ENDETEC – Global Sensor Platform

Suite 4697, Biosciences Complex, 116 Barrie Street

Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6

tel. 613-533-3321 · fax 613-533-3317

toll free 866-362-0993

www.endetec.com 

### 30 May 2014

Dr. James Sinclair

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water

26 West Martin Luther King Drive

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

By Electronic Delivery

RE: ATP Case D11-0005: Confirmation of Method Nomenclature

With respect to the above-mentioned ATP case, I am writing to confirm both the

nomenclature used in the original study report / documentation and to indicate the official

commercial name of the method that will be used in the marketplace.

The name ENDETEC TM 

### was employed as the working name for the method as performed in

the ATP study as described in the ATP Study Report entitled “ATP Study Report for the

Proposed US EPA Approval of ENDETEC TM 

### , an Automated Method for Detecting Total

Coliforms and E. coli in Drinking Water, under the US EPA Microbiological Alternate Test

Procedure (ATP)”, dated June 12, 2013.

It is hereby requested that the following nomenclature be adopted for this method:

 For generic reference to the method: TECTA TM 

### EC/TC Method.

 For reference to the specific reagent medium employed in the method: TECTA TM



### EC/TC Medium.

 For reference to the instrument required to perform the method: TECTA TM 

### EC/TC

Instrument.

Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should you require additional information.

Sincerely,

Dr. Peter Gallant

Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs

ENDETEC / Veolia Water

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

1 

## ATP Study Report for the Proposed US EPA Approval

of ENDETECTM, an Automated Method for Detecting

Total Coliforms and E. coli in Drinking Water, under

the USEPA Microbiological Alternat e Test Procedure

(ATP)

Study Report

ATP Case Number D11

- 0005

Originally Submitted June 12 , 2013

Revised January 30 , 2014

Veolia Water Solutions and Technologies

Suite 4697, Biosciences Complex, 116 Barrie Street

Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

2 

### 1. Background

Introductio n:

This report describes a study that was initiated following the US EPA ( 2010 )

Alternat e Test Procedure (ATP) guidance protocol

. The purpose of the study

was to evaluate the performance of the ENDETEC TM method (note: this is a

working name for the method and is subject to change ) for detecting

coliform and E. coli bacteria

, in support of US EPA approval for compliance

monitoring of public drinking water systems as required by the Total Coliform

Rule

. Data generated for this study were collected in accordance with the

ATP Study Plan (D11

- 0005) approved by the US EPA on December 5, 2012

(Appendix A). ENDETEC TM is an a utomated m ethod for d etecting t otal

c oliforms and E. coli in d rinking water.

A review is presented of the data collected during this study to compare the

performance of the ENDETECTM method against Standard Method SM9221B

( Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21 st



### Edition) using Lauryl Tryptose Broth ( LTB ) with confirmation using Brilliant

Green Lactose Bile Broth ( BG LB ) for detecting total coliform s

, and LTB with

confirmation using Escherichia coli Medium ( EC

- MUG

, SM922 1 F) for

Escherichia coli ( E. coli ) bacteria in drinking water samples.

Justification:

The ENDETECTM method can detect total coliform and E. coli bacteria in

potable water samples. Samples are identified as containing the target

organisms by continuously monitoring the concentration of fluorescent

products

, and when a threshold is reached, the instrument records a “time to

detect” (TTD) value for any targets that are present . The method offers

considerable advantages to laborator ies and analysts in terms of ease of use,

accuracy, and time to results over SM9221B

, and it notifies the user as soon

as the threshold is reached so that corrective actio n may be started earlier

. Therefore, E NDETEC

, a business unit within Veolia Water Solutions and

Technologies, (a wholly owned subsidiary of Veo li a Water) initiated this study

to obtain US EPA approval for total coliform and E. coli for the analysis of

drin king water samples.

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

3 

### Method Summary:

The Proposed Method (ENDETEC TM ) is based on the detection of two

enzymes, β

- D

- galactosidase which is indicative of the presence of total

coliforms and β

- D

- glucuronidase that additionally indicates the presence of E.

coli

. As the target organisms grow, they hydrolyze the enzyme substrates

specific for β

- D

- galactosidase and β

- D

- glucuronidase. In addition, non

selective nutritive components support the growth of target organisms, and

antimicrobial agents in the test med ium suppress the growth of non

- target

bacteria.

The ENDETECTM Method detects the presence or absence of total coliforms

and E. coli in water samples and is intended for drinking water analysis. A

cartridge containing the culture medium is filled with a w ater sample. After

dissolution of the medium, the cartridge is incubated in the instrument and

the presence of total coliforms and/or E. coli is detected automatically.

T he detection of the fluorescent products from these two enzyme substrates

is similar to other commercially available products. The cleavage products of

the enzymes are hydrophobic and fluorescent under ultraviolet illumination

, emitting at two different wavelengths to allow E. coli to be distinguished

from other total coliforms. The flu orescent enzyme products diffuse into a

polymer in the base of the cartridge where their presence is detected by the

instrument. When the concentration of the enzyme product(s) reaches a

pre

- set threshold of intensity the instrument determines that total coliforms

and/or E. coli are present.

This Proposed Method is an improvement over previous methods because it

provides an automated system for reading and incubation that is secure,

simple to use and rapid. In addition, it allows notification of positive results as

soon as they occur , often well before the final endpoint of the test when the

sample is negative

. The Proposed Method includes an alternative medium

designed to give maximum recovery of total coliforms and E. coli while

restricting the growth of other non

- target organisms. Furthermore the

method allows for the automated detection of the target organisms by an

instrument ( TECTA B

- 16 TM 

### or other instruments that meet the instrument

performance requirements of the END ETECTM Method) , which regularly scans

the polymer inserted in the cartridge bottle for the presence of the

hydrophobic products of enzyme activity on the substrates. This removes the

need for qualitative assessment of the results, which is required by othe r

methods. This side by side study is aimed a t demonstrating equivalence of

the Proposed Method for the detection of total coliforms and E. coli in

drinking water as compared to SM9221B and SM922 1 F.

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

4 

### 2. Study Objectives and Design :

The intent of this study is to evaluate the proposed method, ENDETECTM, as a

potential method of analysis for compliance monitoring for total coliforms

and E. coli in drinking water and demonstrate equivalency to EPA reference

methods. The study compare s th e performance of ENDETECTM to EPA defined

reference methods based on the EPA Microbiological Alternate Test

Procedure (ATP) Protocol for Drinking Water, Ambient Water, Wastewater,

and Sewage Sludge Monitoring Methods (September

, 2010). Specific

methods used are derived from Standard Methods for the Examination of

Water and Wastewater, (21st Edition). Endetec /Veolia commissioned the

described study to support the request for nationwide approval from the US

EPA for use of ENDETECTM for compliance monitoring un der the National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations.

Quality Objectives:

The quality objectives of the study are to provide the EPA with data

compliant to the intent of the approved study plan as defined in the 2010

ATP Protocol . The study plan was perfo rmed by a third party laboratory

(Pinellas County Utilities, Largo, FL)

. S ide by side replicate analyses were

performed on chlorinated sewage spiked into drinking water using

ENDETEC TM as the proposed method and LTB ( SM9221B), with BGLB

confirmation for total coliforms (TC)

, and LTB with confirmation using EC

MUG (SM922 1 F) for E. coli (EC)

, as the reference methods.

Study Implementation :

All laboratory work for this study was carried out at the laboratory of Pinellas

County Utilities, located in Largo, F lorida. The Study Director was Marsha

Pryor, of Pinellas County Utilities (PCU). PCU was responsible for the

coordination of collection of primary effluent samples

, from a wide variety of

sources, running the experiments, recording the data

, and maintaining all

QA/QC records specified in the US EPA

- approved Study Protocol.

This facility was chosen because of their wealth of experience in performing

non

- routine microbiological studies and their accreditation status. PCU is

NELAC accredited and an approved EPA laboratory for the analysis of drinking

water for the presence of total coliforms and E. coli

. Endetec /Veolia also

engaged experienced consultants to conduct pre

- study evaluations of the

PCU laboratory as well as routine data quality audits, and made available as a

resource to PCU to address any questions or issues with the implementation

of the ATP protocol.

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

5 

### Type of Study:

The study was a side

- by

- side method comparison comparing the ENDETECTM

method with SM9221B and SM9221F , US EPA

- approved method s , to

determine if the performance of the ENDETECTM method was acceptable

compared to the reference method.

Study Schedule:

The data for this study was collected during the period January through April

2013.

Spiking Source:

Primary effluent samples were collected from a number of sewage treatment

plants from various geographic locations in the United States. The sources of

these samples are shown in Table 1. The study initially used secondary

effluent as sources. However, t here were not sufficient targets present to

allow for chlorination and final dilution of the samples. With EPA approval,

the samples were switched to primary effluent sources and all of the data

included in this report are generated from primary, not seco ndary samples.

Table 1. Sources of samples used for comparison studies.

Date Collected Date Received Treatment Plant Target Organism

01/31 /2013 01/31 /2013 South Cross Bayou, FL EC

0 2 /0 4 /2013 0 2 /0 5 /2013 South Burlington, VT EC

02/11 /2013 02 / 12 /2013 Las Cruces, NM EC

03 /0 7 /2013 0 3 /0 8 /2013 Pennridge, PA EC

03/08 /2013 0 3 /0 8 /2013 Palm Harbor / Dunn , FL EC

03 /0 7 /2013 0 3 /0 8 /2013 San Diego, CA EC

03/10 /2013 03 / 12 /2013 Iowa City , IA EC

03 / 14 /2013 03 / 15 /2013 Denton, TX EC

04/15 /2013 04 / 16 /2013 Valley Forge, PA EC

04 / 18 /2013 04 / 19 /2013 Downers Grove , IL EC

02 / 14 /2013 02 / 15 /2013 Chattanooga, TN TC

02 /2 0 /2013 02 / 22 /2013 Iowa City , IA TC

0 2/2 1 /2013 02 / 2 2/2013 Raleigh , NC TC

03/08 /2013 03 /0 8 /2013 Palm Harbor / Dunn , FL TC

03 /0 7 /2013 03 /0 8 /2013 Las Cruces, NM TC

03/07 /2013 0 3 /0 8 /2013 Pennridge, PA TC

03 /0 7 /2013 0 3 /0 8 /2013 San Diego, CA TC

03/11 /2013 03 / 12 /2013 Penn Yann, NY TC

03/18 /2013 03 / 19 /2013 S. Burlington, VT TC

03/18 /2013 03 / 19 /2013 Valley Forge , PA TC

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

6 

### Because an insufficient number of negative samples were obtained from

ENDETEC TM results in the side by side comparison to LTB

, additional samples

were collected and further disinfections were performed for the purpose of

range findin g . The details of these samples are shown in Ta ble 2. For this

phase of the study, the range finding was based on ENDETEC TM results

, and

the reference methods were only used for confirmation, thereby producing

enough negative results for ENDETEC to complete the sample counts

require d by the approved ATP study protocol for the false negative and false

positive calculations.

Table 2. Additional samples used to obtain negative samples with

the ENDETECTM method

Date Collected Date Received Treatment Plant Target Organism

04/15/2013 04/16/2013 Denton, TX TC

04/18/2013 04/19/2013 South Burlington, VT TC

04/18/2013 04/19/2013 San Diego , CA TC

04/23/2013 04/23/2013 Palm Harbor / Dunn , FL TC

04/09/2013 04/10/2013 Iowa City , IA EC

04/12/2013 04/13/2013 Valley Forge, PA EC

04/07/2013 04/08/2013 San Diego, CA EC

04/07/2013 04/08/2013 Las Cruces, TX EC

04/08/2013 04/08/2013 Palm Harbor / Dunn , FL EC

04/12/2013 04/13/2013 Valley Forge, PA EC



### All s amples were shipped by Federal Express Overnight Priority courier on ice

and were received at PCU the day after shipping. For two local sample

sources, Palm Harbor and South Cross Bayou, samples were collected and

shipped to the laboratory for receipt on the day they were collected.

Standard chain

- of

- custody and sample handling procedures were employed.

Study Matrix

The matrix used in this study was chloraminated tap water from Largo, FL

,

which is a blend of ground and surface water. Removal of residual

disinfectant activity was a ttempted initially by allowing the water to stand for

48 hours . This was not found to be adequate to fully remove the chloramine

in all cases

. This was subsequently resolved by passing the water through a

commercially available activated carbon filter ( Brita FilterTM SAFF

- 100)

designed to remove residual disinfectant. Filtering of water through the

carbon filter commenced on March 8.

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

7 

### Training and Preliminary Testing:

E ndetec /Veolia personnel and consultants performed initial and/or refresher

training as required on the methods employed in the study at PCU

.

Samples Used

The sewage samples used for spiking the drinking water matrix are shown in

Tables 1 and 2. Typical characteristics of the drinking water matrix were

obtained from PCU archi ves and are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Typical analyses of tap water used for the comparison study (mg/L)

(mean of 7 samples)

Analyte Concentration (mg/L) or

Data Value

Total chlorine 4.01

Sulfate 32.43

Hardness 201

Alkalinity 187

Copper 0.007

Ammonia 0.26

Chloride 26



### Numbers and types of analyses used

Ten different primary sewage samples obtained from geographically

- diverse

locations throughout the United Stated were used for the study . The sources

are listed in Tables 1 and 2. Each sample was used to spik e disinfectant

- free

drinking water obtained at the PCU laboratory from a drinking water faucet.

Each spiked sample was used to prepare twenty (20) replicates for the

ENDETEC TM method and twenty (20) for the EPA

- required reference method

. Only data sets where the number of positive samples by the reference

method was in the range 5

- 15 (out of 20 replicates ) were used for

comparison with the ENDETEC TM method. Because too few sam ples gave

negative results in the initial side by side comparison with the ENDETEC TM

method, additional samples were used to generate negative ENDETEC TM

samples. Only data sets where 5

- 15 (out of 20) of the ENDETEC TM samples

were positive were used for the a dditional negative sample data.

C onfirmations were performed on the additional samples run for negatives.

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

8 

### This procedure is consistent with that described in the approved ATP study

plan.

Collection, transport and storage of samples

All drinking water ( dilution matrix) samples were collected from a drinking

water faucet at the PCU laboratory. Samples were filtered through a Brita

filter

, collected into 10 liter cubitainers , stored at room temperature and

were used with in 96 hours of collection. Primary sewage effluent samples

were collected by participating utilities and were shipped on ice by overnight

courier. Two sources of primary effluent that originated in Florida were

shipped on ice for same day delivery. All primary effluent samples were used

within five days of collection and were stored at 1

- 5 o 

### C.

Enumeration of spiking suspensions

Drinking water samples were spiked with disinfected primary sewage

effluent. The initial enumeration of the spiking suspension was performed

using Colilert

- 18 ® 

### in Quanti

- Trays ®



### . All disinfected , neutralized spiking

suspensions were held at 1

- 5 ° C and used within 48 hours of preparation.

Suspensions were brought to ambient temperature before use.

Problems encountered with samples or equipment and their subsequent

resolution

Specific problems are described below under “Changes in the protocol during

the study”. There were three issues encountered:

• Atypical reaction of Enterococcus faecalis in the ENDETEC TM total

coliform test

, where it gave sporadic positive results at high inoculum

levels

.

• Residual disinfectant remaining in the drinking water samples after

storage for 48 hours at ambient temperature

.

• Inability to extract sample aliquots at 16 hours and continue

incubation to 1 8 hours with the ENDETEC TM procedure due to

software design security features and generation of optical transients

.

Resolution of these issues is described in the following section.

During the study it became apparent that the disinfection procedure was not

working well and there was some difficulty in obtaining comparisons in which

the reference method gave 25

- 75% positive replicates. The level of the spike

was determined using Coli lert

- 18 with Quanti

- Tray as described in the study

protocol. However, when samples were prepared, no growth of targets was

seen in either the reference procedure or the test method. This indicated

that the organisms were being inactivated prior to analys is in the side by side

study. Upon further investigation, it was determined that in some samples of

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

9 

### tap water, even after standing for a period of 48 hours, residual disinfectant

activity was found.

At this point in the study, the procedure removal of r esidual disinfectant in

the tap water was changed from allowing the water to stand, to passing

through a Brita carbon filter , designed to remove chlorine . This resolved the

problem. Testing of the water after passing through the carbon filter showed

that no chlorine or chloramine was present and that the dilution water matrix

and targets were sufficiently stable for the period of use (48 hr) that the

target range was attained. Ongoing testing of the dechlorinated water

controls showed that coliforms were absent.

The approved study design described a procedure where both 16 and 18

hour confirmations were performed

, on the same sample dilution

, on the

same run , in order to determine an appropriate endpoint for the ENDETEC

method . This was found to cause a problem with the instrument because its

design incorporate s a feature that prevents tampering with samples and also

removal of the sample cartridges to extract aliquots caused transient signals

in the optical data. T herefore

, it was not feasible to sampl e at 16 hr and then

complete the incubation and resample for 18 hr. For this reason

, all initial

data generated in December 2012 and early January 2013 was considered

potentially compromised and was excluded from the study. The study

recommenced in late January 2013 with a single (18 hour) time point for

confirmations from the ENDETECTM method. It is anticipated that faster test

endpoints may be achieved in the future with enhancements to the optical

detection algorithms employed in instruments that support the ENDETECTM

method.

During the study, the initial controls used were : low level Enteroba cter

aerogenes , low level E. coli (approximately 30 cfu), high level Pseudomonas

aeruginosa (as a total coliform negative control) and high level Enterococcus

faecalis (as an E. coli negative control). During the early part of the study for

E. coli runs

, occasional abnormal results were seen with the strain of

Enterococcus faecalis , where a positive result was obtained for total

coliforms. To correct this issue, th e negative control for E. coli runs was

changed to a high level (>1000 cfu) Enterobacter aer ogenes

. The abnormal

results with E. faecalis were investigated by inoculating ENDETEC TM medi um

with differ ent levels of organisms. The results are shown in Table 4

.

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

10 

### Table 4

. Reaction of the ENDETECTM method to inoculation with

Enterococcus faecalis at differing inocula levels

.

CFU determined on mEI

agar 

### ENDETEC result total coliforms ENDETEC result E. coli

196 

### Absent Absent

196 

### Absent Absent

196 

### Absent Absent

196 

### Present 17:53 hours Absent

18,300 

### Absent Absent

18,300 

### Absent Absent

19,600 

### Present 15:34 hours Absent

19,600 

### Present 15:36 hours Absent

19,600 

### Present 14:37 hours Absent

19,600 

### Present 15:35 hours Absent



### The data show that there is little interference from enterococci at low (<200

cfu) concentrations

, but that when high concentrations are present in the

inoculum

, a positive total coliform result can be seen. On no occasion

, either

during the study or during the supplemental study

, was a false positive E. coli

result seen using E. faecalis as a n E. coli control

.

On Feb 25, two ODW blanks were run along with one SDW blank. One of the ODW blanks

gave a coliform positive indication on the TECTA TM instrument

. Confirmation testing

indicated the sample was negative, and the cartridge was clear with no si gns of growth after

the test, as expected. The absolute cause is unknown, because the other two blanks and

indeed several negative samples running in the two TECTA TM instruments operated that day

did not give positive indications. It is possible that cont amination within the chamber

played a role in the false result, either by direct optical interference or by affecting the

position of the cartridge during incubation

. Routine maintenance, including cleaning of the

optics, was subsequently performed on the specific instrument, and n o further false

indications of this kind for negative controls were seen over the course of testing.

4. Data Reporting and Validation

All data produced during the studies described in this report were generated

at the PCU laboratory

. Copies of a ll data, including bench sheets were also

provided to E ndetec / Veolia, which provided digital data transcription and

statistical summaries of the data . Original bench sheets were held at the PCU

in study binders. The log reductions obtained and the target concentration of

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

11 

### organisms is shown in Table 5. All log reductions were in the ranges required

by the approved ATP study plan.

Table 5

. Samples used to generate comparison data

Date

Analysis

started Site Chlorine

added to

achieve

disinfection

target

(mg/L) Log

reduction Target

concentration

per 100 ml

sample (cfu) Initial

count of

diluted

sample

(MPN/ml) Time

between

disinfection

and

analysis

(hours)

2

- 1

- 13 South Cross 10.0 2.27 EC 4.7 5794 24

2

- 6

- 13 South

Burlington 8.8

2.25 EC 5.1 7270 24

2

- 14

- 13 Las Cruces 7.5 2.03 EC 5.4 12997 24

2

- 17

- 13 Chattanooga 8.8 2.37 TC 7.9 41060 48

2

- 25

- 13 Iowa City 8.8 3.0 0 TC 5.0 20100 (same day)

2

- 26

- 13 Raleigh 8.8 2.16 TC 2.0 290.9 24

3

- 7

- 13 San Diego 10 .0 2.09 TC 5.2 36540 48

3

- 8

- 13 Palm Harbor 8.8 2.22 TC 4.7 48840 48

3

- 9

- 13 Palm Harbor 8.8 2.09 EC 4.8 6488 24

3

- 9

- 13 San Diego 10.0 2.09 EC 4.3 6488 24

3

- 9

- 13 Pennridge 6.3 2.04 EC 4.1 4106 24

3

- 10

- 13 Pennridge 8.8 2.20 TC 4.3 27230 48

3

- 10

- 13 Las Cruces 11.3 2.25 TC 9.2 51720 48

3

- 14

- 13 Penn Yann 8.8 2.30 TC 5.0 68670 48

3

- 14

- 13 Iowa City 3.8 2.19 EC 4.1 644 24

3

- 16

- 13 Denton 7.5 2.15 EC 4.9 1396 24

3

- 21

- 13 South

Burlington 10.0

2.37 TC 5.0 17329 48

3

- 21

- 13 Valley Forge 7.5 2.73 TC 5.0 30760 48

4

- 10

- 13 San Diego 8.8 2.14 EC 1.4 2382 48

4

- 10

- 13 Palm Harbor 8.8 2.14 EC 1.7 6488 48

4

- 10

- 13 Las Cruces 8.8 2.05 EC 1.5 6131 48

4

- 12

- 13 Iowa City 8.8 2.88 EC 1.8 2359 48

4

- 15

- 13 Valley Forge 12.5 2.29 EC 1.0 2613 48

4

- 15

- 13 Valley Forge 8.8 2.29 EC 1.5 2613 48

4

- 20

- 13 Downer’s

Grove 3.8

2.02 EC 2.0 209.8 24

4

- 21

- 13 South

Burlington 8.8

3.16 TC 3.4 19863 48

4

- 21

- 13 Denton 12.5 2.44 TC 3.5 19180 48

4

- 21

- 13 San Diego 12.5 3.06 TC 4.2 48840 48

4

- 25

- 13 Palm Harbor 12.5 3.41 TC 4.0 34480 48

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

12 

### 5. Results

The results of the side by side comparison for each sample run are shown in

Appendix C, Tables C 1

- C 31

.

Table 6

. Number of samples found to contain confirmed total coliforms by

the ENDETECTM method and SM9221B and Chi

- squared values

ENDETECTM method

(Positive Results) ENDETECTM method

(Negative Results) SM 9221B Chi

Squared p

value



### Site Presum

+ 

### True

+ False

+ Presum

- 

### True

- False

- +

- 

### Chattanooga,

TN 15 13 

### 2 5 1 4 

### 10 10 0.92 0.34



### Iowa City,

IA 9 9 

### 0 11 11 0 

### 7 13 0.42 0.52



### Raleigh,

NC 17 17 

### 0 3 3 0 

### 15 5 0.63 0.43



### Pennridge,

PA 20 20 

### 0 0 0 0 

### 14 6 7.06 <0.01



### Las Cruces,

NM 20 20 

### 0 0 0 0 

### 12 8 10 <0.01



### Palm Harbor,

FL 20 20 

### 0 0 0 0 

### 12 8 10 <0.01



### San Diego,

CA 16 16 

### 0 4 0 4 

### 11 9 2.85 0.09



### Penn Yann,

NY 4 4 

### 0 16 6 10 

### 8 12 1.91 0.17



### S.Burlington,

VT 19 19 

### 0 1 1 0 9 11 11.91 <0.01



### Valley Forge,

PA 20 20 

### 0 0 0 0 

### 7 13 19.26 <0.01



### Total 160 158 2 40 22 18 105 95



### % of SM

9221B 152

% 

### 100

%

Additive Chi

squared 64.94 <0.01



### The term “presumptive” (abbreviated as “Presum” in Table 6 above) indicates

those samples that gave a positive result in the test but that may or may not

have confirmed using subsequent phenotypic tests.

It is clear that the ENDETECTM medium

, which contains components designed

to recover injured target organisms

, detected total coliforms in far more

sample replicate s than the reference procedure. There was only one sample

where LTB recovered a greater number of positive replicates than ENDETEC

for total coliforms. The data were analyzed by Chi Squared statistics both

independently and collectively.

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

13 

### Determination of sensitivity and specificity , false positive and false negative

results for total coliforms

Table 6 also shows the number of true and false positive samples and the

number of true and false negative samples for total coliforms using the

ENDETECTM system . These data were obtained during the side by side

comparison part of the study and reflect only the ENDETEC TM negatives

obtained during this phase.

Sensitivity= [TP/ ( TP+ FN ) ] * 100%

Specificity= [ TN/(TN+FP)] * 100%

False + Rate = 1

- Specificity

False

- Rate = 1

- Sensitivity

TP= true positives

TN= true negative

FP= false positives

FN= false negatives

Thus the sensitivity of the ENDETECTM method for total coliforms is

(15 8 / ( 15 8 +18 ) )*100 = 89. 8 %

T he specificity of the ENDETECTM method for total coliforms is

(2 2 / ( 2 2 + 2 ) )*100 = 9 1.7 %

Based on the small number of negative samples in Table 6 above, b y

calculation False Positive Rate is 8.3 % and False Negative Rate is

10. 2 %

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

14 

### Table 7 . The number of true and false positive Total Coliform results

obtained with the ENDETECTM method from additional samples run purely

for negatives

Positives (Presumptive) Negatives (Presumptive)



### Site True + 

### False + True

- False

-



### San Diego, CA 5 (5) 0 15 (15) 0



### Denton, TX 6 (6) 0 14 (14) 0



### South Burlington, VT 11 (12) 1 8 (8) 0



### Palm Harbor, FL 5 (5) 0 15 (15) 0



### Las Cruces, NM 6 (6) 0 14 (14) 0



### Total 33 (34) 1 66 ( 66) 0



### Using the data for the additional samples run to generate more ENDETECTM

negative samples:

B y calculation False Positive Rate is 1.5 % and False Negative Rate is

0%

T he sensitivity of the ENDETECTM method for total coliforms is

( 3 3 / ( 3 3 +0 ) )*100 = 100%

The specificity of the ENDETECTM method for total coliforms is

(66/ ( 66+ 1 ) )* 98.5 = 98.5 %

Table 8 . Com bined summary of total coliform data from the side by side

comparison and from the a dditional samples run to obtain additional

negatives

True Positive False positive True Negative False Negative

19 1 3 88 18



### Thus the sensitivity of the ENDETECTM method for total coliforms is

( 19 1 / ( 19 1 +18 ) )*100 = 91.4%

The specificity of the ENDETECTM method for total coliforms is

( 88 / ( 88 + 3 ) )*100 = 96.7 %

Based on all samples run during this study for the detection of total

coliforms, by calculation False Positive Rate is 3.3 % and False Negative

Rate is 8.6%

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

15 

### Determination of sensitivity and specific ity, false positive and false negative

results for E.coli

Table 9 . Number of samples (out of twenty replicates) found to contain

confirmed E. coli by the ENDETECTM method and SM9221B /F and Chi

squared values

ENDETECTM method

(Positive Results) ENDETECTM method

(Negative Results) SM 9221B Chi

Squared p

value



### Site Presum

+ 

### True

+ False

+ Presum

- 

### True

- False

- +

-



### South Cross

Bayou, FL 16 16 

### 0 4 3 1 

### 9 11 5.23 0.02



### S. Burlington,

VT 18 16 

### 2 2 0 2 

### 12 8 1.90 0.17



### Las Cruces,

NM 16 16 

### 0 4 0 4 

### 7 13 8.23 0.01



### Pennridge,

PA 11 11 

### 0 9 8 1 

### 8 12 0.90 0.34



### Palm Harbor,

FL 15 12 

### 3 5 1 4 

### 12 8 0.00 

### 1.00

San Diego,

CA 18 17 

### 1 2 1 1 

### 6 14 12.38 

### <0.01

Iowa City

, IA 17 17 

### 0 3 1 2 

### 9 11 7.03 0.01



### Denton,

TX 20 20 

### 0 0 0 0 

### 12 8 10.00 <0.01



### Downers

Grove, IL 18 18 

### 0 2 2 0 6 14 15.00 

### <0.01

Valley Forge,

PA 14 14 

### 0 6 6 0 

### 8 12 3.64 

### 0.06

Total 163 157 6 37 22 15 89 111



### % of SM

9221B 176

% 

### 100

%

Additive Chi

squared 64.31 <0.01



### Again

, the recovery of E. coli using the ENDETECTM method was significantly

higher than with SM 9221B (176%) . Recovery by ENDETECTM was greater than

or equal to LTB for all samples.

Table 9 also shows the number of true and false positive samples and the

number of true and false nega tive samples for E.coli using the ENDETECTM

system. These data were obtained during the side by side comparison part of

the study and reflect only the ENDETECTM negatives obtained during this

phase.

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

16 

### The sensitivity of the ENDETECTM method for E. coli is

(1 5 7 / ( 1 5 7 +1 5 ) )*100 = 90. 8 %

The specificity of the ENDETECTM method for E. coli ( 2 2 / ( 2 2 + 6 ) )*100 =

7 8

. 6 %

Based on the small number of negative data in Table 7 above, b y

calculation, the False Positive Rate is 2 1.4 % and the False Negative

Rate is 9.2 %

.

Table 1 0 . The number of true and false positive E. coli results obtained with

the ENDETECTM method from additional samples run purely for negatives

Positives Negatives



### Site True + 

### False + True

- False

-



### Las Cruces 5 0 15 0



### Palm Harbor, FL 5 0 13 2



### Iowa City 5 3 8 4



### Valley Forge 5 2 11 2



### Valley Forge 8 1 7 4



### San Diego 6 0 10 4



### Total 34 6 64 16



### Based on the data for the additional samples run to generate

additional ENDETECTM negative samples:

Thus the sensitivity of the ENDETECTM meth od for E. coli is

(34/ ( 34 + 16 ) )*100 = 68 %

The specificity of the ENDETECTM m ethod for E. coli is (64/ ( 64+6 ) )*100

= 91.4 %

Based on the number of negative samples in Table 10 above, by

calculation the False Positive Rate is 8.6% and the False Negative Rate

is 32 .0 %

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

17 

### Table 1 1 . Combined summary of E. coli data from the side by side

comparison and from the additional samples run to obtain additional

negatives

True Positive False positive True Negative False Negative

191 12 8 6 3 1



### Combining the data from both sets of samples (those used for the side by

side and those used to generate additional negative samples):

T he sensitivity of the ENDETECTM method for E. coli is

( 19 1 / ( 1 9 1 + 3 1 ) )*100 = 8 6.0 %

T he specificity of the ENDETECTM m ethod for E. coli is

( 8 6 / ( 8 6 +1 2 ) )*100 = 8 7.8 %

Using all samples run in the study for the detection of E. coli , by

calcul ation the False Positive Rate is 1 2.2 % and False Negative Rate is

14. 0 %

Data interpretation

Statistical analysis of the data shows that the ENDETECTM method recovers

significantly more total coliforms and E. coli than the reference procedure

even though the sensitivity of the method, as calculated

, is 91.4% for total

coliforms and 8 6.0 % for E. coli

. The ENDETECTM method is composed of a

culture medium together with a n incubation/optical detection system. The

culture medium is designed to be extremely sensitive, particularly with

regard to the recovery of sub

- lethally damaged cells.

Thus

, the medium will recover many more target cells than the reference

procedure , although some of them may have an extended lag phase and may

not always be detected by the detection system. However, when

subcultured into confirmation media

, they are afforded a longer incubation

period to express their phenotypic traits and

, hence

, will “confirm”.

T he ENDETECTM method gave a positive result ( for both total coliforms and E.

coli ) from greater than 50% more replicates than the reference method . This

is due to the improved ability of the medium to resuscitate and recover

injured organisms

.

With regard to the specificity results for total coliform s, it was 96.7 % with

only three false positive sample s being detected. These “false positive”

results were due to total coliform bacteria that were β

- galactosidase positive

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

18 

### but did not ferment lactose within 48 h. F or E. coli

, the specificity as

calculated was 8 6.7 % with “false positive” samples being recorded in t hirteen

samples. This low er value for specificity is partly a function of the low

number of total negative samples (i.e. the high sensitivity reflected by the

ENDETEC TM medium ) in this study. Furthermore, of the thirteen samples that

were recorded as being false positive (i.e. they failed to produce fluorescence

in EC

- MUG ) all were shown to cleave MUG resulting in fluorescence in other

media and were identified as E. coli using a commercial identification system

.

A positive control for total coliforms from the run set up to obtain additional

coliform negatives from Denton, TX did not confirm in BGLB. The sample

gave a positive signal in ENDETECTM and produced acid and gas in LTB.

However, the BGLB result was negative. It is likely that this single result was

a n error by the analyst (ie. the BGLB tube not being inoculated. )

The sensitivity for total coliforms was determined to be 91.4% and for E. coli

85.6%. These sensitivity levels can be explained by the medium design. The

growth medium itself is designed t o recover injured cells and it does this

extremely well. However, because of the extended lag phase associated with

the recovery of injured organisms, insufficient cleavage of the substrate

occurred to facilitate detection by the instrument. Nonetheless, the

sensitivity of the ENDETECTM method was significantly greater than that of the

reference method as indicated by the substantially higher recovery of both

groups of target organisms.

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

19 

### Conclusions

The results presented here have demonstrated that the ENDETECTM method

has greater sensitivity than the reference procedure for the defined target

organisms and has comparable specificity for both total coliforms and E. coli

.

References

1. EPA Microbiological Alternate Test Procedure (ATP) Protocol for

Drinkin g Water, Ambient Water, Wastewater and Sewage Sludge

Monitoring Methods USEPA, September 2010 Version EPA

- 821

- B

- 10

-

001

.

2. APHA. 2005. Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater . 21 th



### Edition. American Public Health Association. 1015 15 th 

### St, NW, Washington, DC 20005

3. USEPA, 2005, Manual for the Certification of Laboratories Analyzing Drinking Water:

Criteria and Procedures Quality Assurance, 5 th 

### Edition, EPA 815

- R

- 05

- 004

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

20 

### Appendix A

– Method D escription

The document entitled “ENDETECTM M ethod for Determination of Total

Coliform and E. coli in Drinking Water Samples” Version 1. 2 is incorporated

herein in its entirety by reference.

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

21 

### Appendix B

- Approved Study Plan

The document entitled “Approved Study Plan: ATP D11

- 0005: ENDETECTM

M ethod for Determination of Total Coliform and E. coli in Drinking Water

Samples”, Version 1.0, as approved by the US EPA on December 5, 2012 is

incorporated herein in its entirety by reference.

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

22 Appendix C . Supporting Data : the confirmation results from the ENDETEC TM

method

Table C 1 . Total Coliform Results from Chattanooga, TN Log Reduction Value (LRV) =

2.37

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 

### 1 Chattanooga, TN N GA P Absent Absent

65 

### 2 Chattanooga, TN N GA P 15.28 Absent

65 

### 3 Chattanooga, TN N A N 14.53 Absent

65 

### 4 Chattanooga, TN N GA P 16.07 Absent

65 

### 5 Chattanooga, TN gF GA N 15.14 15.01

65 

### 6 Chattanooga, TN G GA P 14.23 Absent

65 

### 7 Chattanooga, TN GF GA P 16.06 16.68

65 

### 8 Chattanooga, TN G GA P 17.28 Absent

65 

### 9 Chattanooga, TN N G P Absent Absent

65 

### 10 Chattanooga, TN gF GA P 14.77 14.86

65 

### 11 Chattanooga, TN N GA P Absent Absent

65 

### 12 Chattanooga, TN G GA P 16.42 Absent

65 

### 13 Chattanooga, TN N GA P 16.27 Absent

65 

### 14 Chattanooga, TN G G N Absent Absent

65 

### 15 Chattanooga, TN N GA P 16.52 Absent

65 

### 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

66 

### 6 Chattanooga, TN N GA P 16.93 Absent

66 

### 7 Chattanooga, TN N GA P 17 Absent

66 

### 8 Chattanooga, TN G GA P 15.85 Absent

66 

### 9 Chattanooga, TN N GA P Absent Absent

66 

### 10 Chattanooga, TN N GA P 17.1 Absent

66 

### 11 Pos TC G G P 10.9 Absent

66 

### 12 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

66 

### 13 Pos EC GF GA P 11.53 11.54

66 

### 14 Neg EC N N N 17.57 Absent

66 

### 15 Empty Absent Absent

66 

### 16 SDW N N N Absent Absent

Total Positive 3 20 17 15 2

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

23 Table C 2 . Total Coliform Results from Iowa City, IA Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 3.0

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 1 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 2 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 3 Iowa City, IA N G P 16.13 Absent

65 4 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 5 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 6 Iowa City, IA N G P 16.34 Absent

65 7 Iowa City, IA N G P 16.51 Absent

65 8 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 9 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 10 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 11 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 12 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 13 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

65 14 Iowa City, IA N G P 15.86 Absent

65 15 Iowa City, IA N G P 16.43 Absent

65 16 ODW Blank N N N 16.71 Absent

66 6 Iowa City, IA N N N Absent Absent

66 7 Iowa City, IA N G P 17.32 15.07

66 8 Iowa City, IA N G P 16.7 Absent

66 9 Iowa City, IA N G P 16.98 15.38

66 10 Iowa City, IA N G P 16.23 14.89

66 11 Pos TC G G P 14.18 Absent

66 12 Neg TC N G N Absent Absent

66 13 Pos TC GF GA P 11.91 11.63

66 14 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

66 15 Empty Absent Absent

66 16 SDW N N N Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 0 9 9 9 3

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

24 Table C 3 . Total Coliform Results from Raleigh, NC Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.16

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 1 

### Raleigh, NC N GA P 15.84 Absent



### 65 2 

### Raleigh, NC N GA P 15.63 Absent



### 65 3 

### Raleigh, NC GF GA P 12.79 12.62



### 65 4 

### Raleigh, NC N N N Absent Absent



### 65 5 

### Raleigh, NC N GA P 16.46 Absent



### 65 6 

### Raleigh, NC N N N Absent Absent



### 65 7 

### Raleigh, NC N GA P 16.66 Absent



### 65 8 

### Raleigh, NC N GA P 15.64 Absent



### 65 9 

### Raleigh, NC N GA P 16.52 Absent



### 65 10 

### Raleigh, NC N N N Absent Absent



### 65 11 

### Raleigh, NC N GA P 15.64 Absent



### 65 12 

### Raleigh, NC N GA P 15.22 Absent



### 65 13 

### Raleigh, NC N GA P 16.64 Absent



### 65 14 

### Raleigh, NC N GA P 16.19 Absent



### 65 15 

### Raleigh, NC GF GA P 13.28 13.03



### 65 16 

### ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent



### 100 6 

### Raleigh, NC GF GA P 12.82 12.46



### 100 7 

### Raleigh, NC N GA P 16.13 Absent



### 100 8 

### Raleigh, NC GF GA P 12.35 11.92



### 100 9 

### Raleigh, NC GF GA P 12.69 12.43



### 100 10 

### Raleigh, NC GF GA P 11.6 11.18



### 100 11 

### Pos TC N (g) G P 14.46 Absent



### 100 12 

### Neg TC N N N Absent Absent



### 100 13 

### Pos EC GF GA P 13.35 12.84



### 100 14 

### Neg EC N N N Absent Absent



### 100 15 

### SDW N N N Absent Absent



### 100 16 

### ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent



### Total Positive 6 17 17 17 6

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

25 Table C 4 . Total Coliform Results from Pennridge, PA Log Reduction Value (LRV) =

2.25

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

64 1 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.26 Absent

64 2 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.17 Absent

64 3 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.01 Absent

64 4 Pennridge, PA N GA P 13.83 Absent

64 5 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.29 Absent

64 6 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.1 Absent

64 7 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.34 Absent

64 8 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.79 Absent

64 9 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.6 Absent

64 10 Pennridge, PA N GA P 13.65 Absent

64 11 Pennridge, PA N GA P 13.72 Absent

64 12 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.73 Absent

64 13 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.21 Absent

64 14 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.07 Absent

64 15 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.01 Absent

64 16 ODW BLANK N N N Absent Absent

136 1 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.21 Absent

136 2 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.22 Absent

136 3 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.22 Absent

136 4 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.66 Absent

136 5 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.04 15.11



### 136 16 ODW BLANK N N N Absent Absent

141 6 Pos TC N G P 14.29 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 12.65 12.23

141 9 Neg EC N N N 16.86 Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

141 11 ODW N N N Absent Absent



### Total Positive 0 20 20 20 1

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

26 Table C 5 . Total Coliform Results from Las Cruces, NM Log Reduction Value (LRV) =

2.25

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 1 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 12.97 Absent

65 2 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 12.8 Absent

65 3 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.42 Absent

65 4 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.34 Absent

65 5 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.18 Absent

65 6 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 12.53 Absent

65 7 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.33 Absent

65 8 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.44 Absent

65 9 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.61 Absent

65 10 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.62 Absent

65 11 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.62 Absent

65 12 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.51 Absent

65 13 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.51 Absent

65 14 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.51 Absent

65 15 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 14.09 Absent

65 16 ODW BLANK N N N Absent Absent

136 6 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.34 Absent

136 7 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.88 Absent

136 8 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.52 Absent

136 9 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.87 Absent

136 10 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 13.37 Absent



### 136 16 ODW BLANK N N N Absent Absent

141 6 Pos TC N G P 14.29 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 12.65 12.23

141 9 Neg EC N N N 16.86 Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

141 11 ODW N N N Absent Absent



### Total Positive 0 20 20 20 0

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

27 Table C 6 . Total Coliform Results from Palm Harbor, FL Log Reduction Value (LRV) =

2.22

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

66 1 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.31 Absent

66 2 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 15.98 Absent

66 3 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 13.97 Absent

66 4 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 15.39 Absent

66 5 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.19 Absent

66 6 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.18 Absent

66 7 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.53 Absent

66 8 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 13.76 Absent

66 9 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.22 Absent

66 10 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 13.61 Absent

66 11 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.17 Absent

66 12 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.72 Absent

66 13 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.5 Absent

66 14 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 15.51 Absent

66 15 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 13.73 Absent

66 16 ODW BLANK N N N Absent Absent

136 11 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 13.75 Absent

136 12 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 15.74 15.88

136 13 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.36 Absent

136 14 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 14.99 Absent

136 15 Palm Harbor, FL N GA P 15.5 Absent

136 16 ODW BLANK N N N Absent Absent

141 6 Pos TC N G P 14.29 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 12.65 12.23

141 9 Neg EC N N N 16.86 Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

141 11 ODW N N N Absent Absent



### Total Positive 0 20 20 20 1

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

28 Table C 7 . Total Coliform Results from San Diego, CA Log Reduction Value (LRV) =

3.06

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

100 1 San Diego, CA N GA P Absent Absent

100 2 San Diego, CA N G P 15.2 Absent

100 3 San Diego, CA N GA P 15.2 Absent

100 4 San Diego, CA g GA P Absent Absent

100 5 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.34 Absent

100 6 San Diego, CA N G P Absent Absent

100 7 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.61 Absent

100 8 San Diego, CA N A P 14.14 Absent

100 9 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.72 Absent

100 10 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.93 Absent

100 11 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.55 Absent

100 12 San Diego, CA N GA P Absent Absent

100 13 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.13 Absent

100 14 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.57 Absent

100 15 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.31 Absent

100 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

141 1 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.35 15.5

141 2 San Diego, CA G G P 14.32 Absent

141 3 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.88 Absent

141 4 San Diego, CA N GA P 14.86 Absent

141 5 San Diego, CA N N P 14.64 Absent

141 6 Pos TC N G P 14.29 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 12.65 12.23

141 9 Neg EC N N N 16.86 Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

141 11 ODW N N N Absent Absent



### Total Positive 0 19 20 16 1

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

29 Table C 8 . Total Coliform Results from Penn Yann, NY Log Reduction Value (LRV) =

2.30

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 1 Penn Yann, NY N GA P Absent Absent

65 2 Penn Yann, NY Fg GA P Absent Absent

65 3 Penn Yann, NY N GA P Absent Absent

65 4 Penn Yann, NY N GA P Absent Absent

65 5 Penn Yann, NY N g N Absent Absent

65 6 Penn Yann, NY N GA P 17.37 Absent

65 7 Penn Yann, NY N g N Absent Absent

65 8 Penn Yann, NY N GA P Absent Absent

65 9 Penn Yann, NY N G P 16.11 Absent

65 10 Penn Yann, NY N g N Absent Absent

65 11 Penn Yann, NY N G P Absent Absent

65 12 Penn Yann, NY N GA P Absent Absent

65 13 Penn Yann, NY N GA P 17.01 Absent

65 14 Penn Yann, NY N g N Absent Absent

65 15 Penn Yann, NY N g N Absent Absent

65 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

136 6 Penn Yann, NY N GA P Absent Absent

136 7 Penn Yann, NY N GA P 17.54 Absent

136 8 Penn Yann, NY N GA P Absent Absent

136 9 Penn Yann, NY N g N Absent Absent

136 10 Penn Yann, NY N GA P Absent Absent

136 16 ODW BLANK N N N Absent Absent

141 1 Pos TC N G P 14.38 Absent

141 2 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 3 Pos EC GF GA P 13.43 12.84

141 4 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

141 5 SDW N N N Absent Absent



### Total Positive 1 14 14 4 0

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

30 Table C 9 . Total Coliform Results from South Burlington, VT Log Reduction Value

(LRV) = 2.37

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

64 1 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.38 Absent

64 2 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.42 Absent

64 3 S. Burlington, VT N G P 14 Absent

64 4 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.04 Absent

64 5 S. Burlington, VT N N N Absent Absent

64 6 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 15.26 Absent

64 7 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 15 Absent

64 8 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.58 Absent

64 9 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.08 Absent

64 10 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.12 Absent

64 11 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.36 Absent

64 12 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.09 Absent

64 13 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.54 Absent

64 14 S. Burlington, VT Fg GA P 14.57 15.43

64 15 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.05 Absent

64 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

136 1 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.32 Absent

136 2 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.26 Absent

136 3 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.54 Absent

136 4 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.32 Absent

136 5 S. Burlington, VT N GA P 14.26 Absent

136 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

141 6 Pos TC N G P 14.17 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 13.18 12.65

141 9 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent



### Total Positive 1 19 19 19 1

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

31 Table C 10 . Total Coliform Results from Valley Forge, PA Log Reduction Value (LRV)

= 2.73

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

100 1 Valley Forge N GA P 14.46 Absent

100 2 Valley Forge N GA P 14.67 Absent

100 3 Valley Forge Fg GA P 14.51 Absent

100 4 Valley Forge N GA P 15.02 Absent

100 5 Valley Forge N GA P 14.35 Absent

100 6 Valley Forge FG GA P 16.97 Absent

100 7 Valley Forge FG GA P 14.4 Absent

100 8 Valley Forge N GA P 15.44 Absent

100 9 Valley Forge N GA P 14.7 Absent

100 10 Valley Forge Fg GA P 14.74 Absent

100 11 Valley Forge N GA P 14.22 Absent

100 12 Valley Forge Fg GA P 14.27 15.72

100 13 Valley Forge N GA P 14.59 Absent

100 14 Valley Forge Fg GA P 14.58 15.11

100 15 Valley Forge Fg GA P 14.53 14.19

100 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

141 1 Valley Forge FG GA P 15.13 Absent

141 2 Valley Forge N GA P 14.5 Absent

141 3 Valley Forge N GA P 14.39 Absent

141 4 Valley Forge N GA P 14.29 Absent

141 5 Valley Forge FG GA P 14.05 14.32

141 6 Pos TC N G P 14.17 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 13.18 12.65

141 9 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

141 11 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent



### Total Positive 9 20 20 20 4

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

32 Table C 11

. E. coli Results from South Cross Bayou, FL Log Reduction Value (LRV) =

2.27

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

62 1 South Cross Bayou, FL Fg GA P 14.34 13.81

62 2 South Cross Bayou, FL g GA P 14.38 Absent

62 3 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 14.2 14

62 4 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 14.12 13.8

62 5 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 14.04 13.96

62 6 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 14.04 14.19

62 7 South Cross Bayou, FL Fg GA P 15.23 Absent

62 8 South Cross Bayou, FL Fg GA P 14.64 14.25

62 9 South Cross Bayou, FL Fg GA P 14.15 13.92

62 10 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 13.92 13.37

62 11 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 13.24 13

62 12 South Cross Bayou, FL Fg GA P 14.47 16.46

62 13 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 14.19 13.68

62 14 South Cross Bayou, FL G GA P 14.62 Absent

62 15 South Cross Bayou, FL G GA P 13.74 Absent

62 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

64 1 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 14.58 14.45

64 2 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 14.67 14.25

64 3 South Cross Bayou, FL Fg GA P 14.35 14.18

64 4 South Cross Bayou, FL FG GA P 14.64 14.75

64 5 South Cross Bayou, FL Fg GA P 14.33 13.62

64 6 Pos TC N GA P 9.64 Absent

64 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

64 8 Pos EC FG GA P 7.59 7.32

64 9 Neg EC N N N 14.78 Absent

64 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent



### Total Positive 17 20 20 20 16

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

33 Table C 12

. E. coli Results from South Burlington, VT Log Reduction Value (LRV) =

2.25

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

64 1 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 13.78 13.24

64 2 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 13.98 14.38

64 3 South Burlington, VT Fg GA P 13.76 14.01

64 4 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 14.01 16.12

64 5 South Burlington, VT Fg GA P 14.05 14.08

64 6 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 14.39 Absent

64 7 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 13.4 13.3

64 8 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 13.77 13.86

64 9 South Burlington, VT G GA P 14.32 16.69

64 10 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 14.11 13.83

64 11 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 14.52 Absent

64 12 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 14.01 14.84

64 13 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 14.35 17.69

64 14 South Burlington, VT Fg GA P 14.32 14.28

64 15 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 14.44 14.41

64 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

65 6 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 13.6 13.47

65 7 South Burlington, VT G GA P 13.49 16.97

65 8 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 13.68 13.41

65 9 South Burlington, VT FG GA P 14.12 14.06

65 10 South Burlington, VT Fg GA P 12.78 14.34

65 11 Pos TC g GA P 9.11 Absent

65 12 Neg TC g g g Absent Absent

65 13 Pos EC FG GA P 6.99 6.96

65 14 Neg EC N N N 14.57 Absent

65 16 ODW N N N Absent Absent



### Total Samples Positive 18 20 20 20 18

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

34 Table C 13

. E. coli Results from Las Cruces, NM Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.03

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

64 1 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.08 Absent

64 2 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.4 12.92

64 3 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.28 13

64 4 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.41 Absent

64 5 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.38 12.87

64 6 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.35 15.85

64 7 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 11.99 13.58

64 8 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.54 15.79

64 9 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.42 15.34

64 10 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.39 15.03

64 11 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.53 13.53

64 12 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.48 Absent

64 13 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.37 13.26

64 14 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.27 16.28

64 15 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.54 16.74

64 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

65 1 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 11.91 13.97

65 2 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.33 16.58

65 3 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.06 14.25

65 4 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.33 16.83

65 5 Las Cruces, NM FG GA P 12.1 Absent

65 6 Pos TC N (g) G P 8.47 Absent

65 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

65 8 Pos EC GF GA P 10.67 10.65

65 9 Neg EC N N N 14 Absent

65 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent



### Total Samples Positive 20 20 20 20 16

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

35 Table C 14

. E. coli Results from Pennridge, PA Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.04

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

64 1 Pennridge, PA Fg GA P 13.63 15.09

64 2 Pennridge, PA Fg GA P 13.53 15.79

64 3 Pennridge, PA Fg GA P 13.07 14.43

64 4 Pennridge, PA g GA P 13.67 Absent

64 5 Pennridge, PA Fg GA P 13.35 14.32

64 6 Pennridge, PA Fg GA P 14.03 17.75

64 7 Pennridge, PA FG GA P 13.77 13.64

64 8 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.33 Absent

64 9 Pennridge, PA Fg GA P 13.75 15.26

64 10 Pennridge, PA g GA P 13.59 Absent

64 11 Pennridge, PA Fg GA P 14.44 Absent

64 12 Pennridge, PA Fg GA P 14.01 14.49

64 13 Pennridge, PA FG GA P 13.88 17.3

64 14 Pennridge, PA Fg GA P 14.02 16.34

64 15 Pennridge, PA N GA P 13.34 Absent

64 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

136 1 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.03 Absent

136 2 Pennridge, PA N GA P 14.57 Absent

136 3 Pennridge, PA N GA P 13.51 Absent

136 4 Pennridge, PA g GA P 13.63 Absent

136 5 Pennridge, PA N GA P 13.45 17.14

136 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

141 6 Pos TC N(g) G P 14.15 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 13.08 12.65

141 9 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent



### Total Samples Positive 12 20 20 20 11

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

36 Table C 15

. E. coli Results from Palm Harbor, FL Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.09

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 1 Palm Harbor, FL G GA P 11.88 13.64

65 2 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.48 13.58

65 3 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.7 14.07

65 4 Palm Harbor, FL Fg GA P 12.51 12.97

65 5 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 12.14 14.73

65 6 Palm Harbor, FL Fg GA P 11.27 Absent

65 7 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.55 14.3

65 8 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 12.01 16.43

65 9 Palm Harbor, FL G GA P 11.76 17.75

65 10 Palm Harbor, FL G GA P 11.72 13.75

65 11 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.98 14.27

65 12 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.41 Absent

65 13 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.68 Absent

65 14 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.99 16

65 15 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.91 12.89

65 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

136 6 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.54 14.65

136 7 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.95 15.44

136 8 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.5 Absent

136 9 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 11.72 14.31

136 10 Palm Harbor, FL G GA P 12.05 Absent

136 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

141 6 Pos TC N(g) G P 14.15 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 13.08 12.65

141 9 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent



### Total Samples Positive 16 20 20 20 15

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

37 Table C 16

. E. coli Results from San Diego, CA Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.09

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

66 1 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.37 15.02

66 2 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.11 15.3

66 3 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.06 14.71

66 4 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.54 15.38

66 5 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.59 15.99

66 6 San Diego, CA G GA P 13.84 Absent

66 7 San Diego, CA G GA P 15.71 16.04

66 8 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.26 16.85

66 9 San Diego, CA FG GA P 15.12 15.07

66 10 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.1 14.83

66 11 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.46 16.05

66 12 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.15 15.19

66 13 San Diego, CA FG GA P 14.8 14.46

66 14 San Diego, CA FG GA P 15.7 15.78

66 15 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.85 16.15

66 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

136 11 San Diego, CA FG GA P 14.56 14.65

136 12 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.66 Absent

136 13 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 15.37 15.07

136 14 San Diego, CA FG GA P 15.31 14.96

136 15 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 16.1 17.32

136 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

141 6 Pos TC N(g) G P 14.15 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 13.08 12.65

141 9 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent



### Total Samples Positive 18 20 20 20 18

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

38 Table C 17

. E. coli Results from Iowa City, IA Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.19

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

66 1 Iowa City FG GA P 14.49 14.35

66 2 Iowa City FG GA P 14.91 14.87

66 3 Iowa City FG GA P 14.55 14.73

66 4 Iowa City FG GA P 14.7 Absent

66 5 Iowa City Fg GA P 14.19 14.44

66 6 Iowa City FG GA P 13.4 13.81

66 7 Iowa City Fg GA P 13.96 13.52

66 8 Iowa City Fg GA P 14.13 14.43

66 9 Iowa City FG GA P 14.72 14.54

66 10 Iowa City FG GA P 14.54 14.49

66 11 Iowa City FG GA P 14.27 14.73

66 12 Iowa City Fg GA P 13.97 13.71

66 13 Iowa City FG GA P 14.64 14.82

66 14 Iowa City Fg GA P 14.2 Absent

66 15 Iowa City FG GA P 14.29 14.23

66 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

136 11 Iowa City FG GA P 14.62 15.99

136 12 Iowa City FG GA P 13.75 14.13

136 13 Iowa City g GA P 13.82 Absent

136 14 Iowa City FG GA P 14.21 14.06

136 15 Iowa City FG GA P 14.33 14.27

136 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

141 1 Pos TC N G P 14.38 Absent

141 2 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 3 Pos EC GF GA P 13.43 12.84

141 4 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

141 5 SDW N N N Absent Absent



### Total Samples Positive 19 20 20 20 17

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

39 Table C 18

. E. coli Results from Denton, TX Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.15

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

64 1 Denton, TX FG GA P 13.78 13.7

64 2 Denton, TX FG GA P 14.1 14.6

64 3 Denton, TX FG GA P 14.22 13.86

64 4 Denton, TX FG GA P 14.13 14.09

64 5 Denton, TX FG GA P 14.38 15.47

64 6 Denton, TX FG GA P 13.96 13.8

64 7 Denton, TX Fg GA P 14.68 14.52

64 8 Denton, TX Fg GA P 14.19 14.57

64 9 Denton, TX Fg GA P 14.43 14.65

64 10 Denton, TX Fg GA P 14.92 15.29

64 11 Denton, TX Fg GA P 14.09 15.08

64 12 Denton, TX FG GA P 14.53 14.11

64 13 Denton, TX Fg GA P 14.01 13.34

64 14 Denton, TX Fg GA P 14.16 14.15

64 15 Denton, TX Fg GA P 14.75 15.37

64 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

66 1 Denton, TX FG GA P 14.06 14.24

66 2 Denton, TX Fg GA P 14.11 14.51

66 3 Denton, TX FG GA P 13.89 13.83

66 4 Denton, TX Fg GA P 13.96 14.15

66 5 Denton, TX FG GA P 14.11 13.99

66 11 Pos TC N G P 14.68 Absent

66 12 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

66 13 Pos EC GF GA P 12.95 12.61

66 14 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

66 15 SDW N N N Absent Absent

66 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent



### Total Samples Positive 20 20 20 20 20

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

40 Table C 19

. E. coli Results from Valley Forge, PA Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.29

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

64 1 Valley Forge, PA N AG P 14.94 Absent

64 2 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 12.69 12.23

64 3 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 13.91 14.17

64 4 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 12.45 11.95

64 5 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 12.3 11.86

64 6 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 12.94 12.65

64 7 Valley Forge, PA N AG P 15.31 Absent

64 8 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 13.09 12.62

64 9 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 12.29 12.51

64 10 Valley Forge, PA N AG P Absent Absent

64 11 Valley Forge, PA N AG P Absent Absent

64 12 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 12.64 12.19

64 13 Valley Forge, PA N AG P Absent Absent

64 14 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 12.7 12.92

64 15 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 13.27 12.9

64 16 

### ODW N N N Absent Absent

101 6 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 16.04 15.74

101 7 Valley Forge, PA N AG P 17.68 Absent

101 8 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 17.19 17.03

101 9 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 12.79 12.6

101 10 Valley Forge, PA FG AG P 13.81 13.51

101 16 ODW N N N Absent Absent

101 11 Pos TC N A P 16.49 Absent

101 12 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

101 13 Pos EC FG AG P 12.54 12.29

101 14 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

101 15 SDW N N N Absent Absent



### Total Samples Positive 14 14

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

41 Table C 20

. E. coli Results from Downers Grove, IL Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.02

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 1 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 13.2 12.83

65 2 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.35 12.15

65 3 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.14 11.8

65 4 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 13.1 12.73

65 5 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.38 12.56

65 6 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.59 12.42

65 7 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.24 17.64

65 8 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 13.17 14.66

65 9 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.47 12.25

65 10 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.82 12.87

65 11 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.14 11.81

65 12 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.98 12.46

65 13 Downers Grove, IL N AG P 13.3 Absent

65 14 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.55 12.25

65 15 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.85 12.64

65 16 

### ODW N N N Absent Absent



### 101 11 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 13.64 16.96



### 101 12 Downers Grove, IL 

### N AG P 13.69 Absent



### 101 13 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 12.8 12.53



### 101 14 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 14.34 14.03



### 101 15 Downers Grove, IL FG AG P 11.92 12.65



### 101 16 ODW 

### N N N Absent Absent

102 11 Pos TC 

### N G P 14.24 Absent

102 12 Neg TC 

### N N N Absent Absent

102 13 Pos EC FG AG P 8.92 8.75

102 14 Neg EC 

### N G P 12.11 Absent

102 16 SDW 

### N N N Absent Absent



### Total Samples Positive 18 20 20 20 18

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

42 Table C21

. Total Coliform Results from San Diego , CA to obtain more results where

ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 3.06

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

62 1 San Diego, CA N N N 

### Absent Absent

62 2 San Diego, CA N N N 

### Absent Absent

62 3 San Diego, CA N N N 

### Absent Absent

62 4 San Diego, CA N N N 

### Absent Absent

62 5 San Diego, CA N N N 

### Absent Absent

62 6 San Diego, CA N N N 

### Absent Absent

62 7 San Diego, CA N N N 

### Absent Absent

62 8 San Diego, CA N GA P 

### 16.18 Absent

62 9 San Diego, CA F GA P 

### 16.18 17.45

62 10 San Diego, CA N GA P 

### 16.83 Absent

62 11 San Diego, CA N N N 

### Absent Absent

62 12 San Diego, CA N GA P 

### 15.96 Absent

62 13 San Diego, CA N N N 

### Absent Absent

62 14 San Diego, CA N N N 

### Absent Absent

62 15 San Diego, CA N N N 

### Absent Absent

62 16 ODW Blank N N N 

### Absent Absent

136 1 San Diego, CA N N N 

### Absent Absent

136 2 San Diego, CA N N N 

### Absent Absent

136 3 San Diego, CA N N N 

### Absent Absent

136 4 San Diego, CA N GA P 

### 16.42 Absent

136 5 San Diego, CA N N N 

### Absent Absent

136 16 ODW Blank N N N 

### Absent Absent

141 6 Pos TC N G P 

### 14.18 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N 

### Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 

### 9.06 8.98

141 9 Neg EC N G P 

### 13.56 Absent

141 10 SDW N N N 

### Absent Absent

Total Samples Positive 1 5 5 5 1

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

43 Table C22

. Total Coliform Results from Denton, TX to obtain more results where

ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.44

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 1 Denton, TX F AG AG 16.5 16.51

65 2 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

65 3 Denton, TX N AG AG 14.43 Absent

65 4 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

65 5 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

65 6 Denton, TX F AG AG 16.32 16.53

65 7 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

65 8 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

65 9 Denton, TX F AG AG 15.6 16.4

65 10 Denton, TX N AG AG 16.94 Absent

65 11 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

65 12 Denton, TX F AG AG 16.31 16.88

65 13 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

65 14 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

65 15 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

65 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

101 11 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

101 12 Denton, TX N AG N Absent Absent

101 13 Denton, TX N AG N Absent Absent

101 14 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

101 15 Denton, TX N N N Absent Absent

101 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

102 6 Pos TC N AG N 14.18 Absent

102 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

102 8 Pos EC F AG AG 9.06 8.98

102 9 Neg EC N AG AG 13.56 Absent

102 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent



### Total Samples Positive 4 8 6 6 4

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

44 Table C23

. Total Coliform Results from South Burlington, VT to obtain more results

where ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 3.16

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

66 1 South Burlington, VT F AG AG 17.12 Absent

66 2 South Burlington, VT N N N Absent Absent

66 3 South Burlington, VT F AG AG 15.15 14.7

66 4 South Burlington, VT F AG AG 16.56 16.83

66 5 South Burlington, VT N AG AG 15.25 Absent

66 6 South Burlington, VT N AG AG 16.44 Absent

66 7 South Burlington, VT N AG A 17.41 Absent

66 8 South Burlington, VT N AG AG 15.27 Absent

66 9 South Burlington, VT N N N Absent Absent

66 10 South Burlington, VT N N N Absent Absent

66 11 South Burlington, VT F AG AG 13.05 12.78

66 12 South Burlington, VT N N N Absent Absent

66 13 South Burlington, VT N AG AG 15.97 Absent

66 14 South Burlington, VT N N N Absent Absent

66 15 South Burlington, VT N N N Absent Absent

66 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

141 1 South Burlington, VT F AG AG 13.79 13.69

141 2 South Burlington, VT N N N Absent Absent

141 3 South Burlington, VT N AG AG 15.75 Absent

141 4 South Burlington, VT N N N Absent Absent

141 5 South Burlington, VT N AG AG 16.66 Absent

141 6 Pos TC N A A 14.18 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF AG AG 9.06 8.98

141 9 Neg EC N AG AG 13.56 Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

141 11 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent



### Total Samples Positive 5 12 11 12 4

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

45 Table C24

. Total Coliform Results from Palm Harbor, FL to obtain more results

where ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 3.41

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

62 1 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 2 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 3 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 4 Palm Harbor, FL N AG AG 15.76 Absent

62 5 Palm Harbor, FL N AG G 17.62 Absent

62 6 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 7 Palm Harbor, FL N AG G 17.3 Absent

62 8 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 9 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 10 Palm Harbor, FL N AG G 16.02 Absent

62 11 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 12 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 13 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 14 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 15 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

62 16 ODW N N N Absent Absent

64 1 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

64 2 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

64 3 Palm Harbor, FL N N N Absent Absent

64 4 Palm Harbor, FL N AG N Absent Absent

64 5 Palm Harbor, FL N AG G 15.78 Absent

64 6 Pos TC N G P 13.82 Absent

64 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

64 8 Pos EC GF GA P 8.89 8.64

64 9 Neg EC N G P 15.88 Absent

64 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

64 11 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent



### Total Samples Positive 0 6 5 5 0

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

46 Table C25

. E. coli Results from Las Cruces, NM to obtain more results where

ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) =

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

62 1 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 2 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 3 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 4 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 12.63 12.3

62 5 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 6 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 7 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 13.15 12.85

62 8 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 9 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 10 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 15.34 Absent

62 11 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 12 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 13 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 14 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 15 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

64 1 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 13.65 13.32

64 2 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

64 3 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 13.08 12.65

64 4 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

64 5 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 11.56 11.11

64 6 Pos TC N G P 13.43 Absent

64 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

64 8 Pos EC GF GA P 12.2 11.83

64 9 Neg EC N G P 15.41 Absent

64 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

64 11 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent



### Total Samples Positive 5 6 6 6 5

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

47 Table C2 6

. E. coli Results from Las Cruces, NM to obtain more results where

ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) =

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

62 1 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 2 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 3 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 4 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 12.63 12.3

62 5 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 6 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 7 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 13.15 12.85

62 8 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 9 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 10 Las Cruces, NM N GA P 15.34 Absent

62 11 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 12 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 13 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 14 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 15 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

62 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

64 1 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 13.65 13.32

64 2 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

64 3 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 13.08 12.65

64 4 Las Cruces, NM N N N Absent Absent

64 5 Las Cruces, NM F GA P 11.56 11.11

64 6 Pos TC N G P 13.43 Absent

64 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

64 8 Pos EC GF GA P 12.2 11.83

64 9 Neg EC N G P 15.41 Absent

64 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

64 11 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent



### Total Samples Positive 5 6 6 6 5

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

48 Table C27

. E. coli Results from Palm Harbor, FL to obtain more results where

ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.14

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

64 1 Palm Harbor, FL Fg GA P 13.38 14.1

64 2 Palm Harbor, FL Fg GA P 13.3 13.52

64 3 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 12.75 Absent

64 4 Palm Harbor, FL G GA P 12.91 Absent

64 5 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 13.59 Absent

64 6 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 12.36 Absent

64 7 Palm Harbor, FL G GA P 13.34 Absent

64 8 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 13.03 Absent

64 9 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 13.9 Absent

64 10 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 13.37 Absent

64 11 Palm Harbor, FL G GA P 13.73 Absent

64 12 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 12.05 Absent

64 13 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 13.73 Absent

64 14 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 13.52 16.84

64 15 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 13.24 Absent

64 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

100 1 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 13.28 17.63

100 2 Palm Harbor, FL Fg GA P 13.3 Absent

100 3 Palm Harbor, FL FG GA P 13.49 Absent

100 4 Palm Harbor, FL Fg GA P 13.43 15.18

100 5 Palm Harbor, FL g GA P 13.49 Absent

100 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

136 1 Pos TC N G P 15.03 Absent

136 2 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

136 3 Pos EC GF GA P 13.31 12.97

136 4 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

136 5 SDW N N N Absent Absent



### Total Samples Positive 7 20 20 20 5

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

49 Table C2 8

. E. coli Results from Iowa City, IA to obtain more results where ENDETEC

was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.88

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

100 1 Iowa City N GA P 11.92 Absent

100 2 Iowa City F GA P 12.16 17.3

100 3 Iowa City N GA P 12.5 16.29

100 4 Iowa City N GA P 11.63 Absent

100 5 Iowa City N GA P 12.27 Absent

100 6 Iowa City F GA P 12.15 Absent

100 7 Iowa City F GA P 11.99 16.45

100 8 Iowa City F GA P 11.96 Absent

100 9 Iowa City N GA P 12.26 Absent

100 10 Iowa City F GA P 11.92 14.4

100 11 Iowa City N GA P 12.04 Absent

100 12 Iowa City F GA P 11.6 13.68

100 13 Iowa City N GA P 12.09 Absent

100 14 Iowa City F GA P 12.1 13.58

100 15 Iowa City N GA P 12.27 Absent

100 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

141 1 Iowa City N GA P 12.02 17.43

141 2 Iowa City F GA P 11.75 Absent

141 3 Iowa City N GA P 11.52 Absent

141 4 Iowa City F GA P 11.85 Absent

141 5 Iowa City N GA P 11.74 14.01

141 6 Pos TC N G P 13.79 Absent

141 7 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

141 8 Pos EC GF GA P 13 12.57

141 9 Neg EC N G P 6.54 Absent

141 10 SDW N N N Absent Absent

141 11 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent



### Total Samples Positive 9 20 20 20 8

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

50 Table C2 9

. E. coli Results from Valley Forge, PA to obtain more results where

ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.15

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

64 1 Valley Forge N GA P 13.32 Absent

64 2 Valley Forge N GA P 12.5 Absent

64 3 Valley Forge F GA P 13.01 Absent

64 4 Valley Forge N GA P 13.2 Absent

64 5 Valley Forge N GA P 12.87 Absent

64 6 Valley Forge N GA P 12.9 Absent

64 7 Valley Forge F GA P 12.69 13.87

64 8 Valley Forge N GA P 13.13 Absent

64 9 Valley Forge N GA P 12.96 14.4

64 10 Valley Forge F GA P 12.84 14.1

64 11 Valley Forge N GA P 13.35 Absent

64 12 Valley Forge N GA P 12.15 Absent

64 13 Valley Forge F GA P 13.04 14.89

64 14 Valley Forge N GA P 12.97 Absent

64 15 Valley Forge N GA P 12.95 Absent

64 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

66 1 Valley Forge N GA P 12.48 15.93

66 2 Valley Forge F GA P 12.74 Absent

66 3 Valley Forge F GA P 12.86 16.52

66 4 Valley Forge N GA P 12.81 Absent

66 5 Valley Forge F GA P 12.81 14.78

66 11 Pos TC N G P 14.69 Absent

66 12 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

66 13 Pos EC GF GA P 12.54 12.29

66 14 Neg EC N G P 7.4 Absent

66 15 SDW N N N Absent Absent

66 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent



### Total Samples Positive 7 20 20 20 7

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

51 Table C30

. E. coli Results from Valley Forge, PA to obtain more results where

ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.15

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 1 Valley Forge F GA P 12.88 16.71

65 2 Valley Forge F GA P 12.04 Absent

65 3 Valley Forge N GA P 12.55 Absent

65 4 Valley Forge F GA P 12.68 Absent

65 5 Valley Forge N GA P 12.97 Absent

65 6 Valley Forge F GA P 12.13 14.07

65 7 Valley Forge N GA P 11.68 Absent

65 8 Valley Forge F GA P 12.78 Absent

65 9 Valley Forge N GA P 12.53 Absent

65 10 Valley Forge N GA P 12.76 Absent

65 11 Valley Forge N GA P 12.69 16.16

65 12 Valley Forge F GA P 12.76 14.07

65 13 Valley Forge F GA P 12.81 Absent

65 14 Valley Forge F GA P 12.21 16.87

65 15 Valley Forge F GA P 12.74 14.51

65 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

66 6 Valley Forge F GA P 12.48 14.98

66 7 Valley Forge N GA P 12.83 Absent

66 8 Valley Forge F GA P 12.86 13.56

66 9 Valley Forge N GA P 12.43 Absent

66 10 Valley Forge F GA P 12.73 14.3

66 11 Pos TC N G P 14.69 Absent

66 12 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

66 13 Pos EC GF GA P 12.54 12.29

66 14 Neg EC N G P 7.4 Absent

66 15 SDW N N N Absent Absent

66 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent



### Total Samples Positive 12 20 20 20 9

### ENDETEC Method

- ATP Case D11

- 0 005

52 Table C31

. E. coli Results from San Diego, C A to obtain more results where

ENDETEC was negative Log Reduction Value (LRV) = 2.14

Unit 

### Chamber Site EC

MUG LTB BGLB TC TTD EC TTD

65 1 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 13.04 Absent

65 2 San Diego, CA G GA P 12.85 Absent

65 3 San Diego, CA G GA P 12.83 Absent

65 4 San Diego, CA FG GA P 13.14 16.04

65 5 San Diego, CA FG GA P 12.9 14.43

65 6 San Diego, CA FG GA P 13.25 15.6

65 7 San Diego, CA G GA P 12.9 Absent

65 8 San Diego, CA FG GA P 13.39 14.52

65 9 San Diego, CA G GA P 13.19 Absent

65 10 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 13.28 15.62

65 11 San Diego, CA G GA P 13.36 Absent

65 12 San Diego, CA G GA P 12.91 Absent

65 13 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 13.15 Absent

65 14 San Diego, CA G GA P 13.29 Absent

65 15 San Diego, CA G GA P 13.22 Absent

65 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

100 6 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 13.73 Absent

100 7 San Diego, CA Fg GA P 12.64 16.5

100 8 San Diego, CA G GA P 13.38 Absent

100 9 San Diego, CA FG GA P 13.57 Absent

100 10 San Diego, CA G GA P 13.56 Absent

100 16 ODW Blank N N N Absent Absent

136 1 Pos TC N G P 15.03 Absent

136 2 Neg TC N N N Absent Absent

136 3 Pos EC GF GA P 13.31 12.97

136 4 Neg EC N N N Absent Absent

136 5 SDW N N N Absent Absent



### Total Samples Positive 10 20 20 20 6