w
fa ** ° S
H S z S
z ~ 5: u
W S j j-
os ex a. <$
W W X K
fa tf td <
fa • C- B.
•— Q rj
Q W M
b-
W
° " ai
H J ^ O
H - W aH
^ H CO 5
^ H S b
td Z ^ "^
H a p !
&> U U -
o w
s ^
0
H
H •

0 -
— !
^
U
O
U
u.


SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT













|
1

I
1
1
1
\





• s-^.
ro
^
X)
oo'
r^
, 	 ',
•^~
^—
^
CO
Any system that has received treatment credit for individu
filter performance and fails to meet the requirements of
paragraph (b)(l ) or (2) of this section during any month
does not receive a treatment technique violation under §
141.71 l(c) if the state determines the following:

























s~.
X
m

Xi
oo"
r-
'
T^J-
^^
vn

The failure was due to unusual and short-term
circumstances that could not reasonably be prevented
through optimizing treatment plant design, operation, and
maintenance.

























.0
X
rn

X)
ocT
r^
, 	 :
T^-
^«

m
The system has experienced no more than two such failure
in any calendar year.




























r 	
o
oo
r^
, 	 :
^j-
^^
vr>

Demonstration of performance. The state may approve
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for drinking water
treatment processes based on a demonstration of
performance study that meets the criteria in this paragraph
This treatment credit may be greater than or less than the
prescribed treatment credits in§ 141. 711 or§§ 141.717
through 141.720 and may be awarded to treatment
processes that do not meet the criteria for the prescribed
credits.


























/ 	
^^
^
CJ
06"
r--
, 	 \
^t~
^H