DRAFT FOR COMMENT
      The Long Term 2 Enhanced
      Surface Water Treatment
      Rule (LT2ESWTR)
      Implementation Guidance

-------
Office of Water (4606M)
EPA816-D-03-001
www.epa.gov/safewater
November 2003                                                     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 draft document reflects provisions proposed on August 11, 2003 (68 FR
47640).

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Table of Contents
Table of Contents	  1
List of Figures  	  6
List of Tables	  7
List of Examples  	  9
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations	  11
Introduction 	  13

Section 1 Rule Requirements
        1.1 Introduction	  17
               1.1.1  History  	  17
               1.1.2  Development of the LT2ESWTR	  21
               1.1.3  Benefits of the LT2ESWTR	  22
                      1.1.3.1  Quantifiable Benefits	  22
                      1.1.3.2  Non-quantifiable health and non-health related benefits	  22
        1.2 Requirements of the Rule: PWSs 	  23
               1.2.1  General Requirements	  23
               1.2.2  Source Water Monitoring [proposed §141.702]	  24
                      1.2.2.1  When are systems required to begin source water monitoring? [proposed
                             §141.703]	  24
                      1.2.2.2  Where are systems required to sample source water? [proposed
                             §141.704]	  24
               1.2.3  Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Requirements [proposed §141.711,
                     §141.713]  	  25
                      1.2.3.1  Which systems need to develop profiles? [proposed §141.711] 	  25
                      1.2.3.2  What if systems previously collected data? [proposed §141.713] ....  25
                      1.2.3.3  If a system developed a profile for Giardia, does it have to develop one
                             for viruses? [proposed §141.713]  	  25
                      1.2.3.4  When do systems have to conduct disinfection profiling? [proposed
                             §141.712]	  25
                      1.2.3.5  What are the recordkeeping requirements for a disinfection profile?
                             [proposed §141.713, §141.731]	  26
               1.2.4  Treatment  Requirements	  26
                      1.2.4.1  When do systems have to install additional treatment? [proposed
                             §141.701]	  26
                      1.2.4.2  What are the requirements for Cryptosporidium treatment for filtered
                             systems? [proposed §141.720]	  27
                      1.2.4.3  What are the requirements for Cryptosporidium treatment for unfiltered
                             systems? [proposed §141.721]	  27

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance            1                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
               1.2.5   Microbial Toolbox Options Available to Systems 	  28
                      1.2.5.1 Watershed Control Program [proposed §141.725(a)] 	  29
                      1.2.5.2 Alternative Source [proposed §141.725(b)]   	  31
                      1.2.5.3 Pre-sedimentation with Coagulant [proposed §141.726(a)]  	  32
                      1.2.5.4 Two-stage Lime Softening [proposed §141.726(b)] 	  32
                      1.2.5.5 Bank Filtration [proposed §141.726(c)]  	  34
                      1.2.5.6 Combined Filter Performance [proposed §141.727(a)]	  36
                      1.2.5.7 Individual Filter Performance [proposed §141.727(b)]	  37
                      1.2.5.8 Demonstration of Performance: What if a system can perform better than
                             the presumptive credit specified in the toolbox?	  38
                      1.2.5.9 Bag and Cartridge Filtration [proposed §141.728(a)] 	  39
                      1.2.5.10 Membrane Filtration [proposed §141.728(b)]  	  41
                      1.2.5.11 Second Stage Filtration [proposed §141.728(c)]  	  42
                      1.2.5.12 Slow Sand Filters [proposed §141.728(d)]	  43
                      1.2.5.13 Chlorine Dioxide [proposed §141.729(b)] 	  44
                      1.2.5.14 Ozone  [proposed §141.729(c)]	  44
                      1.2.5.15 Ultraviolet Light [proposed §141.729(d)]	  45
               1.2.6   Uncovered Finished Reservoir Requirements [proposed §141.724]  	  46
               1.2.7   PWS Recordkeeping Requirements [proposed §141.731]  	  46
               1.2.8   Public Notification of Drinking Water Violations [proposed §141 Subpart Q,
                      Appendix A]  	  47
                      1.2.8.1 Water are examples of a Tier 2 violation?	  47
                      1.2.8.2 What are examples of a Tier 3 violation? 	  47
               1.2.9   Consumer Confidence Report Requirements  	  48
        1.3 Requirements of the Rule: States or Other Primacy Agents	  48
               1.3.1   Special Primacy Requirements [proposed §142.16]	  48
               1.3.2   State Recordkeeping Requirements [proposed §142.14]  	  49
               1.3.3   State Reporting Requirements  [proposed §142.15]  	  49
        1.4 Summary of Action Dates	  50
               1.4.1   Applicability  and Compliance Dates  	  50
               1.4.2   Timeline forthe LT2ESWTR	  53

Section 2 Resources and Guidance
        2.1 Technical Guidance Manuals  	  59
        2.2 Rule Presentation  	  60
        2.3 Fact Sheet/Draft Quick Reference Guide 	  60
        2.4 Q&As  	  60
               2.4.1   Systems Affected  by the LT2ESWTR 	  60
               2.4.2   Cryptosporidium	  60
               2.4.3   Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking 	  60
               2.4.4   Source Water Microbial Monitoring	  61


Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           2                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
               2.4.5   Bin Classification 	 61
               2.4.6   Microbial Toolbox Options  	 61
               2.4.7   Violations and SDWIS Reporting	 61
               2.4.8   Data Reporting and Recordkeeping  	 61
               2.4.9   Unfiltered Systems 	 61
               2.4.10  Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs	 61

Section 3 State Implementation
        3.1 Overview of Implementation  	 65
        3.2 Identify Special Primacy Conditions  	 68
        3.3 Identify Affected Systems	 68
               3.3.1   Source Water Monitoring	 68
               3.3.2   Cryptosporidium Treatment  	 69
               3.3.3   Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking 	 69
               3.3.4   Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs	 69
        3.4 Communicate LT2ESWTR Requirements to Affected Systems  	 70
               3.4.1   Source Water Monitoring Requirements  	 70
                      3.4.1.1 Calculating Average Cryptosporidium Concentrations  	 71
               3.4.2   Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements and Compliance Dates  	 71
               3.4.3   Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking 	 73
               3.4.4   Uncovered Finished Water Reservoir Requirements 	 73
               3.4.5   Methods of Communication	 74
                      3.4.5.1 Written Notification  	 74
                      3.4.5.2 Slide Presentation  	 76
                      3.4.5.3 Guidance Documents and Seminars  	 76
        3.5 Update Data Management Systems  	 76
        3.6 Specify Alternative E. coll or Indicator Values for Small Systems 	 77
        3.7 Ensure that Ongoing Watershed Monitoring is Conducted and Adjust Treatment
               Requirements	 77
        3.8 Award Cryptosporidium Removal Credit for Primary Treatments in Place	 78
        3.9 Award Cryptosporidium Removal Credit for Implementation of Options from the Microbial
               Toolbox  	 78
               3.9.1   Watershed Control Program  [proposed §141.725(a)]	 80
                      3.9.1.1 What are the Requirements for Initial State Approval of Watershed
                             Control Programs?	 81
                      3.9.1.2 What are the System's Requirements for Maintaining State Approval of
                             Watershed Control Programs?	 81
                      3.9.1.3 What Resources are Available to Systems and States? 	 82
               3.9.2   Alternative Source [proposed §141.725(b)]  	 82
               3.9.3   Pre-sedimentation with Coagulant [proposed §141.726(a)]	 83
               3.9.4   Two-stage Lime Softening [proposed §141.726(b)]	 83
               3.9.5   Bank Filtration [proposed §141.726(c)]   	 83

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          3                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
               3.9.6   Combined Filter Performance [proposed §141.727(a)]  	 84
               3.9.7   Individual Filter Performance [proposed §141.727(b)]  	 84
               3.9.8   Membrane Filtration [proposed §141.728(b)]  	 84
               3.9.9   Bag and Cartridge Filtration [proposed §141.728(a)]	 85
               3.9.10  Second Stage Filtration [proposed §141.728(c)]  	 85
               3.9.11  Slow Sand Filters  [proposed §141.728(d)]	 86
               3.9.12  Chlorine Dioxide [proposed §141.729(b)] 	 86
               3.9.13  Ozone [proposed §141.729(c)]	 86
               3.9.14  Ultraviolet Light [proposed §141.729(d)]	 87
               3.9.15  Demonstration of Performance	 87
       3.10 Oversee Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking  	 88
       3.11 Review Changes in Treatment or Control Measures Used to Meet Cryptosporidium
               Treatment Requirements  	 88
       3.12 Evaluate Risk Mitigation Plans for Systems with Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs  . 88
       3.13 Approve Laboratories for Monitoring Cryptosporidium 	 89

Section 4 State Primacy Revision Application
       4.1 State Primacy Program Revision  	 93
               4.1.1   The Revision Process  	 94
               4.1.2   The Final Review  Process	 95
       4.2 State Primacy Program Revision Extensions 	 96
               4.2.1   The Extension Process 	 96
               4.2.2   Criteria that an Extension Request Must Meet	 97
               4.2.3   Conditions of the Extension 	 97
       4.3 State Primacy Package 	  102
               4.3.1   The State Primacy Revision Checklist	  102
               4.3.2   Text of the State's Regulation	  102
               4.3.3   Primacy Revision  Crosswalk 	  102
               4.3.4   State Reporting and Recordkeeping Checklist [Proposed §142.14 and 142.15]
                        	  103
               4.3.5   Special Primacy Requirement [Proposed §142.16]  	  104
               4.3.6   Attorney General's Statement of Enforceability [Proposed §142.12(c)(2)] . .  104
                      4.3.6.1  Guidance for States on Audit Privilege and/or Immunity Laws  ....  104
       4.4 Guidance for the Special Primacy Requirements of the LT2ESWTR  	  106
               4.4.1   Assessment of Significant Changes in Watershed and Source Water  	  106
               4.4.2   Approval of Watershed Control Programs	  Ill
               4.4.3   Establishment of Protocols for Approving Removal Credits Under the
                      Demonstration of Performance Toolbox Option  	  113
               4.4.4   Evaluation of Risk Mitigation Plans for Systems with Uncovered Finished
                      Reservoirs	  114

Section 5 SDWIS Reporting and SNC Definitions

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           4                                  November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
       5.1 Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Reporting Under the LT2ESWTR . .  119
              5.1.1   Federally Reported Violations  	  119
       5.2 LT2ESWTR - SNC Definition	  126
       5.3 LT2ESWTR Data Entry Instructions  	  126
Section 6 Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Examples

Appendix A    Primacy Revision Crosswalk
Appendix B    Regulatory Language
Appendix C    Rule Fact Sheet/Draft Quick Reference Guide
Appendix D    Primacy Agency Data Entry Instructions, with Examples, for the LT2ESWTR
Appendix E    Flowcharts
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          5                                November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. General Requirements of the LT2ESWTR	  23
Figure 1-2. Implementation Timeline for the LT2ESWTR 	  54
Figure 3-1. Timeline of System and Primacy Agency Activities	  66
Figure 4-1. Recommended Review Process for State Request for Approval of Program Revisions  ...  96
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          6                                November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Schedule of Implementation Deadlines Related to Disinfection Profiling (in months after rule
       promulgation)  	 26
Table 1-2. Level of Treatment Required	 27
Table 1-3. Microbial Toolbox: Options and Credits	 28
Table 1-4. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Watershed Control Program Toolbox Option
         	 31
Table 1-5. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Presedimentation Toolbox Option	 32
Table 1-6. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Two-stage Lime Softening
       Toolbox Option	 33
Table 1-7. Reporting Deadline for Systems Choosing the Bank Filtration Toolbox Option  	 36
Table 1-8. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Combined Filter Performance Toolbox Option
         	 37
Table 1-9. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Individual Filter Performance Toolbox
       Options  	 38
Table 1-10. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Demonstration of Performance
       Toolbox Option	 39
Table 1-11. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Bag Filters and Cartridge Filters Toolbox
       Option	 41
Table 1-12. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Membrane Filtration Toolbox Option ... 42
Table 1-13. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Second Stage Filtration Toolbox Option  . 43
Table 1-14. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Slow Sand Filtration Option 	 44
Table 1-15. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Chlorine Dioxide Toolbox Option	 44
Table 1-16. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Ozone Toolbox Option 	 45
Table 1-17. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the UV Toolbox Option	 46
Table 1-18. Summary of Action Dates forthe LT2ESWTR	 50
Table 3-1. Source Water Monitoring Requirements and Compliance Dates 	 70
Table 3-2. Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements for Filtered Systems 	 72
Table 3-3. Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements for Unfiltered Systems  	 72
Table 3-4. Disinfection Profiling Requirements and Compliance Dates  	 73
Table 3-5. Cryptosporidium Treatment Credit Towards LT2ESWTR Requirements 	 78
Table 3-6. Microbial Toolbox: Options, Log Credits, and Summary of Design/
       Implementation Criteria  	 79
Table 4-1. State Rule Implementation and Revision Timetable forthe LT2ESWTR	 94

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           7                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Table 4-2. State Primacy Revision Checklist	 103
Table 5-1. SDWIS/FED Codes for Federal Reporting Under the LT2ESWTR	 120
Table 5-2. Federal Reporting for LT2ESWTR	 121
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          8                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
List of Examples
Example 3-1. Example System Notification Letter  	  75
Example 4-1. Example Extension Request Checklist	  99
Example 4-2. Example of Attorney General's Statement	  105
Example 6-1. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for Failure to Take Action on Uncovered Finished
       Water Reservoir  	  131
Example 6-2. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Take Action on Uncovered Finished Water
       Reservoir	  132
Example 6-3. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Receive Approval Before Making a
       Significant Change in Disinfection Practice	  134
Example 6-4. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Receive Approval Before Making a
       Significant Change in Disinfection Practice	  135
Example 6-5. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for Failure to Provide the Level of Treatment
       Appropriate for Bin Classification 	  137
Example 6-6. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Provide the Level of Treatment Appropriate
       for Bin Classification 	  138
Example 6-7. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Conduct Source Water Monitoring
       (Initial or Second Round) and Report the Results  	  140
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 	  140
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  	  142
Example 6-10.  Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Conduct Source Water Monitoring (Initial
       or Second Round) and Report the Results 	  142
Example 6-11.  Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Collect Samples in Accordance with
       Sampling Schedule 	  144
Example 6-12.  Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Collect Samples in Accordance with
       Sampling Schedule 	  144
Example 6-13.  Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Sample at an Appropriate Location  146
Example 6-14.  Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Sample at an Appropriate Location . .  146
Example 6-15.  Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Use an Approved Laboratory or
       Approved Analytical Method	  148
Example 6-16.  Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Use an Approved Laboratory  or Approved
       Analytical Method  	  148
Example 6-17.  Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus Disinfection
       Profiles  	  150
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           9                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Example 6-18. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus Disinfection
       Profiles  	  150
Example 6-19. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus Disinfection
       Profiles  	  152

Example 6-20. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus Disinfection
       Profiles  	  152
Example 6-21. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Report Information to Determine if a
       System Must Create a Disinfection Profile	  154

Example 6-22. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Report Information to Determine if a
       System Must Create a Disinfection Profile	  154
Example 6-23. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Report Information About Toolbox
       Components  	  156

Example 6-24. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Report Information About Toolbox
       Components  	  157
Example 6-25. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Maintain Disinfection Profiles   . . .  158

Example 6-26. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Maintain Disinfection Profiles	  159
Example 6-27. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Maintain Source Water Monitoring
       Results and Bin Classification (initial or second round)	  160

Example 6-28. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Maintain Source Water Monitoring Results
       and Bin Classification (initial or second round)	  161
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           10                                 November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
 CAFO
 CCR
 CDC
 CFE
 CFR
 CT

 CWS
 DBFs
 EPA
 FBRR
 FEMA
 FRDS
 GAC
 GWUDI
 HAAS

 HQ
 ICR
 ICRSS
 ICRSSL
 IDSE
 IESWTR
 IFE
 Log
 LRAA
 LT IESWTR
 LT2ESWTR
 MCF
 MCL
 MCLG
 M-DBP
 MRDL
 M&R
 NCWS
 NIPDWR
 NPDWR
 NTNCWS
 NTU
 OECA
 OGC
 OGWDW
 ORC
 PWS
 PWSS
 RAA
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
Consumer Confidence Report
Centers for Disease Control
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
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
Haloacetic Acids (Monochloroacetic, Dichloroacetic, Trichloroacetic,
Monobromoacetic and Dibromoacetic Acids)
Headquarters
Information Collection Rule
Information Collection Rule Supplemental Survey
Information Collection Rule Supplemental Surveys of large systems
Initial Distribution System Evaluation
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Individual Filter Effluent
Logarithm (common, base 10)
Locational Running Annual Average
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 and Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts
Maximum Residual Disinfection Level
Monitoring and Reporting
Noncommunity Water System
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
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
Public Water System
Public Water System Supervision
Running Annual Average
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                 11
November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
 SDWA
 SDWIS/FED
 SNC
 Stage 1 DBPR
 Stage 2 DBPR
 SWTR
 TCR
 TOC
 TT
 TTHM

 UCMR
 uv
 WCP
Safe Drinking Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal
Significant Non-complier
Stage  1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
Stage  2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
Surface Water Treatment Rule
Total Coliform Rule
Total Organic Carbon
Treatment Technique
Total Trihalomethanes (Chloroform, Bromodichloromethane,
Dibromochloromethane, and Bromoform)
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
Ultraviolet Light
Watershed Control Program
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                 12
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Introduction
This document provides guidance to EPA regions and states exercising primary enforcement
responsibility under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) concerning how the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) interprets the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(LT2ESWTR) under the SDWA. It also provides guidance to the public and the regulated community on
how EPA intends to exercise its discretion in implementing the statute and regulations. This draft
guidance is designed to implement national policy on these issues.

The SDWA provision and EPA regulations described in this document contain legally binding
requirements. This document does not substitute for those provision or regulations, 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 draft 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 draft guidance in the future.

This draft 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 determination and associated
reporting requirements to assist states in their compliance activities.

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 fo the rule. Appendix B contains the rule language of the  LT2ESWTR.  Appendix
C contains a fact sheet and a draft quick reference guide for the rule. Appendix D contains the data entry
instructions for the LT2ESWTR.

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 are not required elements of the LT2ESWTR.

EPA will undertake necessary rule implementation activities during the period of early implementation.
During this 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.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           13                                 November 2003

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
Section 1	
Rule Requirements

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
1.1 Introduction
EPA proposed the LT2ESWTR in the Federal Register on August 11, 2003 (68 FR 47640; see
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/index.htmn. 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
(DBFs). The LT2ESWTR does not change any of the requirements established by the Surface Water
Treatment Rule (SWTR), Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), or the Long Term
1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR); instead, it builds upon these requirements.
Key provisions of the LT2ESWTR include:

       •      Source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium, with reduced monitoring requirements for
              small systems.

       •      Additional Cryptosporidium treatment techniques for filtered systems based on source
              water Cryptosporidium concentrations.

       •      Inactivation of Cryptosporidium for all unfiltered systems.

       •      Disinfection profiling and benchmarking to assure continued levels of microbial
              protection while PWSs take the necessary steps to comply with new DBF standards.

       •      Covering, treating, or implementing a risk management plan for uncovered finished water
              reservoirs.

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 Cryptosporidium, which can be severe and sometimes fatal in sensitive sub-populations (e.g.,
infants, immune suppressed patients, the elderly). In addition, the treatment technique (TT) requirements
of this proposal are expected to increase the level of protection from exposure to other microbial
pathogens (e.g., Giardia).

The LT2ESWTR has been proposed concurrently with the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR), which addresses reducing peak and average levels of disinfection
byproducts in drinking water supplies. The Stage 2 DBPR was proposed as a separate rule on August 18,
2003.

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 DBFs 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.

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
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          17                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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
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 (NPDWR): 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.  coll 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. 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 less than 4,100 people.

Surface Water Treatment Rule

PWSs using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) as a
supply are 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 treatment technique
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 log) and 99.99 percent (4
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 high levels of turbidity often indicate 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. Over the past 10 years,
much has been learned about this organism. Most notably, Cryptosporidium is resistant to disinfection
practices commonly employed by PWSs.  Therefore, physical removal of Cryptosporidium is the most
effective method for public health protection.


Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           18                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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 waterborne 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/Stage 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 are significant and well-
recognized; 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 even at low levels. 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. Much of the population is exposed to these risks;
therefore, a substantial concern exists.

The TTHM Rule of 1979 set a TTHM standard for CWSs 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  chlorite, bromate, and
haloacetic acids (HAAS) as well as established maximum residual disinfection levels (MRDLs) for the
disinfectants chlorine, chloramine, and chlorine dioxide.  In addition,  the Stage 1 DBPR requires
conventional filtration systems to remove specified percentages of organic materials, measured as total
organic carbon (TOC), that may react with disinfectants to form DBFs.

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 DBP 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


Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           19                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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 HAAS levels. Systems are also required to conduct a significant excursion evaluation if they
have DBF levels that are significantly higher than the MCL.

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 systems that use conventional and direct filtration. The FBRR requires affected
systems to notify the state in writing about its recycle practices, maintain specific records, and return
regulated recycle streams (i.e., 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).

IESWTR/LT1ESWTR/LT2ESWTR

The IESWTR builds on the SWTR by adding protection from Cryptosporidium through strengthened
combined filter effluent (CFE) turbidity performance standards and individual filter effluent (IFE)
turbidity provisions. The IESWTR applies to systems that serve more than 10,000 people. For unfiltered
systems, Cryptosporidium must be included in watershed control requirements. In addition, the IESWTR
builds on the TCR by requiring sanitary surveys for all PWSs using surface water or GWUDI. 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 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, LT1ESWTR, and FBRR
standards to target health risks not addressed by prior regulations. By encompassing these previously
unaddressed health risks from microbials and DBFs, the M-DBP Cluster continues to maximize drinking
water quality and public health protection.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          20                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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 including Cryptosporidium, as well as new data on
DBP health risks, exposure, and control.  The Committee held ten meetings (from September 1999 to July
2000), which were open to the public, 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 proposed LT2ESWTR.

The M-DBP Committee reached agreement on the following major issues regarding the LT2ESWTR:

              Additional  Cryptosporidium treatment 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.

       •      Reduced monitoring burden for small systems.

       •      Future monitoring to confirm initial assessments of source water quality.

       •      Cryptosporidium inactivation by all unfiltered systems.

       •      Unfiltered systems meet overall inactivation requirements using a minimum of 2
              disinfectants.

              Development of criteria and guidance for ultraviolet light (UV) disinfection and other
              toolbox options.

       •      Cover or treat existing uncovered finished water reservoirs.

The requirements of the LT2ESWTR are in addition to the requirements in previous  surface water
treatment rules, including SWTR, IESWTR, LT1ESWTR and FBRR.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           21                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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 treatment techniques, 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 256,000 to
1,019,000 illnesses and 37 to 141 deaths annually (on average) 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 $374 million to $1.4 billion. These values do not take into account
confidence limits for non-quantified benefits.

For filtered systems, benefits to the approximately 161 million people served by filtered surface water and
GWUDI  systems range from a mean reduction in annual cases of endemic illness ranging from 88,000 to
472,000 (based on ICRSSL  and ICR data sets).  In addition, deaths are expected to be reduced by an
average of 9 to 50 people  annually. The 12 million people served by unfiltered surface water or GWUDI
systems will also see a significant reduction in cryptosporidiosis as a result of the rule. The LT2ESWTR
is expected to reduce approximately 168,000 to 547,000 cases of illnesses and 28 to 91 premature deaths
annually  in unfiltered systems (based on ICRSSL and ICR data sets). 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 unquantified 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 that EPA regulates or is considering for
               future regulation (e.g., pathogenic bacteria, viruses, Giardia lamblia, Cyclospora sp.,
               members  of the Microsporididea class, arsenic, DBFs, and atrazine).

               An increase in source water monitoring leads to a better understanding of source water
               quality and  may enhance treatment.

       •       Reducing contamination of storage facilities due to covering or treating the finished
               water.

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           22                                  November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
1.2 Requirements of the Rule: PWSs
The following section provides a summary of the rule requirements. The rule requirements are from the
proposed LT2ESWTR published in the Federal Register on August 11, 2003 (68 FR 47640).  For a copy
of the actual rule language, see Appendix B or visit EPA's Web site at
www. epa. gov/safewater/lt2/index.html.

1.2.1  General Requirements

The flowchart in Figure 1-1 shows the general requirements of the LT2ESWTR.  All surface water and
GWUDI 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 and, based on that average, will be
classified into one of four possible risk categories (bins).  The LT2ESWTR also includes requirements for
uncovered finished water reservoirs and disinfection  profiling and benchmarking.

EPA developed the compliance schedule for monitoring, reporting, and treatment requirements with
consideration of the Stage 2 DBPR compliance schedule.

                     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, treat, or implement
risk mitigation plan.
                       Treatment Bins and the Microbial Toolbox
                       Assignment to "bins" based on monitoring
                       results.  Implement treatment based on the
                       requirements for each bin by choosing from a
                       set of treatment options.
                                   Future Monitoring
                           Monitor again to confirm or revise
                           bin classification 6 years after initial
                           source water monitoring ends.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
           23
                November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
1.2.2   Source Water Monitoring [proposed §141.702]

Large systems (serving at least 10,000 people) that currently provide filtration or that are unfiltered and
required to install filtration must conduct source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium, E. coll, 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. coll or an alternative indicator approved by the
state as a screening analysis.  Small systems are only required to monitor for Cryptosporidium if the mean
E. coll level exceeds the following trigger values:

        •      The annual mean concentration of E.  coll exceeds 10 E. co///100 mL for systems using
              lake or reservoir sources;

        •      The annual mean concentration ofE.  coll exceeds 50 E. coli/100 mL for systems using
              flowing stream sources; or

        •      The level of a state-approved alternate indicator exceeds the state-approved alternative
              indicator trigger level trigger level.

Large and small systems that are unfiltered and meet all the filtration avoidance criteria of 40 CFR 141.71
must monitor for Cryptosporidium unless they provide 3  log Cryptosporidium inactivation by the time
treatment is required.

1.2.2.1  When are systems required to begin source water monitoring? [proposed §141.703]

Large systems must begin source water monitoring no later than [6 months after rule promulgation] and
monitor at least monthly for 24 months.  Small filtered systems and unfiltered systems required to filter
must begin E. coll monitoring no later than [30 months after rule promulgation] and monitor for at least
once every two weeks for 12 months. Small unfiltered systems and those small systems that exceeded the
E. coll trigger levels must begin Cryptosporidium monitoring no later than [48 months after rule
promulgation] and monitor at least twice each month for  12 months.

1.2.2.2  Where are systems required to sample source  water? [proposed §141.704]

Systems must take source water samples at a location prior to any treatment and where the water is no
longer subject to surface runoff.  If treatment is applied in an intake pipe and it is unfeasible for systems
to sample, systems must sample as close to the intake as is feasible and at a similar depth and distance
from shore.

Systems using a presedimentation basin  or an off-stream  raw water storage reservoir must 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.  The required sampling location for systems using GWUDI
(including systems using bank filtration) differs depending on whether the GWUDI or bank filtered water
is treated by subsequent filtration.  Use of presedimentation basins, off-stream storage, GWUDI, or bank
filtration during monitoring must be consistent with routine operational practice, and the state may
identify additional reporting requirements to verify operational practices.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           24                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
1.2.3  Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Requirements [proposed §141.711,
       §141.713]

1.2.3.1 Which systems need to develop profiles? [proposed §141.711]

All systems that are required to monitor for Cryptosporidium must develop Giardia and virus disinfection
profiles under the LT2ESWTR.  In addition, small systems that do not exceed the E. coll trigger levels but
exceed the following DBF levels must also develop Giardia and virus disinfection profiles:

       •      TTHM LRAA greater than or equal to 0.064 mg/L based on samples collected for
              compliance with Stage 2 DBPR.

              HAAS LRAA greater than or equal to 0.048 mg/L based on samples collected for
              compliance with Stage 2 DBPR.

1.2.3.2 What if systems previously collected data? [proposed §141.713]

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 IESWTR or the LT1ESWTR to
avoid collecting any new operational data to develop profiles under the LT2ESWTR.

Systems that developed disinfection profiles under the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR and have not made
significant changes in their disinfection practice are not required to collect additional operational data to
create disinfection profiles under the LT2ESWTR.

1.2.3.3 If a system developed a profile for Giardia, does it have to develop one for viruses?
       [proposed §141.713]

Systems that produced a disinfection profile for Giardia but not viruses under the IESWTR or
LT1ESWTR may be required to develop a disinfection profile  for viruses under the LT2ESWTR. EPA
believes that virus profiling is necessary because many 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 Giardia compared to free chlorine.  Systems should refer to the Draft
Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual (USEPA, 1999) for details on how to
develop a disinfection profile.

1.2.3.4 When do systems have to conduct disinfection profiling? [proposed §141.712]

Table 1-1 presents a summary of the required deadlines for disinfection profiling activities, categorized
by system size and whether a small system is required to monitor for Cryptosporidium. The deadlines are
based on the expectation that systems should have a disinfection profile at the time they are classified in a
Cryptosporidium treatment bin under LT2ESWTR and/or have determined the need to make treatment
changes for the Stage 2 DBPR.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           25                                 November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
1.2.3.5 What are the recordkeeping requirements for a disinfection profile? [proposed §141.713,
       §141.731]

PWSs must keep their disinfection profiles and disinfection benchmarks on file for the state to review
during their sanitary surveys.  The disinfection profile data should be in graphic form, as a spreadsheet, or
in some other format acceptable to the state for review as part of sanitary surveys conducted by the state.

Table 1-1. Schedule of Implementation Deadlines Related to Disinfection Profiling (in months after
                                       rule promulgation)
Activity
Complete 1 year of E. coli
monitoring
Determine whether required to
profile based on DBF levels
and notify state
Begin disinfection profiling3
Complete Cryptosporidium
monitoring
Complete disinfection profiling
based on at least 1 year of data4
Systems serving
* 10,000 people1
NA
NA
24
30
36
Systems serving <10,000 people1
Not required to monitor
for Cryptosporidium ' • 2
42
42
42
NA
54
Required to monitor for
Cryptosporidium
42
NA
54
60
66
1 Systems providing a total of 5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment (equivalent to meeting bin 4 treatment
requirements) are not required to develop disinfection profiles.
2 Systems serving fewer than 10,000 people are not required to monitor for Cryptosporidium if mean E. coli levels
are less than 10/100 mL for systems using lake/reservoir sources or less than 50/100 mL for systems using flowing
stream sources.
3 Unless system has existing disinfection profiling data that are acceptable.
4 This deadline coincides with the start of the 3 -year period at the end of which compliance with the LT2ES WTR
and Stage 2 DBPR is required.

1.2.4  Treatment  Requirements

1.2.4.1 When do systems have to install additional treatment? [proposed §141.701]

All systems have 72 months (or approximately 36 months following initial bin classification) to meet any
additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements, as shown in Table 1-18 (see page 51) and Figure 1-2
(see page 55). The state may grant systems an additional 2 years to comply when capital investments are
necessary, as specified in the SDWA (section 1412(b)(10)).

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
microbial toolbox. Most of the toolbox components require submission of documentation to the state
demonstrating compliance with design and/or implementation criteria required to receive credit.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
26
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
1.2.4.2 What are the requirements for Cryptosporidium treatment for filtered systems? [proposed
       §141.720]

Filtered systems or systems that are unfiltered and required to install filtration must provide the level of
treatment for Cryptosporidium specified in Table 1-2 based on their bin classification.

                             Table 1-2. Level of Treatment Required
If the source
water
Cryptosporidium
concentration in
oocyst/1 is...
O.075
>0.0075and<1.0
>1.0and<3.0
>3.0
And the system uses the following filtration treatment in full compliance with subpart
H, P, and T (as applicable), then the additional treatment requirements are. . .
Conventional
filtration treatment
(including
softening)
No additional
treatment
1 log treatment 	
2 log treatment 	
2.5 log treatment 	
Direct filtration
No additional
treatment
1.5 log treatment 	
2.5 log treatment 	
3 log treatment 	
Slow sand or
diatomaceous earth
filtration
No additional
treatment
1 log treatment 	
2 log treatment 	
2.5 log treatment 	
Alternative
filtration
technologies
No additional
treatment
0)
(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.

The filtered systems must use at least one of the management and treatment options listed in the microbial
toolbox 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 log of the additional
treatment using either one or a combination of the following: bag filters, bank filtration, cartridge filters,
chlorine dioxide, membranes, ozone, and/or UV as specified in the microbial toolbox.

1.2.4.3 What are the requirements for Cryptosporidium treatment for unfiltered systems?
       [proposed §141.721]

Unfiltered systems with a mean Cryptosporidium concentration of 0.01 oocysts/L or less must provide at
least 2 log Cryptosporidium inactivation. Unfiltered systems with a mean Cryptosporidium concentration
of greater than 0.01 oocysts/L or those that failed to complete the source water monitoring requirements
must provide at least 3 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 either Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, or viruses separately.  For example, a
system may use UV to meet Cryptosporidium and Giardia inactivation requirements and chlorine to meet
virus inactivation requirements.  To meet the Cryptosporidium inactivation requirements, systems must
use either or a combination of 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 treatment technique violation:
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
27
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
       •       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 activation
toolbox components to receive Cryptosporidium credit, as summarized in Table 1-3.

                       Table 1-3. Microbial Toolbox: Options and Credits
Toolbox option
Proposed Cryptosporidium credits
Source Toolbox Components
Watershed control program
Alternative source/intake management
0.5 log credit. (Section 1.2.5.1)
No presumptive credit. (Section 1.2.5.2)
Pre-filtration Toolbox Components
Presedimentation basin with coagulation
Two-stage lime softening
Bank filtration
0.5 log credit for new basins with continuous operation and
coagulant addition. No presumptive credit for basins existing when
monitoring is required. (Section 1.2.6. 1)
0.5 log credit for two-stage softening with coagulant addition.
(Section 1.2.6.2)
0.5 log credit for 25 foot setback; 1.0 log credit for 50 foot setback.
No presumptive credit for bank filtration that serves as pretreatment
when monitoring is required. (Section 1.2.6.3)
Treatment Performance Toolbox Components
Combined filter performance
Individual filter performance
Demonstration of performance
0.5 log credit for CFE turbidity <0.15 NTU in 95% of samples each
month. (Section 1.2.7.1)
1 .0 log credit for IFE < 0. 1 NTU in 95% of daily maximum samples
each month and no filter >0.3 NTU in two consecutive
measurements. (Section 1.2.7.2)
Credit based on demonstration to the state. (Section 1.2.7.3)
Additional Filtration Toolbox Components
Bag filters
Cartridge filters
Membrane filtration
Second stage filtration
1 log credit for demonstrating at least 2 log removal efficiency in
challenge test. (Section 1.2.8.1)
2 log credit for demonstrating at least 3 log removal efficiency in
challenge test. (Section 1.2.8.1)
Log removal credit up to the lower value of the removal efficiency
demonstrated during the challenge test or verified by the direct
integrity test applied to the system. (Section 1.2.8.2)
0.5 log credit for second separate filtration stage in treatment
process following coagulation. (Section 1.2.8.3)
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
28
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Toolbox option
Slow sand filters
Proposed Cryptosporidium credits
2.5 log credit for second separate filtration process and no residual
may be present in influent to slow sand process. (Section 1.2.8.4)
Inactivation Toolbox Components
Chlorine dioxide
Ozone
UV
Demonstrate compliance with contact time table. (Section 1.2.9. 1)
Log credit based on demonstration of compliance with CT table.
(Section 1.2.9.2)
Demonstrate compliance based on UV dose table. (Section 1.2.9.3)
1.2.5.1 Watershed Control Program [proposed §141.725(a)]

Filtered systems must submit their watershed control programs to the state for approval to qualify for 0.5
log credit of Cryptosporidium removal. Unfiltered systems may not claim credit for Cryptosporidium
removal under this option.  Systems must submit the following items to the state no later than 2 years
after completing the source water monitoring requirements:

               A proposed initial watershed control plan; and

       •       A request for plan approval and 0.5 log Cryptosporidium removal credit.

Initial Watershed Control Plan

Systems are required  to notify the state program no later than 1 year after completing their source water
monitoring that they intend to qualify for the treatment credit. Based on the state's review of the initial
proposed watershed control plan, the plan may be approved, rejected, or conditionally approved.  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 application to the state for initial program approval must include the following elements:

       •       An analysis of the vulnerability of each source to Cryptosporidium.  The vulnerability
               analysis must address the watershed upstream of the drinking water intake and must
               include the following items:

                      A characterization of the watershed hydrology.

                      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.

                      The relative impact of the sources of Cryptosporidium contamination on the
                      system's source water quality.

                      An estimate of the seasonal variability of such contamination.


Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          29                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
        •       An analysis of control measures that could mitigate the sources of Cryptosporidium
               contamination identified during the vulnerability analysis.  The analysis must address the
               system's relative effectiveness in reducing Cryptosporidium loading to the source water
               and its feasability 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 role(s), identify
               resource requirements and commitments, and include a schedule for plan implementation.

Maintaining State Approval for Treatment Credit

Initial state approval of a watershed control plan and its associated treatment credit is valid until the
system completes the second round of Cryptosporidium monitoring.  After the second round of
monitoring, 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.

               In addition, systems need to provide a rationale to the state before making any substantial
               changes in their approved watershed control programs.

        •       Conduct an annual watershed sanitary survey and submit the survey report to the state for
               approval.  The survey must be conducted according to state guidelines and by qualified
               persons. The survey needs to cover the area of the watershed identified as the area of
               influence and, at a minimum, assess the priority activities identified in the plan and
               identify any significant new sources of Cryptosporidium.

               Submit a request to the state for re-approval of the watershed control program and a
               continuation of the 0.5 log removal credit. The request must be provided to the state at
               least 6 months before the current approval period expires or by a date previously
               determined by the state.  The request must include 1) a summary of activities and issues
               identified during the previous approval period and 2) a revised plan that addresses
               activities for the next approval period, including  any new sources of Cryptosporidium
               contamination and details of any changes from the existing state-approved program. The
               plan must:

                       Address the goals of the program.

                       Prioritize specific actions to reduce source water Cryptosporidium.


Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          30                                  November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
                       Explain how actions are expected to contribute to achieving goals.

                       Identify partners and their role(s).

                       Describe  resource requirements and commitments.

                       Include a schedule for plan implementation.

        •       Provide annual status reports, watershed control plan, and annual watershed sanitary
               surveys to the public upon request. These documents must be in plain language and
               include criteria to help determine whether the program has achieved its goals. Systems
               may withhold portions of the status reports for security reasons with state approval.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment
technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-4.  The state may include additional reporting
requirements, if it determines they are necessary.

  Table 1-4. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Watershed Control Program Toolbox
                                              Option
 Systems must submit the
 following information
On the following schedule -
systems serving ^ 10,000 people
On the following schedule -
systems serving <10,000 people
 (i) Notify state of intention to
 develop watershed control program.

 (ii) Submit initial watershed control
 program plan to state.

 (iii) Annual report and state-
 approved watershed survey report.
 (iv) Request for re-approval and
 report on the previous approval
 period.
No later than [insert date 48 months
after rule publication].

No later than [insert date 60 months
after rule publication].

By a date determined by the state,
every 12 months, beginning on
[insert date 84 months after rule
publication].

Six months prior to the end of the
current approval period or by a date
previously determined by the state.
No later than [insert date 78 months
after rule publication].

No later than [insert date 90 months
after rule publication].

By a date determined by the state,
every 12 months, beginning on
[insert date 114 months after rule
publication].

Six months prior to the end of the
current approval period or by a date
previously determined by the state.
1.2.5.2  Alternative Source [proposed §141.725(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 (either 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.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
              31
                  November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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 state may specify additional reporting
requirements to verify operational practices.

1.2.5.3  Pre-sedimentation with Coagulant [proposed §141.726(a)]

Presedimentation basins with coagulant addition may receive 0.5 log Cryptosporidium removal credit
under the LT2ESWTR if they meet the following criteria:

               The presedimentation basin must be in continuous operation and must treat all of the flow
               reaching the filters.

        •       A coagulant must be continuously added to the presedimentation basin (or prior to) while
               the plant is in operation.

               The presedimentation basin must achieve 0.5 log (68 percent) turbidity reduction on an
               average monthly basis for at least  11 of the 12 previous months.  For those systems not
               operating year-round, the 0.5 log turbidity reduction must be met for all but any one of
               the operating months (based on the last 12 consecutive months).

Systems must measure presedimentation basin influent and effluent turbidity at least once per day,  or
more frequently as determined by the state.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment
technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-5. The state may include additional reporting
requirements, if it determines they are necessary.

    Table 1-5.  Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Presedimentation Toolbox Option
 Systems must submit the
 following information
On the following schedule1 -
systems serving ^ 10,000 people
On the following schedule1 -
systems serving <10,000 people
 Monthly verification of the
 following: continuous basin
 operation; treatment of 100% of
 the flow; continuous addition of a
 coagulant; and at least 0.5 log
 removal of influent turbidity
 based on the monthly mean of
 daily turbidity readings for 11 of
 the 12 previous months.
Monthly reporting within 10 days
following the month in which the
monitoring was conducted,
beginning on [insert date 72 months
after rule publication].
Monthly reporting within 10 days
following the month in which the
monitoring was conducted,
beginning on [insert date 102
months after rule publication].
1 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems
making capital improvements.

1.2.5.4  Two-stage Lime Softening [proposed §141.726(b)]

The LT2ESWTR requires plants to meet the following criteria in order to receive 0.5 log credit towards
additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements:
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
               32
                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
        •       The plant must have a second clarification step between the primary clarifier1 and filter
               which is operated continuously. For split treatment processes, only the portion of flow
               going through two clarification stages can receive credit.  If a portion of flow bypasses
               one stage, additional treatment must be provided to the bypassed portion.

               A coagulant must be present in both clarifiers. Precipitation of metal salts (e.g.,
               magnesium hydroxide or excess lime) could be considered a coagulant for the second
               clarifier.

The LT2ESWTR requires monthly verification and reporting of the following conditions for systems
using the lime softening option:

        •       Continuous operation of a second clarification step between the primary clarifier and
               filter.

               Continuous presence of coagulant in the first and second stage clarifiers.

               Both clarifiers treat 100 percent of the plant flow.

In addition, EPA recommends submitting a schematic of the treatment process to the state clearly
identifying the two stages of clarification. EPA also recommends that systems monitor the coagulant
dosages (or concentration) in the secondary clarifier on a  daily basis for the first year and record the
average and minimum coagulant concentrations. This data can assist the state in assessing whether the
system operates in compliance at all times.

Systems must report to the state  any toolbox options used to comply with the  Cryptosporidium treatment
technique requirement in  accordance with Table 1-6. The state may include additional reporting
requirements, if it determines  they are necessary.
        1 For purposes of compliance with the lime-softening toolbox option, "clarifier" is used as a general term
for processes with settling.

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           33                                   November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
       Table 1-6. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Two-stage Lime Softening
                                         Toolbox Option
 Systems must submit the following
 information
On the following schedule1 -
systems serving ^ 10,000 people
On the following schedule1
systems serving <10,000
people
 Monthly verification of the following:
 continuous operation of a second
 clarification step between the primary
 clarifier and filter; continuous presence
 of a coagulant in both primary and
 secondary clarifiers; and both clarifiers
 treated 100% of the plant flow.
Monthly reporting within 10 days
following the month in which the
monitoring was conducted,
beginning on [insert date 72
months after rule publication].
Monthly reporting within 10
days following the month in
which the monitoring was
conducted, beginning on [insert
date 102 months after rule
publication].
1 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems
making capital improvements.

1.2.5.5  Bank Filtration [proposed §141.726(c)]

The LT2ESWTR specifies the following design requirements for systems to receive log removal credit
for bank filtration:

               Wells must draw from granular aquifers that are comprised of clay, silt, sand, or pebbles
               or larger particles.  Minor cement may be present.

        •       The aquifer material must be unconsolidated, with subsurface samples friable upon touch.

                       Granular aquifers formed by alluvial or glacial processes are eligible for bank
                       filtration credit.

                       Granular aquifers, either unconsolidated or partially consolidated and mapped as
                       earlier than Quaternary alluvium, must be considered on a case-by-case basis by
                       the state to determine if they are too cemented and, therefore, too fractured to
                       provide sufficient natural filtration.

                       Wells located in consolidated clastic aquifers (e.g., conglomerates), fractured
                       bedrock aquifers, and karst limestone aquifers are not eligible for bank filtration
                       credit.

        •       Only horizontal and vertical wells are eligible for bank filtration log removal credit.
               Other ground water collection devices, such as  infiltration galleries and spring boxes, are
               ineligible.

               Systems using horizontal or vertical wells located at least 25 feet from the surface water
               source are eligible for a 0.5 log removal credit,  and those located at least 50 feet from the
               surface water source are eligible for a 1.0 log removal credit.

                       Systems with vertical wells must identify the  distance to surface water using the
                       floodway boundary or 100 year flood elevation boundary as delineated on
                       Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate maps.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
          34
               November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
                      If the floodway boundary or 100 year flood elevation boundary is not already
                      delineated, systems must determine the floodway or 100 year flood elevation
                      boundary using methods substantially similar to those used in preparing FEMA
                      Flood Insurance Rate maps.

                      Systems with horizontal wells must measure the distance from the normal flow
                      stream bed to the closest horizontal well lateral.

       •       Systems must characterize the aquifer at the proposed production well site to determine
               aquifer properties.

                       At a minimum, the aquifer characterization must include the collection of
                      relatively undisturbed continuous core samples from the surface to a depth at
                      least equal to the projected bottom of the well screen for the proposed production
                      well.

                      The recovered core length must be at least 90 percent of the total depth to the
                      projected bottom of the well screen, and each sampled interval must be a
                      composite of no more than 2 feet in length.

                      Each composite sample must be examined to determine if at least 10 percent of
                      the grains in that interval are less than 1.0 mm in diameter.  Each composite
                      sample with at least 10 percent of the grains less than 1.0 mm in diameter is
                      considered an interval with sufficient fine-grained material  to provide adequate
                      removal.

                      An aquifer is eligible for removal credit if at least 90 percent of the composited
                      intervals contain sufficient fine-grained material as  defined previously.

The LT2ESWTR requires systems to monitor turbidity in bank filtration wells to provide assurance that
the assigned log removal credit is appropriate. The LT2ESWTR specifically requires the following
monitoring:

               Turbidity measurements must be performed on representative water samples from each
               wellhead every four hours that the bank filtration system is in operation or more
               frequently, if required by the state.

               Continuous turbidity monitoring at each wellhead may be used if the system validates the
               continuous measurement for accuracy on a regular basis using a protocol approved by the
               state.

               If the monthly average of daily maximum turbidity values at any well exceeds  1
               Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU), the system must report this finding to the state
               within 30 days.  In addition, within 30 days of the exceedance the system must conduct
               an assessment to determine the cause  of the high turbidity levels and submit that
               assessment to the state for a determination of whether any previously allowed credit is
               still appropriate.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           35                                 November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment
technique 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
On the following schedule1 -
systems serving ^ 10,000 people
On the following schedule1 -
systems serving <10,000 people
 (i) Initial demonstration of the
 following: unconsolidated,
 predominantly sandy aquifer and
 setback distance 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
 submit an assessment of the cause.
Initial demonstration no later than
[insert date 72 months after rule
publication].
Report within 30 days following
the month in which the monitoring
was conducted, beginning on
[insert date 72 months after rule
publication].
Initial demonstration no later than
[insert date 102 months after rule
publication].
Report within 30 days following
the month in which the monitoring
was conducted, beginning on
[insert date 102 months after rule
publication].
1 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems
making capital improvements.

1.2.5.6  Combined Filter Performance [proposed §141.727(a)]

For systems using conventional or direct filtration treatment to obtain an additional 0.5 log
Cryptosporidium removal credit, the LT2ESWTR requires that the CFE turbidity measurements taken for
any month at each plant be less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of the measurements.
Note that systems may not claim credit for combined filter performance AND individual filter
performance in the same month.

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 LTIESWTR.

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.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
              36
                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment
technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-8.  The state may include additional reporting
requirements, if it determines they are necessary.

 Table 1-8. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Combined Filter Performance Toolbox
                                            Option
 Systems must submit the
 following information
On the following schedule -
systems serving ^ 10,000 people
On the following schedule -
systems serving <10,000 people
 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.
Monthly reporting within 10 days
following the month in which the
monitoring was conducted,
beginning on [insert date 72 months
after rule publication].
Monthly reporting within 10 days
following the month in which the
monitoring was conducted,
beginning on [insert date 102
months after rule publication].
1.2.5.7 Individual Filter Performance [proposed §141.727(b)]

The LT2ESWTR allows systems using conventional or direct filtration treatment to claim an additional
1.0 log Cryptosporidium removal credit for any month at each plant that meet both of the following IFE
turbidity requirements:

               IFE turbidity must be less than 0.1 NTU in at least 95 percent of the maximum daily
               values recorded at each filter in each month, excluding the 15 minute period following
               return to service from a filter backwash; and

               No individual filter may have a measured turbidity greater than 0.3 NTU in two
               consecutive measurements taken 15  minutes apart.

Systems may not claim credit for combined filter performance AND individual filter performance in the
same month. As with CFE, compliance with the LT2ESWTR is determined in the same manner as
measurements taken for the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR, so no additional monitoring is required.

The monitoring frequency and compliance calculation requirements consist of measuring turbidity every
15 minutes (excluding the 15 minute period following return to service from a filter backwash) with 95
percent of the measurements from each month being less than or equal to 0.1 NTU.

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.  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 does not need to report the turbidity for that specific filter.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used  to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment
technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-9.  The state may include additional reporting
requirements, if it determines they are necessary.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
              37
                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
 Table 1-9. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Individual Filter Performance Toolbox
                                           Options
 Systems must submit the
 following information
On the following schedule -
systems serving ^ 10,000 people
On the following schedule -
systems serving <10,000 people
 Monthly verification of the
 following: IFE turbidity levels less
 than or equal to 0.1 NTU in at least
 95 percent of all daily maximum
 IFE measurements taken each
 month (excluding 15 min period
 following start-up after backwash),
 and 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 [insert date 72 months
after rule publication].
Monthly reporting within 10 days
following the month in which the
monitoring was conducted,
beginning on [insert date 102
months after rule publication].
1.2.5.8 Demonstration of Performance: What if a system can perform better than the presumptive
       credit specified in the toolbox?

The LT2ESWTR does not specify how treatment performance must be demonstrated for the
demonstration of performance option; however, the protocol used must be approved by the state.
Determination of an increased Cryptosporidium treatment credit will be made by the state.

The demonstration of performance applies to the physical removal processes at a treatment plant.
Therefore, the LT2ESWTR does 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, 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 a
Cryptosporidium treatment efficiency less than a presumptive credit specified in the LT2ESWTR.

The LT2ESWTR requires results from the testing be submitted no later than [insert date 72 months after
promulgation] for large systems and [insert date 102 months after promulgation] for small systems. The
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
              38
                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
state may require systems to report operational data on a monthly basis to verify that conditions under
which demonstration of performance credit was awarded are maintained during routine operation.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment
technique 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
On the following schedule -
systems serving ^ 10,000 people
On the following schedule -
systems serving <10,000 people
  (i) Results from testing following a
  state-approved protocol.

  (ii) As required by the state,
  monthly verification of operation
  within conditions of state approval
  for demonstration of performance
  credit.
No later than [insert date 72 months
after rule publication].

Within 10 days following the
month in which monitoring was
conducted, beginning [insert date
72 months after rule publication].
No later than [insert date 102
months after rule publication].

Within 10 days following the
month in which monitoring was
conducted, beginning [insert date
102 months after rule publication].
1.2.5.9  Bag and Cartridge Filtration [proposed §141.728(a)]

Bag and cartridge filtration processes that meet the EPA definition and demonstrate Cryptosporidium
removal through challenge testing may receive the following Cryptosporidium removal credit for the
LT2ESWTR:

        •       1 log removal for bag filtration showing a minimum of 2 log removal in challenge
               testing.

        •       2 log removal for cartridge filtration showing a minimum of 3 log removal in challenge
               testing.

A 1 log factor of safety is applied to the allowable removal credit over that demonstrated by challenge
testing because bag and cartridge filters cannot have their integrity directly tested; hence, there are no
means of verifying their removal efficiency during routine use.

Recently, some cartridge filtration devices have been developed for drinking water treatment using
membrane media, which can be direct integrity tested. These membrane cartridge filters (MCFs) could be
considered a membrane filtration process for the purpose of compliance with the LT2ESWTR treatment
requirements for Cryptosporidium (i.e., the MCF process would be eligible for the same credit, and
subject to the same requirements, as a membrane filtration process).  Manufacturers can provide
information on direct integrity testing and whether it is feasible with their products. Refer to EPA's Draft
Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-008, June 2003) for direct integrity testing and
other membrane filtration requirements.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
              39
                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
States may choose to award removal credits in excess of 1 and 2 log for bag and cartridge filtration,
respectively, if challenge testing demonstrates that the process can reliably achieve a greater removal
efficiency.

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

The LT2ESWTR requires systems to submit an initial report by [insert date 72 months after rule
promulgation]  for large systems and [insert date 102 months after rule promulgation] for small systems
that demonstrates the following:

               Process meets the definition of a bag or cartridge filter.

               Removal efficiency from challenge testing that must show at least 2 log removal for bag
               filters and 3 log removal for cartridge filters.

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.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment
technique  requirement in accordance with Table 1-11.  The state may include additional reporting
requirements, if it determines they are necessary.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           40                                 November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
    Table 1-11.  Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Bag Filters and Cartridge Filters
                                         Toolbox Option
 Systems must submit the following
 information
On the following schedule1 -
systems serving ^ 10,000
people
On the following schedule1
systems serving <10,000
people
 (i) 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 subpart; and challenge
 test shows at least 2 log removal for bag
 filters and 3 log removal for cartridge filters.

 (ii) Monthly verification that 100% of flow
 was filtered.
No later than [insert date 72
months after rule publication].
No later than [insert date 102
months after rule publication].
Within 10 days following the
month in which monitoring
was conducted, beginning
[insert date 72 months after
rule publication].
Within 10 days following the
month in which monitoring was
conducted, beginning [insert
date 102 months after rule
publication].
1 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems
making capital improvements.

1.2.5.10 Membrane Filtration [proposed §141.728(b)]

To receive removal credit, a system's membrane technology must be a pressure- or vacuum-driven
separation process in which particulate matter larger than 1 i^m is rejected by a nonfibrous, engineered
barrier, primarily through a size exclusion mechanism. Membrane technologies include microfiltration,
ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis. Routine direct integrity testing  of the membrane
technology must verify that the removal efficiency demonstrated through challenge testing is being
achieved.

Compliance for a membrane process has three components:

               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—routine testing of each membrane unit that demonstrates removal
               efficiency equal to or greater than awarded from the challenge test. Systems must
               conduct testing at least once per day while in operation.  In addition, systems must submit
               a monthly report to the state summarizing all direct integrity test results above the control
               limit associated with the Cryptosporidium removal credit along with the corrective action
               that was taken in each case.

       •       Indirect integrity monitoring—continuous monitoring of each membrane unit. If direct
               integrity testing is continuous, systems are not subject to indirect integrity testing
               requirements.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
      41
              November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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. A direct integrity test is a
physical test applied to a membrane unit to identify and isolate integrity breaches (i.e., one or more leaks
that could result in contamination of the filtrate). At the discretion of the state, data from challenge
studies conducted prior to promulgation of this regulation may be considered in lieu  of additional testing.

Additional requirements and guidance for conducting the three tests to comply with the LT2ESWTR is
provided in the Draft Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-008, June 2003).

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment
technique 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 schedule1 -
systems serving k 10,000 people
On the following schedule1 -
systems serving <10,000
people
 (i) Results of verification testing
 demonstrating the following: Removal
 efficiency established through challenge
 testing that meets criteria in this subpart,
 and integrity testing and associated
 baseline.

 (ii) Monthly report summarizing all
 direct integrity tests above the control
 limit and, if applicable, any indirect
 integrity monitoring results triggering
 direct integrity testing and the corrective
 action that was taken.
No later than [insert date 72
months after rule publication].
No later than [insert date 102
months after rule publication].
Within 10 days following the
month in which monitoring was
conducted, beginning [insert date
72 months after rule publication].
Within 10 days following the
month in which monitoring was
conducted, beginning [insert
date 102 months after rule
publication].
 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems
making capital improvements.

1.2.5.11 Second Stage Filtration [proposed §141.728(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 rapid sand, dual media, granular activated
               carbon (GAC), or other fine grain media.

        •       Both filtration stages treat 100 percent of plant flow.

To receive Cryptosporidium removal credit for compliance with the  LT2ESWTR, systems must report the
following monthly:
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
          42
               November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
        •       Verification that 100 percent of finished water was treated by two stages of filtration.
               Actual data or information required to report is determined by the state. EPA
               recommends plant piping schematics be initially reported followed by monthly operator
               certification.

Reporting requirements for the LT2ESWTR do not take the place of the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR
reporting requirements.  Specifically, the turbidity of the combined and individual filter effluent 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 treatment
technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-13. The state  may include additional reporting
requirements, if it determines they are necessary.

Table 1-13. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Second Stage Filtration Toolbox Option
 Systems must submit the
 following information
On the following schedule1 -
systems serving ^ 10,000 people
On the following schedule1 -
systems serving <10,000 people
 Monthly verification that 100% of
 flow was filtered through both
 stages.
Within 10 days following the
month in which monitoring was
conducted, beginning [insert date
72 months after rule publication].
Within 10 days following the
month in which monitoring was
conducted, beginning [insert date
102 months after rule publication].
1 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems
making capital improvements.

1.2.5.12 Slow Sand Filters [proposed §141.728(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.

To receive Cryptosporidium removal credit for compliance with the LT2ESWTR, systems must report
monthly verification that 100 percent of finished water was filtered. Plants that wish to consider slow
sand filtration should either have sufficient excess filtration capacity to allow filters to operate in series
(with possible piping modifications) or have sufficient land area to build additional filters.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment
technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-14.  The state may include additional reporting
requirements, if it determines they are necessary.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
              43
                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
      Table 1-14. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Slow Sand Filtration Option
 Systems must submit the
 following information
On the following schedule1 -
systems serving ^ 10,000 people
On the following schedule1 -
systems serving <10,000 people
 Monthly verification that 100% of
 flow was filtered.
Within 10 days following the
month in which monitoring was
conducted, beginning [insert date
72 months after rule publication].
Within 10 days following the
month in which monitoring was
conducted, beginning [insert date
102 months after rule publication].
1 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems
making capital improvements.

1.2.5.13 Chlorine Dioxide [proposed §141.729(b)]

Systems using chlorine dioxide must calculate contact time ("CT") to determine their inactivation credit
for Cryptosporidium. CT is the product of the disinfectant concentration ("C") and disinfectant contact
time ("T", in minutes).  Unless the state approves alternative CT values for a system, systems must
calculate CT values for each day based on measurements of C during peak hourly flow and use the table
in proposed §141.729(b) to determine their 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 log inactivation.

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.
The Draft Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) provides guidance for conducting
a site-specific inactivation study.

Systems must report to  the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment
technique 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
On the following schedule1 -
systems serving ^ 10,000 people
On the following schedule1 -
systems serving <10,000 people
 Summary of CT values for each
 day based on the table in proposed
 §141.729(b).
Within 10 days following the
month in which monitoring was
conducted, beginning [insert date
72 months after rule publication].
Within 10 days following the
month in which monitoring was
conducted, beginning [insert date
102 months after rule publication].
1 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems
making capital improvements.

1.2.5.14 Ozone [proposed §141.729(c)]

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 proposed
§ 141.729(b) to determine Cryptosporidium log inactivation credit. Systems should refer to the Draft
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
              44
                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) 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 are adequate to achieve the inactivation
required under the LT2ESWTR.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment
technique 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
Toolbox Option
Ozone
Systems must submit
the following
information
Summary of CT values
for each day based on the
table in proposed
§141.729(c).
On the following
schedule1 - systems
serving ^ 10,000 people
Within 10 days following
the month in which
monitoring was
conducted, beginning
[insert date 72 months
after rule publication] .
On the following
schedule1 - systems
serving <10,000 people
Within 10 days following
the month in which
monitoring was
conducted, beginning
[insert date 102 months
after rule publication].
1 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems
making capital improvements.

1.2.5.15 Ultraviolet Light [proposed §141.729(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 proposed §141.729(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 40 CFR 141.71.  Systems may be able to receive
credit for up to 3 log inactivation of Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia and up to 4 log inactivation of
viruses.

The log credits included in this UV dose table are for UV light at a wavelength of 254 nm, as produced by
a low pressure mercury vapor lamp.  Systems can apply this table to UV reactors with other lamp types
through reactor validation testing (i.e., performance demonstration). The validation testing must
demonstrate the operating conditions under which the reactor can deliver the necessary UV dose, and
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 outage 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 Draft UV Disinfection Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-007, June 2003) provides a protocol for
validating reactors and guidance on the design  and implementation of UV systems.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
45
November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment
technique 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
On the following schedule1 -
systems serving ^ 10,000 people
On the following schedule1 -
systems serving <10,000 people
 (i) Validation test results
 demonstrating operating conditions
 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
 proposed § 141.729(d).
No later than [insert date 72 months
after rule publication].
Within 10 days following the
month in which monitoring was
conducted, beginning [insert date
72 months after rule publication].
No later than [insert date 102
months after rule publication].
Within 10 days following the
month in which monitoring was
conducted, beginning [insert date
102 months after rule publication].
1 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems
making capital improvements.

1.2.6   Uncovered Finished Reservoir Requirements [proposed §141.724]

Systems using uncovered finished water storage facilities must comply with one of the following
conditions:

               Cover any uncovered finished water storage facility;

               Treat the discharge from the uncovered finished water storage facility to the distribution
               system to achieve at least 4 log virus inactivation; or

        •       Implement a state-approved risk mitigation plan that addresses physical access and site
               security, surface runoff, animal and bird waste, ongoing water quality assessments, and a
               schedule for implementation.

1.2.7   PWS Recordkeeping Requirements [proposed  §141.731]

Systems must keep results from monitoring until 36 months after all source water monitoring has been
completed. 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 log inactivation. Systems required to develop disinfection
profiles must keep the profiles on file for state review during sanitary surveys.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
              46
                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
1.2.8   Public Notification of Drinking Water Violations [proposed §141 Subpart Q,
        Appendix A]

Under LT2ESWTR there are two types of violations that require Tier 2 or Tier 3 notification. Tier 2
notifications are for treatment technique violations, and Tier 3 notifications are for monitoring, testing
procedure, and reporting violations.

1.2.8.1  Water are examples of a Tier 2 violation?

A Tier 2 public notification of a treatment technique violation is required for failure to:

        •       Cover uncovered finished water reservoirs or treat reservoir discharge to the distribution
               system;

               Install the level of treatment appropriate for a filtered system's bin classification and
               existing treatment; and

        •       Install the level and type of treatment appropriate for an unfiltered system's
               Cryptosporidium concentration.

1.2.8.2  What are examples of a Tier 3 violation?

A Tier 3 public notification of monitoring and testing procedure violations is required for failure to:

        •       Conduct source water monitoring and report results to the state;

        •       Notify the state before making a significant change in disinfection;

        •       Submit reports to determine if system is required to develop disinfection profiles;

        •       Develop disinfection profiles;

        •       Submit a sampling schedule to the state;

        •       Sample within 2 days of the scheduled date;

        •       Sample at the required location;

        •       Use an approved laboratory and an approved analytical method;

        •       Provide information regarding proper installation and operation of toolbox components;

        •       Maintain copies of source water monitoring and bin classification; and

        •       Maintain disinfection profiles on file for state review during sanitary surveys.

More information on public notification requirements can be found at
http: //www .epa. gov/safe water/pn .html.


Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           47                                  November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
1.2.9  Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

The LT2ESWTR does not specifically modify the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Rule
requirements. However, CCRs must contain any violations of TT requirements or violations of NPDWR
requirements. This includes any such violations of the LT2ESWTR.
               More information can be obtained from:
               A.     The Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 68
                      FR 47640 (August 11, 2003); and
                      http: //www. epa. gov/safewater/lt2/
               B.     The EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline, Telephone:
                      1.800.426.4791
More information on consumer confidence report requirements can be found at
http: //www .epa. gov/safe water/ccr 1 .html.

1.3 Requirements of the Rule: States or Other Primacy Agents

The following rule requirements are from the LT2ESWTR published in the Federal Register on August
11, 2003 (68 FR 47640).  For a copy of the actual rule language, see Appendix B, or visit EPA's Web site
at http: //www .epa. gov/safewater/lt2 for a copy of the Federal Register notice.

1.3.1   Special Primacy Requirements [proposed §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 [insert date 2 years after rule publication], although states may request an
extension of up to 2 additional years.

In  addition, states are required to show in their primacy application that they have the authority to
implement key provisions of the rule by describing the following (see Chapter 4, section 4.4):

        •      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 treatment credits under the demonstration of performance toolbox
              option and for alternative ozone and chlorine dioxide CT values.

              Determine that a system with an uncovered finished water reservoir has a risk mitigation
              plan that is adequate for purposes of waiving the requirement to cover or treat the
              reservoir.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          48                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
1.3.2  State Recordkeeping Requirements [proposed §142.14]

The current regulations in 40 CFR 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 proposed
§ 141.700-§ 141.724.  In addition, states must keep records of:

       •       Results of source water E. coli and Cryptosporidium monitoring.

       •       Cryptosporidium bin classification for each filtered system, including any changes to
               initial bin classification based on review of the watershed during sanitary surveys or the
               second round of monitoring.

               Determination of whether each unfiltered system has a mean source water
               Cryptosporidium level above 0.01 oocysts/L.

       •       The treatment processes or control measures that each system employs to meet
               Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under the LT2ESWTR; this includes
               documentation to demonstrate compliance with required design and implementation
               criteria for receiving credit for microbial toolbox options.

               A list of systems required to cover or treat their reservoirs and systems that have received
               a waiver for the requirement to cover or treat reservoirs along with the associated risk
               mitigation plan.

               A list of systems for which the state has waived the requirement to cover or treat the
               effluent of an uncovered finished water storage facility, along with supporting
               documentation of the risk mitigation plan.

1.3.3  State Reporting Requirements [proposed §142.15]

The current regulations in 40 CFR 142.15 require states with primacy to keep various records to
determine compliance with treatment technique requirements, system inventories, state approvals, and
enforcement actions.  In addition, states must keep records of:

               The initial bin classification for each system that currently provides filtration or that is
               unfiltered and required to install filtration, along with any change in bin classification due
               to watershed assessment during sanitary surveys or the second round of source water
               monitoring.

       •       The determination of whether each system that is unfiltered and meets all the filtration
               avoidance criteria of 40  CFR 141.71 of this chapter has a mean source water
               Cryptosporidium level above 0.01 oocysts/L, along with any change in this determination
               due to the second round of source water monitoring.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          49                                  November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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 [proposed §141.700].  Table 1-18 summarizes key
compliance dates required (in bold) by the LT2ESWTR, as well as suggested action dates (shaded).
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 for systems to
simultaneously comply with the Stage 2 DBPR in order to balance risks in the control of microbial
pathogens versus risks associated with DBFs.

                   Table 1-18. Summary of Action Dates for the LT2ESWTR
Date
[Insert date of rule publication]
[Insert date of rule publication]
[Insert date of rule publication]
3 months after rule publication
[Insert date]
No later than 3 months after rule
promulgation [Insert Date].
No later than 6 months after rule
promulgation [Insert Date].
12 months after rule promulgation
[Insert Date].
LT2ESWTR Action
Final rule is published in Federal Register.
States should begin working with EPA to identify source water monitoring
requirements for all systems and communicate requirements to affected
large systems.
States should begin determining whether systems' risk mitigation plans are
adequate for purposes of waiving the requirement to cover or treat the
reservoir.
States should begin assessing significant changes in the watershed and
source water as part of the sanitary survey process and determine
appropriate follow-up actions.
State should begin approving watershed control programs for the 0.5 log
watershed control program credit in the microbial toolbox.
States should begin approving protocols for treatment credits under the
demonstration of performance toolbox option and for alternative ozone and
chlorine dioxide CT values.
States are encouraged to communicate with affected systems regarding
LT2ESWTR requirements.
Filtered and unfiltered surface water systems serving ^ 10,000 people
that filter must submit a sampling schedule for their initial round of
source water monitoring, [proposed §141.703(a)(l)]
Filtered and unfiltered surface water systems serving ^ 10,000 people
that filter must begin their initial source water monitoring at least
monthly for 24 months, [proposed §141.701(e)]
States are encouraged to update their data management systems.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
50
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Date
12 months after rule promulgation
[Insert Date].
15 months after rule promulgation
[Insert Date].
No later than 24 months after
rule promulgation [Insert Date].
No later than 27 months after
rule promulgation [Insert Date].
30 months after rule promulgation
[Insert Date].
No later than 30 months after
rule promulgation [Insert Date].
36 months after rule promulgation
[Insert Date].
No later than 36 months after
rule promulgation [Insert Date].
No later than 42 months after
rule promulgation [Insert Date].
No later than 45 months after
rule promulgation [Insert Date].
LT2ESWTR Action
States are encouraged to communicate LT2ESWTR requirements related to
treatment, uncovered finished water reservoirs, and disinfection profiling to
affected large systems.
States are encouraged to communicate LT2ESWTR requirements related to
source water monitoring to affected small systems.
Systems serving ^ 10,000 people required to conduct Cryptosporidium
monitoring must begin disinfection profiling, [proposed §141.712]
Systems must submit risk mitigation plans to state for uncovered
finished water reservoirs, [proposed §141.724(a)(3)]
Surface water systems serving <10,000 people that filter must submit a
sampling schedule for their E. coli monitoring, [proposed
§141.703(a)(2)]
States are encouraged to communicate LT2ESWTR requirements related to
treatment, uncovered finished water reservoirs, and disinfection profiling to
affected small systems.
States should begin specifying any alternative E. coli indicator values for
small systems.
States should begin awarding Cryptosporidium treatment credit for primary
treatments in place.
Surface water systems serving <10,000 people that filter must begin
monitoring bi-weekly for E. coli for 1 year. States may designate an
alternate indicator monitoring strategy, [proposed §141.701(e)]
States should begin overseeing disinfection profiling and benchmarking for
large systems.
States should oversee large system risk bin assignments.
Filtered and unfiltered surface water systems serving ^ 10,000 people
must report their initial bin classification based on their initial round
of source water monitoring, [proposed §141.730(c)-(d)]
Systems serving ^ 10,000 people required to conduct Cryptosporidium
monitoring must have Giardia and virus disinfection profiles on file for
state review during sanitary surveys, [proposed §141.730(f)]
Systems are required to comply with uncovered finished water
reservoirs provisions, [proposed §141.701(h)]
Systems serving <10,000 people that are not required to conduct
Cryptosporidium monitoring and exceed DBF triggers must begin
disinfection profiling.1' 2 [proposed §141.712]
Systems serving <10,000 people that exceed E. coli trigger and
unfiltered systems must submit a sampling schedule for their initial
round of monitoring, [proposed §141.703(a)(3)]
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
51
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Date
No later than 48 months after
rule promulgation [Insert Date].
No later than 54 months after
rule promulgation [Insert Date].
66 months after rule promulgation
[Insert Date].
No later than 66 months after
rule promulgation [Insert Date].
No later than 72 months after
rule promulgation [Insert Date].
84 months after rule promulgation
[Insert Date].
No later than 102 months after
rule promulgation [Insert Date].
No later than 105 months after
rule promulgation [Insert Date].
No later than 108 months after
rule promulgation [Insert Date].
114 months after rule
promulgation [Insert Date].
LT2ESWTR Action
Systems serving <10,000 people that exceed E. coll trigger and
unfiltered systems must begin monitoring for Cryptosporldlum
(twice/month) for 1 year, [proposed §141.701(e)]
Systems serving <10,000 people that are not required to conduct
Cryptosporldlum monitoring and exceed DBF triggers must have
Glardla and virus disinfection profiles on file for state review during
sanitary surveys.1' 2 [proposed §141.730(f)]
Systems serving <10,000 people that are required to conduct
Cryptosporldlum monitoring must begin disinfection profiling.
[proposed §141.712]
States should begin overseeing disinfection profiling and benchmarking for
small systems.
States should oversee small system risk bin assignments.
Systems serving <10,000 people that exceed E. coll trigger must report
their initial bin classification, [proposed §141.730(c)(2)]
Unfiltered systems serving <10,000 people must report initial mean
Cryptosporldlum concentration based on their initial round of
monitoring, [proposed §141.730(d)(2)]
Systems serving <10,000 people that are required to conduct
Cryptosporldlum monitoring must have Glardla and virus disinfection
profiles on file for state review during sanitary surveys, [proposed
§141.730(f)]
Based on first round of source water monitoring, surface water
systems (filter and unfiltered) serving ^ 10,000 people must meet any
additional Cryptosporldlum treatment requirements.3 [proposed
§141.701(e)]
States should award Cryptosporidium treatment credit to large systems for
toolbox option implementation.
Based on first round of source water monitoring, surface water
systems (filter and unfiltered) serving <10,000 people must meet any
additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements.3 [proposed
§141.701(e)]
Filtered and unfiltered systems serving ^ 10,000 people must submit a
sampling schedule for their second round of source water monitoring.
[proposed §141.703(a)(4)]
Filtered and unfiltered systems serving k 10,000 people must begin a
second round of source water monitoring, [proposed §141.702(d)(l)]
States should award Cryptosporidium treatment credit to small systems for
toolbox option implementation.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
52
November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Date
No later than 138 months after
rule promulgation [Insert Date].
No later than 153 months after
rule promulgation [Insert Date].
No later than 156 months after
rule promulgation [Insert Date].
No later than 174 months after
rule promulgation [Insert Date].
No later than X months after
rule promulgation [Insert Date].
No later than X months after
rule promulgation [Insert Date].
LT2ESWTR Action
Filtered and unfiltered systems serving > 10,000 people must report
their bin classification based on results from second round of
monitoring, [proposed §141.730(c)-(d)]
Systems serving <10,000 people must begin a second round of source
water monitoring, [proposed §141.702(d)(2)]
Filtered systems serving <10,000 people that exceed E. coll trigger and
unfiltered systems must submit a sampling schedule for their second
round of monitoring, [proposed §141.703(a)(4)]
Filtered systems serving <10,000 people that exceed E. coll trigger and
unfiltered systems must begin their second round of Cryptosporldlum
monitoring, [proposed §141.702(d)(2)-(3)]
Systems serving <10,000 people must report their bin classification
based on results from second round of monitoring, [proposed
§141.730(c)(2)]
Unfiltered systems serving <10,000 people must report their mean
Cryptosporldlum concentration based on their second round of
monitoring, [proposed §141.730(d)(2)]
Based on second round of source water monitoring, surface water
systems (filter and unfiltered) serving ^ 10,000 people must meet any
additional Cryptosporldlum treatment requirements, [proposed
§141.XXX]
Based on second round of source water monitoring, surface water
systems (filter and unfiltered) serving <10,000 people must meet any
additional Cryptosporldlum treatment requirements, [proposed
§141.XXX]
1 Systems that provide at least 5.5 log of Cryptosporidium treatment are not required to conduct Cryptosporidium
monitoring.
2 System with TTHM and HAA5 levels that exceed 0.064 mg/L and 0.048 mg/L, respectively, are required to
develop disinfection profiles.
3 The state may grant 2 year extensions for capital improvements [1412(b)(10)].

1.4.2   Timeline for the LT2ESWTR

Figure 1-2 depicts the LT2ESWTR requirements and implementation timeline for states and systems.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
53
November 2003

-------
                                              Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
                                        Figure 1-2. Implementation Timeline for the LT2ESWTR

Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
V Final Stage 2 DBPR &
^ LT2ES WTR Rules Promulgated
J 1 L
States
Large Filterei
Small Filtered
Small Unfilter

Apply for Primacy



Year 4


YearS


Year 6


1 and Unfiltered Systems (Serving > 10,000 People)
Crvpto Monitorins 1 1 Treatment Installation

Systems
ed Systen
Year 1

(Serving <
is (Serving
Year 2
Bin Del
10,000 P
ermination
eople)
1 1
^7
E. coli m<
< 10,000
Year 3
r- J
mitoring
People)
Year 4

Crypto Monitc

E
Crypto Monitc

E
YearS

ring
Year?





£
(possi

YearS



:>le 2-year extei

Year 9


Crypto Cor
ision)
C

in Determina
ring
1
=P
in Determina
Year 6
tion
Treatment In:
tion
Year?

tallation

YearS
£
(possi
1
J
4
(possi
Year 9
Year 10


npliance

Crypto Compl
>le 2-year ext
Crypto Com]
>le 2-year ext
Year 10
Year 11




ance
	 *
ension)
)liance
ension)
Year 11
Notes: The second round of source water sampling begins 108 and 138 months after rule promulgation for large systems and small systems, respectively.  For
small systems, the second round requirements are the same as the first with respect to monitoring for E. coli (or an indicator) and only monitoring for
Cryptosporidium if E. coli or indicator triggers are exceeded.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
54
November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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.  MMWR 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.  2003. Economic Analysis for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Proposal. Prepared by The Cadmus Group.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          55                                 November 2003

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
Section 2	
Resources and Guidance

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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 developed  seven technical guidance manuals to support the LT2ESWTR proposal. 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 Draft Source Water Monitoring Guidance Manual for Public Water Systems for the
               LT2ESWTR (EPA 815-D-03-005, June 2003) 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 Draft Microbial Laboratory Manual for the LT2ESWTR (EPA 815-D-03-006, June
               2003) 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 Draft Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-007, June 2003)
               provides guidance on the validation selection, design, and operation of UV disinfection
               systems to comply with treatment requirements under the rule. The Excel "Ultraviolet
               Disinfection Guidance Manual" Workbook supplements the manual with calculations
               and data that may be used to validate a UV reactor.

               The Draft Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-008, June 2003)
               provides guidance on the selection, design, and operation of membrane filtration to
               comply with treatment requirements under the rule.

               The Draft LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003)
               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 (EPA 815-R-03-009, April 2003) provides
               guidance to PWSs that elect to monitor for Cryptosporidium prior to fmalization of the
               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.

       •       The Draft Simultaneous Compliance Manual for the Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR
               (EPA XXX-X-XX-XXX, Date) w ill-describe the various potentialtreatm entand
               operational conflicts that may arise as systems comply with these two rules in addition  to
               other existing rules.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          59                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
 For more information, contact EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline, (800) 426-4791, or see the Office
 of Ground Water and Drinking Water Web page. The rule and guidance documents are located at
 (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/index.html).
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: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/XXX.

2.3 Fact Sheet/Draft Quick Reference Guide

A Fact Sheet/Draft 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 are stand-alone documents and are included in Appendix C of this guidance:
       S     Fact Sheet: Proposed Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.
       S     Proposed Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule: A Draft Quick
              Reference Guide.

2.4 Q&As

Questions and Answers (Q&As) on the LT2ESWTR will be provided in this section.  These questions
have been asked of EPA through the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, implementation training, or other
means.

2.4.1  Systems Affected by the LT2ESWTR

       Q:

       A:

2.4.2  Cryptosporidium

       Q:

       A:

2.4.3  Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking

       Q:

       A:
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           60                                November 2003

-------
                       Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
2.4.4   Source Water Microbial Monitoring




       Q:



       A:




2.4.5   Bin Classification




       Q:



       A:




2.4.6   Microbial Toolbox Options




       Q:



       A:




2.4.7   Violations and SDWIS Reporting




       Q:




       A:




2.4.8   Data Reporting and Recordkeeping




       Q:




       A:




2.4.9   Unfiltered Systems




       Q:



       A:




2.4.10  Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs




       Q:



       A:
Draft L T2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          61                               November 2003

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
Section 3	
State Implementation

-------
 EPA will 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.

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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. coll indicator values for small systems.

       •       Oversee risk bin assignments.

       •       Award Cryptosporidium treatment credit for primary treatments in place.

       •       Award Cryptosporidium treatment credit for implementation of options from the
               microbial toolbox.

       •       Oversee disinfection profiling and benchmarking.

To help the states' 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 are prefaced by "may" or "should" and are to be considered
advisory.  They are not required elements of states' applications for program revision.  Figure 3-1 shows a
timeline with system activities on the top and primacy agency activities on the bottom.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          65                                 November 2003

-------
                                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
                                   Figure 3-1. Timeline of System and Primacy Agency Activities
SYSTEM
t
1
o
s :
0.
f

Large systems submit
source water sampling
schedule
Large system source
water monitoring
1 1
1
6 months 12 months
t t
Identify source water
nonitoring requirements
or all systems re^ulllr£
small s

Communicate source . y dg(e dg(g p
/vater monitoring systems
equirements to affected
arge systems . Communicate
requirements tc
systems

• Uncovered reservoirs —
submit plan to state
• Large system
disinfection profiling
i

• Uncovered reservoirs — cover, treat
effluent, or implement risk management
plan (possible 2 yr. extension)
• Large system disinfection profiling

Small systems submit
E. coli sampling schedule


r ir
1
1 8 months 24 months
municate source . ^w
monitoring prirr
;ments to affected
systems . Sp

indi
nanagement
•Cc
LT2ESWTR J£
affected large

^^

Small system
sampling for E. coli
1


i r

Small systems
submit Crypto
sampling schedu
Small system Sma
disinfection profiling begi
for those not Crypto mon
monitoring
1 1

Small
system
e
disinfection
pioniing foi
"systems those
n Crypto Cfyp(o
tonng monitorina

1 1
1 1 1
30 months 36 months 42 months 48 months 54 months
t t
/ard Crypto treatment credit for
ary treatments in place
ecify any alternative E. coli
Dator values for small systems
mmunicate LT2ESWTR
jirements to affected small
ems


• Oversee disinfection profiling and
benchmarking for large systems
• Oversee large system risk bin
assignments




Applying for primacy — address special primacy condition^^>
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
66
November 2003

-------
                                                 Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
                                     Figure 3-1.  Timeline of System and Primacy Agency Activities (cont.)
      HI
      I-
      V)
                              Small filtered and unfiltered
                              systems must meet treatment
                              requirements
                              (possible 2-yr. extension)
                                                              Small systems conduct 2nd
                                                              round of source water Crypto
                                                              monitoring
                      Large filtered and unfiltered
                      systems must meet treatment
                      requirements
                      (possible 2-yr. extension)
                                            Large systems conduct
                                            2nd round of source
                                            water monitoring
                                                            rr

1 1
1 1 1 1 1
       60 months
                     72 months
                                   84 months
                                                 96 months
                                                                108 months
                                                                              120 months
                                                                                            132 months
                                                                                                          144 months
                                                                                                                         156 months
                                                                                                                                       168 months
      o
      z
      HI
      O
      <

      O
   t
• Oversee small system risk bin
assignments

• Award Crypto treatment credit to
large systems for toolbox option
implementation
      1
Award Crypto treatment
credit to small systems
for toolbox option
implementation
               Oversee disinfection
               profiling and
               benchmarking for small
               systems
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                                     67
                                                                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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, are 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 on what they will require of systems
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.  Systems will need to be aware of state criteria in time to decide,
1 year after initial bin assignments, whether they intend to pursue watershed control program treatment
credit.

States must establish criteria for determining that a PWS with an uncovered finished water reservoir has a
risk mitigation plan that is adequate for purposes of waiving the requirement to cover the reservoir or treat
the effluent to achieve 4 log virus inactivation.  Systems will need to be aware of state criteria in time to
submit proposed risk mitigation plans no later than 2 years after rule promulgation [insert final rule date] •

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 enough time to apply for demonstration of performance credit prior to the new treatment
requirements go into effect (as early as 6 years after rule promulgation [insert final rule  date]  for large
systems).  In the case where a system's request for Cryptosporidium removal credits is not accepted by
the state, they could be facing a treatment technique violation if there is not enough time to implement
another toolbox option.

In addition, 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 bench marking, and uncovered finished reservoirs) as
they apply to different system types.

3.3.1  Source Water Monitoring

Under the LT2ESWTR, all systems that use surface water or GWUDI as a source are required to conduct
source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium, E.  coli, and/or turbidity.

               Large systems (those serving 10,000 or more persons) that filter are required to monitor
               all three parameters.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           68                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
       •       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, unless
               they elect to provide 3 log Cryptosporidium inactivation, on the same schedule as their
               filtered counterparts.

Previously collected ("grandfathered") data may be acceptable in some cases in lieu of monitoring, as
long as specified criteria are met. Systems that already provide 5.5 log total treatment for
Cryptosporidium, the maximum treatment level required under the LT2ESWTR, are not required to
conduct source water monitoring.

3.3.2  Cryptosporidium Treatment

For all systems required to conduct source water monitoring, the results of the source water monitoring
determine Cryptosporidium treatment requirements beyond those required by the IESWTR and
LT1ESWTR. As shown in Table 1-3 (see page 29), the lowest "risk bin" for filtered systems does not
require any additional treatment. However, unfiltered systems must provide at least 2 log inactivation of
Cryptosporidium for source water concentration of <0.01 oocyst/L and 3 log for >0.01 oocysts/L.

3.3.3  Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking

The IESWTR and LT1ESWTR required disinfection profiling and benchmarking for CWS and
Nontransient Noncommunity Water Systems (NTNCWS) that exceed TTHM or HAA5 levels of 0.064
mg/L and 0.048 mg/L, respectively.  Under these rules profiling and benchmarking was calculated for
Giardia lamblia inactivation and, if using ozone, chloramines, or chlorine dioxide, then virus in addition
to Giardia inactivation. The LT2ESWTR extends the requirements to all CWS and NTNCWS that must
monitor for Cryptosporidium (i.e., not only  those that exceed the TTHM or HAA5 triggers) and small
CWS and NTNCWS that only conduct E. coli but exceed the TTHM and HAA5 triggers. In addition, all
systems required to conduct disinfection profiling and benchmarking must include virus inactivation
under the LT2ESWTR.

Specifically under LT2ESWTR, disinfection profiling and benchmarking applies to CWSs and
NTNCWSs that meet any one of the following criteria:

       •       System that conducts source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium.

               TTHM annual average at any one Stage 1 DBPR monitoring location in the distribution
               system is at least 0.064 mg/L.

       •       HAA5 annual average at any one Stage 1 DBPR monitoring location in the distribution
               system is at least 0.048 mg/L.

3.3.4  Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs

The IESWTR and LT1ESWTR prohibited 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

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          69                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
a 4 log virus inactivation using a protocol approved by the state. However, the system may not have to
cover or treat the reservoir if the system develops and implements a state-approved risk mitigation plan.

3.4 Communicate LT2ESWTR Requirements to Affected Systems

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 3-1 summarizes the source water monitoring requirements and compliance dates for all systems.

            Table 3-1.  Source Water Monitoring Requirements and Compliance Dates
Requirement
Compliance Date
Large filtered systems must monitor their source water for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity, and
large unfiltered systems must monitor for only Cryptosporidium.1 2
Submit sampling schedule
Sample/monitor on at least a monthly basis for a 24
month period
Conduct second round of source water monitoring on
at least a monthly basis for a 24 month period
No later than [3 months after promulgation]
Begin no later than [6 months after promulgation]
Begin no later than [108 months after promulgation]
Small filtered systems must first monitor for E. coli or an alternative state-approved indicator of
Cryptosporidium.1' 2
Submit E. coli sampling schedule
Sample for E. coli or alternative indicator on at least a
biweekly basis for a 12 month period
No later than [27 months after promulgation]
Begin no later than [30 months after promulgation]
If the average indicator concentration exceeds the trigger level,3' 4 then the filtered system must monitor for
Cryptosporidium. Small unfiltered systems must monitor for Cryptosporidium.
Submit Cryptosporidium sampling schedule
Sample for Cryptosporidium at least twice per month
for a 24 month period
Second round of source water E. coli monitoring2
Second round of source water Cryptosporidium
monitoring
No later than [45 months after promulgation]
Begin no later than [48 months after promulgation]
Begin no later than [138 months after promulgation]
Begin no later than [156 months after promulgation]
'Systems may be eligible to use previously collected (grandfathered) data to meet Cryptosporidium monitoring
requirements if specified quality control criteria are met.
2Systems are not required to monitor if they will provide at least 5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment and notify EPA
or the state.
3Trigger 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.
4Systems 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.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
70
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Previously Collected Data

Systems may elect to use Cryptosporidium data collected before the system is required to begin
monitoring.  However, data must meet the quality standards detailed in proposed §141.708(b).  Sample
collection must meet the following requirements:

               Samples must have been collected at equal time intervals over the collection period (the
               LT2ESWTR does, however, allow for the collection interval to vary if the system
               provides documentation of the condition).

       •       Sampling frequency must be at least monthly.

               Samples collected prior to January 1999 cannot be used.

For previously collected data to be considered, data must be submitted to EPA along with supporting
documentation no later than [2 months following rule promulgation]. Systems with partial data (i.e., less
than 2 years of data at the  time of LT2ESTWR promulgation) may also submit their data for potential
credit toward their Cryptosporidium monitoring requirements.  Such partial data and supporting
documentation must be sent to EPA no later than 8 months following rule promulgation [insert final rule
date]. In both cases, systems should plan to conduct the monitoring required by the LT2ESWTR until
notified in writing by EPA that additional monitoring is not necessary.

3.4.1.1 Calculating Average Cryptosporidium Concentrations

Cryptosporidium treatment requirements are determined by the average Cryptosporidium concentration
observed during source water monitoring.  For all unfiltered systems and small filtered systems, the
average is the mean of all  samples. For large filtered systems, the average differs by the number of
samples collected as follows:

       •       24 to 47 samples—highest twelve month RAA

               48 samples or higher—mean of all samples

When determining LT2ESWTR bin classification, systems must calculate individual sample
concentrations 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
infectious. Consequently, sample analysis results will not be adjusted for these factors.

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

Systems will use their average Cryptosporidium concentration from source water monitoring to determine
their bin assignments and  additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements. Table 3-2 shows the
treatment requirements for filtered systems according to existing treatment processes. Table 3-3 shows
the treatment requirements for unfiltered systems.

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          71                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
            Table 3-2. Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements for Filtered Systems
If the source water
Cryptosporidium
concentration
in oocyst/1 is...
O.075 	 Binl
>0.0075and<1.0 	 Bin 2
>1.0and<3.0 	 Bin 3
>3.0 	 Bin4

And the system uses the following filtration treatment in full compliance with
subpart H, P, and T (as applicable), then the additional treatment
requirements are. . .
Conventional
filtration
treatment
(including
softening)
None
1 log treatment.
2 log treatment...
2.5 log
treatment...
Direct filtration
None
1.5 log treatment 	
2.5 log treatment..
3 log treatment 	
Slow sand or
diatomaceous
earth filtration
None
Hog
treatment 	
2 log treatment 	
2.5 log treatment 	
Alternative
filtration
technologies
None
0)
(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.

           Table 3-3. 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 log inactivation
3 log inactivation
Filtered systems can use at least one of the treatment and management techniques in the "microbial
toolbox" (described in section 3.9). Those in bins 3 and 4 must achieve at least 1 log credit towards
additional treatment using at least one of the following: bag filters, bank filtration, cartridge filters,
chlorine dioxide, membranes, ozone, and UV.

Unfiltered systems are required to use at least two different disinfectants to meet their overall inactivation
requirements for viruses (4 log), Giardia lamblia (3 log), and Cryptosporidium (2 or 3 log).  Each of the
two disinfectants individually must achieve the total inactivation required for any one of these three
pathogen types. For example, a system may use chloramine to meet virus inactivation requirements, UV
to meet Cryptosporidium inactivation requirements, and any combination of disinfectants to meet Giardia
requirements.

Compliance Dates

Filtered and unfiltered systems must achieve the additional treatment by the following dates:

               Large systems no later than [72 months following rule promulgation].

               Small systems no later than [102 months following rule promulgation].
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
72
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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. Table 3-4 shows the activities and dates by
which systems must comply.

              Table 3-4. Disinfection Profiling Requirements and Compliance Dates
System
Large systems
Small systems not required to monitor for
Cryptosporidium
Small systems not required to monitor for
Cryptosporidium and exceeding TTHM and
HAAS triggers
Small systems required to monitor for
Cryptosporidium
Requirement and Compliance Date
Begin profiling [24 months after rule promulgation]
Submit TTHM and HAAS locational running annual averages
to state [42 months after rule promulgation]
Begin profiling [42 months after rule promulgation]
[54 months after rule promulgation]
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
since the data were collected.  Systems that developed Giardia disinfection profiles, but not virus
disinfection profiles, under the IESWTR or LTIESWTR may calculate virus profiles from the same
operational data used to develop the Giardia profiles.

Disinfection profiles and benchmarks must be kept on file for the state to review during the Sanitary
Survey. In addition, any systems required to develop disinfection profiles for Giardia and viruses that
plan to make significant changes, as determined by the state, in disinfection practice are required to
calculate a benchmark and submit to the state the disinfection profile and an analysis of how the proposed
change will affect the current benchmark. The state must grant approval before a system may make any
significant change to their disinfection practice.

EPA developed Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manuals (USEPA, 1999) for the
IESWTR and LT1ESWTR.  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. If necessary, EPA will produce an addendum to
reflect changes in the profiling and benchmarking requirements necessary to comply with the
LT2ESWTR.

3.4.4  Uncovered Finished Water Reservoir Requirements

Systems with uncovered finished reservoirs must cover the reservoir, treat reservoir discharge to 4 log
virus inactivation, or have a state-approved risk mitigation plan in place by  36 months after rule
promulgation [insert final rule date], with a possibility of a 2-year extension granted by states for systems
making capital improvements.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
73
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Systems seeking approval for a risk mitigation plan must submit the plan to the state within 24 months
following rule promulgation [insert final rule date]. This plan must address physical access and site
security, surface water run-off, animal and bird wastes, and on-going water quality assessment, and it
must include a schedule for plan implementation. Section 4.4.4 provides guidance to states for
developing procedures to evaluate risk mitigation plans.

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  draft 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/mdbp/implement.html.  They provide overviews of the
LT2ESWTRto 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 website address where the regulatory language can
be accessed.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          74                                  November 2003

-------
                           Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
                          Example 3-1.  Example System Notification Letter
                                             State Letterhead
   John Smith, Supt.
   Town Water System, PWSID XXXXXXX
   Town, ST 12345

   RE: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
   Dear Mr. Smith:

   On [insert date of rule publication], the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (abbreviated
   LT2ESWTR) was published in the Federal Register. This letter is being provided to notify you that your
   public water system may be affected by this rule. You are receiving this letter as our data show your system
   uses surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) as a source.
   The LT2ESWTR applies to all public water systems that use surface water or GWUDI.  The LT2ESWTR
   requires systems to conduct source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium, and to take additional protective
   measures, if warranted by monitoring, using approved treatment techniques in the "microbial toolbox."  The
   LT2ESWTR also requires most systems  to develop disinfection profiles. Finally, the LT2ESWTR requires
   systems with uncovered finished water reservoirs to cover the reservoirs, treat the effluent, or implement a
   risk mitigation plan.

   Source water monitoring will begin [insert date 6 months  after promulgation] for large systems (serving
   10,000 people or more) and [insert date 2.5 years after promulgation] for small filtered systems.  Sampling
   schedules must be submitted to the state  by each system 3 months before source water monitoring begins. All
   small unfiltered systems, and those small filtered systems with high E. coli levels, will be required to monitor
   for Cryptosporidium starting [insert date 4 years after promulgation].  Compliance with  stricter microbial
   control standards will begin [insert date 6 years after promulgation] for large systems and [insert date 8.5
   years after promulgation] for small systems. Large systems will be required to begin disinfection profiling by
   [insert date 2 years after promulgation] and small systems by [insert dates 3.5 years after promulgation] (or
   [insert date 4.5 years after promulgation] if they are required to undertake source water  monitoring for
   Cryptosporidium).  Systems with uncovered finished water reservoirs must cover the reservoirs, treat the
   effluent, or have a risk mitigation plan approved by [insert date 3 years after promulgation].  Risk mitigation
   plans for uncovered finished water reservoirs must be submitted to the state at least a year in advance.  Some
   systems may be eligible to meet source water monitoring  and disinfection profiling requirements with
   grandfathered data.  Systems making capital improvements may be eligible for a 2-year  extension for
   treatment requirements as well as uncovered finished water reservoir requirements.
   A Draft Quick Reference Guide and Fact Sheets for the LT2ES WTR are enclosed.  These resources provide
   more information on specific aspects of this regulation.
   Please contact this office at XXX-XXX-XXXX if you have any questions about this letter or the LT2ESWTR
   and its effect on your system.  We appreciate your attention to this request.
   Sincerely,
   Enclosures: LT2ESWTR Quick Reference Guide, LT2ESWTR Fact Sheet [list other enclosures]
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance            75                                     November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
3.4.5.2 Slide Presentation

Slide presentations of the LT2ESWTR may be used by state staff and other technical assistants or training
providers to present the background of the rule, rule requirements, and its benefits.

The EPA Drinking Water Academy will develop a PowerPoint training session on the LT2ESWTR.
Copies of the presentation 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 [insert Web site address].

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, disinfection profiling and benchmarking, 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-specific training events.  See section 2 of this
manual for more information on these references.

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 LT2ESWTRto enable efficient
tracking of affected systems, compliance status, and other information of use in implementing this rule.

As required under proposed § 142.14, records to be kept by states under the LT2ESWTR include the
following:

       •       Results of source water Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity monitoring.

       •       Cryptosporidium risk 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  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, including documentation to demonstrate compliance with
               required design and implementation criteria.

               A list of systems required to cover or treat the discharge of an uncovered finished water
               reservoir.

       •       A list of systems for which the state has waived the requirement to cover or treat the
               discharge of an uncovered finished water reservoir, along with supporting documentation
               of the risk mitigation plan.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          76                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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 6 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 management system. This
approach is similar to that used under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR).
Analytical results for Cryptosporidium, 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 Specify Alternative E. coli or  Indicator Values for Small Systems

To reduce the monitoring burden for small systems, the LT2ESWTR requires 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 systems must initially sample for E. coli beginning
30 months after rule promulgation [insert final rule date] and, if above the trigger levels (see 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.

Under the LT2ESWTR, states may also allow use of an alternative indicator for small systems. If states
use this option, they should notify small systems of the indicator, trigger values, and  acceptable analytical
methods.

3.7 Ensure that Ongoing Watershed Monitoring 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 risk 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 (see section 4.4.1 for guidance to address this  special primacy
condition).
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           77                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
3.8 Award Cryptosporidium Removal Credit for Primary Treatments in Place

For conventional treatment systems and slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration systems, EPA
recommends a 3.0 log Cryptosporidium removal credit be awarded. For direct filtration systems (which
lack a sedimentation basin), EPA recommends a 2.5 log removal credit be awarded. However, 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.

The Draft Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual EPA 815-D-03-008, June 2003) 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 Cryptosporidium removal that allows systems to avoid source water monitoring
requirements.

The Draft LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) 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 grant an additional 1 log and 2 log credit. While most
of the guidance is still applicable, states should evaluate all aspects of the bag or cartridge filter process
with respect to the different source water quality and higher level of removal necessary for primary
filtration credit (i.e., 3 log removal).

As described in proposed §141.727, 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. Cryptosporidium Treatment Credit Towards LT2ESWTR Requirements1
Plant type
Treatment
credit
Conventional
treatment (includes
softening)
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 IESWTR and LT1ESWTR as applicable

3.9 Award Cryptosporidium Removal Credit for Implementation of Options from the
Microbial Toolbox

In order to achieve the Cryptosporidium removal requirements of the risk bin categories, systems must
supplement the removal credit they receive for primary treatment techniques 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.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
78
November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
          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. 9.1)
No presumptive credit. Systems may conduct simultaneous monitoring for
LT2ESWTR bin classification at alternative intake locations or under
alternative intake management strategies. (Section 3.9.2)
Pre-filtration Toolbox Components
Pre-sedimentation basin with
coagulation
Lime softening
Bank filtration
(as pretreatment)
0.5 log credit with continuous operation and coagulant addition; basins must
achieve 0.5 log turbidity reduction based on the monthly mean of daily
measurements from 1 1 of the 12 previous months; all flow must pass
through basins. Systems with existing pre-sed basins must conduct source
water monitoring after basins but before any other treatment to determine
bin classification and are not eligible for presumptive credit. (Section 3.9.3)
0.5 log additional credit for two-stage softening (single-stage softening is
credited as equivalent to conventional treatment). Coagulant must be
present in both stages, which may be excess lime or magnesium hydroxide.
Both stages must treat 100% of flow. (Section 3.9.4)
0.5 log credit for 25 ft. setback; 1.0 log credit for 50 ft. setback; aquifer must
be unconsolidated sand containing at least 10% fines; average turbidity in
wells must be < 1 NTU. Systems with existing wells must monitor well
effluent to determine bin classification and are not eligible for presumptive
credit. (Section 3. 9. 5)
Treatment Performance Toolbox Components
Combined filter performance
Individual filter performance
Demonstration of Performance
0.5 log credit for combined filter effluent turbidity <0. 15 NTU in 95% of
samples each month. (Section 3.9.6)
1 .0 log credit for demonstration of filtered water turbidity <0. 1 NTU in 95
percent of daily max values from individual filters (excluding 15 min period
following backwash) and no individual filter >0.3 NTU in two consecutive
measurements taken 15 minutes apart. (Section 3.9.7)
Credit awarded to unit process or treatment train based on demonstration to
the state, through use of a state-approved protocol. (Section 3. 9. 15)
Additional Filtration Toolbox Components
Bag filters
Cartridge filters
1 log credit with demonstration of at least 2 log removal efficiency in
challenge test. (Section 3. 9. 9)
2 log credit with demonstration of at least 3 log removal efficiency in
challenge test. (Section 3. 9. 9)
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
79
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Toolbox Option
Membranes (microfiltration,
ultrafiltration, nanofiltration,
reverse osmosis)
Second stage filtration
Slow sand filters
Cryptosporidium log credit with design and implementation criteria
Log credit equivalent to removal efficiency demonstrated in challenge test
for device if supported by direct integrity testing. (Section 3.9.8)
0.5 log credit for second separate filtration stage; treatment train must
include coagulation prior to first filter. (Section 3.9. 10)
2.5 log credit as a secondary filtration step. No prior chlorination. (Section
3.9.11)
Inactivation Toolbox Components
Chlorine dioxide
Ozone
UV
Log credit based on demonstration of compliance with contact time table.
(Section 3. 9. 12)
Log credit based on demonstration of compliance with contact time table.
(Section 3.9.13)
Log credit based on demonstration of compliance with UV dose table;
reactor testing required to establish validated operating conditions. (Section
3.9.14)
Each component is described in more detail in the LT2ESWTR rule language. EPA developed the
following draft guidance manuals to assist systems with implementing toolbox components: UV
Disinfection Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-007, June 2003), Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual
(EPA 815-D-03-008, June 2003), and Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003).

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 amonthly basis, verifying proper treatment was achieved. Sections 3.9.1 to 3.9.16 briefly
describe each option and the associated requirements.

3.9.1   Watershed Control Program [proposed §141.725(a)]

States must approve systems' watershed control programs. Only filtered systems are eligible for
watershed control program credits since unfiltered systems are already required to maintain a watershed
control program that minimizes the potential for contamination by Cryptosporidium as a criterion to
avoiding filtration.

States will base their initial approval of a system's watershed control program on their review of the
system's proposed watershed control plan and supporting documentation. Their initial approval will be
valid until the system completes the second round of Cryptosporidium monitoring, which begins
approximately 6 years after the initial bin assignment. During this period, states should be aware that the
system is responsible for implementing the approved plan and complying with other general
requirements, such as an annual watershed survey and program status report. If systems want to continue
their eligibility to receive the 0.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment credit, they must reapply, and states
must approve the program for each subsequent approval period.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
80
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
3.9.1.1 What are the Requirements for Initial 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 within 1 year following source water monitoring that the system
proposes to develop a watershed control plan and submit it for state approval.

States should ensure that systems' applications for initial program approval include the following
minimum elements:

       •       An analysis of the vulnerability of each source to Cryptosporidium.

               An analysis of control measures that could address the sources of Cryptosporidium
               contamination identified during the vulnerability analysis.

       •       A plan that specifies goals and defines and prioritizes specific actions to reduce source
               water Cryptosporidium 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 2 years following source water
monitoring.

States will review the system's initial proposed watershed control plan and either approve, reject, or
"conditionally approve" the plan. If the plan is approved,  or if the system agrees to implement the state's
conditions for approval, the system will be awarded 0.5 log credit towards LT2ESWTR Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements. A final decision on approval should be made no later than 3 years following the
system's initial bin assignment. This will give the system 1 year to make changes and resubmit their plan
for approval.

The initial state approval of the system's watershed control program can be valid until the system
completes the required second round of Cryptosporidium monitoring. The system is responsible for
taking the required steps to maintain state program approval (described in 3.9.1.2) and the 0.5 log credit
during the approval period.
3.9.1.2 What are the System's Requirements for Maintaining State Approval of Watershed Control
       Programs?

After states have approved a system's watershed control program, states should receive the following
information from the system within each approval period for the system to continue to be eligible for the
0.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment credit:

       •       An annual watershed control program status report during each year of the approval
               period.

               An annual state-approved watershed sanitary survey report.

               An application for review and re-approval of the watershed control program and for a
               continuation of the 0.5 log treatment credit for a subsequent approval period.




Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           81                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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 those previously identified by the state or
identified during the watershed survey.

The watershed survey must be conducted 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 priority activities identified in the plan and identify any significant new sources ofCryptosporidium.

The application for re-approval must be provided to the state at least 6 months before the current period
expires or by  a date determined by the state. The application must include a summary of activities and
issues identified during the previous period and a revised plan to address activities for the next period,
including new, actual, or potential source ofCryptosporidium  and details of any proposed or expected
changes from the existing state-approved program.

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.

3.9.1.3 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 a watershed vulnerability analysis 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.  In some cases, these portions of the source water assessment may fully satisfy
those analytical requirements.

EPA developed the Draft Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) 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 includes resources available to assist systems in building partnerships
and implementing watershed protection activities.

3.9.2  Alternative Source [proposed §141.725(b)]

Plants may be able to reduce influent Cryptosporidium 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
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           82                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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.

3.9.3   Pre-sedimentation with  Coagulant [proposed §141.726(a)]

This option is only available to systems without a pre-sedimentation basin at the time of source water
monitoring.  Systems with pre-sedimentation basins at the time of source water monitoring must sample
after the pre-sedimentation basin.

States may grant 0.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment credit to a system with a presedimentation process
that achieves at least 0.5 log influent turbidity reduction in at least 11 of the 12 previous months, based on
the monthly mean of daily turbidity readings.  If the presedimentation process has not been in operation
for the previous 12 months, then the state must base its determination on the last 12 months of operation
and whether influent turbidity reduction in 11 of those months was at least 0.5 log reduction.  In addition,
the presedimentation process must comply with the following on a monthly basis: (1) continuous
operation while basin is in use; (2) treat 100 percent of the plant flow; and (3) continuous addition of a
coagulant.

3.9.4   Two-stage Lime Softening [proposed §141.726(b)]

States may grant 0.5 log credit to systems with lime softening plants, depending on the treatment process.
Lime softening can be categorized into two general types: (1) single-stage softening that includes a
primary clarifier and filtration components; and (2) two-stage softening, which has an additional clarifier
located between the  clarifier and filter.

In order to grant the 0.5 log credit, the state must ensure that the plant has a second clarification stage
between the primary clarifier and filter that is operated continuously and that both clarification stages
individually must treat 100 percent of the plant flow.  In addition, a coagulant must be present in both
clarifiers (the coagulant may be precipitated metal salts).

3.9.5   Bank Filtration [proposed §141.726(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 must also be located at least 25 horizontal  feet (in
any direction) from the surface water source for 0.5 log credit and at least 50 feet for 1.0 log credit.

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           83                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Systems must characterize the aquifer by collecting core samples from the surface to at least the bottom of
the well screen. From grain analyses, at least 90 percent of 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 continuously monitored for turbidity 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.

3.9.6  Combined Filter  Performance [proposed §141.727(a)]

States may grant additional Cryptosporidium treatment credit to certain plants (i.e., conventional or direct
filtration processes) that maintain finished water turbidity at  levels significantly lower than previously
required (i.e., 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
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.

3.9.7  Individual Filter  Performance [proposed §141.727(b)]

States may grant systems with conventional or direct filtration processes an additional 1.0 log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit if turbidity measurements collected for IESWTR or LT1ESWTR
compliance meet the following turbidity criteria: (1) filtered  water turbidity less than 0.1 NTU in at least
95 percent of the maximum  daily values recorded at each filter in each month, excluding the 15 minute
period following backwashes; and  (2) no individual filter has a measured turbidity level greater than 0.3
NTU in two consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart.

States may not grant systems that receive 1 log treatment credit for individual filter performance an
additional 0.5 log credit for the CFE option.

3.9.8  Membrane Filtration [proposed §141.728(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
l^m is rejected by a nonfibrous, 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.  This definition is
intended to include microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis.

Compliance for a membrane process has three components:

       •       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.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           84                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
       •       Direct integrity test—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 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—continuous monitoring of each membrane unit. If direct
               integrity testing is continuous, systems are not subject to indirect 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 (a physical test applied to a
membrane unit to identify and isolate integrity breaches such as leaks). The state may use its discretion in
considering data from challenge studies conducted prior to promulgation of this regulation in lieu of
additional testing.

Additional requirements and guidance for conducting the three tests to comply with the LT2ESWTR is
provided in the Draft Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-008, June 2003).

3.9.9  Bag and Cartridge Filtration [proposed §141.728(a)]

States can grant systems using bag and cartridge filters for secondary filtration (i.e., they have a primary
filtration process that meets the IESWTR or  LT1ESWTR finished water turbidity requirements) a 1 and 2
log Cryptosporidium treatment credit, respectively. To be eligible for removal credit, the filtration
process must be a pressure driven separation process that removes particulate matter larger than 1 |^m
using an engineered porous  filtration media through either surface or depth filtration.  Removal efficiency
must be demonstrated through a challenge test 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 bag filters  to demonstrate 2.0 log removal
for a 1.0 log credit and cartridge filters to demonstrate 3.0 log removal for  a 2.0 log credit.  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 Draft Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June
2003).

3.9.10 Second Stage Filtration  [proposed §141.728(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.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           85                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
3.9.11  Slow Sand Filters [proposed §141.728(d)]

States can grant systems using slow sand filtration as a secondary filtration step following a primary
filtration process (e.g., rapid sand or slow sand) 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 proposed credit differs from the credit proposed for slow sand filtration as a. primary
filtration process, where states can grant plants a Cryptosporidium removal credit of 3 log for the
LT2ESWTR. In other words, slow sand filtration plants are equivalent to conventional filtration plants
for the purposes of determining additional treatment requirements for bins 2-4.

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
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.

3.9.12  Chlorine Dioxide [proposed  §141.729(b)]

Inactivation credit for Cryptosporidium is dependent on the  "CT" achieved on a daily basis. CT is the
product of the disinfectant concentration  ("C") and disinfectant contact time ("T", in minutes).  States
must receive calculated CT values from systems for each day, based on measurements of C during peak
hourly flow  and use the CT values presented in proposed §141.729 and the Draft Toolbox Guidance
Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003). 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 log inactivation.

Alternatively, states may consider CT values from a system 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. The Draft Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) provides guidance
for conducting a site-specific inactivation study.

3.9.13  Ozone [proposed §141.729(c)]

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 the Draft Toolbox Guidance
Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) for CT values for various log inactivation credits. This manual
also provides guidance on calculating CT values for different disinfection reactor designs and operations.

States may consider CT values from a system 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. The Draft
Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) provides guidance for conducting a site-
specific inactivation study.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           86                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
3.9.14 Ultraviolet Light [proposed §141.729(d)]

States may award credit to systems using UV disinfection processes for inactivation of Cryptosporidium,
Giardia, and viruses. To be eligible fo 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 validated 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. EPA's Draft UV Disinfection
Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-007, June 2003) provides a protocol for validating reactors and
guidance on the design and implementation of UV systems.

The LT2ESWTR presents the UV doses used in validation to receive credit for up to 3 log inactivation of
Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia and up to 4  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 the Draft UV Disinfection Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-007, June 2003).

3.9.15 Demonstration of Performance

Where 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 LT2ESWTR, it may be appropriate
for the state to grant the system a higher Cryptosporidium 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 Cryptosporidium 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.

The state may require systems receiving additional Cryptosporidium treatment credit, through a
demonstration of performance, to report operational data on  a monthly basis to establish that the
conditions under which demonstration of performance credit was awarded are maintained during routine
operation. The Draft Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) will describe potential
approaches to demonstration of performance testing.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           87                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Note that plants that receive additional Cryptosporidium treatment credit through a demonstration of
performance are not also eligible for the presumptive credit associated with microbial toolbox
components if the additional removal stemming from a toolbox component is captured in the
demonstration of performance credit. For example, if a conventional filtration plant receives a
demonstration of performance credit higher than the assumed 3.0 log, the plant may not also receive
additional presumptive credit for the combined filter effluent toolbox option.

3.10 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 required to conduct profiling plans to make a significant change to their
disinfection process, it must calculate a benchmark and submit it to the state with an evaluation of how
the new process will effect 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.

3.11 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. As described above, systems will submit
documentation supporting any change in their disinfection process.  States will need to review that
documentation and any  documentation specific to the toolbox option in a timely manner to ensure a PWS
is operating in compliance.

3.12 Evaluate Risk  Mitigation Plans for Systems with Uncovered Finished Water
Reservoirs

The LT2ESWTR requires that systems with uncovered finished water reservoirs must: 1) cover the
reservoir; 2) treat reservoir discharge to the distribution system to achieve a 4 log inactivation; or 3)
receive a state determination that existing risk mitigation is adequate and have a state-approved risk
mitigation plan.

Systems that exercise the third option (i.e., do not cover the reservoir or treat the effluent) are required to
implement risk mitigation plans.  These plans must address physical access and site security, surface
water runoff, animal and bird waste, and on-going water quality assessment and must include a schedule
for plan implementation. Where applicable, the plans should account for cultural uses by Indian tribes.
Systems must cover or treat uncovered finished water reservoirs or have a state-approved risk mitigation
plan within 3 years following rule promulgation, [insert final rule date], with the possibility  of a 2-year
extension granted by states for systems making capital improvements. Systems seeking approval for a
risk mitigation plan must submit the plan to the  state within 2 years following rule promulgation [insert
final rule date].
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          88                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
3.13 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 6 months after rule promulgation [insert final rule date], 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 has
established the Lab QA 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.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          89                                  November 2003

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
Section 4
State Primacy Revision
Application

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Proposed §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
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The 1996 SDWA Amendments update 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 FR 23361).

4.1 State Primacy Program Revision

Pursuant to proposed §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 (once
it submits a complete and final revision package). 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.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           93                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
        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 including:
Preliminary approval request
Draft state regulations and/or statutes
Regulation Crosswalk
Regional (and Headquarters if necessary) review of draft
State submits a complete and final program revision package including:
Adopted State Regulations
Regulation Crosswalk
§ 142. 10 Primacy Update Checklist
§ 1 42 . 1 4 and 1 42 . 1 5 Reporting and Recordkeeping
§ 142.16 Special Primacy Requirements
Attorney General's Enforceability Certification
EPA final review and determination:
Regional Review (program and ORC)
Headquarters Concurrence and Waivers (Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water (OGWDW) and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA))***
Public Notice
Opportunity for Hearing
EPA's Determination
Rule Compliance Date
Time Frame
[insert date]
[insert date]
[insert date]
Completed within 90 days of
state submittal of Draft
(Suggested)
[insert date]**
Completed within 90 days of
state submittal of final
45 days region
45 days Headquarters***
[insert date]*
* See disclaimer #2.
** EPA suggests submitting an application by [insert date] to ensure timely approval. EPA regulations allow until
[insert date] for this submittal.  An extension of up to 2 additional years may be requested by the state.
*** At least one state per region.

4.1.1   The Revision Process

The approval of state program revisions is recommended to be a two-step process comprised of
submission of a draft request (optional) and then submission of a complete and final request for program
approval.  Figure 4-1 diagrams these processes and their timing.

Draft Request—At the state's option, it 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 within 9 months
of rule promulgation. EPA will make a tentative determination on whether the state program meets the
applicable requirements. The tentative determination should be made within 90 days.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
94
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Complete and Final Request—This submission must be in accordance with 40 CFR 142.12(c)(l) and
(2) and include the Attorney General's statement. The state must also include its response to any
comments and/or program deficiencies identified in the tentative determination (if applicable). Regions
should make states aware that submission of only a final request may make it more difficult for the 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  of rule
promulgation. This will ensure that states will have interim primacy as soon as possible and will prevent
states from becoming backlogged with 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.

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 of the revised program.  OGWDW and OECA will conduct detailed
reviews of the first state package from each region.  The regional office should submit its comments with
the state's package for review by Headquarters (HQ). When the region has identified all significant
issues, OGWDW and OECA will waive concurrence on all other state programs in that region, although
EPA HQ will retain the option to review additional state programs as appropriate. The Office of General
Counsel has delegated its review and approval to the Office of Regional Counsel (ORC).
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          95                                  November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
  Figure 4-1.  Recommended Review Process for State Request for Approval of Program Revisions
                                                                                 Timeline
                                                                                   Start
                                                EPA Promulgates the
                                                   LT2ESWTR
                                            Establish Process and Tentative
                                               Schedule for State Rule
                                                    Approval
                                             State Submits Draft Primacy
                                             Revision Application to EPA
                                              (optional) §142. 12(d)(l)(i)
                       State Request for
                      Extension §142.12(b)
                             [insert date]
                             [insert date]
                             [insert date]
  EPA Review and Tentative
Determination (suggested within
  90days)§142.12(d)(l)(ii)
                                             State Submits Complete and
                                               Final Primacy Revision
                                                Application to EPA
                                                   §142.12(d)(2)
                             [insert date]
                                            EPA Review and Determination
                                            (within 90 days) §142.12(d)(3)
                                             2 Months
                                             6 Months
  By 24 Months1
                  1 Start date may be extended if State grants system additional time
In order to meet the 90-day deadline for packages undergoing review by HQ, the review period will be
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 no later than 45 days after state submittal to the Drinking Water Protection Division Director
in OGWDW, who will take the lead on the HQ review process.  OGWDW will provide OECA with a
copy for their concurrent review.

4.2  State Primacy Program Revision Extensions

4.2.1   The Extension Process

Under proposed § 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.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
     96
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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 [insert date: 2 years
after rule promulgation].

4.2.2   Criteria that an Extension Request Must Meet

For an extension to be granted under proposed § 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 appropriate 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.

               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, etc.).

               Providing technical assistance to PWSs.

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           97                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
               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 40 CFR 142.15 on state
               reporting.

Figure 4-2 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 successful implementation of the 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.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           98                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
                      Example 4-1. Example Extension Request Checklist

   ate}
{Regional Administrator}
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA Region {Region}
{Street Address}
{City. State. Zip}

RE: Request/approval for an Extension Agreement
Dear {Regional Administrator}:

       The state of {state} is requesting an extension to the date that 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 2006}, as allowed by 40 CFR 142.12 and would appreciate your approval.  Staff of
the {State Department/Agency} 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 {state}:

Q     Is planning to group two or more program revisions into a single legislative or regulatory action.

Q     Currently lacks the legislative or regulatory authority to enforce the new or revised requirements.

Q     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 supplies
               (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 SDWIS reporting requirements during development and
               implementation.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           99                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
               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 for treatment technique and monitoring/reporting violations of
               the LT2ESWTR.
	   	   Provide immediate technical assistance to PWSs with treatment technique and
               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 rule 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 organization 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 these regulations 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:
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          100                                 November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
I affirm that the {State Department/Agency} will implement provisions of the LT2ESWTR as outlined
above.
{Agency Director or Secretary}                                                 Date
{Name of State Agency}
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 {Region}
This Extension Agreement will take effect upon the date of the last signature.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          101                                November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
4.3 State Primacy Package
The Primacy Revision Application package should consist of the following sections:
       Q      State Primacy Revision Checklist
       Q      Text of the State's Regulation
       Q      Primacy Revision Crosswalk
       Q      State Reporting and Recordkeeping Checklist
       Q      Special Primacy Requirements
       Q      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 Figure 4-3. 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.  However, a
state may still receive primacy for the LT2ESWTR even if it has not yet revised its base  program to
comply with the new statutory requirements, provided that the state has received an extension to adopt
these requirements and that this extension period has not expired (as late as [insert date 4 years after rule
promulgation] with full extension).

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."
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          102                                November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
                          Table 4-2. State Primacy Revision Checklist
Required Program Elements
§ 141.2
§ I42.10(b)(6)(iii)
§ 142.10(b)(6)(iv)
§ 142.10(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 Consumer
Confidence Reports
Maintenance of records
Variance/exemption conditions (if
applicable)*
Emergency plans
Administrative Penalty Authority**
Revision to State
Program










EPA
Findings/Comments










* New regulations published in the August 14, 1998 Federal Register.
** New requirement from the 1996 Amendments. Regulations published in the April 28, 1998 Federal Register.

4.3.4  State Reporting and Recordkeeping Checklist [Proposed §142.14 and 142.15]

The state should use the Primacy Revision Crosswalk in Appendix A to demonstrate that state reporting
and recordkeeping requirements are consistent with federal requirements. If state requirements are not the
same as federal requirements, the state must explain how its requirements are "no less stringent" as per 40
CFR §142.10.

The Primacy Revision Crosswalk includes state reporting and recordkeeping requirements indicating that
the state must:

       •       Keep records of the results ofE. coli and Cryptosporidium monitoring.

       •       Keep records of the Cryptosporidium risk 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.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
103
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
               Keep a list of systems for which the state has waived the requirement to cover or treat the
               effluent of an uncovered finished water reservoir, along with supporting documentation
               of the risk mitigation plan.

               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 proposed
               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  [Proposed §142.16]

Section 4.4 provides guidance on how states may choose to meet the Special Primacy Requirements.

4.3.6  Attorney General's Statement  of Enforceability [Proposed §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 are enforceable (unless EPA has waived this
requirement by letter to the state).  The Attorney General's Statement should also certify that the state
does 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 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 Figure 4-5.

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,
(http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/planning/state/authorities.html) 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.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          104                                 November 2003

-------
                           Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
                      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)1 [or tribal ordinances of (4)1 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.
 Model Language

 I.      For States with No Audit Privilege and/or Immunity Laws

 Furthermore, I certify that [State/Commonwealth of (3)1 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, I certify that the environmental [audit privilege and/or immunity law] of the [State/Commonwealth
 of (3)1 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].
 III.     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)1 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)1 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
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           105                                   November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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:

        •       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.

               Determine that a system with an uncovered finished water reservoir has a risk mitigation
               plan that is adequate for purposes of waiving the requirement to cover the reservoir or
               treat the reservoir effluent.

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 the Draft
Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003).

4.4.1   Assessment of Significant Changes in Watershed and Source Water

Proposed §142.16 Special primacy requirements,  (n): Requirements for states to adopt proposed §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 proposed §141,  subpart W, must contain a description
of how the state will accomplish  the following program requirements where allowed in state programs. 1)
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 GWUDI systems that assess the condition
of eight primary water system components, including the source water (40 CFR 142.10(b)(2) and
142.16(b)). Proposed §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."

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 the 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 suggest that corrective measures be taken to address the source of
contamination.  Where this is not feasible or not successful, states may reclassify the system into a higher
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          106                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
treatment bin.  If a system is re-classified as the result of the sanitary survey, states must report the re-
classification to EPA (proposed §142.15).

This 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 of Public Water Systems; Surface  Water and Ground Water
Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI) (EPA 815-R-99-016, April 1999) and State Source Water
Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance, USEPA (EPA 816-R-97-009,. August 1997). The state
or state-approved surveyor, should 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., NPDES and 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 LT2ESWTRmust submit an annual report).
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          107                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Copies of relevant information should be taken along during the survey.  Potential changes in the
watershed or source water conditions that are identified 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 of Public
Water Systems; Surface Water and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI) (EPA 815-R-99-
016, April 1999) contains a more detailed list of equipment.

Evaluation During the Survey

Chapter 3 of the Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems; Surface
Water and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI) (EPA 815-R-99-016, April 1999)
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 the Draft Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Toolbox Guidance
Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) provides recommendations for implementing the watershed
sanitary survey required  by the proposed §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 vulnerability analysis by reviewing the applicability of the
               area of influence, potential and  existing sources of Cryptosporidium, monitoring
               locations and results, and the implementation of control measures.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          108                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
        •       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.

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 are 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 are 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 wastewater 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 are 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:


Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          109                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
        •       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 nonpoint discharge source activities (e.g. grazing, manure application,
               commercial or residential development).

        •       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 publically 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 Public Water Systems; Surface Water and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence
(GWUDI) (EPA 815-R-99-016, April 1999).

        "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 timeframe when the sanitary survey findings include significant
        deficiencies."

The Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems; Surface Water and
Ground Water Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI) (EPA 815-R-99-016, April 1999)  discusses all
aspects of sanitary surveys from survey preparation through follow-up compliance activities. In


Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          110                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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

1.      Draft Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Toolbox Guidance Manual.
       USEPA, 2003.  EPA815-D-03-009. (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/guides.httnn

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.
       (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/pdf/sansurv/sansurv.pdf)

3.      Watershed Sanitary Survey Guidance Manual.  Cal-Nevada Section A WWA, 1993.
       (http://www.ca-nv-awwa.org/)

4.      State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance. USEPA, 1997. EPA 816-
       R-97-009. (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/source/swpguid.htmn

4.4.2  Approval of Watershed Control Programs

Proposed §142.16 Special primacy requirements,  (n): Requirements for states to adopt proposed §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 proposed §141, subpart W, must contain a description
of how the state will accomplish  the follow ing program requirements where allowed in state programs.
2) Approve watershed control programs for the 0.5 log 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 Cryptosporidium 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 proposed §141.725(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, 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 schedule for plan implementation.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          111                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Systems must notify the state of their intent to develop a watershed control program. Notification must
occur within 1 year of completing source water monitoring requirements of proposed §141.702(b).
Systems must submit a proposed initial watershed control plan and a request for plan approval. The
proposal is due within 2 years of completing source water monitoring requirements of proposed
§141.702(b).  The state  may approve, reject, or conditionally approve the plan.

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 would 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 additional measures that will be
implemented to reduce source water contamination.  The description of the state's approach to this
approval process should include the elements of the review process as well as criteria for granting
approval.

Chapter 2 of the Draft Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) 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 Draft
Toolbox Guidance Manual) and evaluations of annual status reports. EPA is requesting comment and
recommendations regarding components that may be included in the checklist.  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 Draft  Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June  2003), states may utilize
the 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 website indicated below.

In late 2003, EPA also expects to release a Waterborne Microbial Disease Control Strategy.  Objectives of
the strategy are to address all important sources of contamination, anticipate emerging problems,  and use
program and research activities to unite the influences of both the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean
Water Act on microbial contamination of the nation's waters. A presentation titled, "Developing a
Strategy for Waterborne Microbial Disease Control," from the November 6, 2001, Waterborne Microbial
Disease Stakeholder Meeting is available at the Web site provided below.

References for more detailed guidance

1.     Draft Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Toolbox  Guidance Manual.
       USEPA, 2003.  EPA815-D-03-009. (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/guides.httnn
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          112                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
2.      EPA Watershed Initiative, as proposed in 67 FR 36172, January 15, 2002.
        (http://www.epa.gov/owowwtrl/watershed/initiative/background.html')

3.      Developing a Strategy for Waterborne Microbial Disease Control. USEPA, 2002.
        (http://www.epa.gov/ost/humanhealth/microbial/proceedings/strategv/)

4.4.3   Establishment of Protocols for Approving Removal Credits Under the
        Demonstration of Performance Toolbox Option

Proposed §142.16 Special primacy requirements,  (n): Requirements for states to adopt proposed §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 proposed §141, subpart W, must contain a description
of how the state will accomplish the follow ing program requirements where allowed in state programs. 3)
Approve protocols for treatment credits under the demonstration of performance toolbox option and for
alternative ozone and chlorine dioxide CT values.

Guidance

As discussed in detail in section 3.9.15, 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 proposed §141.720 and §§141.725 through 141.728 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).  Under the proposed §141.729, the rule allows systems to develop
alternative CT values using a state-approved protocol. Appendix A of the Draft Toolbox Guidance
Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) provides guidance for conducting Cryptosporidium inactivation
experiments and determining CT values.

Since demonstration of performance applies to physical removal processes at a treatment plant, systems
may not 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.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          113                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Additionally, some treatment options may enhance Cryptosporidium treatment while reducing the
effectiveness of other aspects of treatment. For example, optimizing the sedimentation process could
reduce removal by the filters, resulting in an overall removal equal to or less than 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.

As implied above, 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. The demonstration of performance process for microbial treatment is
discussed in Chapter 12 of the Draft Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003).
Chapter 12 discusses critical aspects of developing and administrating 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 at least 10,000 people must report the results of their demonstration of performance
testing to the primacy agency by [insert date 72 months after rule promulgation]. Systems serving less
than 10,000 people must report the results of their demonstration of performance testing to the primacy
agency by [insert date 102 months after rule promulgation]. 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.

References for more detailed guidance

Draft Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Toolbox Guidance Manual.  USEPA, 2003.
EPA815-D-03-009. (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/guides.htmn

4.4.4  Evaluation of Risk Mitigation Plans for Systems with Uncovered Finished
       Reservoirs

Proposed §142.16 Special primacy requirements, (n): Requirements for states to adopt proposed §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 proposed §141, subpart W, must contain a description
of how the state will accomplish the follow ing program requirements where allowed in state programs. 4)
Determine that a system with an uncovered finished water reservoir has a risk mitigation plan that is
adequate for purposes of waiving the requirement to cover the reservoir or treat the reservoir effluent

Guidance

EPA will develop guidance and a simple checklist for the Draft Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-
03-009, June 2003) that states may use to review systems' risk mitigation plans. EPA is requesting
comment and recommendations regarding components that may be included in the checklist.

In states that allow open finished water reservoirs, systems that do not cover an open reservoir or treat the
effluent are required to implement risk mitigation plans. Where applicable, the plans should account for
cultural uses by Indian tribes. As stated in section 3.13, systems must cover or treat uncovered finished
reservoirs or have a state-approved risk mitigation plan within 3 years following rule promulgation [insert
final rule date], with the possibility of a 2-year extension granted by states for systems making capital

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          114                                 November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
improvements.  Systems seeking approval for a risk mitigation plan must submit the plan to the state
within 2 years following rule promulgation [insert final rule date].

Although the reasons for covering reservoirs seem obvious, there may be some situations where an open
reservoir can be properly managed without a cover or additional treatment. In these situations, systems
should carefully evaluate options before making a final decision. All background information and
decisions and should be documented.  A complete list of operation and maintenance practices,
management policies, and standard operating procedures should be developed.  Water quality monitoring
and record keeping should be included.  Staff authority and responsibilities should be defined. Security
and emergency response plans should be addressed.  This information should be developed for each open
reservoir.

Many potential sources of contamination can lead to the degradation of water quality in uncovered
finished water reservoirs. These include surface water runoff, algal growth, insects and fish, animal
wastes, airborne deposition, groundwater infiltration, and human activity. In order to minimize
contamination, systems may implement various controls such as liners, regular draining and
washing/disinfection, security equipment, increased water quality monitoring, regular inspections, animal
and insect control programs, and drainage design to prevent surface runoff from entering the facility.

A critical component of open reservoir management is animal and insect control.  Contamination of open
reservoirs  has been frequently associated with birds. Although waterfowl species are obvious suspects,
non-waterfowl species have also been associated with reservoir contamination. Fish have even been
found in open reservoirs.  Fencing, bird deterrent wires, noisemakers, regular inspections and cleaning,
and animal control ordinances are all commonly used.  Seasonal spraying of nearby vegetation for insect
control may  be appropriate under some circumstances, but should obviously be practiced when risks from
aerosol drift are minimal.

Control of unauthorized access by humans is also important.  Such access can result in unintentional or
intentional contamination.  Intentional contamination includes swimming, discarded trash, terrorism (e.g.,
intentional contamination by introducing a biological or chemical agent), or other wastes.  Unintentional
contamination includes drift of aerosols, such as pesticides. Fencing, security cameras and lighting,
ordinances, and public education are all possible deterrents.

Algae can thrive in open reservoirs without adequate control. Algae can cause taste and odor problems
and can also be a precursor to DBF formation where a free  chlorine residual is present in the finished
water. Common control measures include the addition of water-safe chemicals (e.g. copper sulfate,
chlorine dioxide, periodic higher doses office chlorine, and draining and cleaning).

Groundwater intrusion can also be a problem in uncovered (or covered) reservoirs.  Liners are often
provided for reservoirs where intrusion is a threat.

Systems may consult the EPA's  Uncovered Finished Water Reservoir Guidance Manual (EPA 815-R-99-
011, 1999) for more detail on the various options.

References for more detailed guidance

Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs Guidance Manual.  USEPA, 1999. EPA 815-R-99-011.
(http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/implement.html)
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          115                                  November 2003

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
Section 5	
SDWIS Reporting and SNC
Definitions

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
5.1 Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Reporting Under the
LT2ESWTR

SDWIS/FED (Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal version) is EPA's national database of
routine information about the nation's drinking water. Designed to replace the system known as FRDS
(Federal Reporting Data System), SDWIS/FED stores the information EPA needs to monitor
approximately 175,000 PWSs.

States supervise drinking water systems within their jurisdictions to ensure that each PWS meets state and
EPA standards for safe drinking water. The SDWA requires states to report drinking water information
periodically to EPA. This information is maintained in SDWIS/FED.

States report the following information to EPA:

       •      Basic information on each water system, including: name, ID number, number of people
              served, type of system (year-round or seasonal), and source of water (ground water or
              surface water).

       •      Violation information for each water system: whether it has followed established
              monitoring and reporting schedules, complied with mandated treatment techniques, or
              violated any MCLs.

       •      Enforcement information: what actions states have taken to ensure that drinking water
              systems return to compliance if they are in violation  of a drinking water regulation.

              Sampling results for unregulated contaminants and for regulated contaminants when the
              monitoring results exceed the MCL.

EPA uses this information to determine if and when it needs to take action against non-compliant
systems, oversee state drinking water programs, track contaminant levels, respond to public inquiries, and
prepare national reports. EPA also uses this information to evaluate the effectiveness of its programs and
regulations and to determine whether new regulations are needed to further protect public health.

5.1.1  Federally Reported Violations

Under SDWIS/FED reporting, states only report when violations occur.  In the interest of reducing the
reporting burden on states, EPA has limited the number and type of violations to be reported to
SDWIS/FED. However, PWSs must still keep records and report all required information to the state.
Any violation, whether included in the accompanying table  or not, is a basis for a state or federal
enforcement action.

Table 5.1 summarizes the violation and contaminant codes that will be used to report violations of the
LT2ESWTRto SDWIS/FED.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          119                                November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
          Table 5-1.  SDWIS/FED Codes for Federal Reporting Under the LT2ESWTR
Violation
Code
07
07
07
07

03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03

09
09
Contaminant
Code
LT2E
LT2E
LT2E
LT2E

LT2E
LT2E
LT2E
LT2E
LT2E
LT2E
LT2E
LT2E
LT2E

LT2E
LT2E
TT Violations
Failure to cover or treat the effluent from an uncovered finished water reservoir
or implement a state -approved risk-mitigation plan
Failure to receive approval from the state before making a significant change in
disinfection practice
Failure to provide the level of treatment appropriate for the system's bin
classification
Failure of unfiltered systems to meet TT requirements
Monitoring and Reporting (M&R) Violations
Failure to conduct source water monitoring (initial or second round)
Failure to submit a sampling schedule
Failure to collect samples in accordance with sampling schedule
Failure to use required analytical methods
Failure to use an approved laboratory
Failure to report results of source water monitoring (initial or second round)
Failure to conduct disinfection profiling
Failure to report information to determine if a system must create disinfection
Failure to report information about toolbox components
Recordkeeping Violations
Failure to maintain disinfection profiles
Failure to maintain source water monitoring and bin classification (initial or
second round)
Table 5.2 contains the federally reportable violations for the LT2ESWTR in more detail.  These violations
are listed by contaminant or requirement and violation type. The table includes the SDWIS/FED
reporting codes, the regulatory citation, system type affected, a detailed description of the violation, and
the initial compliance date.  This table will allow a user to better understand violations listed in SDWIS.
For more information on how to report LT2ESWTR violations to SDWIS, please refer to the
Appendix D.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
120
November 2003

-------
                                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
                                         Table 5-2. Federal Reporting for LT2ESWTR
SDWIS
Reporting
Code
1
Regulated
Contaminant/
Requirement
2
Citation
3
Violation
Type
4
System Size and
Type Affected
5
Violation
6
Initial Compliance Date
7
Treatment Technique Violation
07/LT2E




07/LT2E







07/LT2E









Uncovered
Finished Water
Reservoirs


Significant
Change in
Disinfection





Treatment Based
on Bin
Classification







proposed
§141.724



proposed
§141.714






proposed
§141.720








TT




TT







TT









All Subpart H systems
with uncovered
finished water
reservoirs.

All Subpart H systems
required to prepare a
disinfection profile
under proposed
§14 1.7 11 that seek to
make a significant
change to their
disinfection practice.
All Subpart H systems
that have a bin
classification of 2, 3,
or 4, or that have not
determined their bin
classification and do
not have at least 5.5
log of
Cryptosporidium
treatment in place.
Failure to meet one of the
three criteria in proposed
§141.724(a) regarding
uncovered finished water
reservoirs.
Making a significant
change in disinfection
practice without state
approval.




Failure to provide the
level of treatment
appropriate for the
system's bin
classification and existing
treatment.




36 months after the promulgation
oftheLT2ESWTR.



Day on which significant change is
made or the state learns about the
construction.





According to compliance schedule
in proposed §141.701(e) for initial
round of source water monitoring
and in proposed § 141 .XXX for the
second round of source water
monitoring.




Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
121
November 2003

-------
                                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
SDWIS
Reporting
Code
1
07/LT2E





Regulated
Contaminant/
Requirement
2
Treatment for
Unfiltered
System



Citation
3
proposed
§141.721




Violation
Type
4
TT





System Size and
Type Affected
5
All Subpart H systems
that do not filter and
meet the criteria for
avoidance of filtration
under 40 CFR 141.71.

Violation
6
Failure of unfiltered
system to provide
treatment in accordance
with proposed §14 1.721.


Initial Compliance Date
7
According to compliance schedule
in proposed §141.701(e) for initial
round of source water monitoring
and in proposed § 141 .XXX for the
second round of source water
monitoring.
Monitoring and Reporting Violations
03/LT2E








03/LT2E







03/LT2E



Source Water
Testing and
Characterization






Submitting
Sampling
Schedule





Following
Sampling
Schedule

proposed
§141.702







proposed
§141.703(a)






proposed
§141.703(b)-(d)


M&R








M&R







M&R



All Subpart H systems
that do not provide a
total of 5.5 log
treatment for
Cryptosporidium
before the date they
are required to begin
source water
monitoring.
All Subpart H systems
required to conduct
source water
monitoring.




All Subpart H systems
required to conduct
source water
monitoring.
Failure to conduct source
water testing (either
initial or second round)
and characterize source
water as specified in the
relevant portion of
proposed §141.701 and
proposed §14 1.702.

Failure to submit a
sampling schedule that
specifies the calendar
dates that all samples
(initial and second round)
required under proposed
§141.701-702 will be
taken.
Failure to collect a
sample within 2 days of
the date indicated in
sampling schedule.
According to compliance
schedules in proposed §141.703(e)
and proposed §141.702(d).






3 months before system is required
to begin source water monitoring
(initial or second round).





2 days after when the system was
supposed to collect sample.


Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
122
November 2003

-------
                                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
SDWIS
Reporting
Code
1
03/LT2E
03/LT2E
03/LT2E
03/LT2E
03/LT2E
Regulated
Contaminant/
Requirement
2
Sampling
Location
Analytical
Methods
Approved
Laboratory
Reporting
Source Water
Information
Bin
Classification
Citation
3
proposed
§141.704
proposed
§141.705
proposed
§141.706
proposed
§141.707
proposed
§141.709
Violation
Type
4
M&R
M&R
M&R
M&R
M&R
System Size and
Type Affected
5
All Subpart H systems
required to conduct
source water
monitoring.
All Subpart H systems
required to conduct
source water
monitoring.
All Subpart H systems
required to conduct
source water
monitoring.
All Subpart H systems
required to conduct
source water
monitoring.
All Subpart H systems
required to conduct
source water
monitoring.
Violation
6
Failure to sample at
required location.
Failure to use required
methods to analyze
source water samples.
Failure to use approved
laboratory to analyze
source water samples.
Failure to report source
water monitoring
information as required
by proposed §14 1.707.
Failure to properly
calculate and specify
Cryptosporidium bin
classification (initial and
second round).
Initial Compliance Date
7
Violations reported based on
system's sampling schedule.
2 days after when the system was
supposed to collect sample.
Violations reported based on
system's sampling schedule.
10 days after the end of the first
month following the month the
sample was taken.
According to compliance schedule
in proposed §141.730(c) forthe
initial round of source water
monitoring and according to
proposed § 141 .XXX for the
second round of source water
monitoring.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
123
November 2003

-------
                                           Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
SDWIS
Reporting
Code
1
03/LT2E













03/LT2E






03/LT2E




Regulated
Contaminant/
Requirement
2
Disinfection
Profiling












Toolbox
Component
Installation and
Operation



Submitting
Reports for
Disinfection
Profile

Citation
3
proposed
§141.713












proposed
§141.730(e)





proposed
§141.711
proposed
§141.712(a)

Violation
Type
4
M&R













M&R






M&R




System Size and
Type Affected
5
All Subpart H systems
that do not have at
least 5.5 log of
Crypto sporidium
treatment in place by
the applicable date in
proposed §141.701(e)
or small systems that
have to monitor for
Crypto sporidium,
have a TTHM LRAA
of >0.064mg/L, or
HAA5 LRAA of
>0.048 mg/L.
All Subpart H systems
required to provide
additional treatment
under proposed
§141.720.


All Subpart H systems
serving <10,000
people that are not
required to monitor
for Crypto sporidium.
Violation
6
Failure to develop
Giardia and virus
disinfection profiles in
accordance with
requirements of proposed
§141.713.








Failure to provide
information regarding
proper installation and
operation of toolbox
components (as specified
in proposed §141.725-
141.729).
Failure to submit reports
necessary to determine if
system is or is not
required to develop
disinfection profile.
Initial Compliance Date
7
According to compliance schedule
in proposed §141.712(a).












According to compliance schedule
in proposed §141. 730(e).





42 months after promulgation of
the LT2ESWTR.



Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
124
November 2003

-------
                                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
SDWIS
Reporting
Code
1
Regulated
Contaminant/
Requirement
2
Citation
3
Violation
Type
4
System Size and
Type Affected
5
Violation
6
Initial Compliance Date
7
Recordkeeping Violations
09/LT2E
09/LT2E
Maintaining
Disinfection
Profiles
Maintaining
Monitoring/Bin
Characterization
Results
proposed
§141.713(d)
proposed
§141.731(c)
proposed
§141.731(a)
Record-
keeping
Record-
keeping
All Subpart H systems
required to conduct
Gyptosporidium
monitoring under
proposed §141. 73 l(c).
All Subpart H systems
required to conduct
source water
monitoring under
proposed §141. 73 l(a).
Failure to maintain
Giardia and virus
disinfection profiles on
file for state review
during sanitary surveys.
Failure to keep
monitoring and bin
characterization results
for 36 months after the
completion of source
water monitoring.
When system discards profile or
state becomes aware the profiles
have been discarded.
When system discards information
or state becomes aware the
information has been discarded.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
125
November 2003

-------
                        Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
5.2 LT2ESWTR - SNC Definition
Draft SNC Definitions for the LT2ESWTR

Significant non-compliers (SNCs) are CWSs, NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs that have more serious, frequent,
or persistent violations. The criteria that designate a system as a SNC vary by contaminant.  Once a
system is designated as a SNC, it is subject to EPA's timely and appropriate policy.  SNCs that have not
returned to compliance or are not addressed timely and appropriately are called Exceptions.  Timeliness
for SNCs is 8 months after the system became a SNC (2 months for the state to determine and become
aware of the system's SNC status and 6 months in which to complete the follow-up/enforcement action).
The types of actions considered appropriate include the issuance of a formal state or federal
administrative or compliance order, a civil or criminal referral to the state's Attorney General or
Department of Justice, or a state bilateral compliance agreement signed by both the state and the violator.
The following are SNC definitions for the LT2ESWTR.

NOTE: SNC definitions for the SWTR continue to remain in effect.

[SNC definitions under development by OECA.]

5.3 LT2ESWTR Data Entry Instructions

EPA is developing a draft reporting guidance manual for the LT2ESWTR.  This manual will include
examples and instruction on determining proper violations and violation codes for the requirements of the
LT2ESWTR and will be included in Appendix D.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          126                                November 2003

-------
Section 6
Public Notification and
Consumer Confidence Report
Examples

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. 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 proposed §141.  The examples in this section are adapted from examples in Appendix D.
For more information on SDWIS reporting, refer to this draft manual and the examples contained therein.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          129                                November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Example 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 January 1, 200X [insert date 36 months after rule promulgation], System A submits plans to the state
detailing how and when it plans to cover its two uncovered finished water reservoirs.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report 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 within 36 months of LT2ESWTR's promulgation (i.e., by January 1,
200X [insert date 36 months after rule promulgation]).  The system could have chosen instead to treat the
discharge from its uncovered finished water reservoirs to achieve 4-log virus inactivation or to implement
a state-approved risk-mitigation plan.  However, since System A failed to implement any of the above
options with regard to its finished water reservoirs within 36 months of LT2ESWTR's promulgation, the
system is in violation of the LT2ESWTR. System A met the requirements by covering its two uncovered
finished reservoirs on January 27, 200X+1 [insert date 48 months following rule promulgation], at which
time the system returned to compliance with the LT2ESWTR. This is a treatment technique (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. The system was aware of the violation on January 1, 200X [insert date 36 months after rule
promulgation]. Repeat public notification is required in this instance since the violation was not resolved
until January 27, 200X+1 [insert date 48 months following rule promulgation].

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6-1.

All treatment technique violations must also be included in the 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.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          130                                 November 2003

-------
                           Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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 Take Action on Uncovered Finished Water Reservoir

     Our water system recently violated a standard that requires all finished water reservoirs to be covered.
     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 covered all uncovered finished water reservoir by January 1, 200X [insert date 36
     months after rule promulgation].  However, we have not yet covered our finished water reservoir.

     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.
     An uncovered reservoir used to store treated water is susceptible to contamination from animals, such as
     birds. 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 developing plans  to cover our uncovered finished water storage reservoirs. We expect to have the
     reservoirs covered by the end of January 200X+1 [insert date 48 months following rule promulgation]. 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 by 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: 1/15/200X [insert date 36 months after rule promulgation]
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           131                                   November 2003

-------
                           Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
  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 lamblia,
Heterotrophic plate
count bacteria,
Legionella,
Crypto sporidium


MCL/
MRDL/
TT
TT






MCLG
0






Value







Date
1/1/200X
[insert
date 36
months
after rule
promulga
tion]
Violation
Yes*






Source
Sewage treatment
plants, septic
systems, agricultural
livestock operations,
and wildlife.


     * System A incurred a treatment technique violation for failing to cover its uncovered finished water storage
     reservoirs by January 1, 200X [insert date 36 months after rule promulgation].  More information about this
     violation is provided in the violation section.


                                               Violation

         On January 1, 200X [insert date 36 months after rule promulgation] we realized we had failed to comply
         with a requirement to cover our uncovered finished water storage reservoirs. The standard is that all
         uncovered finished water storage reservoirs must be covered by January 1, 200X [insert date 36 months
         after rule promulgation].

         An uncovered reservoir used to store treated water is susceptible to contamination from animals, such as
         birds. Inadequately treated water or contaminated water that has been treated may contain disease-
         causing organisms. These organisms include bacteria, viruses, and parasites which can cause symptoms
         such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated headaches.

         This situation was resolved when we installed covers on the reservoirs on January 27, 200X+1 [insert
         date 48 months following rule promulgation].
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
132
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Example 2: Failure to Receive Approval 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 40 CFR 141.2 and chlorinates its water. System B created a disinfection
profile under proposed §141.711.

Situation

On January 1, 200X [insert date 48 months after rule promulgation], System B submits a plan to the state
detailing modifications to its disinfection process that include using ultraviolet (UV) as its primary
disinfectant. The plan contains all the elements described in proposed §141.714(a)(6). A month later,
without receiving approval of the plan from the state, contractors for System B begin construction
necessary to implement the plan.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

Although System B appropriately prepared the necessary significant disinfection practice modification
plan and submitted it to the state by January 1, 200X [insert date 48 months after rule promulgation], it
has committed a TT violation as a result of the system's initiation of construction of significant treatment
process modifications without receiving approval from the state. The state approved System B's plans on
March 1, 200X [insert date 50 months after rule promulgation], returning the system to compliance. This
is a treatment technique (TT) violation and requires Tier 3 public 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 community water system, it could use the CCRto inform the public of the Tier 3
violations 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 violations on February 1, 200X [insert date 48 months after rule
promulgation].  The public could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced for calendar
year 200X-1 if the CCR is released prior to February 1, 200X+1 (the CCR for calendar year 200X-1 is
required to be released by July 1, 200X, for compliance with the CCR Rule). In this situation, additional
public notification would not be required. However, whether public notification is provided by the  CCR
for calendar year 200X-1 or by other means, this violation would still have to be reported by the system in
the CCR produced for calendar year 200X, 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.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          133                                 November 2003

-------
                           Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
 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 in Disinfection Practice

     Our water system recently failed to wait for approval from the state prior to 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, 200X [insert date 48 months after rule promulgation] we submitted to the state, specific
     information on proposed changes to our disinfection practices, including a description of the proposed
     change to our disinfection practices, specific disinfection records, and an analysis of how the proposed
     change would affect the levels of disinfection in our system.  However we were required to wait for approval
     from the state before making any changes to our disinfection practices. On February 1, 200X, our
     contractors began construction necessary to implement the plan before approval was received from the state.

     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.
     A change to our disinfection practices without state approval may have impacted our water. 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 were not aware of any health effects on you, our customer, as a result of this modification.

     What is being done?
     The state approved our plans on March 1, 200X [insert date 50 months after rule promulgation]. All
     proposed changes have been implemented.
     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# GA1234582.  Sent: 3/20/200X [insert date 48 months  after rule promulgation]
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           134                                   November 2003

-------
                           Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
  Example 6-4.  Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Receive Approval Before Making a
                             Significant Change in Disinfection Practice
                                         Water Quality Data
Contaminant
Giardia lamblia,
Heterotrophic plate
count bacteria,
Legionella,
Crypto sporidium


MCL/
MRDL/
TT
TT






MCLG







Value







Date
2/1/200X
[insert
date 48
months
after rule
promulga
tion]
Violation
Yes*






Source
Sewage treatment
plants, septic
systems, agricultural
livestock operations,
and wildlife.


      * System B incurred a treatment technique violation for failing to receive approval before making a
      significant change to their disinfection practice. More information about this violation is provided in the
      violation section.


                                               Violation

         On January 1, 200X [insert date 48 months after rule promulgation] we submitted to the state, specific
         information on proposed changes to our disinfection practices, including a description of the proposed
         change to our disinfection practices, specific disinfection records, and an analysis of how the proposed
         change would affect the levels of disinfection in our system.  However we were required to wait for
         approval from the state before making any changes to our disinfection practices. On February 1,200X,
         our contractors began construction necessary to implement the plan before approval was received from
         the state.
         A change to our disinfection practices without state  approval may have impacted our water.
         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.

         We received approval for the changes to our disinfection practices on March 1, 200X [insert date 50
         months after rule promulgation].  This violation is now resolved.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
135
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Example 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 GWUDI and serving 7,500 people.  It currently uses a
conventional filtration treatment plant as defined in 40 CFR 141.2 and uses chlorine gas as its primary
disinfectant.

Situation

After System C finishes conducting 12 months of source water monitoring for its initial round on March
1, 200X [insert date 42 months after rule promulgation], 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 log of Cryptosporidium treatment. System C chooses to install UV disinfection to achieve
the necessary treatment credits. Since UV will meet Giardia and Cryptosporidium requirements, System
C will decrease the amount of chlorine. 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 March 1, 200X+3.5 [insert date 84 months after rule promulgation], System C
installs and begins operating UV disinfection applied as the last step of treatment. Since this treatment is
operational before March 1, 200X+5 [within 102 months after promulgation], System C is in compliance
with the TT requirement of proposed of proposed §141.720.

After conducting a second round of source water monitoring, System C determines that its new
Cryptosporidium bin concentration is 1.1 oocysts/L, moving System C from bin 2 to bin 3. System C,
however, provides no additional treatment for Cryptosporidium.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System C has committed a TT violation. As  a result of the  second round of source water monitoring,
System C was  re-classified into bin 3. Therefore it needed to install an additional 1 log treatment for
Cryptosporidium in order to meet the 2 log removal requirement (it was already receiving one-log credit
for its UV disinfection).  System C must install and have additional treatment operating that equals 1 log
of Cryptosporidium removal by 200X+X [insert date XX months after rule promulgation]. This is a
treatment technique (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. The system was aware of the violation on January 1, 200X+X  [insert date
XX months after rule promulgation]. Repeat public notification is required in this instance since the
violation was not resolved until January 27, 200Y  [insert date 12 months after 200X+X].

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6-5.

All treatment technique violations must also be included in the 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.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          136                                 November 2003

-------
                           Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
  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 Level of Treatment Appropriate for Bin Classification

     Our water system failed to provide the level of treatment appropriate for our system's treatment classification
     until January 27, 200Y [insert date 12 months after 200X+X]. 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 200X+X [insert date XX months after rule promulgation].

     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 developing plans to install additional treatment that provides additional Cryptosporidium inactivation
     or removal.  We expect to  have the additional treatment installed by 200Y [insert date 12 months after
     200X+X].
     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 ID# GA1234582.  Sent: 200X+X [insert date XX months after rule promulgation].
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           137                                   November 2003

-------
                           Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
    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


200X+X
[insert
date XX
months
after rule
promulga
tion].
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 are required to install and have additional treatment operating to provide additional
        Cryptosporidium removal by 200X+X [insert date XX months after rule promulgation].

         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.
DraftLT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance
138
November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Example 4: Failure to Conduct Source Water Monitoring (Initial or Second Round) and Report the
Results

System Description - System E

System E 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 no later than [insert date 30 months
after rule promulgation]. These systems are triggered into Cryptosporidium monitoring only if the initial
E. coli monitoring indicates a mean concentration greater than 10 E. coli I'100 mL for systems using a
reservoir or lake as their primary source. The small systems that exceed these E. coli trigger values must
conduct 1 year of twice-per-month Cryptosporidium sampling beginning [insert date 48 months after rule
promulgation].

Situation

System E begins conducting E. coli monitoring on January 1, 200X [insert date 30 months after rule
promulgation].  Based on the results of that monitoring,  System E determines that its annual mean E. coli
concentration is 31 E. coli/WO mL. System E does not conduct any further source water monitoring.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System E has committed a monitoring and reporting (M&R) violation.  Based on the annual mean
concentration ofE. coli determined by the initial source  water monitoring (31 E. coli I'100 mL is greater
than WE. coli/WO mL), System E is required to begin source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium at
least twice each month no later than January 1, 200Y [insert date 48 months after rule promulgation]. Not
doing so is an M&R violation and leads to the classification of the system into  bin 4. This is an M&R
violation and the system must provide Tier 3 public notice 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 community water system, it could use the CCRto 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 violations on February 10, 200Y [insert date 49
months after rule promulgation]. The public could therefore be informed of the violation in  the  CCR
produced for calendar year 200Y-1 if the CCR is released prior to February 10, 200Y+1 (the CCR for
calendar year 200Y-l is required to be released by July 1, 200Y, for compliance with the CCR Rule). In
this situation, additional public notification would not be required. However, whether public notification
is provided by the CCR for calendar year 200Y-l or by other means, this violation would still have to be
reported by the system in the CCR produced for calendar year 200Y, 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 6-7. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown  in Example 6-8.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          139                                 November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Example 6-7.  Example Tier 3 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 E

     Our water system recently failed to conduct additional source water monitoring as required, leading to a
     violation that began on January 1, 200Y [insert date 48 months after rule promulgation]. 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. 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 February 10, 200Y [insert date 49 months after rule promulgation] we began collecting the required
     source water monitoring samples.

     For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System E, at 555-1234 or write to 2600
     Winding Rd., Townsville, SA  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 E.
       State Water System ID# GA1234589. Sent: April 20,  200Y [insert date 51 months after rule promulgation]
  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 twice each month no later than
         January 1, 200Y [insert date 48 months after rule promulgation].
         On February 10, 200Y [insert date 49 months after rule promulgation] we began collecting the required
         source water monitoring samples.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          140                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Example 5: Failure to Submit a Source Water Monitoring Schedule 3 Months Prior to Date System
is Required to Begin Monitoring

System Description - System F

System F is an unfiltered Subpart H system serving 2,500 people that meets all the criteria for avoiding
filtration found in 40 CFR 141.71.

Situation

System F submits a sampling schedule to the state for the initial round of source water monitoring
January 1, 200X [insert date 45 months after rule promulgation], however, it forgets about the second
round of source water monitoring that is required and does not submit a sampling schedule. On February
1, 200Z [insert date 155 months after rule promulgation], 1 month before System F is required to begin
the second round of source water monitoring, a neighboring water system reminds System F that it is
required to conduct a second round of source water monitoring.  System F develops a sampling schedule
and fulfills its source water monitoring and reporting requirements in accordance with the schedule in
proposed § 141.702(d)(3).

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System F 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 October 1, 200Y [insert date within 153  months after
rule promulgation] (i.e., 3 months before the second round of source water monitoring), even though it
conducted 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 F is a community water system, it could use the CCRto 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 violations on February 1, 200Z [insert date 155
months after rule promulgation]. The public could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR
produced for calendar year 200Z-1 if the CCR is released prior to February 1, 200Z+1 (the CCR for
calendar year 200Z-1 is required to be released by July 1, 200Z, for compliance with the CCR Rule). In
this situation, additional public notification would not be required. However, whether public notification
is provided by the CCR for calendar year 200Z-1 or by other means, this violation would still have to be
reported by the system in the CCR produced for calendar year 200Z, 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.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          141                                 November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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 F

     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 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.  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 February 1, 200Z [insert date 155  months after rule promulgation] 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 F, at 555-1234 or write to 2600
     Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 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# GA1234589. Sent: March 20, 200Z [insert date 155 months after rule promulgation]
 Example 6-10.  Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Conduct Source Water Monitoring
                         (Initial or Second Round) and Report the Results
                                             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 February 1, 200Z [insert date 155 months after rule promulgation] 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.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          142                                   November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Example 6: Failure to Collect Samples in Accordance with Sampling Schedule

System Description - System G

System G is a small Subpart H system serving 9,000 people.

Situation

System G has two qualified operators. While System G is conducting its required source water
monitoring for E. coll, the operator that usually collects the bi-weekly E. coll sample goes on vacation for
1 month. System G'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 on his/her own.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System G has committed an M&R violation for failing  to sample within 2 days of the scheduled date,
March 1, 200X [insert date 30 months after rule promulgation].  Proposed §141.703(c) 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 does
not satisfy any of the requirements of proposed §141.703(c). 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 G is a community water system, it could  use the CCRto  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 violations on March 15, 200X [insert date 30 months
after rule promulgation].  The public could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced
for calendar year 200X-1 if the CCR is released prior to March 15, 200X+1 (the CCR for calendar year
200X-1 is required to be released by July 1, 200X, for compliance with the CCR Rule). In this situation,
additional public notification would not be required. However, whether public notification is provided by
the CCR for calendar year 200X-1 or by other means, this violation would still have to be reported by the
system in the CCR produced for calendar year 200X, 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.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          143                                 November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
  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 G

     Our system failed to collect samples in accordance with our sampling schedule. Our system is required to
     collect bi-weekly source water samples. On March 1, 200X [insert date 30 months after rule promulgation]
     we failed to take a sample. 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. 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 March 15, 200X [insert date 30 months after rule promulgation] we returned to having a full staff of
     operators and all required samples have been collected since then.  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, SA 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 G.
         State Water System ID# GA1234589. Sent: June 8, 200X [insert date 30 months after rule promulgation]
 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 samples in accordance with our sampling schedule. Our system is required to
         collect bi-weekly source water samples. Since we failed to take a sample on March 1, 200X [insert date
         30 months after rule promulgation], our results are unknown and, therefore, any potential health effects
         related to the use of that water are also unknown.
         On March 15, 200X [insert date 30 months after rule promulgation] we returned to having a full staff of
         operators and all required samples have been collected since then. This situation is now resolved.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           144                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Example 7: Failure to Sample at an Appropriate Location

System Description - System H

System H is a large Subpart H system serving 15,000 people.  System H uses bank filtration to meet the
requirement of 40 CFR 141.173(b).

Situation

On May 1, 200Y [insert date 7 months after rule promulgation], System H begins to conduct monitoring
for Cryptosporidium. System H collects its first five samples from the well, after bank filtration.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System H has committed an M&R violation.  Systems using bank filtration as an alternative filtration to
meet the Giardia lamblia and viruses inactivation and Cryptosporidium removal requirements of 40 CFR
141.173(b)  or 141.552(a) must take surface water samples. Only unfiltered GWUDI systems meeting the
filtration avoidance criteria in 40 CFR 141.71 and bank filtered systems that provide additional 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 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 H is a community water system, it could use the CCRto 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 violations on April 10, 200X [insert date 6 months
after rule promulgation].  The public could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced
for calendar year 200X-1 if the CCR is released prior to April 10, 200X+1 (the CCR for calendar year
200X-1 is required to be released by July 1, 200X, for compliance with the CCR Rule). In this situation,
additional public notification would not be required. However, whether public notification is provided by
the CCR for calendar year 200X-1 or by other means, this violation would still have to be reported by the
system in the CCR produced for calendar year 200X, 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.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          145                                 November 2003

-------
                           Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
    Example 6-13. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Sample at an Appropriate
                                              Location
                IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                    Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System H

     Our system failed to collect 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 May 1, 200Y [insert date 7 months after rule promulgation], we began to conduct
     monitoring for Cryptosporidium, however the first five samples collected were collected at the wrong
     location in the system.  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. 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 July 15, 200Z [insert date 9 months after rule promulgation] it was identified that 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 H, at 555-1234 or write to 2600
     Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 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 H.
         State Water System ID# GA1234589. Sent: July 25, 200Z [insert  date 9 months after rule promulgation]
 Example 6-14.  Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Sample at an Appropriate Location
                                              Violation

         We failed to collect samples at the appropriate location in our system. Our system uses bank filtration to
         meet the Giardia lamblia and viruses inactivation and Cryptosporidium removal requirements and must
         take surface water samples.  On May 1, 200Y [insert date 7 months after rule promulgation], we began
         to conduct monitoring for Cryptosporidium, however the first five samples collected were collected at
         the wrong location in the system.

         On July 15, 200Z [insert date 9 months after rule promulgation] it was identified that 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.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           146                                   November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Example 8: Failure to Use an Approved Laboratory or Approved Analytical Method

System Description - System I

System I is a large Subpart H system serving 50,000 people.  System I has its own on-site laboratory that
has been approved by the state for Cryptosporidium, E. coll, and turbidity analysis.

Situation

System I usually collects its monthly E. coll sample on the last Wednesday afternoon of the month and
analyzes it the following morning.  Overnight the sample is kept at 5°C.  During the month of July,
however, the operator who usually analyzes the samples was sick on the Thursday following the E. coll
sample's collection. When the operator returned to work on Friday, the sample was analyzed for E.  coll.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

Although the E. coll sample was kept between 0°C and 5°C, System I has committed an M&R violation
because the sample was not analyzed within 24 hours of its collection. The E. coll sample is invalid
because the holding time was longer than 24 hours, the maximum holding time allowed by the
LT2ESWTR.  The system collects and analyzes another sample on August 26, 200X.  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 I is a community water system, it could use the CCRto 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 violations on August 1, 200X.  The public could
therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced for calendar year 200X if the CCR is released
prior to August 1, 200X+1. In this situation, additional public notification would not be required.
However,  whether public notification is provided by the CCR for calendar year 200X or by other means,
this violation would still have to be reported by the system in the CCR produced for calendar year 200X,
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 6-15. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-16.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          147                                November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
 Example 6-15.  Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Use an Approved Laboratory or
                                   Approved Analytical Method
                IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                    Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System I

     Our system failed to use an approved laboratory or approved analytical method.  In July, a water sample was
     collected and analyzed for E. coli, however it was not analyzed within 24 hours of being collected as
     required. 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. 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 August 26, 200X we collected and analyzed all required samples. This situation is now resolved.
     For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System I, at 555-1234 or write to 2600
     Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 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 I.
                                           State Water System ID# GA1234589.  Sent: September 5, 200X
   Example 6-16. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Use an Approved Laboratory or
                                   Approved Analytical Method
                                             Violation

         We failed to use an approved laboratory or approved analytical method.  In July, a water sample was
         collected and analyzed for E. coli, however it was not analyzed within 24 hours of being collected as
         required.

         On August 26, 200X we collected and analyzed all required samples. This situation is now resolved.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          148                                   November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Example 9: Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus Disinfection Profiles

System Description - System K

System K is a small GWUDI system serving 4,500 people.

Situation

Based on the results of its E. coll monitoring, System K was required to conduct source water monitoring
for Cryptosporidium. However, System K's LRAA for TTHM was less than 0.064 mg/L at every
monitoring site, and its LRAA for HAAS was less than 0.048 mg/L at every monitoring site. Based on
these DBF averages, System K determined that it did not need to conduct disinfection profiling.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System K has committed an M&R violation. While its DBF levels are below the disinfection profiling
triggers, the system is required to conduct source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium.  Systems
serving fewer than 10,000 people are required to create a disinfection profile under the LT2ESWTRby
July 1, 200X [insert date 66 months after rule promulgation] if they are required to conduct source water
monitoring for Cryptosporidium and have not developed a disinfection profile under the LT1ESWTR, or
if their LRAAs exceed specified values for TTHM and HAAS. System K developed its disinfection
profile and submitted it to the state on October 31,  200X, returning the system to compliance. 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 K is a community water system, it could use the CCRto 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 violations on September 1, 200X. The public could
therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced for calendar year 200X if the CCR is released
prior to September  1, 200X+1. In this situation, additional public notification would not be required.
However, whether public notification is provided by the CCR for calendar year 200X  or by other means,
this violation would still have to be reported by the system in the CCR produced for calendar year 200X,
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 6-17. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-18.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          149                                November 2003

-------
                           Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
    Example 6-17.  Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus
                                        Disinfection Profiles
                IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                    Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System K

     Our system failed to conduct an analysis of our disinfection practice (profile) and submit the report to the
     state.  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. 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 October 31, 200X  [insert date 69 months after rule promulgation] we submitted our disinfection profile to
     the state. This situation is now resolved.
     For more information, please contact John Johnson,  manager of System K, at 555-1234 or write to 2600
     Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 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 K.
    State Water System ID# GA1234589. Sent: November 1, 200X [insert date 70 months after rule promulgation]
      Example 6-18. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus
                                        Disinfection Profiles
                                              Violation

         Our system failed to conduct an analysis of our disinfection practice (profile) and submit the report to the
         state.
         On October 31, 200X [insert date 69 months after rule promulgation] we submitted our disinfection
         profile to the state. This situation is now resolved.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           150                                   November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Example 10: Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus Disinfection Profiles

System Description - System L

System L is a small Subpart H system serving 3,000 people. Recently System L, with approval from the
state, moved its point of disinfection and began applying chlorine after the sedimentation basin.

Situation

Based on the results of source water E. coll monitoring, System L is required to monitor for
Cryptosporidium. As a result, System L is required to create a disinfection profile for Giardia lamblia
and viruses by July 1, 200X [insert date 66 months after rule promulgation].  System L elects to conduct
no additional monitoring to comply with the disinfection profiling requirements of the LT2ESWTR.
Instead, it uses data collected prior to the change in point of disinfection (i.e., when the system applied
chlorine before flocculation/sedimentation) to create a disinfection profile for viruses  in accordance with
the methods approved by the state.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System L has failed to comply with the disinfection profiling requirements of the LT2ESWTR. While
System L did not change sources, it did make a significant change in its treatment practice by moving its
point of disinfection in between the time it collected the disinfection profiling data and the time it was
required to create a disinfection profile. Therefore, System L has committed an M&R violation since the
use of grandfathered data is not acceptable. System L is required to notify the state of its plan to make a
significant change in its disinfection practice. Since System L has to monitor for Cryptosporidium, it is
not required to report data on its TTHM and HAAS LRAAs. It must, however, receive approval from the
state within 54 months of the LT2ESWTR promulgation to use its existing profile.  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 L is a community water system, it could use the CCRto 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 violations on July 15, 200X [insert date 66 months
after rule promulgation]. The public could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced
for calendar year 200X if the CCR is released prior to July 15, 200X+1.  In this situation, additional
public notification would not be required.  However, whether public notification is provided by the CCR
for calendar year 200X or by other means, this violation would still have to be reported by the  system in
the CCR produced for calendar year 200X, 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.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           151                                  November 2003

-------
                           Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6-19.  An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-20.

    Example 6-19. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus
                                        Disinfection Profiles
                IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                    Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System L

     Our system failed to use the correct data when developing an analysis of our disinfection practice (profile).
     We used data collected prior to our changing the point of disinfection (i.e., data from when we applied
     chlorine before flocculation/sedimentation) to create a disinfection profile for viruses. 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.  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 August 15, 200X [insert date 67 months after rule promulgation] we submitted a correct disinfection
     profile to the state.  This situation is now resolved.
     For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System L, at 555-1234 or write to 2600
     Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 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 L.
    State Water System ID# GA1234589.  Sent: September 1, 200X [insert date 68 months after rule promulgation]
      Example 6-20. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus
                                        Disinfection Profiles
                                              Violation

         Our system failed to use the correct data when developing an analysis of our disinfection practice
         (profile). We used data collected prior to our changing the point of disinfection (i.e., data from when we
         applied chlorine before flocculation/sedimentation) to create a disinfection profile for viruses.

         On August 15, 200X [insert date 67 months after rule promulgation] we submitted a correct disinfection
         profile to the state.  This situation is now resolved.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           152                                   November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Example 11: Failure to Report Information to Determine if a System Must Create a Disinfection
Profile

System Description - System M

System M uses GWUDI and serves 8,000 people.

Situation

Based on monitoring to comply with the Stage 2 DBPR, System M determines that its highest LRAA for
TTHM is less than 0.064 mg/L and its highest LRAA for HAAS is less than 0.048 mg/L. Based on this,
System M decides it does not have to create disinfection profiles under the LT2ESWTR. Thinking that
all of its obligations are satisfied, System M does not report any information to the state regarding its
DBF averages.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System M has committed an M&R violation.  Every Subpart H system serving fewer than 10,000 people
that does not have to monitor for Cryptosporidium has to submit a report on its DBF averages to the state
no later than July 1, 200X [insert date 42 months after rule promulgation].  Even though System M's DBF
averages are below the triggers for disinfection profiling, it still has to report that information to the state.
System M finally submits the report to the state on February  1, 200X+1. 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 M is a community water system, it could use the CCRto 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 violations on  December 10, 200X [insert date 6
months after rule promulgation]. The public could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR
produced for calendar year 200X-1 if the CCR is released prior to December 10, 200X+1 (the CCR for
calendar year 200X-1 is required to be released by July 1, 200X, for compliance with the CCR Rule). In
this situation, additional public notification would not be required. However, whether public notification
is provided by the CCR for calendar year 200X-1 or by other means, this violation would still have to be
reported by the system in the  CCR produced for calendar year 200X, 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 6-21.  An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-22.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          153                                November 2003

-------
                           Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
 Example 6-21.  Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Report Information to Determine
                            if a System Must Create a Disinfection Profile
                 IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                    Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System M

     Our system failed to report information to the state needed for the state to determine if our system must
     develop an analysis of our disinfection process.  Since our system is not required to monitor for
     Cryptosporidium, it had to submit a report on its disinfection byproduct averages to the state no later than
     July 1, 200X [insert date 42 months after rule promulgation]. Even though our disinfection byproduct
     averages are below the levels requiring an analysis of our disinfection process, we were still required to
     report the disinfection byproduct averages to the state. 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.  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 February 1, 200X+1 we submitted the report to the state.  This situation is now resolved.
     For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System M, at 555-1234 or write to 2600
     Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 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 M.
                                              State Water System ID# GA1234589. Sent: March 2, 200X+1
Example 6-22. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Report Information to Determine if a
                             System Must Create a Disinfection Profile
                                               Violation

         We failed to report information to the state needed for the state to determine if our system must develop
         an analysis of our disinfection process.  Since our system is not required to monitor for Cryptosporidium,
         it had to submit a report on its disinfection byproduct averages to the state no later than July 1, 200X
         [insert date 42 months after rule promulgation]. Even though our disinfection byproduct averages are
         below the levels requiring an analysis of our disinfection process, we were still required to report the
         disinfection byproduct averages to the state.

         On February  1, 200X+1 we submitted the report to the state. This situation is now resolved.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           154                                    November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
Example 12: Failure to Report Information About Toolbox Components

System Description - System N

System N is a large Subpart H system serving 35,000 people. It uses a conventional filtration plant and
treats its water with chlorine gas.

Situation

System N was placed in bin 2 and, therefore, must provide an additional 1 log of treatment. In order to
comply with the additional treatment requirements of the LT2ESWTR, System N decides to use UV for
primary disinfection and chlorine for secondary disinfection.  It submits a proposal outlining the change
to its disinfection practice to the state. The report contains all of the information required in proposed
§141.714(a)(6). After receiving approval from the state, System N installs a UV reactor validated
according to 141.729(d)(3) and operates within conditions determined during validation in January 1,
200X [insert date 48 months after rule promulgation]. After this initial demonstration, System N submits
no further information to the state.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

Although System N installed the necessary treatment before January 1, 200Y [insert date 72 months after
rule promulgation], it has committed an M&R violation.  System N is required to submit monthly
operational reports to the state summarizing the percentage of water entering the distribution system that
was not treated by UV reactors operating within the conditions required to receive credit for additional
Cryptosporidium treatment. System N begins submitting monthly operational reports to the state on June
1, 200Y. 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 N is a community water system, it could use the CCRto 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 violations on April 20, 200Y [insert date 72 months
after rule promulgation]. The public could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced
for calendar year 200Y-1 if the CCR is released prior to April 20, 200Y+1 (the CCR for calendar year
200Y-1 is required to be released by July 1, 200Y, for compliance with the CCR Rule).  In this situation,
additional public notification would not be required. However, whether public notification is provided by
the CCR for calendar year 200Y-1 or by other means, this violation would still have to be reported by the
system in the CCR produced for calendar year 200Y, 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.

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          155                                 November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6-23. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-24.

    Example 6-23.  Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Report Information About
                                       Toolbox Components
                IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                    Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System N

     Our system failed to submit monthly operational reports to the state summarizing the percentage of water
     entering the distribution system that was not treated by UV reactors operating within the conditions required
     to receive credit for additional Cryptosporidium treatment. 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. 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 April 20, 200Y [insert date 72 months after rule promulgation] we realized we were not submitting the
     required reports. On June 1, 200Y [insert date 74 months after rule promulgation] the system began
     submitting monthly operational reports to the state.  This situation is now resolved.
     For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System N, at 555-1234 or write to 2600
     Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 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 N.
       State Water System ID# GA1234589.  Sent: June 30, 200Y [insert date 74 months after rule promulgation]
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          156                                  November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
 Example 6-24. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Report Information About Toolbox
                                          Components
                                           Violation

         We failed to submit monthly operational reports to the state summarizing the percentage of water
         entering the distribution system that was not treated by UV reactors operating within the conditions
         required to receive credit for additional Cryptosporidium treatment.
         On April 20, 200Y [insert date 72 months after rule promulgation] we realized we were not submitting
         the required reports. On June 1, 200Y [insert date 74 months after rule promulgation] the system began
         submitting monthly operational reports to the state. This situation is now resolved.
Example 13: Failure to Maintain Disinfection Profiles

System Description - System P

System P is a large Subpart H system serving 41,000 people.

Situation

System P created a disinfection profile for Giardia lamblia and for viruses under the provisions of the
IESWTR. After receiving state approval to use its existing profile to satisfy the profiling requirements of
the LT2ESWTR, System P discards its profiling data on January 1, 200X.  It reasoned that, because the
state had already reviewed the profiles in two sanitary surveys in between the promulgation of the
IESWTR and the LT2ESWTR, it no longer needed to retain that information.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence  Report Requirements

System P has committed a recordkeeping violation. Systems must retain their disinfection profiles and
the underlying data indefinitely. This requirement is not only to allow states to review the data during
sanitary surveys, but if the system ever makes a significant change in disinfection practice, the profiling
data will be needed to create a disinfection benchmark.  The system obtained copies of their missing data
from the state on June 1, 200X. 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 P is a community water system, 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 violations on May 20,  200X. The public could
therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced for calendar year 200X-1 if the CCR is
released prior to May 20, 200X+1 (the CCR for calendar year  200X-1 is required to be released by July 1,

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          157                                  November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
200X, for compliance with the CCR Rule). In this situation, additional public notification would not be
required.  However, whether public notification is provided by the CCR for calendar year 200X-1 or by
other means, this violation would still have to be reported by the system in the CCR produced for
calendar year 200X, 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 6-25. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-26.

   Example 6-25.  Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Maintain Disinfection Profiles
                IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                         Recordkeeping Requirements Not Met for System P

     Our water system recently failed to keep records on file for the specified time period. 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 created an analysis of our disinfection processes in 2000. After receiving state approval to use this
     analysis to satisfy new requirements, we discarded the profiling data on January 1, 200X.  The state had
     already reviewed the profiles in two sanitary surveys since 2000.

     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).

     What was done?
     On June 1, 200X we obtained copies of our missing data from the state. This situation is now resolved.
     For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System P, at 555-1234 or write to 2600
     Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 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 P.
                                                State Water System ID# GA1234571.  Sent: June 20, 200X
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          158                                   November 2003

-------
                         Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
    Example 6-26. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Maintain Disinfection Profiles
                                           Violation

         Our water system recently failed to keep records on file for the specified time period.  We created an
         analysis of our disinfection processes in 2000. After receiving state approval to use this analysis to
         satisfy new requirements we discarded the profiling data on January 1, 200X. The state had already
         reviewed the profiles in two sanitary surveys since 2000.
         On June 1, 200X we obtained copies of our missing data from the state.  This situation is now resolved.
Example 14: Failure to Maintain Source Water Monitoring Results and Bin Classification (initial
or second round)

System Description - System Q

System Q is a small Subpart H system serving 6,000 people.

Situation

System Q was required to conduct source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium. Based on that
monitoring, which the system completed on June 30, 200X, it determines that it is a bin 1 system because
its mean Cryptosporidium concentration was less than 0.075 oocysts/L. Because it does not have to
provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium, System Q discards its source water monitoring results
and fails to replace them.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System Q has committed a recordkeeping violation.  All Subpart H systems are required to maintain the
results of their source water monitoring and their bin classification for at least 36 months after they
complete their source water monitoring. 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 Q is a community water system, 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 violations  on September 1, 200X. The public could
therefore be  informed of the violation in the CCR produced for calendar year 200X if the CCR is released
prior to September 1, 200X+1. In this situation, additional public notification would not be required.
However, whether public notification is provided by the CCR for calendar year 200X or by other means,
this violation would still have to be  reported by the system in the CCR produced for calendar year 200X,
since all violations of National Primary Drinking Water Rules must be reported in the CCR for the

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          159                                 November 2003

-------
                          Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
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 6-27. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-28.

      Example 6-27. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for  Failure to Maintain Source Water
                Monitoring Results and Bin Classification (initial or second round)
                IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                         Recordkeeping Requirements Not Met for System Q

     Our water system recently failed to keep records on file for the specified time period.  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 conduct source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium. Based on that monitoring,
     which we completed on June 30, 200X, we do not have to provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium,
     and we discarded the source water monitoring results in August 200X. We were, however, required to
     maintain the results of this source water monitoring and bin classification for at least 36 months after
     completing the source water monitoring.

     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).

     What was done?
     Because of the nature of this violation no further action was required.
     For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System Q, at 555-1234 or write to 2600
     Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 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 Q.
                       State Water System ID# GA1234571.  Sent: September 1, 200X [insert date 36 months]
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance          160                                  November 2003

-------
                           Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR
 Example 6-28.  Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Maintain Source Water Monitoring
                       Results and Bin Classification (initial or second round)
                                              Violation

         Our water system recently failed to keep records on file for the specified time period. We were required
         to conduct source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium.  Based on that monitoring, which we
         completed on June 30, 200X, we do not have to provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium, and
         discarded the source water monitoring results in August 200X. We were required to maintain the results
         of this source water monitoring and bin classification for at least 36 months after completing the source
         water monitoring.
Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance           161                                   November 2003

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------