APPENDIX A 

Questionnaire to Collect Data to Update the Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper 

Control Strategies 
This page is left intentionally blank. 

Appendix A 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

A-2
Questionnaire to Collect Data to 

Update the Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies

The purpose of the questionnaire is to obtain practical experience that has been gained by water systems in the 

treatment of copper using corrosion control treatment. This information will be used to update the Guidance 

Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies. Please note that ground water (gw) systems refer 

to those systems that use ground water exclusively. Surface water (sw) systems refer to those that use surface 

water, combined sources, or ground water under the direct influence of surface water. 

Please return the questionnaire to Ms. Catherine Spencer at Black & Veatch by May 3, 2002. The contact 

address is 267 Hallowell Rd., Pownal, ME 04069. If you have any questions regarding this questionnaire, 

please contact Ms Spencer at (207) 688-4234 or spencercm@bv.com. 

Name of individual completing the form: Phone number: 

Name of State Agency:

1. Number of systems by State that are subject to the Lead and Copper Rule? Please break down 

the number of systems by system size and source type. 

Table 1: Number of Systems Subject to the Lead and Copper Rule

Large (> 50,000) Med (3,301 - 50,000) Small (# 3,300)

gw sw gw sw gw sw

2. Number of systems that exceeded only the copper (Cu) action level (AL)? Number of systems that 

exceeded both the copper and lead (Pb) action levels? Please provide this information separately for 

systems with groundwater (gw) sources vs. those using surface water (sw) sources.

Table 2: Number of Systems that Exceeded the Copper Action Level

No of Systems Large (> 50,000) Med (3,301 - 50,000) Small (# 3,300)

gw sw gw sw gw sw

Exceeding Cu

AL only

Exceeding both 

Cu & Pb ALs 

Total

3. Provide general treated or finished water quality characteristics of those groundwater systems in your State 

that exceeded the copper action level before corrosion control was implemented. Please provide general 

Appendix A 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

A-3
treated or finished water quality characteristics of those surface water systems that exceeded the copper 

action level only (use Table 3a) and those that exceeded both the lead and copper action levels (use Table 

3b) before corrosion control was implemented. Please provide information about water quality within the 

distribution system rather than at the point of entry. 

EXAMPLE: 10 large ground water systems exceeded the copper action level and installed CCT. The average 

pH was 7.5 and range of 7.2 - 8.0. This information would be entered into the table as follows: 

Water quality

characteristics

Large (> 50,000) Med (3,301 - 50,000) Small (# 3,300)

ground water systems

pH range # of systems: 10

ave: 7.5 

range: 7.2 - 8.0 

Appendix A 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

A-4
Table 3a: Treated Water Quality Characteristics for Systems Exceeding Copper Action Level Only

Water quality 

characteristics 

Large (> 50,000) Med (3,301 - 50,000) Small (# 3,300)

ground water systems

pH range in pH units # of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

Alkalinity, mg/L as 

CaCO3 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

Hardness, mg/L as 

CaCO3 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

DIC (if known) mg/L C # of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

Iron, mg/L # of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

Manganese, mg/L # of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

surface water systems

pH range in pH units # of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

Alkalinity, mg/L as 

CaCO3 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

Hardness, mg/L as 

CaCO3 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

DIC (if known), 

mg/L C

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

TOC (if known), mg/L C# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

Table 3b: Treated Water Quality Characteristics for Systems Exceeding Both Copper and Lead Action

Levels

Water quality 

characteristics 

Large (> 50,000) Med (3,301 - 50,000) Small (# 3,300)

ground water systems

pH range, in pH units # of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

Appendix A 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

A-5
Table 3b: Treated Water Quality Characteristics for Systems Exceeding Both Copper and Lead Action

Levels

Water quality 

characteristics 

Large (> 50,000) Med (3,301 - 50,000) Small (# 3,300)

Alkalinity, mg/L as 

CaCO3 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

Hardness, mg/L as 

CaCO3 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

DIC (if known), mg/L C# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

Iron, mg/L # of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

Manganese, mg/L # of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

surface water systems

pH range, in pH units # of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

Alkalinity, mg/L as 

CaCO3 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

Hardness, mg/L as 

CaCO3 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

DIC (if known), mg/L C# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

TOC (if known), mg/L C# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

# of systems:

average: 

range: 

4. Many of the systems that exceeded the copper action level had to implement CCT. Please indicate 

the number of systems in each size category that are required to implement CCT due to a copper 

action level exceedance AND the number of systems that actually have implemented CCT. Please 

provide this information separately for ground water vs. surface water systems and for those that 

exceeded the copper action level only (use Table 4a) vs. those that exceeded both action levels (use 

Table 4b). 

Appendix A 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

A-6
Table 4a: Systems Exceeding the Copper Action Level Only

No. of systems required to Install CCT No. of systems installing CCT 

Large 

(> 50,000) 

Med

(3,301- 50,000)

Small 

(# 3,300) 

Large 

(> 50,000) 

Med

(3,301- 50,000)

Small 

(# 3,300) 

ground water systems

surface water systems

Table 4b: Systems Exceeding the Copper and Lead Action Levels

No. of systems required to Install CCT No. of systems installing CCT 

Large 

(> 50,000) 

Med

(3,301- 50,000)

Small 

(# 3,300) 

Large 

(> 50,000) 

Med

(3,301- 50,000)

Small 

(# 3,300) 

ground water systems

surface water systems

Appendix A 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

A-7
5. Please outline how many of the systems in each size category and source type that exceeded the 

copper action level and had to install corrosion control treatment opted for pH/alkalinity adjustment? 

Calcium hardness? Inhibitors? Please provide this information separately for those that exceeded 

the copper action level only (use Table 5a) vs. those that exceeded both the copper and lead action 

levels (use Table 5b).

Table 5a: Type of CCT Installed by Systems Exceeding the Copper Action Level Only

Type of CCT Large (> 50,000) Med (3,301 - 50,000) Small (# 3,300) 

ground water systems using: 

pH/alkalinity adjustment

calcium hardness 

inhibitor addition 

surface water systems using:

pH/alkalinity adjustment

calcium hardness 

inhibitor addition 

Table 5b: Type of CCT Installed by Systems Exceeding Both the Copper and Lead Action 

Levels

ground water systems using: 

pH/alkalinity adjustment

calcium hardness 

inhibitor addition 

surface water systems using:

pH/alkalinity adjustment

calcium hardness 

inhibitor addition 

Appendix A 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

A-8
6. Please provide information on the number of large, medium, and small systems that used 

orthophosphate along with some breakdown according to water source (surface or groundwater). 

Please provide the same information for the use of polyphosphates and blended 

ortho/polyphosphates. Also provide this information separately for those exceeding the copper 

action level only (use Table 6a) and those exceeding both the copper and lead action levels (use 

Table 6b). 

Table 6a: Use of Orthophosphate, Polyphosphate, or Blended Phosphate for Systems Exceeding the 

Copper Action Level Only

Type of CCT Large (> 50,000) Med (3,301 - 50,000) Small (# 3,300)

ground water systems using: 

orthophosphate

polyphosphate

blended phosphate

surface water systems using:

orthophosphate

polyphosphate

blended phosphate

Table 6b: Use of Orthophosphate, Polyphosphate, or Blended Phosphate for Systems 

Exceeding Both the Copper and Lead Action Levels

Type of CCT Large (> 50,000) Med (3,301 - 50,000) Small (# 3,300) 

ground water systems using: 

orthophosphate

polyphosphate

blended phosphate 

surface water systems using:

orthophosphate

polyphosphate

blended phosphate 

Appendix A 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

A-9
7. How many systems of each system size and source water type that implemented pH/alkalinity

treatment subsequently met copper action levels? How many with calcium hardness treatment? How 

many with inhibitor treatment? Please provide this information separately for those that exceeded the 

copper action level only (use Table 7a) vs. those that exceeded both the copper and lead action levels 

(use Table 7b). 

Table 7a: Number of Systems that Met the Action Level after 

Installing 

 (Had Exceeded Copper Action Level Only) 

Type of CCT Large (> 50,000) Med (3,301 - 50,000) Small (# 3,300)

ground water systems using:

pH/alkalinity adjustment

calcium hardness 

inhibitor addition 

surface water systems using:

pH/alkalinity adjustment

calcium hardness 

inhibitor addition 

Table 7b: Number of Systems that Met the Copper Action Level after Installing CCT

 (Had Exceeded Both Copper & Lead Action Levels) 

Type of CCT Large (> 50,000) Med (3,301 - 50,000) Small (# 3,300)

ground water systems using:

pH/alkalinity adjustment

calcium hardness 

inhibitor addition 

surface water systems using:

pH/alkalinity adjustment

calcium hardness 

inhibitor addition 

Appendix A 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

A-10
8. Please provide information about target water quality parameters (pH, alkalinity, hardness, 

inhibitor dose) for the systems that met the copper action level after installing CCT AND for the 

systems that continued to exceed after installing CCT. Information about water quality within the 

distribution system, rather than at the entry point to the distribution system is required. Please

provide the information by type of treatment implemented and separate systems that used 

orthophosphate from those that used polyphosphate or ortho/polyphosphate blends. Please 

complete the following tables: 

• Tables 8a for systems that exceeded the copper action level only but no longer exceed 

after CCT 

• Table 8b for systems that exceeded the copper level only and continue to exceed after CCT 

• Table 8c for systems that exceeded both action levels but no longer exceed the copper action

level after CCT 

• Table 8d for systems that exceeded both action levels but continue to exceed the copper action

level after CCT. 

Please note: If a system continues to exceed the lead action level after CCT but not the copper 

action level, place these systems in Table 8c. 

EXAMPLE 1

200 small groundwater systems, of the 458 in the State, exceed the copper action level only and 

implemented orthophosphate addition. Of those, 125 subsequently were at or below the copper 

action level. The average pH of these 125 systems was 7.3 (range 7.2 –7.8), alkalinity was 110 

mg/L as CaCO3 (range 85-155) and average orthophosphate dose was 1.3 mg/L with a dosage 

range of 0.5 mg/L to 2 mg/L. 

EXAMPLE 1

Table 8a: Water Quality Parameters for Systems that Met the Copper Action Level After CCT 

(exceeded copper action level only)

Water quality

characteristic

pH/alkalinity adjust Calcium hardness Orthophosphate addition Poly or Blended

Phosphate addition 

ground water systems

pH range, in

pH units 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: n= 125; ave. = 7.3;

range = 7.2 - 7.8

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Alkalinity,

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: n= 125; ave. = 110; 

range = 85 - 155

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Hardness, 

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

dosage of

inhibitor (if

part of

treatment),

mg/L

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: n= 125; ave. = 1.3;

range = 0.5 – 2.0

 Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Appendix A 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

A-11
EXAMPLE 2

200 small groundwater systems, of the 458 in the State, exceed the copper action level only and 

implemented orthophosphate addition. Of those, 75 continued to exceed the copper action 

level. The average pH of these 75 systems was 7.5 (range 7.3 –8.1), alkalinity was 200 (range 

130 – 260) and average orthophosphate dose was 0.8 mg/L (range 0.13 to 2 mg/L). 

EXAMPLE 2

Table 8b: Water Quality Parameters for Systems that Did Not Meet the Copper Action Level After CCT

(exceeded copper action level only)

Water quality

characteristic

pH/alkalinity adjust Calcium hardness Orthophosphate 

adjustment 

Poly or Blended

Phosphate addition 

ground water systems

pH range, in

pH units 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: n=75; ave. = 7.5;

range = 7.3 – 8.1 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Alkalinity,

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: n= 75; ave. = 200; 

range = 130 - 260 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Hardness, 

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

dosage of

inhibitor (if

part of

treament), 

mg/L

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: n= 75; ave. = 0.8 

range = 0.13 – 2.0 

Lg: 

Med: 

Sm: 

Appendix A 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

A-12
Table 8a: Water Quality Parameters for Systems that Met the Copper Action Level After CCT

(exceeded copper action level only)

Water quality 

characteristic 

pH/alkalinity 

adjustment 

Calcium hardness Orthophosphate 

addition 

Poly or Blended 

Phosphate addn

ground water systems

pH range, in

pH units 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Alkalinity, 

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Hardness, 

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

dosage of

inhibitor (if 

used), mg/L

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

DIC (if 

known), 

mg/L C

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Iron, mg/L Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Manganese,

mg/L

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

surface water systems

pH range, in

pH units 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Alkalinity, 

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Hardness, 

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Appendix A 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

A-13
Table 8a: Water Quality Parameters for Systems that Met the Copper Action Level After CCT

(exceeded copper action level only)

Water quality 

characteristic 

pH/alkalinity 

adjustment 

Calcium hardness Orthophosphate 

addition 

Poly or Blended 

Phosphate addn

dosage of

inhibitor (if 

used), mg/L

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

DIC (if 

known), 

mg/L C

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

TOC (if 

known), 

mg/L C

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Table 8b: Water Quality Parameters for Systems that Did Not Meet the Copper Action Level After CCT

(exceeded copper action level only)

Water quality 

characteristics 

pH/alkalinity 

adjustment 

Calcium hardness Orthophosphate 

addition

Poly or Blended 

Phosphate addn

ground water systems

pH range, in

pH units 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm

Alkalinity, 

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Hardness, 

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

dosage of

inhibitor (if 

used), mg/L

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

DIC (if 

known), 

mg/L C

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Iron, mg/L Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Appendix A 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

A-14
Table 8b: Water Quality Parameters for Systems that Did Not Meet the Copper Action Level After CCT

(exceeded copper action level only)

Water quality 

characteristics 

pH/alkalinity 

adjustment 

Calcium hardness Orthophosphate 

addition

Poly or Blended 

Phosphate addn

Manganese,

mg/L

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

surface water systems

pH range, in

pH units 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Alkalinity, 

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Hardness, 

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

dosage of

inhibitor (if 

used), mg/L

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

DIC (if 

known), 

mg/L C

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

TOC (if 

known), 

mg/L C

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Appendix A 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

A-15
Table 8c: Water Quality Parameters for Systems that Met the Copper Action Level After CCT

(exceeded both action levels)

Water quality 

characteristics 

pH/alkalinity 

adjustment 

Calcium hardness Othophosphate 

addition

Poly or Blended 

Phosphate addition 

ground water systems

pH range, in

pH units 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Alkalinity, 

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Hardness, 

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

dosage of

inhibitor (if 

used), mg/L

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

DIC (if 

known), 

mg/L C

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Iron, mg/L Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Manganese,

mg/L

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

surface water systems

pH range, in

pH units 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm

Alkalinity, 

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm

Hardness, 

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm

Appendix A 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

A-16
Table 8c: Water Quality Parameters for Systems that Met the Copper Action Level After CCT

(exceeded both action levels)

Water quality 

characteristics 

pH/alkalinity 

adjustment 

Calcium hardness Othophosphate 

addition

Poly or Blended 

Phosphate addition 

dosage of

inhibitor (if 

used), mg/L

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

DIC (if 

known), 

mg/L C

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

TOC (if 

known), 

mg/L C

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Table 8d: Water Quality Parameters for Systems that Did Not Meet the Copper Action Level After

(exceeded both action levels)

Water quality 

characteristics 

pH/alkalinity 

adjustment 

Calcium hardness Orthophosphate 

addition

Poly or Blended 

Phosphate addn

ground water systems

pH range, in

pH units 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Alkalinity, 

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Hardness, 

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

dosage of

inhibitor (if 

used), mg/L

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

DIC (if 

known), 

mg/L C

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Iron, mg/L Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Appendix A 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

A-17
Table 8d: Water Quality Parameters for Systems that Did Not Meet the Copper Action Level After

(exceeded both action levels)

Water quality 

characteristics 

pH/alkalinity 

adjustment 

Calcium hardness Orthophosphate 

addition

Poly or Blended 

Phosphate addn

Manganese,

mg/L

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

surface water systems

pH range, in

pH units 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

 Sm: 

Alkalinity, 

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Hardness, 

mg/L as

CaCO3

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

dosage of

inhibitor (if 

used), mg/L

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

DIC (if 

known), 

mg/L C

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Lg: 

Med:

 Sm: 

TOC (if 

known), 

mg/L C

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Lg: 

Med:

Sm: 

Appendix A 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

A-18
9. Did systems report any detrimental effects from the addition of inhibitor corrosion control 

treatment? Detrimental effects may be continued non-compliance with the copper action level, 

required implementation of phosphate removal treatment at a publicly-owned treatment works, 

increased customer complaints of excess hardness or decreased water quality. Please provide 

this information separately for those exceeding the copper action level only (use Table 9a) and 

those exceeding both the copper and lead action levels (use Table 9b). See example in Table 

9a. 

Table 9a: Detrimental Effects from the Addition of Inhibitor CCT for Systems with Copper 

Exceedances Only

Description of Problem No. of 

systems w/ 

problem

System Size & source type

Example: Complaints of excess hardness 5 3 - small (2 sw; 1 gw) 

1 - med (gw) 

1- lg (gw) 

Appendix A 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

A-19
Table 9b: Detrimental Effects from the Addition of Inhibitor CCT for Systems with Copper 

and Lead Exceedances

Description of Problem No. of 

systems w/ 

problem

System Size & source type

Appendix A 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

A-20
APPENDIX B 

Summary of Data from Questionnaire sent to the following volunteer States: 

Arkansas 

Colorado 

Kansas 

Minnesota 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Appendix B 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

B-1 
This page left intentionally blank.

Appendix B 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

B-2 
Summary of Survey Data

1 and 2

Large System Data

1 # of 2 # only 2 # 1 # of 2 # 2#

Systems exceeding exceeding Systems exceeding exceeding

subject to LCRCu only Pb/Cu subject to LCRCu only Pb/Cu

State #GW #GW #GW #SW #SW #SW

Colorado 0 0 0 14 0 0

Kansas 0 0 0 6 0 0

Minnesota 1 0 0 4 0 0

Arkansas 2 0 0 5 0 0

Nebraska 0 0 0 2 0 0

Montana 1 0 0 2 0 0

Medium System Data

1 # of 2 # only 2 # 1 # of 2 # 2#

Systems exceeding exceeding Systems exceeding exceeding

subject to LCRCu only Pb/Cu subject to LCRCu only Pb/Cu

State #GW #GW #GW #SW #SW #SW

Colorado 24 2 2 47 2 0

Kansas 33 6 0 45 0 0

Minnesota 123 21 9 13 0 0

Arkansas 54 9 3 77 4 0

Nebraska 34 4 0 5 2 0

Montana 14 3 1 13 0 3

Nebraska systems are groundwater under

the influence of surface water

Small System Data

1 # of 2 # only 2 # 1 # of 2 # only 2 #

Systems exceeding exceeding Systems exceeding exceeding

subject to LCRCu only Pb/Cu subject to LCRCu only Pb/Cu

State #GW #GW #GW #SW #SW #SW

Colorado 631 54 19 153 22 14

Kansas 701 30 5 314 2 0

Minnesota 808 118 9 7 0 0

Arkansas 426 27 7 217 11 2

Nebraska 741 32 2 1 0 0

Montana 752 59 14 44 5 3

Appendix B 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

B-3 
Percentage of Systems with an exceedance

Large System Data

no large systems exceeded lead or copper during

initial testing in these states

Medium System Data

Groundwater Surface Water

% systems exceeding % systems exceeding

Cu only Cu/Pb both Cu only Cu/Pb both

State

Colorado 8.33% 8.33% 4.26% 0.00%

Kansas 18.18% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Minnesota 17.07% 7.32% 0.00% 0.00%

Arkansas 16.67% 5.56% 5.19% 0.00%

Nebraska 11.76% 0.00% 40.00% 0.00%

Montana 21.43% 7.14% 0.00% 23.08%

Nebraska surface water actually GWUI

Small System Data

Groundwater Surface Water

% systems exceeding % systems exceeding

Cu only Cu/Pb both Cu only Cu/Pb both

State

Colorado 8.56% 3.01% 14.38% 9.15%

Kansas 4.28% 0.71% 0.64% 0.00%

Minnesota 14.60% 1.11% 0.00% 0.00%

Arkansas 6.34% 1.64% 5.07% 0.92%

Nebraska 4.32% 0.27% 0.00% 0.00%

Montana 7.85% 1.86% 11.36% 6.82%

Appendix B 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

B-4 
Summary of Treated Water Quality BEFORE CCT

3a Exceeded Copper Level

Medium Groundwater System Data hardness

pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave n

State

Colorado 6.9 150 140 48 1

Kansas 6.78 8.01 7.4 117 432 244 153 738 367 40 106 65 6

Minnesota 7 8.1 7.4 160 470 280 80 550 212 54 102 66 21

Arkansas 6.18 7.9 7.11 64 403 210 2 240 56 43 100 46 9

Nebraska 7.2 7.25 7.23 227 252 242 232 270 242 63 69 67 4

Montana no data

Small Groundwater System Data hardness

pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave n

State

Colorado 5.4 7.8 6.9 18 320 143 20 140 90 52 80 66 25

Kansas 6.3 8.2 7.2 30 440 225 50 690 252 17 107 63 30

Minnesota 6.7 7.7 7.3 50 550 330 15 1000 280 14 106 77 118

Arkansas 5.7 8 6.9 6 383 138 1 64 18 9 94 44 15

Nebraska 6.8 7.19 6.88 229 254 228 258 293 260 71 78 74 11

Montana no data

Fe min Fe max Fe ave Mn min Mn max Mn ave n Note

State

Kansas 0.01 6.8 0.16 0.001 1.26 0.03 6 med

Minnesota 0.04 0.52 0.09 0.01 0.3 0.04 21 med 90% of systems remove iton or manganese

Nebraska 0.015 0.06 0.04 0.19 0.27 0.2 2 med

Kansas 0.01 5.76 0.21 0.001 1.19 0.08 30 small

Minnesota 0.04 4.4 0.69 0.01 1.6 0.23 118 small 70% of systems remove iron or manganese

Nebraska 0.07 0.08 0.077 0.06 0.2 0.2 3 small

3a Exceeded Copper Level

Medium Surface Water System Data hardness

pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave n

State

Colorado 7.4 7.6 7.5 280 320 300 105 350 227 74 82 78 2

Kansas no systems

Minnesota no systems

Arkansas 5.8 8.3 6.8 57 167 122 4 67 44 40 71 42 3

Nebraska no data

Montana no systems

Small Surface Water System Data hardness

pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave n

State

Colorado 6.8 7.5 7.2 20 188 107 20 140 90 7 49 30 8

Kansas 6.9 7.7 7.5 203 276 238 278 446 337 62 70 65 2

Minnesota no systems

Arkansas 5.4 7.3 6.6 1 58 26 2 26 12 3 16 10 3

Nebraska no systems

Montana no data

TOC min TOC max TOC ave n

Kansas 6 8 6.7 1

Appendix B 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

B-5 
Summary of Treated Water Quality BEFORE CCT

3b Exceeded Lead and Copper Levels

Medium Groundwater System Data hardness

pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC minDIC maxDIC ave n

State

Colorado 7.3 7.36 7.33 70 180 125 100 584 342 19 48 34 2

Kansas no systems

Minnesota 6.8 7.9 7.45 250 480 345 10 310 202 69 120 90 9

Arkansas 6.3 7.4 7 64 390 250 2 26 16 36 103 76 3

Nebraska no systems

Montana no data

Small Groundwater System Data hardness

pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC minDIC maxDIC ave n

State

Colorado 6 8.1 6.9 20 116 85 40 120 41 18 28 27 13

Kansas 6.8 7.8 7.1 74 383 222 79 485 232 25 96 64 5

Minnesota 7 7.6 7.3 190 525 316 135 350 210 53 140 85 9

Arkansas 5.5 7.4 6.23 9 186 66 4 61 25 21 49 41 7

Nebraska no data

Montana no data

Fe min Fe max Fe ave Mn min Mn max Mn ave n

State

Minnesota 0.04 0.85 0.16 0.01 0.11 0.03 9 med

Kansas 0.01 0.25 0.09 0.001 0.25 0.03 5 small

Minnesota 0.04 1.6 0.51 0.02 0.14 0.05 9 small

Medium Surface Water System Data hardness

pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC minDIC maxDIC ave n

State

Colorado no systems

Kansas no systems

Minnesota no systems

Arkansas no systems

Nebraska no systems

Montana no data

Small Surface Water System Data hardness

pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC minDIC maxDIC ave n

State

Colorado 5.9 7.4 6.5 6 100 38 6 26 17 7

Kansas no systems

Minnesota no systems

Arkansas 6.4 6.7 6.6 9 11 10 3 14 9 4 4 4 2

Nebraska no systems

Montana no data

Appendix B 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

B-6 
Summary of Systems adding Corrosion Control

4a and 4b

Medium System Data

Groundwater Surface Water

Systems that Systems that Systems that Systems that

exceeded exceeded exceeded exceeded

copper Cu/Pb copper Cu/Pb

require Installing require Installing require Installing require Installing

CCT CCT CCT CCT CCT CCT CCT CCT

State # # ######

Colorado 1 1 2 1 0000

Kansas 6 6 0 5 0000

Minnesota 20 20 9 9 0000

Arkansas 6 5 3 3 4300

Nebraska 6 0 0 0 0000

Montana 3 2 1 1 0032

Small System Data

Groundwater Surface Water

Systems that Systems that Systems that Systems that

exceeded exceeded exceeded exceeded

copper Cu/Pb copper Cu/Pb

require Installing require Installing require Installing require Installing

CCT CCT CCT CCT CCT CCT CCT CCT

State # # ######

Colorado 34 22 12 12 10 6 10 9

Kansas 30 29552200

Minnesota 83 77880000

Arkansas 23 14 1079222

Nebraska 32 2200000

Montana 59 13 1465131

Appendix B 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

B-7 
Summary of Systems adding Corrosion Control

5a Exceeded Copper only

Medium System Data Type of CCT

Groundwater Surface Water 

pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn

State

Colorado 0 0 1 0 0

Kansas 2 0 4 no systems

Minnesota 2 0 18 no systems

Arkansas 5 0 4 3 0

Nebraska 3 0 3 no data

Montana 0 0 2 no systems

Small System Data Type of CCT

Groundwater Surface Water 

pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn pH/Alkalinity inhibitor add

0

3

n

State

Colorado 15 0 16 7 0 1

Kansas 9 0 20 1 0

Minnesota 5* 0 79 no systems

Arkansas 12 0 5 2 0 1

Nebraska 1 0 13 no systems

Montana 1 0 11 0 0

5b Exceeded Lead and Copper

Medium System Data Type of CCT

Groundwater Surface Water 

pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn pH/Alkalinity inhibitor add

1

1

n

State

Colorado 2 0 0 no systems

Kansas no systems no systems

Minnesota 0 0 8 no systems

Arkansas 3 0 3 no systems

Nebraska no systems no systems

Montana 0 0 1 0 0

Small System Data Type of CCT

Groundwater Surface Water 

pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn pH/Alkalinity inhibitor add

2

n

State

Colorado 6 0 6 4 0

Kansas 0 0 5 no systems

Minnesota 0 0 8 no systems

Arkansas 7 0 2 2 0

Nebraska no data no systems

Montana 2 0 3 0 0

calcium hardness calcium hardness

calcium hardness calcium hardness

calcium hardness calcium hardness

calcium hardness calcium hardness

4

1

0

Appendix B 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

B-8 
Summary of Phosphate Inhibitor Use by Water Systems

6a Exceeded Copper Only

Medium Systems

Groundwater Systems Surface Water Systems

State all types orthoP poly P blend all types orthoP poly P blend

Colorado 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kansas 4 0 3 1

Minnesota 18 5 1 11

Arkansas 4 4 0 0 3 3 0 0

Nebraska 3 0 0 3

Montana 2 1 0 1

Small Systems

Groundwater Systems Surface Water Systems

State all types orthoP poly P blend all types orthoP poly P blend 

Colorado 16 0 0 13 1 0 0 1

Kansas 20 1 16 3 1 1 0 0

Minnesota 79 18 23 31

Arkansas 5 5 0 2 1 1 0

Nebraska 13 5 1 6

Montana 11 5 2 3 1 1 0

6b Exceeded lead and Copper

Medium Systems

Groundwater Systems Surface Water Systems

State all types orthoP poly P blend all types orthoP poly P blend

Colorado 0 0 0 0

Kansas

Minnesota 8 3 1 5

Arkansas 3 3 0 0

Nebraska

Montana 1 0 102 2 0

Small Systems

Groundwater Systems Surface Water Systems

State all types orthoP poly P blend all types orthoP poly P blend 

Colorado 6 0 054 0 0

Kansas 5 0 4 0

Minnesota 8 1 3 3

Arkansas 2 2 001 0 0

Nebraska

Montana 3 0 210 0 0

A blank space indicates that there are no systems in this category while 0 indicates that no systems use 

this treatment

0

0

0

4

0

0

Appendix B 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

B-9 
Appendix B 

Systems that met Copper Action Level after Installing CCT

7a Exceeded Copper Only

Medium Systems

Groundwater Systems Surface Water Systems

pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn

State chose succes

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

B-10

schose successchose success chose success

Colorado 001 1 0 0 0 0

Kansas 2 2 4 3 no systems

Minnesota 2 1 18 12 no systems

Arkansas 514 4 3 0 3 3

Nebraska 303 0

Montana 0 0 2 1 no systems

Small Systems

Groundwater Systems Surface Water Systems

pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn

State chose successchose successchose success chose success

Colorado 15 10 16 7 7 3 1 1

Kansas 9 6 20 12 1 1 1 1

Minnesota 5* 4 79 54 no systems

Arkansas 12 7 5 2 2 1 1 1

Nebraska 1 1 13 0 no systems

Montana 1 0 11 3 0 0 1 0

7b Exceeded Lead and Copper

Medium Systems

Groundwater Systems Surface Water Systems

pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn

State chose successchose successchose success chose success

Colorado 2 1 0 0 no systems

Kansas no systems no systems

Minnesota 0 0 8 8 no systems

Arkansas 3 1 3 3 no systems

Nebraska no systems no systems

Montana 001 0 0 0 2 1

Small Systems

Groundwater Systems Surface Water Systems

pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn

State chose successchose successchose success chose success

Colorado 636 4 4 1 4 2

Kansas 0 0 5 2 no systems

Minnesota 0 0 8 3 no systems

Arkansas 742 3 2 1 1 1

Nebraska no systems

Montana 203 1 0 0 0 0
Appendix B 

Systems that met Copper Action Level after Installing CCT

7a Exceeded Copper Only % successful treatment

Medium Systems

Groundwater Systems Surface Water Systems

pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn

State

Colorado 100.00%

Kansas 100.00% 75.00%

Minnesota 50.00% 66.67% 0.00% 100.00%

Arkansas 20.00% 100.00%

Nebraska 0.00% 0.00%

Montana 50.00%

Small Systems

Groundwater Systems Surface Water Systems

pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn

State

Colorado 66.67% 43.75% 42.86% 100.00%

Kansas 66.67% 60.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Minnesota 80.00% 68.35%

Arkansas 58.33% 40.00% 50.00% 100.00%

Nebraska 100.00% 0.00%

Montana 0.00% 27.27% 0.00%

7b Exceeded Lead and Copper

Medium Systems

Groundwater Systems Surface Water Systems

pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn

State

Colorado 50.00%

Kansas

Minnesota 100.00%

Arkansas 33.33% 100.00%

Nebraska

Montana 0.00% 50.00%

Small Systems

Groundwater Systems Surface Water Systems

pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn pH/Alkalinity inhibitor addn

State

Colorado 50.00% 66.67% 25.00% 50.00%

Kansas 40.00%

Minnesota 37.50%

Arkansas 57.14% 100.00% 50.00% 100.00%

Nebraska

Montana 0.00% 33.33%

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

B-11
Summary of Treated Water AFTER CCT

8a Exceeded Copper originally, in compliance after CCT

Medium Groundwater System Data pH alkalinity treatment

hardness

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC maxDIC ave

Colorado

Kansas 3 6.9 7.9 7.3 117 222 192 153 384 266 43 58 48

Minnesota 1 7.4 8.1 7.8

Arkansas 1 7 8.6 7.8

Nebraska no data

Montana no data

Medium Groundwater System Data phosphate treatment blend or

hardness ortho total

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC maxDIC ave PO4 PO4 

Colorado 1 7.2 190 53 0.36

Kansas 1 7.2 7.5 7.35 293 341 309 502 738 665 82 89 83 unk

Kansas 1 7.3 8 7.6 196 432 324 295 624 396 53 106 83 unk

Minnesota 2 1.36

Minnesota 9 7.1 7.6 7.4 1.75

Arkansas 3 6.15 7.8 7.1 1.5

Arkansas 1 225 292 260 2

Nebraska no data

Montana no data

pH alkalinity treatment phosphate treatment

State Fe min Fe max Fe ave Mn min Mn max Mn ave n Fe min Fe max Fe ave Mn min Mn max Mn ave

Kansas 3 0.01 0.32 0.07 0.01 0.16 0.02

Kansas 1 0.01 3.19 0.34 0.001 0.31 0.1

Kansas 1 0.01 6.8 0.38 0.002 1.26 0.005

8a Exceeded Copper originally, in compliance after CCT

Small Groundwater System Data pH alkalinity treatment

hardness

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC maxDIC ave

Colorado 8 7.4 8.12 7.9 75 250 155 28 140 93 20 61 38

Kansas 7 6.3 8.2 7.03 30 376 212 50 482 192 17 91 64

Minnesota 4 7 7.55 7.18

Arkansas 5 5.8 7.5 6.9 17 104 47 15 27 21

Nebraska no data

Montana no data

Small Groundwater System Data phosphate treatment blend or

hardness ortho total

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC maxDIC ave PO4 PO4 

Colorado 5 7.2 8.5 7.8 120 240 176 140 212 181 33 57 44 0.65

Kansas 2 6.8 7.1 7.05 105 225 160 115 393 222 36 65 48 unk

Kansas 10 6.8 7.7 7.2 66 440 212 110 691 284 23 111 59 unk

Minnesota 13 0.76

Minnesota 32 3.3

Arkansas 5 6.3 8.8 7.3 20 46 33 9 11 11 2.5

Arkansas 2 7.1 7.4 7.2 0 218 109 2 58 30 3

Nebraska no data

Montana no data

pH alkalinity treatment phosphate treatment

State n Fe min Fe max Fe ave Mn min Mn max Mn ave n Fe min Fe max Fe ave Mn min Mn max Mn ave

Kansas 7 0.01 5.8 0.59 0.01 1.2 0.1

Kansas 2 0.01 1.6 0.24 0.001 0.006 0.002

Kansas 10 0.01 0.4 0.1 0.001 0.91 0.13

Appendix B 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

B-12
Summary of Treated Water AFTER CCT

8a Exceeded Copper originally, in compliance after CCT

Medium Surface Water System Data pH alkalinity treatment

hardness

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave

Colorado 1 7.6 280 71

Kansas no systems

Minnesota no systems

Arkansas 0

Nebraska no systems

Montana no systems

Medium Surface Water System Data phosphate treatment

hardness ortho total

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave PO4 PO4

Colorado 0

Kansas no systems

Minnesota no systems

Arkansas 2 6.5 8.8 7.5 9 218 73 4 51 19 2

Nebraska no systems

Montana no systems

Summary of Treated Water AFTER CCT

8a Exceeded Copper originally, in compliance after CCT

Small Surface Water System Data pH alkalinity treatment

hardness

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave

Colorado 3 7.4 8.9 7.9 60 290 175 16 68 43

Kansas 1 6.9 7.7 7.32 203 223 213 321 383 352 56 65 58

Minnesota no systems

Arkansas 1 7 20 6

Nebraska no data

Montana no data

Small Surface Water System Data phosphate treatment blend or

hardness ortho total

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave PO4 PO4 

Colorado 1 8.04 196 170 48 0.65

Kansas 1 7.4 7.6 7.5 208 276 263 278 446 337 55 71 68 unk

Minnesota no systems

Arkansas 1 7.5 7.8 7.64 54 61 58 3

Nebraska no data

Montana no data

Appendix B 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

B-13
Summary of Treated Water AFTER CCT

8b Exceeded Copper originally, NOT in compliance after CCT

Medium Groundwater System Data pH alkalinity treatment

hardness

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC maxDIC ave

Colorado no systems

Kansas no systems

Minnesota 1 7.8 8.1 7.9

Arkansas

Nebraska no systems

Montana no data

Medium Groundwater System Data phosphate treatment blend or

hardness ortho total

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC maxDIC ave PO4 PO4 

Colorado no systems

Kansas 1 7.2 7.9 7.5 232 275 254 310 391 345 65 68 66 unk

Minnesota 3 7.3 7.9 7.5 1.3

Minnesota 2 7.1 7.5 7.3 1.8

Arkansas 1 6.15 7.66 6.85 2

Nebraska no systems

Montana no data

phosphate treatment

State Fe min Fe max Fe ave Mn min Mn max Mn ave

Kansas 1 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.008

Medium Surface Water System Data phosphate treatment

hardness ortho total

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC maxDIC ave PO4 PO4

Arkansas 1 6.61 7.85 7.1 122 418 152 48 104 44 2

Summary of Treated Water AFTER CCT

8b Exceeded Copper originally, NOT in compliance after CCT

Small Groundwater System Data pH alkalinity treatment

hardness

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC maxDIC ave

Colorado no systems

Kansas 1 6.9 7.6 7.3 182 238 211 247 270 262 57 61 58

Minnesota 1 6.8 7.4 7.12

Arkansas 1 6.5 6.61 6.5

Nebraska no data

Montana no data

Small Groundwater System Data phosphate treatment

hardness ortho total

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC maxDIC ave PO4 PO4

Colorado no systems

Kansas 5 6.3 7.8 7.1 30 392 275 50 464 280 17 98 80 unk

Minnesota 4 7.1 7.5 7.5 1.3

Minnesota 13 6.4 7.7 7.3 2.1

Arkansas no data

Nebraska no data

Montana no data

Appendix B 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

B-14
Summary of Treated Water AFTER CCT

8c Exceeded Lead and Copper originally, in compliance with Copper after CCT

Medium Groundwater System Data pH alkalinity treatment

hardness

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave

Colorado 1 7.38 107 28

Kansas no systems

Minnesota 1 7.3 8.5 7.7

Arkansas 2 6.1 8 7.2 10 129 61 8 32 17

Nebraska no data

Montana no data

Medium Groundwater System Data phosphate treatment

hardness ortho total

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave PO4 PO4

Colorado no systems

Kansas no systems

Minnesota 2 7.5 7.6 7.5 1.73

Minnesota 4 7.1 7.6 7.2 2

Arkansas 1 7.05 7.63 7.3 381 409 391 1.8

Nebraska no data

Montana no data

Small Groundwater System Data pH alkalinity treatment

hardness

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave

Colorado 3 6.9 7.7 7.3 48 222 115

Kansas no systems

Minnesota no systems

Arkansas 3 6 8.97 7.5 120 125 123

Nebraska no data

Montana no data

Small Groundwater System Data phosphate treatment

hardness ortho total

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave PO4 PO4

Colorado 3 6.9 7.7 7.3 48 222 115 0.46

Kansas 2 6.8 7.2 7.12 176 383 272 237 484 342 unk

Minnesota 3 7.3 7.8 7.56 5

Arkansas 2 6.5 8 7.3 163 171 166 1.9

Nebraska no data

Montana no data

Appendix B 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

B-15
Summary of Treated Water AFTER CCT

8c Exceeded Lead and Copper originally, in compliance with Copper after CCT

Medium Surface Water System Data pH alkalinity treatment

hardness

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave

Colorado no systems

Kansas no systems

Minnesota no systems

Arkansas no systems

Nebraska no data

Montana no data

Medium Surface Water System Data phosphate treatment

hardness

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave

Colorado no systems

Kansas no systems

Minnesota no systems

Arkansas no systems

Nebraska no data

Montana no data

Small Surface Water System Data pH alkalinity treatment

hardness

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave

Colorado no systems

Kansas no systems

Minnesota no systems

Arkansas 1 6.8 8.2 7.5 10 26 20 3 6 5

Nebraska no data

Montana no data

Small Surface Water System Data phosphate treatment

hardness ortho total

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave PO4 PO4

Colorado 1 6.4 15 7 0.3

Kansas no systems

Minnesota no systems

Arkansas 1 6.8 7.7 7.2 2

Nebraska no data

Montana no data

Appendix B 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

B-16
Summary of Treated Water AFTER CCT

8d Exceeded Lead and Copper originally, NOT in compliance with Copper after CCT

Medium Groundwater System Data pH alkalinity treatment

hardness

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave

Colorado no systems

Kansas no systems

Minnesota no systems

Arkansas no data

Nebraska no systems

Montana no data

Medium Groundwater System Data phosphate treatment

hardness ortho total

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave PO4 PO4

Colorado no systems

Kansas no systems 

Minnesota 1 7.3 7.7 7.5 1.5

Minnesota 1 7.2 7.6 7.4 1.5

Arkansas 1 7.3 7.78 7.5 309 340 315 82 85 85 2

Nebraska no systems

Montana no data

Small Groundwater System Data pH alkalinity treatment

hardness

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave

Colorado no systems

Kansas no systems

Minnesota 1 7.3 7.5 7.4

Arkansas no data

Nebraska no data

Montana no data

Small Groundwater System Data phosphate treatment

hardness ortho total

State n pH min pH max pH ave alk min alk max alk ave Ca min Ca max Ca ave DIC min DIC max DIC ave PO4 PO4

Colorado no systems

Kansas 2 6.7 7.8 6.9 74 198 129 79 274 173 27 49 41 unk

Minnesota 1 7.3 7.5 7.4 0.8

Minnesota 3 7.1 7.8 7.4 2.3

Arkansas 1 5.7 7 6.2 2

Nebraska no data

Montana no data

Comments from States for Question 9a. 

Kansas – none 

Minnesota – 

• Sloughing and rusty water reported after systems initiated polyphosphate or 

orthophosphate treatment. 

• Wastewater discharge limit, if set, in Minnesota is either 4 ppm (rare) or 1 ppm as 

phosphorus. Since there are more than 10,000 lakes in Minnesota, wastewater 

discharge is a big issue. Most system are receptive toward adding up to 1.5 mg/L total 

phosphate (0.5 mg/L as phosphorus), but at this feed rate the copper 90th percentile 

level is between 1 and 2 mg/L. This is the primary reason that systems do not meet 

the copper action level after CCT. 

• Small systems tend to rely on poly or blended phosphate for iron/manganese 

sequestration. Depending on the age and quality of the product, the polyphosphates 

have reverted to an appreciable amount of orthophosphate which helps with the 

Appendix B 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

B-17
Appendix B 

Revised Guidance Manual for Selecting Lead and Copper Control Strategies 

March 2003

B-18

corrosion control. However, a new batch of product will have little orthophosphate so 

the systems bounce between compliance and non-compliance. 

• Selection of corrosion control products is mostly driven by cost. Systems often select 

the low bid product without knowing the exact composition or ortho/poly ratio of the 

product. Selection is also limited by the variety of products that a regional sales 

vendor carries. 

Montana – none 

Nebraska – none 

Arkansas – sited continued non-compliance for some of their systems 

Colorado – 

• In general, silicate type inhibitors have not proven effective for lead and copper 

corrosion control in Colorado.