DRAFT FOR COMMENT

The Long Term 2 Enhanced

Surface Water Treatment

Rule (LT2ESWTR)

Implementation Guidance
Office of Water (4606M)

EPA 816-D-03-001

www.epa.gov/safewater

November 2003 Printed on Recycled Paper
Disclaimer

This document provides guidance to states, tribes, and U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) Regions exercising primary enforcement

responsibility under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and contains EPA’s

current policy recommendations for complying with the Long Term 2 Enhanced

Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR). Throughout this document, the

terms “state” or “states” are used to refer to all types of primacy agencies

including U.S. territories, Indian tribes, and EPA Regions.

The statutory provisions and EPA regulations described in this document

contain legally binding requirements. This document is not a regulation itself,

nor does it change or substitute for those provisions and regulations. Thus, it

does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, or public water

systems. This guidance does not confer legal rights or impose legal obligations

upon any member of the public.

While EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the discussion

in this guidance, the obligations of the regulated community are determined by

statutes, regulations, or other legally binding requirements. In the event of a

conflict between the discussion in this document and any statute or regulation,

this document would not be controlling.

The general description provided here may not apply to a particular situation

based upon the circumstances. Interested parties are free to raise questions and

objections about the substance of this guidance and the appropriateness of the

application of this guidance to a particular situation. EPA and other

decisionmakers retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis

that differ from those described in this guidance where appropriate.

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute

endorsement or recommendation for their use.

This is a living document and may be revised periodically without public notice. 

EPA welcomes public input on this document at any time. Guidance provided

in this draft document reflects provisions proposed on August 11, 2003 (68 FR

47640).
This page intentionally left blank
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 1

Table of Contents

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

List of Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Section 1 Rule Requirements

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.1.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.1.2 Development of the LT2ESWTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1.1.3 Benefits of the LT2ESWTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1.1.3.1 Quantifiable Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1.1.3.2 Non-quantifiable health and non-health related benefits . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1.2 Requirements of the Rule: PWSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1.2.1 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1.2.2 Source Water Monitoring [proposed §141.702] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

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

§141.703] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

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

§141.704] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

1.2.3 Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Requirements [proposed §141.711,

§141.713] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

1.2.3.1 Which systems need to develop profiles? [proposed §141.711] . . . . . 25

1.2.3.2 What if systems previously collected data? [proposed §141.713] . . . . 25

1.2.3.3 If a system developed a profile for Giardia, does it have to develop one

for viruses? [proposed §141.713] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

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

§141.712] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

1.2.3.5 What are the recordkeeping requirements for a disinfection profile?

[proposed §141.713, §141.731] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

1.2.4 Treatment Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

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

§141.701] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

1.2.4.2 What are the requirements for Cryptosporidium treatment for filtered

systems? [proposed §141.720] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

1.2.4.3 What are the requirements for Cryptosporidium treatment for unfiltered

systems? [proposed §141.721] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 2

1.2.5 Microbial Toolbox Options Available to Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

1.2.5.1 Watershed Control Program [proposed §141.725(a)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

1.2.5.2 Alternative Source [proposed §141.725(b)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

1.2.5.3 Pre-sedimentation with Coagulant [proposed §141.726(a)] . . . . . . . . 32

1.2.5.4 Two-stage Lime Softening [proposed §141.726(b)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

1.2.5.5 Bank Filtration [proposed §141.726(c)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

1.2.5.6 Combined Filter Performance [proposed §141.727(a)] . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

1.2.5.7 Individual Filter Performance [proposed §141.727(b)] . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

1.2.5.8 Demonstration of Performance: What if a system can perform better than

the presumptive credit specified in the toolbox? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

1.2.5.9 Bag and Cartridge Filtration [proposed §141.728(a)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

1.2.5.10 Membrane Filtration [proposed §141.728(b)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

1.2.5.11 Second Stage Filtration [proposed §141.728(c)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

1.2.5.12 Slow Sand Filters [proposed §141.728(d)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

1.2.5.13 Chlorine Dioxide [proposed §141.729(b)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

1.2.5.14 Ozone [proposed §141.729(c)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

1.2.5.15 Ultraviolet Light [proposed §141.729(d)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

1.2.6 Uncovered Finished Reservoir Requirements [proposed §141.724] . . . . . . . . 46

1.2.7 PWS Recordkeeping Requirements [proposed §141.731] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

1.2.8 Public Notification of Drinking Water Violations [proposed §141 Subpart Q,

Appendix A] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

1.2.8.1 Water are examples of a Tier 2 violation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

1.2.8.2 What are examples of a Tier 3 violation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

1.2.9 Consumer Confidence Report Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

1.3 Requirements of the Rule: States or Other Primacy Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

1.3.1 Special Primacy Requirements [proposed §142.16] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

1.3.2 State Recordkeeping Requirements [proposed §142.14] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

1.3.3 State Reporting Requirements [proposed §142.15] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

1.4 Summary of Action Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

1.4.1 Applicability and Compliance Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

1.4.2 Timeline for the LT2ESWTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Section 2 Resources and Guidance

2.1 Technical Guidance Manuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

2.2 Rule Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

2.3 Fact Sheet/Draft Quick Reference Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

2.4 Q&As . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

2.4.1 Systems Affected by the LT2ESWTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

2.4.2 Cryptosporidium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

2.4.3 Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

2.4.4 Source Water Microbial Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 3

2.4.5 Bin Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

2.4.6 Microbial Toolbox Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

2.4.7 Violations and SDWIS Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

2.4.8 Data Reporting and Recordkeeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

2.4.9 Unfiltered Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

2.4.10 Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Section 3 State Implementation

3.1 Overview of Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

3.2 Identify Special Primacy Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

3.3 Identify Affected Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

3.3.1 Source Water Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

3.3.2 Cryptosporidium Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3.3.3 Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3.3.4 Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3.4 Communicate LT2ESWTR Requirements to Affected Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

3.4.1 Source Water Monitoring Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

3.4.1.1 Calculating Average Cryptosporidium Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . 71

3.4.2 Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements and Compliance Dates . . . . . . . . . 71

3.4.3 Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

3.4.4 Uncovered Finished Water Reservoir Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

3.4.5 Methods of Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

3.4.5.1 Written Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

3.4.5.2 Slide Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

3.4.5.3 Guidance Documents and Seminars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

3.5 Update Data Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

3.6 Specify Alternative E. coli or Indicator Values for Small Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

3.7 Ensure that Ongoing Watershed Monitoring is Conducted and Adjust Treatment

Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

3.8 Award Cryptosporidium Removal Credit for Primary Treatments in Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

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

Toolbox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

3.9.1 Watershed Control Program [proposed §141.725(a)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

3.9.1.1 What are the Requirements for Initial State Approval of Watershed

Control Programs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

3.9.1.2 What are the System’s Requirements for Maintaining State Approval of

Watershed Control Programs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

3.9.1.3 What Resources are Available to Systems and States? . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

3.9.2 Alternative Source [proposed §141.725(b)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

3.9.3 Pre-sedimentation with Coagulant [proposed §141.726(a)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

3.9.4 Two-stage Lime Softening [proposed §141.726(b)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

3.9.5 Bank Filtration [proposed §141.726(c)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 4

3.9.6 Combined Filter Performance [proposed §141.727(a)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

3.9.7 Individual Filter Performance [proposed §141.727(b)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

3.9.8 Membrane Filtration [proposed §141.728(b)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

3.9.9 Bag and Cartridge Filtration [proposed §141.728(a)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

3.9.10 Second Stage Filtration [proposed §141.728(c)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

3.9.11 Slow Sand Filters [proposed §141.728(d)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

3.9.12 Chlorine Dioxide [proposed §141.729(b)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

3.9.13 Ozone [proposed §141.729(c)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

3.9.14 Ultraviolet Light [proposed §141.729(d)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

3.9.15 Demonstration of Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

3.10 Oversee Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

3.11 Review Changes in Treatment or Control Measures Used to Meet Cryptosporidium

Treatment Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

3.12 Evaluate Risk Mitigation Plans for Systems with Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs . 88

3.13 Approve Laboratories for Monitoring Cryptosporidium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Section 4 State Primacy Revision Application

4.1 State Primacy Program Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

4.1.1 The Revision Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

4.1.2 The Final Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

4.2 State Primacy Program Revision Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

4.2.1 The Extension Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

4.2.2 Criteria that an Extension Request Must Meet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

4.2.3 Conditions of the Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

4.3 State Primacy Package . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

4.3.1 The State Primacy Revision Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

4.3.2 Text of the State’s Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

4.3.3 Primacy Revision Crosswalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

4.3.5 Special Primacy Requirement [Proposed §142.16] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

4.3.6 Attorney General’s Statement of Enforceability [Proposed §142.12(c)(2)] . . 104

4.3.6.1 Guidance for States on Audit Privilege and/or Immunity Laws . . . . 104

4.4 Guidance for the Special Primacy Requirements of the LT2ESWTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

4.4.1 Assessment of Significant Changes in Watershed and Source Water . . . . . . 106

4.4.2 Approval of Watershed Control Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

4.4.3 Establishment of Protocols for Approving Removal Credits Under the

Demonstration of Performance Toolbox Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

4.4.4 Evaluation of Risk Mitigation Plans for Systems with Uncovered Finished

Reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Section 5 SDWIS Reporting and SNC Definitions
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 5

5.1 Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Reporting Under the LT2ESWTR . . 119

5.1.1 Federally Reported Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

5.2 LT2ESWTR - SNC Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

5.3 LT2ESWTR Data Entry Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Section 6 Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Examples

Appendix A Primacy Revision Crosswalk

Appendix B Regulatory Language

Appendix C Rule Fact Sheet/Draft Quick Reference Guide

Appendix D Primacy Agency Data Entry Instructions, with Examples, for the LT2ESWTR

Appendix E Flowcharts
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 6

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. General Requirements of the LT2ESWTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 1-2. Implementation Timeline for the LT2ESWTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure 3-1. Timeline of System and Primacy Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Figure 4-1. Recommended Review Process for State Request for Approval of Program Revisions . . . 96
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 7

List of Tables

Table 1-1. Schedule of Implementation Deadlines Related to Disinfection Profiling (in months after rule

promulgation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 1-2. Level of Treatment Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 1-3. Microbial Toolbox: Options and Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 1-4. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Watershed Control Program Toolbox Option

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 1-5. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Presedimentation Toolbox Option . . . . . . . 32

Table 1-6. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Two-stage Lime Softening 

Toolbox Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Table 1-7. Reporting Deadline for Systems Choosing the Bank Filtration Toolbox Option . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 1-8. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Combined Filter Performance Toolbox Option

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 1-9. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Individual Filter Performance Toolbox

Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table 1-10. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Demonstration of Performance 

Toolbox Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 1-11. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Bag Filters and Cartridge Filters Toolbox

Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 1-12. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Membrane Filtration Toolbox Option . . . 42

Table 1-13. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Second Stage Filtration Toolbox Option . 43

Table 1-14. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Slow Sand Filtration Option . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 1-15. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Chlorine Dioxide Toolbox Option . . . . . . 44

Table 1-16. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Ozone Toolbox Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 1-17. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the UV Toolbox Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table 1-18. Summary of Action Dates for the LT2ESWTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Table 3-1. Source Water Monitoring Requirements and Compliance Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Table 3-2. Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements for Filtered Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Table 3-3. Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements for Unfiltered Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Table 3-4. Disinfection Profiling Requirements and Compliance Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Table 3-5. Cryptosporidium Treatment Credit Towards LT2ESWTR Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Table 3-6. Microbial Toolbox: Options, Log Credits, and Summary of Design/

Implementation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Table 4-1. State Rule Implementation and Revision Timetable for the LT2ESWTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 8

Table 4-2. State Primacy Revision Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Table 5-1. SDWIS/FED Codes for Federal Reporting Under the LT2ESWTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Table 5-2. Federal Reporting for LT2ESWTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 9

List of Examples

Example 3-1. Example System Notification Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Example 4-1. Example Extension Request Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Example 4-2. Example of Attorney General’s Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Example 6-1. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for Failure to Take Action on Uncovered Finished

Water Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Example 6-2. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Take Action on Uncovered Finished Water

Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Example 6-3. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Receive Approval Before Making a

Significant Change in Disinfection Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Example 6-4. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Receive Approval Before Making a

Significant Change in Disinfection Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Example 6-5. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for Failure to Provide the Level of Treatment

Appropriate for Bin Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Example 6-6. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Provide the Level of Treatment Appropriate

for Bin Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Example 6-7. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Conduct Source Water Monitoring

(Initial or Second Round) and Report the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Example 6-8. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Conduct Source Water Monitoring (Initial

or Second Round) and Report the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Example 6-9. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Submit a Source Water Monitoring

Schedule 3 Months Prior to Date System is Required to Begin Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Example 6-10. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Conduct Source Water Monitoring (Initial

or Second Round) and Report the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Example 6-11. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Collect Samples in Accordance with

Sampling Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Example 6-12. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Collect Samples in Accordance with

Sampling Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Example 6-13. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Sample at an Appropriate Location 146

Example 6-14. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Sample at an Appropriate Location . . 146

Example 6-15. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Use an Approved Laboratory or

Approved Analytical Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Example 6-16. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Use an Approved Laboratory or Approved

Analytical Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Example 6-17. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus Disinfection

Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 10

Example 6-18. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus Disinfection

Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Example 6-19. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus Disinfection

Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Example 6-20. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus Disinfection

Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Example 6-21. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Report Information to Determine if a

System Must Create a Disinfection Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Example 6-22. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Report Information to Determine if a

System Must Create a Disinfection Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Example 6-23. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Report Information About Toolbox

Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

Example 6-24. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Report Information About Toolbox

Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Example 6-25. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Maintain Disinfection Profiles . . . 158

Example 6-26. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Maintain Disinfection Profiles . . . . . . 159

Example 6-27. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Maintain Source Water Monitoring

Results and Bin Classification (initial or second round) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Example 6-28. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Maintain Source Water Monitoring Results

and Bin Classification (initial or second round) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 11

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation

CCR Consumer Confidence Report

CDC Centers for Disease Control

CFE Combined Filter Effluent

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CT The Residual Concentration of Disinfectant (mg/L) Multiplied by the

Contact Time (in minutes) 

CWS Community Water System

DBPs Disinfection Byproducts

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FBRR Filter Backwash Recycling Rule

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FRDS Federal Reporting Data System

GAC Granular Activated Carbon

GWUDI Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water

HAA5 Haloacetic Acids (Monochloroacetic, Dichloroacetic, Trichloroacetic,

Monobromoacetic and Dibromoacetic Acids)

HQ Headquarters

ICR Information Collection Rule

ICRSS Information Collection Rule Supplemental Survey

ICRSSL Information Collection Rule Supplemental Surveys of large systems

IDSE Initial Distribution System Evaluation

IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

IFE Individual Filter Effluent 

Log Logarithm (common, base 10)

LRAA Locational Running Annual Average

LT1ESWTR Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

LT2ESWTR Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

MCF Membrane Cartridge Filter

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

M-DBP Microbial and Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts

MRDL Maximum Residual Disinfection Level

M&R Monitoring and Reporting

NCWS Noncommunity Water System

NIPDWR National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations 

NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation

NTNCWS Nontransient Noncommunity Water System

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OGC Office of General Counsel

OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

ORC Office of Regional Counsel

PWS Public Water System

PWSS Public Water System Supervision

RAA Running Annual Average
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 12

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SDWIS/FED Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal

SNC Significant Non-complier

Stage 1 DBPR Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule

Stage 2 DBPR Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule

SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule

TCR Total Coliform Rule

TOC Total Organic Carbon 

TT Treatment Technique

TTHM Total Trihalomethanes (Chloroform, Bromodichloromethane,

Dibromochloromethane, and Bromoform)

UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule

UV Ultraviolet Light

WCP Watershed Control Program
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 13

Introduction

This document provides guidance to EPA regions and states exercising primary enforcement

responsibility under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) concerning how the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) interprets the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

(LT2ESWTR) under the SDWA. It also provides guidance to the public and the regulated community on

how EPA intends to exercise its discretion in implementing the statute and regulations. This draft

guidance is designed to implement national policy on these issues.

The SDWA provision and EPA regulations described in this document contain legally binding

requirements. This document does not substitute for those provision or regulations, nor is it a regulation

itself. It does not impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, states, or the regulated community and

may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. EPA and state decision makers

retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from this draft guidance,

where appropriate. Any decisions regarding a particular facility will be made based on the applicable

statutes and regulations. Therefore, interested parties are free to raise questions and objections about the

appropriateness of the application of this guidance to a particular situation. EPA will then consider

whether or not the recommendations or interpretations in the guidance are appropriate in that situation

based on the law and regulations. EPA may change this draft guidance in the future.

This draft manual contains the following sections:

Section 1 summarizes the rule requirements of the LT2ESWTR and presents a timetable of important

dates. Section 2 lists the “stand-alone” guidance materials that will help states and public water systems

(PWSs) adopt each new requirement. Section 3 discusses state implementation activities. Section 4

covers state primacy revision requirements, including a detailed time frame for application review and

approval. This section also contains guidance and references to help states adopt each new special

primacy requirement included in these rules. Section 5 addresses violation determination and associated

reporting requirements to assist states in their compliance activities. 

The appendices of this document also provide information that will be useful to states and EPA regions

throughout the primacy revision application process. Appendix A contains the primacy revision

application crosswalk fo the rule. Appendix B contains the rule language of the LT2ESWTR. Appendix

C contains a fact sheet and a draft quick reference guide for the rule. Appendix D contains the data entry

instructions for the LT2ESWTR.

Please note that, in several sections, the guidance makes suggestions and offers alternatives that go

beyond the minimum requirements indicated. EPA does this to provide information and/or suggestions

that may be helpful to implementation efforts. Such suggestions are prefaced by “may” or “should” and

are to be considered advisory. They are not required elements of the LT2ESWTR.

EPA will undertake necessary rule implementation activities during the period of early implementation. 

During this period, the state may elect to undertake some or all of the implementation activities in

cooperation with EPA. This will facilitate continuity of implementation and ensure that system-specific

advice and decisions are made with the best available information and are consistent with existing state

program requirements.
This page intentionally left blank
Section 1

Rule Requirements
This page intentionally left blank
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 17

1.1 Introduction

EPA proposed the LT2ESWTR in the Federal Register on August 11, 2003 (68 FR 47640; see

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/index.html). This rule is part of a series of rules, the “MicrobialDisinfectants/ Disinfection Byproducts Cluster” (M-DBP Cluster), which is intended to improve control

of microbial pathogens while minimizing public health risks of disinfectants and disinfection byproducts

(DBPs). The LT2ESWTR does not change any of the requirements established by the Surface Water

Treatment Rule (SWTR), Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), or the Long Term

1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR); instead, it builds upon these requirements. 

Key provisions of the LT2ESWTR include:

• Source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium, with reduced monitoring requirements for

small systems.

• Additional Cryptosporidium treatment techniques for filtered systems based on source

water Cryptosporidium concentrations.

• Inactivation of Cryptosporidium for all unfiltered systems.

• Disinfection profiling and benchmarking to assure continued levels of microbial

protection while PWSs take the necessary steps to comply with new DBP standards.

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

reservoirs.

EPA believes that implementation of the LT2ESWTR will significantly reduce levels of Cryptosporidium

in finished drinking water. This will substantially lower rates of endemic cryptosporidiosis, the illness

caused by Cryptosporidium, which can be severe and sometimes fatal in sensitive sub-populations (e.g.,

infants, immune suppressed patients, the elderly). In addition, the treatment technique (TT) requirements

of this proposal are expected to increase the level of protection from exposure to other microbial

pathogens (e.g., Giardia).

The LT2ESWTR has been proposed concurrently with the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection

Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR), which addresses reducing peak and average levels of disinfection

byproducts in drinking water supplies. The Stage 2 DBPR was proposed as a separate rule on August 18,

2003.

1.1.1 History

The 1974 SDWA called for EPA to regulate drinking water by creating the national interim primary

drinking water regulations (NIPDWR). In 1979, the first interim standard addressing DBPs was set for

total trihalomethanes (TTHM), a group of four volatile organic chemicals that form when disinfectants

react with natural organic matter in the water.

Although the SDWA was amended slightly in 1977, 1979, and 1980, the most significant changes to the

1974 law occurred when the SDWA was reauthorized in 1986. To safeguard public health, the 1986

Amendments required EPA to set health goals, or maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs), and

maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for 83 named contaminants. Waterborne disease outbreaks of
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 18

giardiasis demonstrated that disease-causing microbial contamination had not been sufficiently controlled

under the original Act. In addition, several hundred chemical contaminants were known to occur in the

environment but few were regulated in PWSs. EPA was also required to establish additional regulations

within certain timeframes, require disinfection of source water supplies, specify filtration requirements for

nearly all water systems that draw their water from surface sources, and develop additional programs to

protect ground water supplies.

In 1989, EPA issued two important National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR): the Total

Coliform Rule (TCR) and the SWTR. The TCR and SWTR provide the foundation for the M-DBP

Cluster and are summarized below. 

Total Coliform Rule

The TCR applies to all PWSs. Coliforms are easily detected in water and are used to assess a water

system’s vulnerability to pathogens. In the TCR, EPA set an MCLG of zero for total coliforms. EPA

also set an MCL for total coliforms and required testing of total coliform positive cultures for the

presence of E. coli or fecal coliforms, which indicate more immediate health risks from sewage or fecal

contamination. If more than 5.0 percent of the samples contain coliforms within a month, water system

operators must report this violation to the state and the public. Finally, the TCR required sanitary surveys

every 5 years (or 10 years for noncommunity water systems (NCWSs) using disinfected and protected

ground water) for every system that collects fewer than five routine total coliform samples per month. 

These are typically systems that serve less than 4,100 people.

Surface Water Treatment Rule

PWSs using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) as a

supply are prone to microbial contamination of their source water. Pathogenic microorganisms that can

contaminate source water can be removed or inactivated during the water treatment sedimentation,

filtration, and disinfection processes. EPA issued the SWTR in response to a Congressional mandate

requiring disinfection, and filtration where necessary, of systems that use surface water or GWUDI

sources. The rule sets MCLGs for Legionella, Giardia lamblia, and viruses at zero because any exposure

to these contaminants presents some level of health risk. The SWTR includes a treatment technique

requirement for inactivation (or removal and inactivation) of these organisms.

Specifically, the SWTR requires that a surface water system have sufficient treatment to reduce source

water concentrations of Giardia lamblia and viruses by at least 99.9 percent (3 log) and 99.99 percent (4

log), respectively. In addition, disinfection residuals must be maintained throughout the distribution

system. For systems that filter, the adequacy of the filtration process is determined by measuring the

turbidity of the treated water since high levels of turbidity often indicate that the filtration process is not

working properly. The goal of the SWTR is to reduce the public health risk for infection by Giardia

lamblia, Legionella, or viruses to less than one infection per year per 10,000 people. 

The SWTR, however, does not account for systems with high pathogen concentrations in source water

that, when treated at the levels required under the rule, still may not meet this health goal. The SWTR

also does not specifically control for the protozoan Cryptosporidium, as sufficient information about its

removal or disinfection was not available at the time the SWTR was finalized. Over the past 10 years,

much has been learned about this organism. Most notably, Cryptosporidium is resistant to disinfection

practices commonly employed by PWSs. Therefore, physical removal of Cryptosporidium is the most

effective method for public health protection.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 19

1996 SDWA Amendments

In 1990, EPA’s Science Advisory Board, an independent panel of experts established by Congress, cited

drinking water contamination as one of the most important environmental risks and indicated that diseasecausing microbial contaminants (e.g., bacteria, protozoa, and viruses) are probably the greatest remaining

health-risk management challenge for drinking water suppliers. Data from the Centers for Disease

Control (CDC) confirm this concern and indicate that between 1980 and 1998, 419 waterborne disease

outbreaks were reported, with over 511,000 estimated cases of disease. During this period, a number of

agents were implicated as causes of the outbreaks, including various protozoa, viruses, and bacteria, as

well as several chemicals (Craun and Calderon 1996, Levy et al. 1998, Barwick et al. 2000). Most of the

cases (but not the outbreaks) of illnesses were associated with surface water, including a single outbreak

of approximately 403,000 cases of cryptosporidiosis in Milwaukee, WI (Mac Kenzie et al. 1994).

The SDWA was further amended in 1996 to improve public health protection by incorporating new data

on the adverse health effects of contaminants, the occurrence of contaminants in PWSs, and the estimated

reduction in health risks that would result from further regulation. The Amendments provided for use of

best-available, peer-reviewed science in decision-making and for risk reduction and cost analyses in the

regulatory decision process.

TTHMs/Stage 1 DBPR/Stage 2 DBPR

Many water systems treat their water with a chemical disinfectant in order to inactivate pathogens that

cause disease. The public health benefits of common disinfection practices are significant and wellrecognized; however, disinfection poses risks of its own. While disinfectants are effective at controlling

many harmful microorganisms, they react with organic and inorganic matter (DBP precursors) in the

water and form DBPs, some of which pose health risks when present above certain levels. Since the

discovery of chlorination byproducts in drinking water in 1974, numerous toxicological studies have been

conducted that show some DBPs to be carcinogenic and/or cause reproductive or developmental effects in

laboratory animals. Additionally, exposure to high levels of disinfectants over long periods of time may

cause health problems, including damage to blood and kidneys. While many of these studies have been

conducted with disinfectants at high doses, the weight of evidence indicates that DBPs present a potential

public health problem that must be addressed even at low levels. One of the most complex questions

facing water supply professionals is how to reduce risks from disinfectants and DBPs while providing

adequate protection against microbial contaminants. Much of the population is exposed to these risks;

therefore, a substantial concern exists.

The TTHM Rule of 1979 set a TTHM standard for CWSs serving 10,000 or more people. The Stage 1

Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR) built on the TTHM Rule by lowering

existing MCLs and widening the range of affected systems to include all PWSs (except most transient

systems) that add a disinfectant. The Stage 1 DBPR established new MCLs for chlorite, bromate, and

haloacetic acids (HAA5) as well as established maximum residual disinfection levels (MRDLs) for the

disinfectants chlorine, chloramine, and chlorine dioxide. In addition, the Stage 1 DBPR requires

conventional filtration systems to remove specified percentages of organic materials, measured as total

organic carbon (TOC), that may react with disinfectants to form DBPs.

The Stage 2 DBPR builds upon the Stage 1 DBPR by providing more consistent protection from DBPs

across the entire distribution system and by focusing on the reduction of DBP peaks. The Stage 2 DBPR

changes the way sampling results are averaged to determine compliance. The determination for the Stage

2 DBPR is based on a locational running annual average (LRAA) (i.e., compliance must be met at each
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 20

monitoring location) instead of the system-wide running annual average (RAA) used under the Stage 1

DBPR. In addition to changes in MCL compliance calculation, systems must also conduct an initial

distribution system evaluation (IDSE) to identify compliance monitoring locations that represent high

TTHM and HAA5 levels. Systems are also required to conduct a significant excursion evaluation if they

have DBP levels that are significantly higher than the MCL.

Filter Backwash Recycling Rule

The Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR) complements the surface water treatment rules by reducing

the potential for microbial pathogens, particularly Cryptosporidium oocysts, to pass through the filters

into the finished water of systems that use conventional and direct filtration. The FBRR requires affected

systems to notify the state in writing about its recycle practices, maintain specific records, and return

regulated recycle streams (i.e., spent filter backwash, thickener supernatant, or liquids from dewatering

processes) through all processes of a system’s conventional or direct filtration system (unless the state

approves an alternate location).

IESWTR/LT1ESWTR/LT2ESWTR

The IESWTR builds on the SWTR by adding protection from Cryptosporidium through strengthened

combined filter effluent (CFE) turbidity performance standards and individual filter effluent (IFE)

turbidity provisions. The IESWTR applies to systems that serve more than 10,000 people. For unfiltered

systems, Cryptosporidium must be included in watershed control requirements. In addition, the IESWTR

builds on the TCR by requiring sanitary surveys for all PWSs using surface water or GWUDI. The

IESWTR also requires covers for all new finished water storage facilities and includes disinfection

profiling and benchmarking provisions to ensure systems provide continued levels of microbial protection

while taking the necessary steps to comply with the DBP standards.

The provisions in the LT1ESWTR address the concerns covered by the IESWTR as they apply to small

systems (i.e., systems serving fewer than 10,000 people) using surface water or GWUDI. The

LT2ESWTR builds upon the SWTR, IESWTR, and LT1ESWTR by supplementing existing microbial

treatment requirements for systems where additional public health protection is needed.

Collectively, the SWTR, IESWTR, LT1ESWTR, and LT2ESWTR place stringent treatment requirements

on systems using surface water or GWUDI as a source.

The Multiple Barrier Approach

By building on the foundation of the original SDWA, subsequent amendments to the Act have improved

the quality of drinking water and increased public health protection. The 1996 SDWA Amendments, for

example, require EPA to develop rules to balance the risks presented by microbial pathogens and DBPs. 

The LT2ESWTR is one of the most recent rules in the M-DBP Cluster that expands on the foundation of

prior rulemaking efforts.

Since multiple threats require multiple barriers, the LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR expand on the

foundation of the TCR, SWTR, TTHM Rule, Stage 1 DBPR, IESWTR, LT1ESWTR, and FBRR

standards to target health risks not addressed by prior regulations. By encompassing these previously

unaddressed health risks from microbials and DBPs, the M-DBP Cluster continues to maximize drinking

water quality and public health protection.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 21

1.1.2 Development of the LT2ESWTR

In March 1999, EPA reconvened the M-DBP Advisory Committee to develop recommendations for the

LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR. This committee also participated in the development of the IESWTR,

LT1ESWTR, and Stage 1 DBPR. The Committee’s members represented EPA, state, and local public

health and regulatory agencies, local elected officials, Native American tribes, drinking water suppliers,

chemical and equipment manufacturers, and public interest groups. Technical support for the

Committee’s discussions was provided by a technical workgroup established by the Committee at its first

meeting. The Committee’s activities resulted in the collection and evaluation of substantial new

information related to key elements for both rules. This included new data on pathogenicity, occurrence,

and treatment of microbial contaminants, specifically including Cryptosporidium, as well as new data on

DBP health risks, exposure, and control. The Committee held ten meetings (from September 1999 to July

2000), which were open to the public, to discuss issues pertaining to the LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR. 

There was also an opportunity for public comment at each meeting.

In September 2000, the Committee signed the Agreement in Principle, a full statement of the consensus

recommendations of the group. The agreement was published in a December 29, 2000 Federal Register

notice (65 FR 83015) and includes the list of committee members and their organizations. The

Committee's recommendations were incorporated into the proposed LT2ESWTR.

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

• Additional Cryptosporidium treatment based on source water monitoring results.

• Filtered systems that must comply with additional Cryptosporidium treatment

requirements may choose from a “toolbox” of treatment and control options.

• Reduced monitoring burden for small systems.

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

• Cryptosporidium inactivation by all unfiltered systems.

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

disinfectants.

• Development of criteria and guidance for ultraviolet light (UV) disinfection and other

toolbox options.

• Cover or treat existing uncovered finished water reservoirs.

The requirements of the LT2ESWTR are in addition to the requirements in previous surface water

treatment rules, including SWTR, IESWTR, LT1ESWTR and FBRR.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 22

1.1.3 Benefits of the LT2ESWTR

1.1.3.1 Quantifiable Benefits

The LT2ESWTR is expected to reduce drinking water related exposure to Cryptosporidium substantially,

thereby reducing both illness and death associated with cryptosporidiosis through source water

monitoring, additional treatment techniques, and higher standards for drinking water quality. 

Cryptosporidiosis is an infection caused by Cryptosporidium and is an acute, typically self-limiting illness

with symptoms that include diarrhea, abdominal cramping, nausea, vomiting, and fever (Juranek, 1995). 

Cryptosporidiosis patients in sensitive subpopulations, such as infants, the elderly, and AIDS patients, are

at risk for severe illness, including risk of death. The LT2ESWTR is expected to reduce 256,000 to

1,019,000 illnesses and 37 to 141 deaths annually (on average) after full implementation (range based on

the Information Collection Rule Supplemental Surveys of large systems (ICRSSL) and Information

Collection Rule (ICR) data sets). Based on these values, the mean present value of benefits (annualized at

a 3 percent discount rate) ranges from $374 million to $1.4 billion. These values do not take into account

confidence limits for non-quantified benefits. 

For filtered systems, benefits to the approximately 161 million people served by filtered surface water and

GWUDI systems range from a mean reduction in annual cases of endemic illness ranging from 88,000 to

472,000 (based on ICRSSL and ICR data sets). In addition, deaths are expected to be reduced by an

average of 9 to 50 people annually. The 12 million people served by unfiltered surface water or GWUDI

systems will also see a significant reduction in cryptosporidiosis as a result of the rule. The LT2ESWTR

is expected to reduce approximately 168,000 to 547,000 cases of illnesses and 28 to 91 premature deaths

annually in unfiltered systems (based on ICRSSL and ICR data sets). Only the ICR data set is used to

directly calculate reduced illness because it is the only data set that includes sufficient information on

unfiltered systems. 

1.1.3.2 Non-quantifiable health and non-health related benefits

Although significant benefits will result from the LT2ESWTR in terms of the reduction in illnesses and

death associated with cryptosporidiosis, other health and non-health related benefits associated with this

rule remain unquantified due to lack of data. Non-quantifiable health and non-health related benefits of

the LT2ESWTR include:

• Reducing outbreak risks and response costs associated with human or equipment failure.

• Reducing averting behavior (e.g., boiling tap water or purchasing bottled water).

• Improving aesthetic water quality (e.g., taste and odor).

• Reducing exposure to other parasitic protozoans that EPA regulates or is considering for

future regulation (e.g., pathogenic bacteria, viruses, Giardia lamblia, Cyclospora sp.,

members of the Microsporididea class, arsenic, DBPs, and atrazine).

• An increase in source water monitoring leads to a better understanding of source water

quality and may enhance treatment.

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

water.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 23

1.2 Requirements of the Rule: PWSs

The following section provides a summary of the rule requirements. The rule requirements are from the

proposed LT2ESWTR published in the Federal Register on August 11, 2003 (68 FR 47640). For a copy

of the actual rule language, see Appendix B or visit EPA’s Web site at

www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/index.html.

1.2.1 General Requirements

The flowchart in Figure 1-1 shows the general requirements of the LT2ESWTR. All surface water and

GWUDI PWSs, including wholesale systems, must characterize their source water to determine what, if

any, additional treatment is necessary to reduce Cryptosporidium. Systems conduct source water

monitoring to determine an average Cryptosporidium concentration and, based on that average, will be

classified into one of four possible risk categories (bins). The LT2ESWTR also includes requirements for

uncovered finished water reservoirs and disinfection profiling and benchmarking. 

EPA developed the compliance schedule for monitoring, reporting, and treatment requirements with

consideration of the Stage 2 DBPR compliance schedule. 

Figure 1-1. General Requirements of the LT2ESWTR

Disinfection Profiling

And Benchmarking

Track disinfection to ensure 

that proposed changes in 

disinfection practice do not 

compromise inactivation of 

pathogens.

Source Water 

Monitoring

Monitor to determine 

Cryptosporidium 

and/or indicator levels.

Uncovered Finished 

Water Reservoirs

Systems with uncovered 

reservoirs must either 

cover, treat, or implement 

risk mitigation plan.

Treatment Bins and the Microbial Toolbox

Assignment to “bins” based on monitoring 

results. Implement treatment based on the 

requirements for each bin by choosing from a 

set of treatment options.

Future Monitoring

Monitor again to confirm or revise 

bin classification 6 years after initial 

source water monitoring ends.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 24

1.2.2 Source Water Monitoring [proposed §141.702]

Large systems (serving at least 10,000 people) that currently provide filtration or that are unfiltered and

required to install filtration must conduct source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and

turbidity. 

Small systems (serving fewer than 10,000 people) that currently provide filtration or that are unfiltered

and required to install filtration must first monitor for E. coli or an alternative indicator approved by the

state as a screening analysis. Small systems are only required to monitor for Cryptosporidium if the mean

E. coli level exceeds the following trigger values:

• The annual mean concentration of E. coli exceeds 10 E. coli/100 mL for systems using

lake or reservoir sources;

• The annual mean concentration of E. coli exceeds 50 E. coli/100 mL for systems using

flowing stream sources; or

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

indicator trigger level trigger level.

Large and small systems that are unfiltered and meet all the filtration avoidance criteria of 40 CFR 141.71

must monitor for Cryptosporidium unless they provide 3 log Cryptosporidium inactivation by the time

treatment is required.

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

Large systems must begin source water monitoring no later than [ ] and

monitor at least monthly for 24 months. Small filtered systems and unfiltered systems required to filter

must begin E. coli monitoring no later than [ ] and monitor for at least

once every two weeks for 12 months. Small unfiltered systems and those small systems that exceeded the

E. coli trigger levels must begin Cryptosporidium monitoring no later than [

] and monitor at least twice each month for 12 months. 

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

Systems must take source water samples at a location prior to any treatment and where the water is no

longer subject to surface runoff. If treatment is applied in an intake pipe and it is unfeasible for systems

to sample, systems must sample as close to the intake as is feasible and at a similar depth and distance

from shore.

Systems using a presedimentation basin or an off-stream raw water storage reservoir must take source

water samples after the presedimentation basin or the off-stream storage reservoir but before any other

treatment. Systems collecting samples after a presedimentation basin may not receive credit for the

presedimentation basin as a toolbox option. The required sampling location for systems using GWUDI

(including systems using bank filtration) differs depending on whether the GWUDI or bank filtered water

is treated by subsequent filtration. Use of presedimentation basins, off-stream storage, GWUDI, or bank

filtration during monitoring must be consistent with routine operational practice, and the state may

identify additional reporting requirements to verify operational practices.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 25

1.2.3 Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Requirements [proposed §141.711,

§141.713]

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

All systems that are required to monitor for Cryptosporidium must develop Giardia and virus disinfection

profiles under the LT2ESWTR. In addition, small systems that do not exceed the E. coli trigger levels but

exceed the following DBP levels must also develop Giardia and virus disinfection profiles:

• TTHM LRAA greater than or equal to 0.064 mg/L based on samples collected for

compliance with Stage 2 DBPR.

• HAA5 LRAA greater than or equal to 0.048 mg/L based on samples collected for

compliance with Stage 2 DBPR.

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

Systems can meet profiling requirements under the LT2ESWTR using previously collected data (i.e.,

grandfathered data). This data must be equivalent in sample number, frequency, and data quality to data

that will be collected under the LT2ESWTR. Use of grandfathered data is allowed if the system has not

made a significant change in disinfection practice or changed sources since the data were collected. This

will permit most systems that prepared a disinfection profile under the IESWTR or the LT1ESWTR to

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

Systems that developed disinfection profiles under the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR and have not made

significant changes in their disinfection practice are not required to collect additional operational data to

create disinfection profiles under the LT2ESWTR. 

1.2.3.3 If a system developed a profile for Giardia, does it have to develop one for viruses?

[proposed §141.713]

Systems that produced a disinfection profile for Giardia but not viruses under the IESWTR or

LT1ESWTR may be required to develop a disinfection profile for viruses under the LT2ESWTR. EPA

believes that virus profiling is necessary because many of the disinfection processes that systems will

select to comply with the LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR (e.g., chloramines, UV) are relatively less

effective against viruses than Giardia compared to free chlorine. Systems should refer to the Draft

Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual (USEPA, 1999) for details on how to

develop a disinfection profile.

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

Table 1-1 presents a summary of the required deadlines for disinfection profiling activities, categorized

by system size and whether a small system is required to monitor for Cryptosporidium. The deadlines are

based on the expectation that systems should have a disinfection profile at the time they are classified in a

Cryptosporidium treatment bin under LT2ESWTR and/or have determined the need to make treatment

changes for the Stage 2 DBPR. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 26

1.2.3.5 What are the recordkeeping requirements for a disinfection profile? [proposed §141.713,

§141.731]

PWSs must keep their disinfection profiles and disinfection benchmarks on file for the state to review

during their sanitary surveys. The disinfection profile data should be in graphic form, as a spreadsheet, or

in some other format acceptable to the state for review as part of sanitary surveys conducted by the state. 

Table 1-1. Schedule of Implementation Deadlines Related to Disinfection Profiling (in months after

rule promulgation)

Activity

Systems serving

$10,000 people1

Systems serving <10,000 people1

Not required to monitor

for Cryptosporidium1, 2

Required to monitor for

Cryptosporidium

Complete 1 year of E. coli

monitoring NA 42 42

Determine whether required to

profile based on DBP levels

and notify state

NA 42 NA

Begin disinfection profiling3 24 42 54

Complete Cryptosporidium

monitoring 30 NA 60

Complete disinfection profiling

based on at least 1 year of data4 36 54 66

1

 Systems providing a total of 5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment (equivalent to meeting bin 4 treatment

requirements) are not required to develop disinfection profiles.

2

 Systems serving fewer than 10,000 people are not required to monitor for Cryptosporidium if mean E. coli levels

are less than 10/100 mL for systems using lake/reservoir sources or less than 50/100 mL for systems using flowing

stream sources.

3

 Unless system has existing disinfection profiling data that are acceptable. 4

 This deadline coincides with the start of the 3-year period at the end of which compliance with the LT2ESWTR

and Stage 2 DBPR is required.

1.2.4 Treatment Requirements

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

All systems have 72 months (or approximately 36 months following initial bin classification) to meet any

additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements, as shown in Table 1-18 (see page 51) and Figure 1-2

(see page 55). The state may grant systems an additional 2 years to comply when capital investments are

necessary, as specified in the SDWA (section 1412(b)(10)).

Systems must comply with additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements, determined from source

water monitoring, by implementing one or more treatment processes or control strategies from the

microbial toolbox. Most of the toolbox components require submission of documentation to the state

demonstrating compliance with design and/or implementation criteria required to receive credit. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 27

1.2.4.2 What are the requirements for Cryptosporidium treatment for filtered systems? [proposed

§141.720]

Filtered systems or systems that are unfiltered and required to install filtration must provide the level of

treatment for Cryptosporidium specified in Table 1-2 based on their bin classification.

Table 1-2. Level of Treatment Required

If the source

water

Cryptosporidium

concentration in

oocyst/l is...

And the system uses the following filtration treatment in full compliance with subpart

H, P, and T (as applicable), then the additional treatment requirements are. . .

Conventional

filtration treatment

(including

softening)

Direct filtration Slow sand or

diatomaceous earth

filtration

Alternative

filtration

technologies

<0.075

>0.0075 and <1.0

>1.0 and <3.0

>3.0

No additional

treatment

1 log treatment..........

2 log treatment..........

2.5 log treatment.......

No additional

treatment

1.5 log treatment.......

2.5 log treatment.......

3 log treatment..........

No additional

treatment

1 log treatment..........

2 log treatment..........

2.5 log treatment.......

No additional

treatment

(

1

)

(

2

)

(

3

)

1

 As determined by the state such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 4.0 log. 2

 As determined by the state such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 5.0 log. 3

 As determined by the state such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 5.5 log.

The filtered systems must use at least one of the management and treatment options listed in the microbial

toolbox to meet the additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements identified for each bin. Systems

classified in bins 3 and 4 (the highest Cryptosporidium levels) must achieve at least 1 log of the additional

treatment using either one or a combination of the following: bag filters, bank filtration, cartridge filters,

chlorine dioxide, membranes, ozone, and/or UV as specified in the microbial toolbox.

1.2.4.3 What are the requirements for Cryptosporidium treatment for unfiltered systems?

[proposed §141.721]

Unfiltered systems with a mean Cryptosporidium concentration of 0.01 oocysts/L or less must provide at

least 2 log Cryptosporidium inactivation. Unfiltered systems with a mean Cryptosporidium concentration

of greater than 0.01 oocysts/L or those that failed to complete the source water monitoring requirements

must provide at least 3 log Cryptosporidium inactivation.

Unfiltered systems must meet the combined Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, and virus inactivation

requirements using a minimum of two disinfectants. Each disinfectant must be able to achieve the total

inactivation required for either Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, or viruses separately. For example, a

system may use UV to meet Cryptosporidium and Giardia inactivation requirements and chlorine to meet

virus inactivation requirements. To meet the Cryptosporidium inactivation requirements, systems must

use either or a combination of chlorine dioxide, ozone, or UV. 

Disinfection requirements under the LT2ESWTR are more stringent for unfiltered systems than filtered

systems. The following unfiltered systems will incur a treatment technique violation:
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 28

• Systems using chlorine dioxide or ozone that fail to achieve the Cryptosporidium log

inactivation on more than 1 day in the calendar month. 

• Systems using UV light that fail to achieve the Cryptosporidium log inactivation required

in at least 95 percent of the water that is delivered to the public during each calendar

month.

1.2.5 Microbial Toolbox Options Available to Systems

Systems can implement a variety of source, pre-filtration, treatment, additional filtration, and activation

toolbox components to receive Cryptosporidium credit, as summarized in Table 1-3.

Table 1-3. Microbial Toolbox: Options and Credits

Toolbox option Proposed Cryptosporidium credits

Source Toolbox Components

Watershed control program 0.5 log credit. (Section 1.2.5.1)

Alternative source/intake management No presumptive credit. (Section 1.2.5.2)

Pre-filtration Toolbox Components

Presedimentation basin with coagulation 0.5 log credit for new basins with continuous operation and

coagulant addition. No presumptive credit for basins existing when

monitoring is required. (Section 1.2.6.1)

Two-stage lime softening 0.5 log credit for two-stage softening with coagulant addition. 

(Section 1.2.6.2)

Bank filtration 0.5 log credit for 25 foot setback; 1.0 log credit for 50 foot setback. 

No presumptive credit for bank filtration that serves as pretreatment

when monitoring is required. (Section 1.2.6.3)

Treatment Performance Toolbox Components

Combined filter performance 0.5 log credit for CFE turbidity #0.15 NTU in 95% of samples each

month. (Section 1.2.7.1)

Individual filter performance 1.0 log credit for IFE #0.1 NTU in 95% of daily maximum samples

each month and no filter >0.3 NTU in two consecutive

measurements. (Section 1.2.7.2)

Demonstration of performance Credit based on demonstration to the state. (Section 1.2.7.3)

Additional Filtration Toolbox Components

Bag filters 1 log credit for demonstrating at least 2 log removal efficiency in

challenge test. (Section 1.2.8.1)

Cartridge filters 2 log credit for demonstrating at least 3 log removal efficiency in

challenge test. (Section 1.2.8.1)

Membrane filtration Log removal credit up to the lower value of the removal efficiency

demonstrated during the challenge test or verified by the direct

integrity test applied to the system. (Section 1.2.8.2)

Second stage filtration 0.5 log credit for second separate filtration stage in treatment

process following coagulation. (Section 1.2.8.3)
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Toolbox option Proposed Cryptosporidium credits

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 29

Slow sand filters 2.5 log credit for second separate filtration process and no residual

may be present in influent to slow sand process. (Section 1.2.8.4)

Inactivation Toolbox Components

Chlorine dioxide Demonstrate compliance with contact time table. (Section 1.2.9.1)

Ozone Log credit based on demonstration of compliance with CT table. 

(Section 1.2.9.2)

UV Demonstrate compliance based on UV dose table. (Section 1.2.9.3)

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

Filtered systems must submit their watershed control programs to the state for approval to qualify for 0.5

log credit of Cryptosporidium removal. Unfiltered systems may not claim credit for Cryptosporidium

removal under this option. Systems must submit the following items to the state no later than 2 years

after completing the source water monitoring requirements:

• A proposed initial watershed control plan; and

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

Initial Watershed Control Plan

Systems are required to notify the state program no later than 1 year after completing their source water

monitoring that they intend to qualify for the treatment credit. Based on the state’s review of the initial

proposed watershed control plan, the plan may be approved, rejected, or conditionally approved. If the

plan is approved or if the system agrees to implement the state’s conditions for approval, the system is

awarded a 0.5 log credit for Cryptosporidium removal.

The application to the state for initial program approval must include the following elements:

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

analysis must address the watershed upstream of the drinking water intake and must

include the following items: 

$ A characterization of the watershed hydrology.

$ Identification of an “area of influence” (the area to be considered in future

watershed surveys) outside of which there is little chance for Cryptosporidium or

fecal contamination to affect the drinking water intake.

$ Identification of both potential and actual sources of Cryptosporidium

contamination.

$ The relative impact of the sources of Cryptosporidium contamination on the

system’s source water quality.

$ An estimate of the seasonal variability of such contamination.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 30

• An analysis of control measures that could mitigate the sources of Cryptosporidium

contamination identified during the vulnerability analysis. The analysis must address the

system’s relative effectiveness in reducing Cryptosporidium loading to the source water

and its feasability and sustainability.

• A plan that establishes goals and defines and prioritizes specific actions to reduce source

water Cryptosporidium levels. The plan must explain how the actions are expected to

contribute to specific goals, identify watershed partners and their role(s), identify

resource requirements and commitments, and include a schedule for plan implementation.

Maintaining State Approval for Treatment Credit

Initial state approval of a watershed control plan and its associated treatment credit is valid until the

system completes the second round of Cryptosporidium monitoring. After the second round of

monitoring, systems must complete the following actions to maintain state approval and the 0.5 log credit:

• Submit an annual watershed control program status report to the state by a date

determined by the state. The annual watershed control program status report must

describe the following items:

$ The system’s implementation of the approved plan and an assessment of the

adequacy of the plan to meet its goals. 

$ How the system is addressing any shortcomings in plan implementation,

including those previously identified by the state or as the result of the watershed

survey. 

In addition, systems need to provide a rationale to the state before making any substantial

changes in their approved watershed control programs.

• Conduct an annual watershed sanitary survey and submit the survey report to the state for

approval. The survey must be conducted according to state guidelines and by qualified

persons. The survey needs to cover the area of the watershed identified as the area of

influence and, at a minimum, assess the priority activities identified in the plan and

identify any significant new sources of Cryptosporidium.

• Submit a request to the state for re-approval of the watershed control program and a

continuation of the 0.5 log removal credit. The request must be provided to the state at

least 6 months before the current approval period expires or by a date previously

determined by the state. The request must include 1) a summary of activities and issues

identified during the previous approval period and 2) a revised plan that addresses

activities for the next approval period, including any new sources of Cryptosporidium

contamination and details of any changes from the existing state-approved program. The

plan must:

$ Address the goals of the program.

$ Prioritize specific actions to reduce source water Cryptosporidium.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 31

$ Explain how actions are expected to contribute to achieving goals.

$ Identify partners and their role(s).

$ Describe resource requirements and commitments.

$ Include a schedule for plan implementation.

• Provide annual status reports, watershed control plan, and annual watershed sanitary

surveys to the public upon request. These documents must be in plain language and

include criteria to help determine whether the program has achieved its goals. Systems

may withhold portions of the status reports for security reasons with state approval.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment

technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-4. The state may include additional reporting

requirements, if it determines they are necessary.

Table 1-4. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Watershed Control Program Toolbox

Option

Systems must submit the

following information

On the following schedule -

systems serving $10,000 people

On the following schedule -

systems serving <10,000 people

(i) Notify state of intention to

develop watershed control program.

(ii) Submit initial watershed control

program plan to state.

(iii) Annual report and stateapproved watershed survey report.

(iv) Request for re-approval and

report on the previous approval

period.

No later than [

].

No later than [

].

By a date determined by the state,

every 12 months, beginning on

[

].

Six months prior to the end of the

current approval period or by a date

previously determined by the state.

No later than [

].

No later than [

].

By a date determined by the state,

every 12 months, beginning on

[

].

Six months prior to the end of the

current approval period or by a date

previously determined by the state.

1.2.5.2 Alternative Source [proposed §141.725(b)]

If approved by the state, a system can be classified into a bin based on additional monitoring that is

conducted concurrently with existing source water monitoring and reflects either a different intake

location (either in the same source or for an alternate source) or a different procedure for managing the

timing or level of withdrawal from the source.

Sampling and analysis of Cryptosporidium in the concurrent round of monitoring must conform to the

monitoring requirements used to determine bin classification. Systems must submit the results of all their

monitoring to the state along with supporting information that documents the operating conditions under

which the samples were collected.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 32

If the state classifies the system in a bin based on monitoring that reflects a different intake location or a

different procedure for managing the timing or level of withdrawal from the source, the system must

relocate the intake or use the intake management strategy. The state may specify additional reporting

requirements to verify operational practices.

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

Presedimentation basins with coagulant addition may receive 0.5 log Cryptosporidium removal credit

under the LT2ESWTR if they meet the following criteria:

• The presedimentation basin must be in continuous operation and must treat all of the flow

reaching the filters.

• A coagulant must be continuously added to the presedimentation basin (or prior to) while

the plant is in operation. 

• The presedimentation basin must achieve 0.5 log (68 percent) turbidity reduction on an

average monthly basis for at least 11 of the 12 previous months. For those systems not

operating year-round, the 0.5 log turbidity reduction must be met for all but any one of

the operating months (based on the last 12 consecutive months).

Systems must measure presedimentation basin influent and effluent turbidity at least once per day, or

more frequently as determined by the state.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment

technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-5. The state may include additional reporting

requirements, if it determines they are necessary.

Table 1-5. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Presedimentation Toolbox Option

Systems must submit the

following information

On the following schedule1 -

systems serving $10,000 people

On the following schedule1

 -

systems serving <10,000 people

Monthly verification of the

following: continuous basin

operation; treatment of 100% of

the flow; continuous addition of a

coagulant; and at least 0.5 log

removal of influent turbidity

based on the monthly mean of

daily turbidity readings for 11 of

the 12 previous months.

Monthly reporting within 10 days

following the month in which the

monitoring was conducted,

beginning on [

].

Monthly reporting within 10 days

following the month in which the

monitoring was conducted,

beginning on [

].

1

 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems

making capital improvements.

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

The LT2ESWTR requires plants to meet the following criteria in order to receive 0.5 log credit towards

additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements:
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

1

 For purposes of compliance with the lime-softening toolbox option, “clarifier” is used as a general term

for processes with settling. 

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 33

• The plant must have a second clarification step between the primary clarifier1 and filter

which is operated continuously. For split treatment processes, only the portion of flow

going through two clarification stages can receive credit. If a portion of flow bypasses

one stage, additional treatment must be provided to the bypassed portion. 

• A coagulant must be present in both clarifiers. Precipitation of metal salts (e.g.,

magnesium hydroxide or excess lime) could be considered a coagulant for the second

clarifier.

The LT2ESWTR requires monthly verification and reporting of the following conditions for systems

using the lime softening option:

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

filter.

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

• Both clarifiers treat 100 percent of the plant flow.

In addition, EPA recommends submitting a schematic of the treatment process to the state clearly

identifying the two stages of clarification. EPA also recommends that systems monitor the coagulant

dosages (or concentration) in the secondary clarifier on a daily basis for the first year and record the

average and minimum coagulant concentrations. This data can assist the state in assessing whether the

system operates in compliance at all times. 

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment

technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-6. The state may include additional reporting

requirements, if it determines they are necessary.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 34

Table 1-6. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Two-stage Lime Softening 

Toolbox Option

Systems must submit the following

information

On the following schedule1 -

systems serving $10,000 people

On the following schedule1 -

systems serving <10,000

people

Monthly verification of the following:

continuous operation of a second

clarification step between the primary

clarifier and filter; continuous presence

of a coagulant in both primary and

secondary clarifiers; and both clarifiers

treated 100% of the plant flow.

Monthly reporting within 10 days

following the month in which the

monitoring was conducted,

beginning on [

].

Monthly reporting within 10

days following the month in

which the monitoring was

conducted, beginning on [

].

1

 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems

making capital improvements.

1.2.5.5 Bank Filtration [proposed §141.726(c)]

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

for bank filtration:

• Wells must draw from granular aquifers that are comprised of clay, silt, sand, or pebbles

or larger particles. Minor cement may be present.

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

$ Granular aquifers formed by alluvial or glacial processes are eligible for bank

filtration credit.

$ Granular aquifers, either unconsolidated or partially consolidated and mapped as

earlier than Quaternary alluvium, must be considered on a case-by-case basis by

the state to determine if they are too cemented and, therefore, too fractured to

provide sufficient natural filtration.

$ Wells located in consolidated clastic aquifers (e.g., conglomerates), fractured

bedrock aquifers, and karst limestone aquifers are not eligible for bank filtration

credit.

• Only horizontal and vertical wells are eligible for bank filtration log removal credit. 

Other ground water collection devices, such as infiltration galleries and spring boxes, are

ineligible.

• Systems using horizontal or vertical wells located at least 25 feet from the surface water

source are eligible for a 0.5 log removal credit, and those located at least 50 feet from the

surface water source are eligible for a 1.0 log removal credit.

$ Systems with vertical wells must identify the distance to surface water using the

floodway boundary or 100 year flood elevation boundary as delineated on

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate maps. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 35

If the floodway boundary or 100 year flood elevation boundary is not already

delineated, systems must determine the floodway or 100 year flood elevation

boundary using methods substantially similar to those used in preparing FEMA

Flood Insurance Rate maps.

$ Systems with horizontal wells must measure the distance from the normal flow

stream bed to the closest horizontal well lateral.

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

aquifer properties.

$ At a minimum, the aquifer characterization must include the collection of

relatively undisturbed continuous core samples from the surface to a depth at

least equal to the projected bottom of the well screen for the proposed production

well.

$ The recovered core length must be at least 90 percent of the total depth to the

projected bottom of the well screen, and each sampled interval must be a

composite of no more than 2 feet in length.

$ Each composite sample must be examined to determine if at least 10 percent of

the grains in that interval are less than 1.0 mm in diameter. Each composite

sample with at least 10 percent of the grains less than 1.0 mm in diameter is

considered an interval with sufficient fine-grained material to provide adequate

removal.

$ An aquifer is eligible for removal credit if at least 90 percent of the composited

intervals contain sufficient fine-grained material as defined previously.

The LT2ESWTR requires systems to monitor turbidity in bank filtration wells to provide assurance that

the assigned log removal credit is appropriate. The LT2ESWTR specifically requires the following

monitoring:

• Turbidity measurements must be performed on representative water samples from each

wellhead every four hours that the bank filtration system is in operation or more

frequently, if required by the state.

• Continuous turbidity monitoring at each wellhead may be used if the system validates the

continuous measurement for accuracy on a regular basis using a protocol approved by the

state. 

• If the monthly average of daily maximum turbidity values at any well exceeds 1

Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU), the system must report this finding to the state

within 30 days. In addition, within 30 days of the exceedance the system must conduct

an assessment to determine the cause of the high turbidity levels and submit that

assessment to the state for a determination of whether any previously allowed credit is

still appropriate.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 36

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment

technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-7. The state may include additional reporting

requirements, if it determines they are necessary.

Table 1-7. Reporting Deadline for Systems Choosing the Bank Filtration Toolbox Option

Systems must submit the

following information

On the following schedule1 -

systems serving $10,000 people

On the following schedule1

 -

systems serving <10,000 people

(i) Initial demonstration of the

following: unconsolidated,

predominantly sandy aquifer and

setback distance of at least 25 ft.

(0.5 log credit) or 50 ft. (1.0 log

credit).

(ii) If monthly average of daily max

turbidity is greater than 1 NTU,

then system must report result and

submit an assessment of the cause.

Initial demonstration no later than

[

].

Report within 30 days following

the month in which the monitoring

was conducted, beginning on

[

].

Initial demonstration no later than

[

].

Report within 30 days following

the month in which the monitoring

was conducted, beginning on

[

].

1

 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems

making capital improvements.

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

For systems using conventional or direct filtration treatment to obtain an additional 0.5 log

Cryptosporidium removal credit, the LT2ESWTR requires that the CFE turbidity measurements taken for

any month at each plant be less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of the measurements. 

Note that systems may not claim credit for combined filter performance AND individual filter

performance in the same month.

Compliance with the LT2ESWTR is determined in the same manner as measurements taken for the

IESWTR and LT1ESWTR. In other words, the LT2ESWTR does not require any additional monitoring

from the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR.

The monitoring frequency and compliance calculation requirements consist of measuring turbidity at 4-

hour intervals (or more frequently) with 95 percent of the measurements from each month being less than

or equal to 0.15 NTU.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 37

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment

technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-8. The state may include additional reporting

requirements, if it determines they are necessary.

Table 1-8. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Combined Filter Performance Toolbox

Option

Systems must submit the

following information

On the following schedule -

systems serving $10,000 people

On the following schedule -

systems serving <10,000 people

Monthly verification of CFE

turbidity levels less than or equal to

0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of

the 4 hour CFE measurements

taken each month.

Monthly reporting within 10 days

following the month in which the

monitoring was conducted,

beginning on [

].

Monthly reporting within 10 days

following the month in which the

monitoring was conducted,

beginning on [

].

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

The LT2ESWTR allows systems using conventional or direct filtration treatment to claim an additional

1.0 log Cryptosporidium removal credit for any month at each plant that meet both of the following IFE

turbidity requirements:

• IFE turbidity must be less than 0.1 NTU in at least 95 percent of the maximum daily

values recorded at each filter in each month, excluding the 15 minute period following

return to service from a filter backwash; and

• No individual filter may have a measured turbidity greater than 0.3 NTU in two

consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart.

Systems may not claim credit for combined filter performance AND individual filter performance in the

same month. As with CFE, compliance with the LT2ESWTR is determined in the same manner as

measurements taken for the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR, so no additional monitoring is required.

The monitoring frequency and compliance calculation requirements consist of measuring turbidity every

15 minutes (excluding the 15 minute period following return to service from a filter backwash) with 95

percent of the measurements from each month being less than or equal to 0.1 NTU.

The LT2ESWTR specifies that no individual filter may have a measured turbidity greater than 0.3 NTU

in two consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart. If the individual filter is not providing water

which contributes to the CFE (i.e., it is not operating, is filtering to waste, or its filtrate is being recycled),

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

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment

technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-9. The state may include additional reporting

requirements, if it determines they are necessary.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 38

Table 1-9. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Individual Filter Performance Toolbox

Options

Systems must submit the

following information

On the following schedule -

systems serving $10,000 people

On the following schedule -

systems serving <10,000 people

Monthly verification of the

following: IFE turbidity levels less

than or equal to 0.1 NTU in at least

95 percent of all daily maximum

IFE measurements taken each

month (excluding 15 min period

following start-up after backwash),

and no individual filter greater than

0.3 NTU in two consecutive

readings 15 minutes apart.

Monthly reporting within 10 days

following the month in which the

monitoring was conducted,

beginning on [

].

Monthly reporting within 10 days

following the month in which the

monitoring was conducted,

beginning on [

].

1.2.5.8 Demonstration of Performance: What if a system can perform better than the presumptive

credit specified in the toolbox?

The LT2ESWTR does not specify how treatment performance must be demonstrated for the

demonstration of performance option; however, the protocol used must be approved by the state. 

Determination of an increased Cryptosporidium treatment credit will be made by the state.

The demonstration of performance applies to the physical removal processes at a treatment plant. 

Therefore, the LT2ESWTR does not allow systems to claim presumptive credit for the toolbox options

listed below if that component is included in the demonstration of performance credit. 

• Presedimentation.

• Two-stage lime softening.

• Bank filtration.

• Combined or individual filter

performance.

• Membrane filters.

• Bag and cartridge filters.

• Second stage filtration.

For example, if a plant receives a demonstration of performance credit for a treatment train, the system

may not also receive credit for a presedimentation basin or for achieving the lower finished water

turbidity of the combined filter performance option. Note that demonstrating performance for a

disinfection process (chlorine dioxide, ozone, or UV) is addressed under the disinfectant toolbox option

and not this option

States may award a lower level of Cryptosporidium treatment credit towards compliance for the

LT2ESWTR to a system where, based on site-specific information, a plant or a unit process achieves a

Cryptosporidium treatment efficiency less than a presumptive credit specified in the LT2ESWTR.

The LT2ESWTR requires results from the testing be submitted no later than [

] for large systems and [ ] for small systems. The
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 39

state may require systems to report operational data on a monthly basis to verify that conditions under

which demonstration of performance credit was awarded are maintained during routine operation.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment

technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-10. The state may include additional reporting

requirements, if it determines they are necessary.

Table 1-10. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Demonstration of Performance 

Toolbox Option

Systems must submit the

following information

On the following schedule -

systems serving $10,000 people

On the following schedule -

systems serving <10,000 people

(i) Results from testing following a

state-approved protocol.

(ii) As required by the state,

monthly verification of operation

within conditions of state approval

for demonstration of performance

credit.

No later than [

].

Within 10 days following the

month in which monitoring was

conducted, beginning [

].

No later than [

].

Within 10 days following the

month in which monitoring was

conducted, beginning [

].

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

Bag and cartridge filtration processes that meet the EPA definition and demonstrate Cryptosporidium

removal through challenge testing may receive the following Cryptosporidium removal credit for the

LT2ESWTR:

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

testing.

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

testing.

A 1 log factor of safety is applied to the allowable removal credit over that demonstrated by challenge

testing because bag and cartridge filters cannot have their integrity directly tested; hence, there are no

means of verifying their removal efficiency during routine use.

Recently, some cartridge filtration devices have been developed for drinking water treatment using

membrane media, which can be direct integrity tested. These membrane cartridge filters (MCFs) could be

considered a membrane filtration process for the purpose of compliance with the LT2ESWTR treatment

requirements for Cryptosporidium (i.e., the MCF process would be eligible for the same credit, and

subject to the same requirements, as a membrane filtration process). Manufacturers can provide

information on direct integrity testing and whether it is feasible with their products. Refer to EPA’s Draft

Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-008, June 2003) for direct integrity testing and

other membrane filtration requirements.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 40

States may choose to award removal credits in excess of 1 and 2 log for bag and cartridge filtration,

respectively, if challenge testing demonstrates that the process can reliably achieve a greater removal

efficiency.

All reporting requirements for the SWTR, IESWTR, and LT1ESWTR are still applicable; the

LT2ESWTR does not modify or replace any previous rule requirements. The location of filter effluent

turbidity monitoring for compliance with the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR does not change with the

installation of a bag or cartridge filter as a secondary filtration process. Therefore, a system would still

monitor filter effluent turbidity after the primary filters for compliance with the IESWTR and

LT1ESWTR.

The LT2ESWTR requires systems to submit an initial report by [

] for large systems and [ ] for small systems

that demonstrates the following:

• Process meets the definition of a bag or cartridge filter.

• Removal efficiency from challenge testing that must show at least 2 log removal for bag

filters and 3 log removal for cartridge filters.

For routine compliance reporting, the rule requires verification that all flow was treated by the bag or

cartridge filter. One possible approach states may elect to use for flow verification is to have operators

certify each month that all flow was treated by the filter. States may require additional reporting at their

discretion.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment

technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-11. The state may include additional reporting

requirements, if it determines they are necessary.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 41

Table 1-11. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Bag Filters and Cartridge Filters

Toolbox Option

Systems must submit the following

information

On the following schedule1 -

systems serving $10,000

people

On the following schedule1 -

systems serving <10,000

people

(i) Demonstration that the following criteria

are met: process meets the definition of bag

or cartridge filtration; removal efficiency

established through challenge testing that

meets criteria in this subpart; and challenge

test shows at least 2 log removal for bag

filters and 3 log removal for cartridge filters.

(ii) Monthly verification that 100% of flow

was filtered.

No later than [

].

Within 10 days following the

month in which monitoring

was conducted, beginning

[

].

No later than [

].

Within 10 days following the

month in which monitoring was

conducted, beginning [

].

1

 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems

making capital improvements.

1.2.5.10 Membrane Filtration [proposed §141.728(b)]

To receive removal credit, a system’s membrane technology must be a pressure- or vacuum-driven

separation process in which particulate matter larger than 1 :m is rejected by a nonfibrous, engineered

barrier, primarily through a size exclusion mechanism. Membrane technologies include microfiltration,

ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis. Routine direct integrity testing of the membrane

technology must verify that the removal efficiency demonstrated through challenge testing is being

achieved. 

Compliance for a membrane process has three components: 

• Challenge test—a test of the membrane’s ability to remove introduced Cryptosporidium

oocysts or surrogates, in simulation of operational conditions. Challenge testing is

required for specific products and is not intended to be site specific. 

• Direct integrity test—routine testing of each membrane unit that demonstrates removal

efficiency equal to or greater than awarded from the challenge test. Systems must

conduct testing at least once per day while in operation. In addition, systems must submit

a monthly report to the state summarizing all direct integrity test results above the control

limit associated with the Cryptosporidium removal credit along with the corrective action

that was taken in each case. 

• Indirect integrity monitoring—continuous monitoring of each membrane unit. If direct

integrity testing is continuous, systems are not subject to indirect integrity testing

requirements. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 42

The removal efficiency demonstrated during challenge testing establishes the maximum removal credit

that a membrane filtration process is eligible to receive, provided this value is less than or equal to the

maximum log removal value that can be verified by the direct integrity test. A direct integrity test is a

physical test applied to a membrane unit to identify and isolate integrity breaches (i.e., one or more leaks

that could result in contamination of the filtrate). At the discretion of the state, data from challenge

studies conducted prior to promulgation of this regulation may be considered in lieu of additional testing.

Additional requirements and guidance for conducting the three tests to comply with the LT2ESWTR is

provided in the Draft Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-008, June 2003).

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment

technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-12. The state may include additional reporting

requirements, if it determines they are necessary.

Table 1-12. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Membrane Filtration Toolbox Option

Systems must submit the following

information

On the following schedule1 -

systems serving $10,000 people

On the following schedule1

 -

systems serving <10,000

people

(i) Results of verification testing

demonstrating the following: Removal

efficiency established through challenge

testing that meets criteria in this subpart,

and integrity testing and associated

baseline.

(ii) Monthly report summarizing all

direct integrity tests above the control

limit and, if applicable, any indirect

integrity monitoring results triggering

direct integrity testing and the corrective

action that was taken.

No later than [

].

Within 10 days following the

month in which monitoring was

conducted, beginning [

].

No later than [

].

Within 10 days following the

month in which monitoring was

conducted, beginning [

].

1

 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems

making capital improvements.

1.2.5.11 Second Stage Filtration [proposed §141.728(c)]

Under the LT2ESWTR, a system that employs a second, separate filtration stage meeting the following

criteria may receive 0.5 log credit for Cryptosporidium removal:

• The first stage of filtration is preceded by a coagulation step.

• The second stage of filtration is comprised of rapid sand, dual media, granular activated

carbon (GAC), or other fine grain media.

• Both filtration stages treat 100 percent of plant flow.

To receive Cryptosporidium removal credit for compliance with the LT2ESWTR, systems must report the

following monthly:
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 43

• Verification that 100 percent of finished water was treated by two stages of filtration. 

Actual data or information required to report is determined by the state. EPA

recommends plant piping schematics be initially reported followed by monthly operator

certification.

Reporting requirements for the LT2ESWTR do not take the place of the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR

reporting requirements. Specifically, the turbidity of the combined and individual filter effluent from the

first filtration stage must be reported as required by the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment

technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-13. The state may include additional reporting

requirements, if it determines they are necessary.

Table 1-13. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Second Stage Filtration Toolbox Option

Systems must submit the

following information

On the following schedule1 -

systems serving $10,000 people

On the following schedule1 -

systems serving <10,000 people

Monthly verification that 100% of

flow was filtered through both

stages.

Within 10 days following the

month in which monitoring was

conducted, beginning [

].

Within 10 days following the

month in which monitoring was

conducted, beginning [

].

1

 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems

making capital improvements.

1.2.5.12 Slow Sand Filters [proposed §141.728(d)]

A system integrating a slow sand filtration process for the second stage of filtration meeting the following

criteria can receive 2.5 log credit for Cryptosporidium removal:

• No disinfectant residual is present in the influent to the slow sand filtration process.

• Both filtration stages treat 100 percent of plant flow.

To receive Cryptosporidium removal credit for compliance with the LT2ESWTR, systems must report

monthly verification that 100 percent of finished water was filtered. Plants that wish to consider slow

sand filtration should either have sufficient excess filtration capacity to allow filters to operate in series

(with possible piping modifications) or have sufficient land area to build additional filters.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment

technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-14. The state may include additional reporting

requirements, if it determines they are necessary.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 44

Table 1-14. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Slow Sand Filtration Option

Systems must submit the

following information

On the following schedule1 -

systems serving $10,000 people

On the following schedule1 -

systems serving <10,000 people

Monthly verification that 100% of

flow was filtered.

Within 10 days following the

month in which monitoring was

conducted, beginning [

].

Within 10 days following the

month in which monitoring was

conducted, beginning [

].

1

 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems

making capital improvements.

1.2.5.13 Chlorine Dioxide [proposed §141.729(b)]

Systems using chlorine dioxide must calculate contact time (“CT”) to determine their inactivation credit

for Cryptosporidium. CT is the product of the disinfectant concentration (“C”) and disinfectant contact

time (“T”, in minutes). Unless the state approves alternative CT values for a system, systems must

calculate CT values for each day based on measurements of C during peak hourly flow and use the table

in proposed §141.729(b) to determine their inactivation credit. Systems with several disinfection

segments (i.e., a treatment unit process with a measurable disinfectant residual level and a liquid volume)

may calculate CT values for each segment and sum those values to obtain a total log inactivation. 

Systems may also conduct a site-specific inactivation study to determine the CT values necessary to meet

a specified Cryptosporidium log inactivation level using a state-approved protocol. The alternative CT

values determined from the site-specific study and the method of calculation must be approved by the

state to ensure that the CT values are adequate to achieve the inactivation required under the LT2ESWTR. 

The Draft Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) provides guidance for conducting

a site-specific inactivation study.

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment

technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-15. The state may include additional reporting

requirements, if it determines they are necessary.

Table 1-15. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Chlorine Dioxide Toolbox Option

Systems must submit the

following information

On the following schedule1 -

systems serving $10,000 people

On the following schedule1

 -

systems serving <10,000 people

Summary of CT values for each

day based on the table in proposed

§141.729(b).

Within 10 days following the

month in which monitoring was

conducted, beginning [

].

Within 10 days following the

month in which monitoring was

conducted, beginning [

].

1

 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems

making capital improvements.

1.2.5.14 Ozone [proposed §141.729(c)]

Systems using ozone must calculate CT values using methods similar to those for chlorine dioxide. 

Unless the state approves alternative CT values for a system, systems must use the table in proposed

§141.729(b) to determine Cryptosporidium log inactivation credit. Systems should refer to the Draft
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 45

Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) for guidance on calculating CT values for

different disinfection reactor designs and operations.

As with chlorine dioxide, systems may also conduct a site-specific inactivation study to determine the CT

values necessary to meet a specified Cryptosporidium log inactivation level using a state-approved

protocol. The alternative CT values determined from the site-specific study and the method of calculation

must be approved by the state to ensure that the CT values are adequate to achieve the inactivation

required under the LT2ESWTR. 

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment

technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-16. The state may include additional reporting

requirements, if it determines they are necessary.

Table 1-16. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the Ozone Toolbox Option

Toolbox Option Systems must submit

the following

information

On the following

schedule1 - systems

serving $10,000 people

On the following

schedule1

 - systems

serving <10,000 people

Ozone Summary of CT values

for each day based on the

table in proposed

§141.729(c).

Within 10 days following

the month in which

monitoring was

conducted, beginning

[

].

Within 10 days following

the month in which

monitoring was

conducted, beginning

[

].

1

 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems

making capital improvements.

1.2.5.15 Ultraviolet Light [proposed §141.729(d)]

Systems may claim credit for UV processes for inactivation of Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, and

viruses. The allowable inactivation credit for each pathogen must be based on the UV dose delivered by

the system’s UV reactors in relation to the UV dose table in proposed §141.729(d). The UV dose values

in the dose table are only applicable to post-filter application of UV in systems that filter and to unfiltered

systems that meet all the filtration avoidance criteria of 40 CFR 141.71. Systems may be able to receive

credit for up to 3 log inactivation of Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia and up to 4 log inactivation of

viruses. 

The log credits included in this UV dose table are for UV light at a wavelength of 254 nm, as produced by

a low pressure mercury vapor lamp. Systems can apply this table to UV reactors with other lamp types

through reactor validation testing (i.e., performance demonstration). The validation testing must

demonstrate the operating conditions under which the reactor can deliver the necessary UV dose, and

systems must monitor their UV reactors to demonstrate that they maintain validated operating conditions

during routine use. Systems must monitor for UV intensity as measured by a UV sensor, flow rate, and

lamp outage and for any other parameters required by the state. In addition, systems need to check the

calibration of UV sensors and recalibrate them in accordance with a protocol approved by the state. 

EPA’s Draft UV Disinfection Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-007, June 2003) provides a protocol for

validating reactors and guidance on the design and implementation of UV systems. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 46

Systems must report to the state any toolbox options used to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment

technique requirement in accordance with Table 1-17. The state may include additional reporting

requirements, if it determines they are necessary.

Table 1-17. Reporting Deadlines for Systems Choosing the UV Toolbox Option

Systems must submit the

following information

On the following schedule1 -

systems serving $10,000 people

On the following schedule1

 -

systems serving <10,000 people

(i) Validation test results

demonstrating operating conditions

that achieve required UV dose.

(ii) Monthly report summarizing

the percentage of water entering the

distribution system that was not

treated by UV reactors operating

within validated conditions for the

required dose as specified in

proposed §141.729(d).

No later than [

].

Within 10 days following the

month in which monitoring was

conducted, beginning [

].

No later than [

].

Within 10 days following the

month in which monitoring was

conducted, beginning [

].

1

 States may allow up to an additional 2 years to the date when the first submittal must be completed for systems

making capital improvements.

1.2.6 Uncovered Finished Reservoir Requirements [proposed §141.724]

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

conditions:

• Cover any uncovered finished water storage facility; 

• Treat the discharge from the uncovered finished water storage facility to the distribution

system to achieve at least 4 log virus inactivation; or

• Implement a state-approved risk mitigation plan that addresses physical access and site

security, surface runoff, animal and bird waste, ongoing water quality assessments, and a

schedule for implementation.

1.2.7 PWS Recordkeeping Requirements [proposed §141.731]

Systems must keep results from monitoring until 36 months after all source water monitoring has been

completed. Systems must keep a record of any notification to the state that they will not conduct source

water monitoring because they are a filtering system that will provide at least 5.5 log treatment or a

ground water system that will provide 3 log inactivation. Systems required to develop disinfection

profiles must keep the profiles on file for state review during sanitary surveys.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 47

1.2.8 Public Notification of Drinking Water Violations [proposed §141 Subpart Q,

Appendix A]

Under LT2ESWTR there are two types of violations that require Tier 2 or Tier 3 notification. Tier 2

notifications are for treatment technique violations, and Tier 3 notifications are for monitoring, testing

procedure, and reporting violations.

1.2.8.1 Water are examples of a Tier 2 violation?

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

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

system;

• Install the level of treatment appropriate for a filtered system’s bin classification and

existing treatment; and

• Install the level and type of treatment appropriate for an unfiltered system’s

Cryptosporidium concentration.

1.2.8.2 What are examples of a Tier 3 violation?

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

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

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

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

• Develop disinfection profiles;

• Submit a sampling schedule to the state;

• Sample within 2 days of the scheduled date;

• Sample at the required location;

• Use an approved laboratory and an approved analytical method;

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

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

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

More information on public notification requirements can be found at

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pn.html.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 48

More information can be obtained from:

A. The Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 68

FR 47640 (August 11, 2003); and

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/

B. The EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline, Telephone:

1.800.426.4791

1.2.9 Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

The LT2ESWTR does not specifically modify the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Rule

requirements. However, CCRs must contain any violations of TT requirements or violations of NPDWR

requirements. This includes any such violations of the LT2ESWTR.

More information on consumer confidence report requirements can be found at

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ccr1.html.

1.3 Requirements of the Rule: States or Other Primacy Agents

The following rule requirements are from the LT2ESWTR published in the Federal Register on August

11, 2003 (68 FR 47640). For a copy of the actual rule language, see Appendix B, or visit EPA’s Web site

at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2 for a copy of the Federal Register notice.

1.3.1 Special Primacy Requirements [proposed §142.16]

In order to receive primacy for the LT2ESWTR, states must adopt regulations no less stringent than this

rule. States must submit a primacy application consisting of revisions to their programs, regulations, or

authorities no later than , although states may request an

extension of up to 2 additional years.

In addition, states are required to show in their primacy application that they have the authority to

implement key provisions of the rule by describing the following (see Chapter 4, section 4.4):

• Assess significant changes in the watershed and source water as part of the sanitary

survey process and determine appropriate follow-up action.

• Approve watershed control programs for the 0.5 log watershed control program credit in

the microbial toolbox.

• Approve protocols for treatment credits under the demonstration of performance toolbox

option and for alternative ozone and chlorine dioxide CT values.

• Determine that a system with an uncovered finished water reservoir has a risk mitigation

plan that is adequate for purposes of waiving the requirement to cover or treat the

reservoir.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 49

1.3.2 State Recordkeeping Requirements [proposed §142.14]

The current regulations in 40 CFR 142.14 require states with primacy to keep various records including

analytical results to determine compliance with MCLs, MRDLs, and TT requirements; system

inventories; state approvals; enforcement actions; and variance and exemption status. The LT2ESWTR

requires that the state keep records related to any decisions made pursuant to the requirements in proposed

§141.700–§141.724. In addition, states must keep records of:

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

• Cryptosporidium bin classification for each filtered system, including any changes to

initial bin classification based on review of the watershed during sanitary surveys or the

second round of monitoring.

• Determination of whether each unfiltered system has a mean source water

Cryptosporidium level above 0.01 oocysts/L.

• The treatment processes or control measures that each system employs to meet

Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under the LT2ESWTR; this includes

documentation to demonstrate compliance with required design and implementation

criteria for receiving credit for microbial toolbox options.

• A list of systems required to cover or treat their reservoirs and systems that have received

a waiver for the requirement to cover or treat reservoirs along with the associated risk

mitigation plan.

• A list of systems for which the state has waived the requirement to cover or treat the

effluent of an uncovered finished water storage facility, along with supporting

documentation of the risk mitigation plan.

1.3.3 State Reporting Requirements [proposed §142.15]

The current regulations in 40 CFR 142.15 require states with primacy to keep various records to

determine compliance with treatment technique requirements, system inventories, state approvals, and

enforcement actions. In addition, states must keep records of:

• The initial bin classification for each system that currently provides filtration or that is

unfiltered and required to install filtration, along with any change in bin classification due

to watershed assessment during sanitary surveys or the second round of source water

monitoring.

• The determination of whether each system that is unfiltered and meets all the filtration

avoidance criteria of 40 CFR 141.71 of this chapter has a mean source water

Cryptosporidium level above 0.01 oocysts/L, along with any change in this determination

due to the second round of source water monitoring.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 50

1.4 Summary of Action Dates

1.4.1 Applicability and Compliance Dates

The LT2ESWTR applies to systems using surface or GWUDI as a source and focuses on source water

conditions and the appropriate level of treatment [proposed §141.700]. Table 1-18 summarizes key

compliance dates required (in bold) by the LT2ESWTR, as well as suggested action dates (shaded). 

Systems must comply with treatment requirements based on their specific risk characterizations, as

determined through source water monitoring. The compliance dates are designed to allow for systems to

simultaneously comply with the Stage 2 DBPR in order to balance risks in the control of microbial

pathogens versus risks associated with DBPs.

Table 1-18. Summary of Action Dates for the LT2ESWTR

Date LT2ESWTR Action

Final rule is published in Federal Register.

States should begin working with EPA to identify source water monitoring

requirements for all systems and communicate requirements to affected

large systems.

States should begin determining whether systems’ risk mitigation plans are

adequate for purposes of waiving the requirement to cover or treat the

reservoir.

States should begin assessing significant changes in the watershed and

source water as part of the sanitary survey process and determine

appropriate follow-up actions.

State should begin approving watershed control programs for the 0.5 log

watershed control program credit in the microbial toolbox.

States should begin approving protocols for treatment credits under the

demonstration of performance toolbox option and for alternative ozone and

chlorine dioxide CT values.

 3 months after rule publication

[ ]

States are encouraged to communicate with affected systems regarding

LT2ESWTR requirements.

No later than 3 months after rule

promulgation [ .

Filtered and unfiltered surface water systems serving $10,000 people

that filter must submit a sampling schedule for their initial round of

source water monitoring. [proposed §141.703(a)(1)]

No later than 6 months after rule

promulgation [ .

Filtered and unfiltered surface water systems serving $10,000 people

that filter must begin their initial source water monitoring at least

monthly for 24 months. [proposed §141.701(e)]

12 months

[

States are encouraged to update their data management systems. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Date LT2ESWTR Action

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 51

12 months

[

States are encouraged to communicate LT2ESWTR requirements related to

treatment, uncovered finished water reservoirs, and disinfection profiling to

affected large systems.

15 months

[

States are encouraged to communicate LT2ESWTR requirements related to

source water monitoring to affected small systems.

No later than 24 months after

rule promulgation .

Systems serving $10,000 people required to conduct Cryptosporidium

monitoring must begin disinfection profiling. [proposed §141.712]

Systems must submit risk mitigation plans to state for uncovered

finished water reservoirs. [proposed §141.724(a)(3)]

No later than 27 months after

rule promulgation ].

Surface water systems serving <10,000 people that filter must submit a

sampling schedule for their E. coli monitoring. [proposed

§141.703(a)(2)]

30 months after rule promulgation

[

States are encouraged to communicate LT2ESWTR requirements related to

treatment, uncovered finished water reservoirs, and disinfection profiling to

affected small systems.

States should begin specifying any alternative E. coli indicator values for

small systems.

States should begin awarding Cryptosporidium treatment credit for primary

treatments in place.

No later than 30 months after

rule promulgation ].

Surface water systems serving <10,000 people that filter must begin

monitoring bi-weekly for E. coli for 1 year. States may designate an

alternate indicator monitoring strategy. [proposed §141.701(e)]

36 months after rule promulgation

[

States should begin overseeing disinfection profiling and benchmarking for

large systems.

States should oversee large system risk bin assignments.

No later than 36 months after

rule promulgation [ .

Filtered and unfiltered surface water systems serving $10,000 people

must report their initial bin classification based on their initial round

of source water monitoring. [proposed §141.730(c)-(d)]

Systems serving $10,000 people required to conduct Cryptosporidium

monitoring must have Giardia and virus disinfection profiles on file for

state review during sanitary surveys. [proposed §141.730(f)]

Systems are required to comply with uncovered finished water

reservoirs provisions. [proposed §141.701(h)]

No later than 42 months after

rule promulgation .

Systems serving <10,000 people that are not required to conduct

Cryptosporidium monitoring and exceed DBP triggers must begin

disinfection profiling.1, 2

 [proposed §141.712]

No later than 45 months after

rule promulgation .

Systems serving <10,000 people that exceed E. coli trigger and

unfiltered systems must submit a sampling schedule for their initial

round of monitoring. [proposed §141.703(a)(3)]
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Date LT2ESWTR Action

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 52

No later than 48 months after

rule promulgation .

Systems serving <10,000 people that exceed E. coli trigger and

unfiltered systems must begin monitoring for Cryptosporidium

(twice/month) for 1 year. [proposed §141.701(e)]

No later than 54 months after

rule promulgation .

Systems serving <10,000 people that are not required to conduct

Cryptosporidium monitoring and exceed DBP triggers must have

Giardia and virus disinfection profiles on file for state review during

sanitary surveys.1, 2

 [proposed §141.730(f)]

Systems serving <10,000 people that are required to conduct

Cryptosporidium monitoring must begin disinfection profiling.

[proposed §141.712]

66 months after rule promulgation

[

States should begin overseeing disinfection profiling and benchmarking for

small systems.

States should oversee small system risk bin assignments.

No later than 66 months after

rule promulgation [ .

Systems serving <10,000 people that exceed E. coli trigger must report

their initial bin classification. [proposed §141.730(c)(2)]

Unfiltered systems serving <10,000 people must report initial mean

Cryptosporidium concentration based on their initial round of

monitoring. [proposed §141.730(d)(2)]

Systems serving <10,000 people that are required to conduct

Cryptosporidium monitoring must have Giardia and virus disinfection

profiles on file for state review during sanitary surveys. [proposed

§141.730(f)]

No later than 72 months after

rule promulgation ].

Based on first round of source water monitoring, surface water

systems (filter and unfiltered) serving $10,000 people must meet any

additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements.3 [proposed

§141.701(e)]

84 months after rule promulgation

[

States should award Cryptosporidium treatment credit to large systems for

toolbox option implementation.

No later than 102 months after

rule promulgation .

Based on first round of source water monitoring, surface water

systems (filter and unfiltered) serving <10,000 people must meet any

additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements.3 [proposed

§141.701(e)]

No later than 105 months after

rule promulgation ].

Filtered and unfiltered systems serving $10,000 people must submit a

sampling schedule for their second round of source water monitoring.

[proposed §141.703(a)(4)]

No later than 108 months after

rule promulgation ].

Filtered and unfiltered systems serving $10,000 people must begin a

second round of source water monitoring. [proposed §141.702(d)(1)]

114 months after rule

promulgation [

States should award Cryptosporidium treatment credit to small systems for

toolbox option implementation.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Date LT2ESWTR Action

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 53

No later than 138 months after

rule promulgation [ .

Filtered and unfiltered systems serving $10,000 people must report

their bin classification based on results from second round of

monitoring. [proposed §141.730(c)-(d)]

Systems serving <10,000 people must begin a second round of source

water monitoring. [proposed §141.702(d)(2)]

No later than 153 months after

rule promulgation .

Filtered systems serving <10,000 people that exceed E. coli trigger and

unfiltered systems must submit a sampling schedule for their second

round of monitoring. [proposed §141.703(a)(4)]

No later than 156 months after

rule promulgation .

Filtered systems serving <10,000 people that exceed E. coli trigger and

unfiltered systems must begin their second round of Cryptosporidium

monitoring. [proposed §141.702(d)(2)-(3)]

No later than 174 months after

rule promulgation .

Systems serving <10,000 people must report their bin classification

based on results from second round of monitoring. [proposed

§141.730(c)(2)]

Unfiltered systems serving <10,000 people must report their mean

Cryptosporidium concentration based on their second round of

monitoring. [proposed §141.730(d)(2)]

No later than after

rule promulgation .

Based on second round of source water monitoring, surface water

systems (filter and unfiltered) serving $10,000 people must meet any

additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements. [

]

No later than after

rule promulgation .

Based on second round of source water monitoring, surface water

systems (filter and unfiltered) serving <10,000 people must meet any

additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements. [

]

1

 Systems that provide at least 5.5 log of Cryptosporidium treatment are not required to conduct Cryptosporidium

monitoring.

2

 System with TTHM and HAA5 levels that exceed 0.064 mg/L and 0.048 mg/L, respectively, are required to

develop disinfection profiles.

3 The state may grant 2 year extensions for capital improvements [1412(b)(10)].

1.4.2 Timeline for the LT2ESWTR

Figure 1-2 depicts the LT2ESWTR requirements and implementation timeline for states and systems.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 54 

States

Crypto Monitoring

Apply for Primacy

Comply with Stage 2A

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 

Large Filtered and Unfiltered Systems (Serving > 10,000 People)

Bin Determination

Treatment Installation

Small Filtered Systems (Serving < 10,000 People) 

E. coli monitoring 

Crypto Monitoring

Bin Determination

Treatment Installation

Bin Determination

Crypto Compliance

Crypto Complia

Crypto Comp

Small Unfiltered Systems (Serving < 10,000 People) Crypto Monitoring

Final Stage 2 DBPR & LT2ESWTR Rules Promulgated

Treatment Installation

(possible 2-year extension)

(possible 2-year exte(possible 2-year exte

Figure 1-2. Implementation Timeline for the LT2ESWTR

Notes: The second round of source water sampling begins 108 and 138 months after rule promulgation for large systems and small syste

small systems, the second round requirements are the same as the first with respect to monitoring for E. coli (or an indicator) and only m

Cryptosporidium if E. coli or indicator triggers are exceeded.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 55

References

Barwick, R.S., D.A. Levy, G.F. Craun, M.J. Beach, and R.L. Calderon. 2000. Surveillance for

waterborne-disease outbreaks - United States, 1997-1998. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

49(SS04):1-35.

Craun, F. and R. Calderon. 1996. Microbial risks in groundwater systems: Epidemiology of waterborne

outbreaks. Under the Microscope: Examining microbes in groundwater. Proceedings of the Groundwater

Foundation’s 12th Annual Fall Symposium, Boston. September.

Juranek, D. 1995. Cryptosporidiosis: sources of infection and guidelines for prevention. Clinical

Infectious Diseases 21(1).

Levy, D.A., M.S. Bens, G.F. Craun, R.L. Calderon, and B.L. Herwaldt. 1998. Surveillance for

Waterborne Disease Outbreaks - United States, 1995-1996. MMWR 47(55-5):1-34.

Mac Kenzie, W.R., N.J. Hoxie, M.E. Proctor, M.S. Gradus, K.A. Blair, D.E. Peterson, J.J. Kazmierczak,

D.A. Addiss, K.R. Fox, J.B. Rose, and J.P. Davis. 1994. A massive outbreak of Cryptosporidium

infection transmitted through the public water supply. New England Journal of Medicine 331(3):161-

167.

USEPA. 1999. Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual. EPA 815-R-99-013.

USEPA. 2003. Economic Analysis for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

Proposal. Prepared by The Cadmus Group.
This page intentionally left blank
Section 2

Resources and Guidance
This page intentionally left blank
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 59

In addition to this Implementation Guidance, a variety of resource materials and technical guidance

documents have been prepared by EPA to facilitate understanding and implementing the LT2ESWTR. 

This section is an overview of each of these resources and includes instructions on how to obtain the

documents.

2.1 Technical Guidance Manuals

EPA developed seven technical guidance manuals to support the LT2ESWTR proposal. These manuals

will aid EPA, state agencies, and affected PWSs in implementing this rule and will help ensure that

implementation among these groups is consistent.

• The Draft Source Water Monitoring Guidance Manual for Public Water Systems for the

LT2ESWTR (EPA 815-D-03-005, June 2003) provides guidance on activities related to

Cryptosporidium and E. coli monitoring under the LT2ESWTR, such as laboratory

contracting, sample collection procedures, and data evaluation and interpretation. 

• The Draft Microbial Laboratory Manual for the LT2ESWTR (EPA 815-D-03-006, June

2003) provides guidance to laboratories on procedures for analyzing Cryptosporidium

and E. coli samples under the LT2ESWTR to ensure compliance and maximize data

quality and consistency. 

• The Draft Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-007, June 2003)

provides guidance on the validation selection, design, and operation of UV disinfection

systems to comply with treatment requirements under the rule. The Excel “Ultraviolet

Disinfection Guidance Manual” Workbook supplements the manual with calculations

and data that may be used to validate a UV reactor.

• The Draft Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-008, June 2003)

provides guidance on the selection, design, and operation of membrane filtration to

comply with treatment requirements under the rule.

• The Draft LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003)

provides guidance on the selection, design, and operation of treatment and management

strategies in the LT2ESWTR “microbial toolbox” to comply with treatment requirements

under the rule. 

• The Guidance on Generation and Submission of Grandfathered Cryptosporidium Data for

Bin Classification Under the LT2ESWTR (EPA 815-R-03-009, April 2003) provides

guidance to PWSs that elect to monitor for Cryptosporidium prior to finalization of the

LT2ESWTR. The guidance describes how PWSs can perform grandfathered

Cryptosporidium monitoring such that the results should be equivalent to data generated

under the LT2ESWTR and, therefore, acceptable for use in bin classification.

• The Draft Simultaneous Compliance Manual for the Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR

( ) w illdescribe the various potentialtreatm entand

operational conflicts that may arise as systems comply with these two rules in addition to

other existing rules.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 60

For more information, contact EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline, (800) 426-4791, or see the Office

of Ground Water and Drinking Water Web page. The rule and guidance documents are located at

(http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/index.html).

2.2 Rule Presentation

Presentations that may be useful for workshops on the LT2ESWTR will be available in PowerPoint

format on EPA’s Web site .

2.3 Fact Sheet/Draft Quick Reference Guide

A Fact Sheet/Draft Quick Reference Guide for the LT2ESWTR may be useful in conveying basic

information to water systems, new personnel, and for educating stakeholders about the rule. The

following are stand-alone documents and are included in Appendix C of this guidance:

T Fact Sheet: Proposed Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.

T Proposed Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule: A Draft Quick

Reference Guide.

2.4 Q&As

Questions and Answers (Q&As) on the LT2ESWTR will be provided in this section. These questions

have been asked of EPA through the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, implementation training, or other

means. 

2.4.1 Systems Affected by the LT2ESWTR

Q:

A:

2.4.2 Cryptosporidium

Q:

A:

2.4.3 Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking

Q:

A:
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 61

2.4.4 Source Water Microbial Monitoring

Q:

A:

2.4.5 Bin Classification

Q:

A:

2.4.6 Microbial Toolbox Options

Q:

A:

2.4.7 Violations and SDWIS Reporting

Q:

A:

2.4.8 Data Reporting and Recordkeeping

Q:

A:

2.4.9 Unfiltered Systems

Q:

A:

2.4.10 Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs

Q:

A:
This page intentionally left blank
Section 3

State Implementation
EPA will undertake necessary rule implementation activities during

the period of early implementation. During the early implementation

period, the state may elect to undertake some, or all of the

implementation activities, in cooperation with EPA. This will

facilitate continuity of implementation and ensure that system-specific

advice and decisions are made with the best available information and

are consistent with existing state program requirements.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 65

3.1 Overview of Implementation

The LT2ESWTR applies to all systems using surface water and GWUDI. Requirements and compliance

dates differ between system types (i.e., population served and existing treatment). Primacy agencies

should clearly define monitoring, reporting, performance, and follow-up requirements to help systems

understand how the rule will affect them and what they must do to comply. The main implementation

activities for primacy agencies include the following:

• Address special primacy conditions.

• Identify affected systems.

• Communicate LT2ESWTR requirements to affected systems.

• Update data management systems.

• Approve laboratories for Cryptosporidium analysis.

• Specify any alternative E. coli indicator values for small systems.

• Oversee risk bin assignments.

• Award Cryptosporidium treatment credit for primary treatments in place.

• Award Cryptosporidium treatment credit for implementation of options from the

microbial toolbox.

• Oversee disinfection profiling and benchmarking.

To help the states’ implementation efforts, the guidance in this section and in section 4 makes suggestions

and provides alternatives that go beyond the minimum primacy agency requirements specified in the

subsections of §142.16. Such suggestions are prefaced by “may” or “should” and are to be considered

advisory. They are not required elements of states’ applications for program revision. Figure 3-1 shows a

timeline with system activities on the top and primacy agency activities on the bottom. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 66 

6 months 12 months 18 months 24 months 30 months 36 months 42 months 48 

Large systems submit source water sampling schedule

Small systems submit E. coli sampling schedule

Large system source water monitoring

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

• Award Crypto treatment credit for 

primary treatments in place• Specify any alternative E. coliindicator values for small systems• Communicate LT2ESWTR requirements to affected small systems

• Identify source water monitoring requirements for all systems• Communicate source water monitoring requirements to affected large systems

• Update data management systems• Communicate LT2ESWTR requirements to affected large systems

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

Small system sampling for E. coli

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

Small systems submit Crypto sampling sched

SYSTEM PRIMACY AGENCY

Applying for primacy—address special primacy conditions

• Communicate source water monitoring requirements to affected small systems

Smbegmo

Small system disinfection profiling for those not Cryptomonitoring

Figure 3-1. Timeline of System and Primacy Agency Activities
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 67 

Oversee disinfection profiling and benchmarking for small systems

60 months 72 months 84 months 96 months 108 months 120 months 132 months 144 months 156 m

Large filtered and unfiltered systems must meet treatment requirements(possible 2-yr. extension)

• Oversee small system risk bin assignments• Award Crypto treatment credit to 

large systems for toolbox option implementation

Small filtered and unfiltered systems must meet treatment requirements (possible 2-yr. extension)

Small system 2nd

round of source water E. colimonitoring

Small syste

round of somonitoring

Award Crypto treatment credit to small systems for toolbox option implementation

Large systems conduct 2nd round of source 

water monitoring

SYSTEM PRIMACY AGENCY Oversee disinfection profiling and 

benchmarking for small systems

60 months 72 months 84 months 96 months 108 months 120 months 132 months 144 months 156 m

Large filtered and unfiltered systems must meet treatment requirements(possible 2-yr. extension)

• Oversee small system risk bin assignments• Award Crypto treatment credit to 

large systems for toolbox option implementation

Small filtered and unfiltered systems must meet treatment requirements (possible 2-yr. extension)

Small system 2nd

round of source water E. colimonitoring

Small syste

round of somonitoring

Award Crypto treatment credit to small systems for toolbox option implementation

Large systems conduct 2nd round of source 

water monitoring

SYSTEM PRIMACY AGENCY

Figure 3-1. Timeline of System and Primacy Agency Activities (cont.)
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 68

3.2 Identify Special Primacy Conditions

There are provisions of the LT2ESWTR that allow states discretion in establishing decision-making

criteria. The special primacy requirements for the LT2ESWTR, which address the most important

discretionary items, are discussed in section 4.4 of this guidance. Although that section describes how a

state might satisfy the requirements and obtain primacy, states should inform the systems of their specific

requirements with sufficient lead time to meet the compliance dates. 

The main provisions for which states must make a timely decision on what they will require of systems

include the following: 

States must establish criteria for approving watershed control programs for the 0.5 log watershed control

program credit in the microbial toolbox. Systems will need to be aware of state criteria in time to decide,

1 year after initial bin assignments, whether they intend to pursue watershed control program treatment

credit. 

States must establish criteria for determining that a PWS with an uncovered finished water reservoir has a

risk mitigation plan that is adequate for purposes of waiving the requirement to cover the reservoir or treat

the effluent to achieve 4 log virus inactivation. Systems will need to be aware of state criteria in time to

submit proposed risk mitigation plans no later than 2 years after rule promulgation [ ].

States must establish protocols for awarding Cryptosporidium removal credits (both higher and lower)

under the demonstration of performance toolbox option. At a minimum, systems will need to know the

protocols in enough time to apply for demonstration of performance credit prior to the new treatment

requirements go into effect (as early as 6 years after rule promulgation [ ] for large

systems). In the case where a system’s request for Cryptosporidium removal credits is not accepted by

the state, they could be facing a treatment technique violation if there is not enough time to implement

another toolbox option.

In addition, states must establish criteria for assessing changes in the watershed and source water during

the sanitary survey process. 

3.3 Identify Affected Systems

As mentioned previously, the LT2ESWTR applies to all systems that use surface water or GWUDI as a

source. The subsections below summarize the four main provisions of the LT2ESWTR (i.e., source water

monitoring, treatment, disinfection profiling and bench marking, and uncovered finished reservoirs) as

they apply to different system types.

3.3.1 Source Water Monitoring

Under the LT2ESWTR, all systems that use surface water or GWUDI as a source are required to conduct

source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and/or turbidity. 

• Large systems (those serving 10,000 or more persons) that filter are required to monitor

all three parameters. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 69

• Small systems (those serving fewer than 10,000 people) that filter are required to monitor

for E. coli initially and, depending on those results, may be required to monitor for

Cryptosporidium. 

• Large and small unfiltered systems are required to monitor for Cryptosporidium, unless

they elect to provide 3 log Cryptosporidium inactivation, on the same schedule as their

filtered counterparts. 

Previously collected (“grandfathered”) data may be acceptable in some cases in lieu of monitoring, as

long as specified criteria are met. Systems that already provide 5.5 log total treatment for

Cryptosporidium, the maximum treatment level required under the LT2ESWTR, are not required to

conduct source water monitoring.

3.3.2 Cryptosporidium Treatment

For all systems required to conduct source water monitoring, the results of the source water monitoring

determine Cryptosporidium treatment requirements beyond those required by the IESWTR and

LT1ESWTR. As shown in Table 1-3 (see page 29), the lowest “risk bin” for filtered systems does not

require any additional treatment. However, unfiltered systems must provide at least 2 log inactivation of

Cryptosporidium for source water concentration of <0.01 oocyst/L and 3 log for >0.01 oocysts/L. 

3.3.3 Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking

The IESWTR and LT1ESWTR required disinfection profiling and benchmarking for CWS and

Nontransient Noncommunity Water Systems (NTNCWS) that exceed TTHM or HAA5 levels of 0.064

mg/L and 0.048 mg/L, respectively. Under these rules profiling and benchmarking was calculated for

Giardia lamblia inactivation and, if using ozone, chloramines, or chlorine dioxide, then virus in addition

to Giardia inactivation. The LT2ESWTR extends the requirements to all CWS and NTNCWS that must

monitor for Cryptosporidium (i.e., not only those that exceed the TTHM or HAA5 triggers) and small

CWS and NTNCWS that only conduct E. coli but exceed the TTHM and HAA5 triggers. In addition, all

systems required to conduct disinfection profiling and benchmarking must include virus inactivation

under the LT2ESWTR. 

Specifically under LT2ESWTR, disinfection profiling and benchmarking applies to CWSs and

NTNCWSs that meet any one of the following criteria:

• System that conducts source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium.

• TTHM annual average at any one Stage 1 DBPR monitoring location in the distribution

system is at least 0.064 mg/L.

• HAA5 annual average at any one Stage 1 DBPR monitoring location in the distribution

system is at least 0.048 mg/L.

3.3.4 Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs

The IESWTR and LT1ESWTR prohibited the construction of new uncovered reservoirs for finished

water, but did not address existing uncovered reservoirs. The LT2ESWTR requires systems with existing

uncovered finished water reservoirs to either cover the reservoir or treat the reservoir discharge to achieve
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 70

a 4 log virus inactivation using a protocol approved by the state. However, the system may not have to

cover or treat the reservoir if the system develops and implements a state-approved risk mitigation plan. 

3.4 Communicate LT2ESWTR Requirements to Affected Systems

States should consider notifying PWSs of the source water monitoring and resulting treatment

requirements under the LT2ESWTR as soon as possible.

3.4.1 Source Water Monitoring Requirements

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

Table 3-1. Source Water Monitoring Requirements and Compliance Dates

Requirement Compliance Date

Large filtered systems must monitor their source water for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity, and

large unfiltered systems must monitor for only Cryptosporidium.

1, 2

Submit sampling schedule No later than [ ]

Sample/monitor on at least a monthly basis for a 24

month period

Begin no later than [ ]

Conduct second round of source water monitoring on

at least a monthly basis for a 24 month period 

Begin no later than [ ]

Small filtered systems must first monitor for E. coli or an alternative state-approved indicator of

Cryptosporidium.

1, 2

Submit E. coli sampling schedule No later than [ ]

Sample for E. coli or alternative indicator on at least a

biweekly basis for a 12 month period

Begin no later than [ ]

If the average indicator concentration exceeds the trigger level,3, 4 then the filtered system must monitor for

Cryptosporidium. Small unfiltered systems must monitor for Cryptosporidium.

Submit Cryptosporidium sampling schedule No later than [ ]

Sample for Cryptosporidium at least twice per month

for a 24 month period

Begin no later than [ ]

Second round of source water E. coli monitoring2 Begin no later than [ ]

Second round of source water Cryptosporidium

monitoring

Begin no later than [ ]

1

Systems may be eligible to use previously collected (grandfathered) data to meet Cryptosporidium monitoring

requirements if specified quality control criteria are met.

2

Systems are not required to monitor if they will provide at least 5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment and notify EPA

or the state.

3

Trigger levels are E. coli annual mean concentration of 10/100 mL for systems using lakes/reservoir sources and

50/100 mL for systems using flowing stream sources.

4

Systems that do not exceed the E. coli trigger level are classified in bin 1 and are not required to provide

Cryptosporidium treatment beyond LT1ESWTR levels.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 71

Previously Collected Data

Systems may elect to use Cryptosporidium data collected before the system is required to begin

monitoring. However, data must meet the quality standards detailed in proposed §141.708(b). Sample

collection must meet the following requirements:

• Samples must have been collected at equal time intervals over the collection period (the

LT2ESWTR does, however, allow for the collection interval to vary if the system

provides documentation of the condition).

• Sampling frequency must be at least monthly.

• Samples collected prior to January 1999 cannot be used.

For previously collected data to be considered, data must be submitted to EPA along with supporting

documentation no later than [ ]. Systems with partial data (i.e., less

than 2 years of data at the time of LT2ESTWR promulgation) may also submit their data for potential

credit toward their Cryptosporidium monitoring requirements. Such partial data and supporting

documentation must be sent to EPA no later than 8 months following rule promulgation [

]. In both cases, systems should plan to conduct the monitoring required by the LT2ESWTR until

notified in writing by EPA that additional monitoring is not necessary.

3.4.1.1 Calculating Average Cryptosporidium Concentrations 

Cryptosporidium treatment requirements are determined by the average Cryptosporidium concentration

observed during source water monitoring. For all unfiltered systems and small filtered systems, the

average is the mean of all samples. For large filtered systems, the average differs by the number of

samples collected as follows:

• 24 to 47 samples—highest twelve month RAA

• 48 samples or higher—mean of all samples

When determining LT2ESWTR bin classification, systems must calculate individual sample

concentrations using the total number of oocysts counted, unadjusted for method recovery, divided by the

volume assayed. If no oocysts are found in a sample, then the concentration value for that sample is zero

(i.e., not the detection limit). The range of Cryptosporidium concentrations that define LT2ESWTR bins

reflects consideration of analytical method recovery and the percent of Cryptosporidium oocysts that are

infectious. Consequently, sample analysis results will not be adjusted for these factors.

Although PWSs are responsible for monitoring and calculating their own bin classification, states should

plan on reminding PWSs of the requirements and verifying the calculated bin classifications.

3.4.2 Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements and Compliance Dates

Systems will use their average Cryptosporidium concentration from source water monitoring to determine

their bin assignments and additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements. Table 3-2 shows the

treatment requirements for filtered systems according to existing treatment processes. Table 3-3 shows

the treatment requirements for unfiltered systems. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 72

Table 3-2. Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements for Filtered Systems

If the source water

Cryptosporidium

concentration 

in oocyst/l is...

And the system uses the following filtration treatment in full compliance with

subpart H, P, and T (as applicable), then the additional treatment

requirements are. . .

Conventional

filtration

treatment

(including

softening)

Direct filtration Slow sand or

diatomaceous

earth filtration

Alternative

filtration

technologies

<0.075.........................Bin 1

>0.0075 and <1.0........Bin 2

>1.0 and <3.0..............Bin 3

>3.0.............................Bin 4

None

1 log treatment..

2 log treatment...

2.5 log

treatment...

None

1.5 log treatment.....

2.5 log treatment..

3 log treatment.....

None

1 log

treatment...........

2 log treatment........

2.5 log treatment.....

None

(

1

)

(

2

)

(

3

)

1

 As determined by the state such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 4.0 log. 2

 As determined by the state such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 5.0 log. 3

 As determined by the state such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 5.5 log.

Table 3-3. Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements for Unfiltered Systems

If the source water

Cryptosporidium concentration in

oocyst/L is...

Cryptosporidium inactivation with

either chlorine dioxide, ozone, or

UV

<0.01 2 log inactivation 

>0.01 3 log inactivation

Filtered systems can use at least one of the treatment and management techniques in the “microbial

toolbox” (described in section 3.9). Those in bins 3 and 4 must achieve at least 1 log credit towards

additional treatment using at least one of the following: bag filters, bank filtration, cartridge filters,

chlorine dioxide, membranes, ozone, and UV. 

Unfiltered systems are required to use at least two different disinfectants to meet their overall inactivation

requirements for viruses (4 log), Giardia lamblia (3 log), and Cryptosporidium (2 or 3 log). Each of the

two disinfectants individually must achieve the total inactivation required for any one of these three

pathogen types. For example, a system may use chloramine to meet virus inactivation requirements, UV

to meet Cryptosporidium inactivation requirements, and any combination of disinfectants to meet Giardia

requirements.

Compliance Dates

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

• Large systems no later than [ ].

• Small systems no later than [ ].
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 73

For systems making capital improvements, states may grant up to 2 additional years to comply. 

3.4.3 Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking

Disinfection profiling is conducted over a 12-month period. Table 3-4 shows the activities and dates by

which systems must comply.

Table 3-4. Disinfection Profiling Requirements and Compliance Dates

System Requirement and Compliance Date 

Large systems Begin profiling [ ]

Small systems not required to monitor for

Cryptosporidium

Submit TTHM and HAA5 locational running annual averages

to state [ ]

Small systems not required to monitor for

Cryptosporidium and exceeding TTHM and

HAA5 triggers

Begin profiling [ ]

Small systems required to monitor for

Cryptosporidium

[ ]

Previously collected data (i.e., disinfection profiles prepared to satisfy the requirements of the IESWTR

or LT1ESWTR) may be used by systems that have not made significant changes in disinfection practices

since the data were collected. Systems that developed Giardia disinfection profiles, but not virus

disinfection profiles, under the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR may calculate virus profiles from the same

operational data used to develop the Giardia profiles. 

Disinfection profiles and benchmarks must be kept on file for the state to review during the Sanitary

Survey. In addition, any systems required to develop disinfection profiles for Giardia and viruses that

plan to make significant changes, as determined by the state, in disinfection practice are required to

calculate a benchmark and submit to the state the disinfection profile and an analysis of how the proposed

change will affect the current benchmark. The state must grant approval before a system may make any

significant change to their disinfection practice.

EPA developed Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manuals (USEPA, 1999) for the

IESWTR and LT1ESWTR. These manuals provide instruction to systems and states on the development

of disinfection profiles, identification and evaluation of significant changes in disinfection practices, and

considerations for setting an alternative benchmark. If necessary, EPA will produce an addendum to

reflect changes in the profiling and benchmarking requirements necessary to comply with the

LT2ESWTR.

3.4.4 Uncovered Finished Water Reservoir Requirements

Systems with uncovered finished reservoirs must cover the reservoir, treat reservoir discharge to 4 log

virus inactivation, or have a state-approved risk mitigation plan in place by 36 months after rule

promulgation [ ], with a possibility of a 2-year extension granted by states for systems

making capital improvements. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 74

Systems seeking approval for a risk mitigation plan must submit the plan to the state within 24 months

following rule promulgation [ ]. This plan must address physical access and site

security, surface water run-off, animal and bird wastes, and on-going water quality assessment, and it

must include a schedule for plan implementation. Section 4.4.4 provides guidance to states for

developing procedures to evaluate risk mitigation plans.

3.4.5 Methods of Communication

3.4.5.1 Written Notification 

Providing written notice of a final rule for PWSs serves two purposes: 1) the receiving system obtains a

formal notice of upcoming regulatory requirements and a timeline for compliance (in addition to EPA’s

publication of the rule in the Federal Register); and 2) the primacy agency has a hard-copy document that

it may file and use in subsequent compliance tracking efforts. 

Written notification can be in the form of a letter from the state to affected systems. The letter should

include a summary of rule requirements and timeframes and direct the reader to an appropriate contact if

questions arise. States should consider including fact sheets or other summary materials with the letter. 

Appendix C of this guidance includes additional draft publications that are intended to be distributed to

water systems through mailings, training sessions, or other educational forums. These publications are

also available at www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/implement.html. They provide overviews of the

LT2ESWTR to help systems understand the provisions of the rule and determine which provisions apply

to their system. They also describe the benefits and general implications of the rule. Although valuable,

these resources do not substitute for official rule language. States should consider mailing official rule

language with the letter or including in the letter the website address where the regulatory language can

be accessed. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 75

Example 3-1. Example System Notification Letter

State Letterhead

John Smith, Supt.

Town Water System, PWSID XXXXXXX

Town, ST 12345

RE: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

Dear Mr. Smith:

On [ ], the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (abbreviated

LT2ESWTR) was published in the Federal Register. This letter is being provided to notify you that your

public water system may be affected by this rule. You are receiving this letter as our data show your system

uses surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) as a source.

The LT2ESWTR applies to all public water systems that use surface water or GWUDI. The LT2ESWTR

requires systems to conduct source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium, and to take additional protective

measures, if warranted by monitoring, using approved treatment techniques in the “microbial toolbox.” The

LT2ESWTR also requires most systems to develop disinfection profiles. Finally, the LT2ESWTR requires

systems with uncovered finished water reservoirs to cover the reservoirs, treat the effluent, or implement a

risk mitigation plan. 

Source water monitoring will begin [ ] for large systems (serving

10,000 people or more) and [ ] for small filtered systems. Sampling

schedules must be submitted to the state by each system 3 months before source water monitoring begins. All

small unfiltered systems, and those small filtered systems with high E. coli levels, will be required to monitor

for Cryptosporidium starting [ ]. Compliance with stricter microbial

control standards will begin [ ] for large systems and [

] for small systems. Large systems will be required to begin disinfection profiling by

[ ] and small systems by [ ] (or

[ ] if they are required to undertake source water monitoring for

Cryptosporidium). Systems with uncovered finished water reservoirs must cover the reservoirs, treat the

effluent, or have a risk mitigation plan approved by [ ]. Risk mitigation

plans for uncovered finished water reservoirs must be submitted to the state at least a year in advance. Some

systems may be eligible to meet source water monitoring and disinfection profiling requirements with

grandfathered data. Systems making capital improvements may be eligible for a 2-year extension for

treatment requirements as well as uncovered finished water reservoir requirements. 

A Draft Quick Reference Guide and Fact Sheets for the LT2ESWTR are enclosed. These resources provide

more information on specific aspects of this regulation. 

Please contact this office at XXX-XXX-XXXX if you have any questions about this letter or the LT2ESWTR

and its effect on your system. We appreciate your attention to this request.

Sincerely,

Enclosures: LT2ESWTR Quick Reference Guide, LT2ESWTR Fact Sheet [ ]
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 76

3.4.5.2 Slide Presentation

Slide presentations of the LT2ESWTR may be used by state staff and other technical assistants or training

providers to present the background of the rule, rule requirements, and its benefits.

The EPA Drinking Water Academy will develop a PowerPoint training session on the LT2ESWTR. 

Copies of the presentation may be used to train other state personnel and technical assistance resources,

water system personnel, and the public. EPA’s Drinking Water Academy slides are available

electronically on EPA’s Web Site at [ ].

3.4.5.3 Guidance Documents and Seminars

Technical guidance documents developed for the LT2ESWTR are useful for conveying rule requirements

and specific aspects of rule implementation to state staff and system staff and operators. These aspects

include source water monitoring, disinfection profiling and benchmarking, and selecting and

implementing options from the microbial toolbox. The guidance documents can be used as stand-alone

references or as supporting materials in LT2ESWTR-specific training events. See section 2 of this

manual for more information on these references.

3.5 Update Data Management Systems

Although state data management systems vary to suit state-specific requirements and needs, EPA

recommends that all states update their data systems in light of the LT2ESWTR to enable efficient

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

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

following:

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

• Cryptosporidium risk bin classification for each filtered system, including any changes to

initial bin classification based on the watershed assessment conducted during the sanitary

survey or the second round of monitoring.

• For each unfiltered system, the determination whether the mean source water

Cryptosporidium level is above 0.01 oocysts/L and whether that determination changes

with the second round of monitoring.

• The treatment processes or control measures that each system employs to meet

LT2ESWTR requirements, including documentation to demonstrate compliance with

required design and implementation criteria.

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

reservoir.

• A list of systems for which the state has waived the requirement to cover or treat the

discharge of an uncovered finished water reservoir, along with supporting documentation

of the risk mitigation plan.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 77

While many of these records may be maintained through hard-copy files, it may be helpful to have data

systems that easily identify systems for which these records exist. 

Because source water monitoring by large systems will begin 6 months following promulgation of the

LT2ESWTR, EPA expects to act as the primacy agency with oversight responsibility for large system

sampling, analysis, and data reporting. To facilitate collection and analysis of large system monitoring

data, EPA is developing an internet-based electronic data collection and management system. This

approach is similar to that used under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR). 

Analytical results for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity will be reported directly to this database

using web forms and software that can be downloaded free of charge. EPA will make large system

monitoring data available to states when states assume primacy for the LT2ESWTR or earlier under a

state agreement with EPA.

3.6 Specify Alternative E. coli or Indicator Values for Small Systems

To reduce the monitoring burden for small systems, the LT2ESWTR requires a 2-phase monitoring

strategy for small systems. This approach is based on ICR and Information Collection Rule Supplemental

Surveys (ICRSS) data indicating that systems with low source water E. coli levels are likely to have low

Cryptosporidium levels. Under this approach, small systems must initially sample for E. coli beginning

30 months after rule promulgation [ ] and, if above the trigger levels (see section

1.2.2), conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring.

As recommended by the Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee, EPA will evaluate Cryptosporidium

indicator relationships in the LT2ESWTR monitoring data collected by large systems. If these data

support the use of different indicator levels to trigger small system Cryptosporidium monitoring, EPA

will issue guidance with recommendations. 

Under the LT2ESWTR, states may also allow use of an alternative indicator for small systems. If states

use this option, they should notify small systems of the indicator, trigger values, and acceptable analytical

methods.

3.7 Ensure that Ongoing Watershed Monitoring is Conducted and Adjust

Treatment Requirements

Because treatment requirements are related to the degree of source water contamination, the LT2ESWTR

contains provisions to assess changes in a system’s source water quality following initial risk bin

classification. After completion of the initial round of Cryptosporidium monitoring, EPA requires that

states conduct a follow-up source water assessment as part of the ongoing sanitary survey process. 

During the sanitary survey, the state must determine whether significant changes have occurred in the

watershed that could lead to increased contamination of the source water and what appropriate follow-up

action is needed. 

Developing a plan to assess the watershed and determine appropriate follow-up action is a special

primacy condition of the LT2ESWTR (see section 4.4.1 for guidance to address this special primacy

condition). 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 78

3.8 Award Cryptosporidium Removal Credit for Primary Treatments in Place

For conventional treatment systems and slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration systems, EPA

recommends a 3.0 log Cryptosporidium removal credit be awarded. For direct filtration systems (which

lack a sedimentation basin), EPA recommends a 2.5 log removal credit be awarded. However, EPA is

unable to recommend an average log removal credit for alternative filtration technologies like

membranes, bag filters, and cartridge filters due to variability among products. As a result, credit for

these devices must be determined by the state. 

The Draft Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual EPA 815-D-03-008, June 2003) provides guidance for

conducting and evaluating challenge tests, as well as routine integrity testing and monitoring

requirements to ensure the necessary level of treatment is maintained. Most membrane processes will

likely achieve 5.5 log Cryptosporidium removal that allows systems to avoid source water monitoring

requirements.

The Draft LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) provides guidance for

challenge testing bag and cartridge filters. Note that the guidance is directed towards testing of bag and

cartridge filters that follow primary filtration and grant an additional 1 log and 2 log credit. While most

of the guidance is still applicable, states should evaluate all aspects of the bag or cartridge filter process

with respect to the different source water quality and higher level of removal necessary for primary

filtration credit (i.e., 3 log removal). 

As described in proposed §141.727, a state may award greater credit to a system that demonstrates

through a state-approved protocol that it reliably achieves a higher level of Cryptosporidium removal. 

Conversely, a state may award less credit to a system where the state determines, based on site specific

information, that the system is not achieving the degree of Cryptosporidium removal indicated in Table 

3-5. 

Table 3-5. Cryptosporidium Treatment Credit Towards LT2ESWTR Requirements1

Plant type Conventional

treatment (includes

softening)

Direct filtration Slow sand or

diatomaceous earth

filtration

Alternative

filtration

technologies

Treatment

credit

3.0 log 2.5 log 3.0 log Determined by state

1 Applies to plants in full compliance with the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR as applicable

3.9 Award Cryptosporidium Removal Credit for Implementation of Options from the

Microbial Toolbox

In order to achieve the Cryptosporidium removal requirements of the risk bin categories, systems must

supplement the removal credit they receive for primary treatment techniques by implementing options

from the microbial toolbox. Each toolbox option is associated with a certain log removal or inactivation

credit. Table 3-6 summarizes presumptive credits and associated design and implementation criteria for

microbial toolbox components.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 79

Table 3-6. Microbial Toolbox: Options, Log Credits, and Summary of Design/

Implementation Criteria

Toolbox Option Cryptosporidium log credit with design and implementation criteria

Source Toolbox Components

Watershed Control Program 0.5 log credit for state-approved program including EPA-specified elements. 

(Section 3.9.1)

Alternative source/ Intake

management

No presumptive credit. Systems may conduct simultaneous monitoring for

LT2ESWTR bin classification at alternative intake locations or under

alternative intake management strategies. (Section 3.9.2)

Pre-filtration Toolbox Components

Pre-sedimentation basin with

coagulation

0.5 log credit with continuous operation and coagulant addition; basins must

achieve 0.5 log turbidity reduction based on the monthly mean of daily

measurements from 11 of the 12 previous months; all flow must pass

through basins. Systems with existing pre-sed basins must conduct source

water monitoring after basins but before any other treatment to determine

bin classification and are not eligible for presumptive credit. (Section 3.9.3)

Lime softening 0.5 log additional credit for two-stage softening (single-stage softening is

credited as equivalent to conventional treatment). Coagulant must be

present in both stages, which may be excess lime or magnesium hydroxide. 

Both stages must treat 100% of flow. (Section 3.9.4)

Bank filtration

(as pretreatment)

0.5 log credit for 25 ft. setback; 1.0 log credit for 50 ft. setback; aquifer must

be unconsolidated sand containing at least 10% fines; average turbidity in

wells must be < 1 NTU. Systems with existing wells must monitor well

effluent to determine bin classification and are not eligible for presumptive

credit. (Section 3.9.5)

Treatment Performance Toolbox Components

Combined filter performance 0.5 log credit for combined filter effluent turbidity #0.15 NTU in 95% of

samples each month. (Section 3.9.6)

Individual filter performance 1.0 log credit for demonstration of filtered water turbidity <0.1 NTU in 95

percent of daily max values from individual filters (excluding 15 min period

following backwash) and no individual filter >0.3 NTU in two consecutive

measurements taken 15 minutes apart. (Section 3.9.7)

Demonstration of Performance Credit awarded to unit process or treatment train based on demonstration to

the state, through use of a state-approved protocol. (Section 3.9.15)

Additional Filtration Toolbox Components

Bag filters 1 log credit with demonstration of at least 2 log removal efficiency in

challenge test. (Section 3.9.9)

Cartridge filters 2 log credit with demonstration of at least 3 log removal efficiency in

challenge test. (Section 3.9.9)
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Toolbox Option Cryptosporidium log credit with design and implementation criteria

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 80

Membranes (microfiltration,

ultrafiltration, nanofiltration,

reverse osmosis)

Log credit equivalent to removal efficiency demonstrated in challenge test

for device if supported by direct integrity testing. (Section 3.9.8)

Second stage filtration 0.5 log credit for second separate filtration stage; treatment train must

include coagulation prior to first filter. (Section 3.9.10)

Slow sand filters 2.5 log credit as a secondary filtration step. No prior chlorination. (Section

3.9.11)

Inactivation Toolbox Components

Chlorine dioxide Log credit based on demonstration of compliance with contact time table. 

(Section 3.9.12)

Ozone Log credit based on demonstration of compliance with contact time table. 

(Section 3.9.13)

UV Log credit based on demonstration of compliance with UV dose table;

reactor testing required to establish validated operating conditions. (Section

3.9.14)

Each component is described in more detail in the LT2ESWTR rule language. EPA developed the

following draft guidance manuals to assist systems with implementing toolbox components: UV

Disinfection Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-007, June 2003), Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual

(EPA 815-D-03-008, June 2003), and Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003).

States award credit for toolbox options that are satisfactorily implemented. States should be prepared to

assist systems in understanding the requirements associated with each toolbox option and selecting

appropriate toolbox options. For most options, systems must monitor and/or report operating data to the

state, on a monthly basis, verifying proper treatment was achieved. Sections 3.9.1 to 3.9.16 briefly

describe each option and the associated requirements.

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

States must approve systems’ watershed control programs. Only filtered systems are eligible for

watershed control program credits since unfiltered systems are already required to maintain a watershed

control program that minimizes the potential for contamination by Cryptosporidium as a criterion to

avoiding filtration.

States will base their initial approval of a system’s watershed control program on their review of the

system’s proposed watershed control plan and supporting documentation. Their initial approval will be

valid until the system completes the second round of Cryptosporidium monitoring, which begins

approximately 6 years after the initial bin assignment. During this period, states should be aware that the

system is responsible for implementing the approved plan and complying with other general

requirements, such as an annual watershed survey and program status report. If systems want to continue

their eligibility to receive the 0.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment credit, they must reapply, and states

must approve the program for each subsequent approval period. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 81

3.9.1.1 What are the Requirements for Initial State Approval of Watershed Control Programs?

States must receive notification from systems that intend to pursue a 0.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment

credit for a watershed control program within 1 year following source water monitoring that the system

proposes to develop a watershed control plan and submit it for state approval.

States should ensure that systems’ applications for initial program approval include the following

minimum elements:

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

• An analysis of control measures that could address the sources of Cryptosporidium

contamination identified during the vulnerability analysis. 

• A plan that specifies goals and defines and prioritizes specific actions to reduce source

water Cryptosporidium levels. 

States must receive systems’ proposed watershed control plan, a request for program approval, and a

request for 0.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment credit no later than 2 years following source water

monitoring.

States will review the system’s initial proposed watershed control plan and either approve, reject, or

“conditionally approve” the plan. If the plan is approved, or if the system agrees to implement the state’s

conditions for approval, the system will be awarded 0.5 log credit towards LT2ESWTR Cryptosporidium

treatment requirements. A final decision on approval should be made no later than 3 years following the

system’s initial bin assignment. This will give the system 1 year to make changes and resubmit their plan

for approval.

The initial state approval of the system’s watershed control program can be valid until the system

completes the required second round of Cryptosporidium monitoring. The system is responsible for

taking the required steps to maintain state program approval (described in 3.9.1.2) and the 0.5 log credit

during the approval period. 

3.9.1.2 What are the System’s Requirements for Maintaining State Approval of Watershed Control

Programs?

After states have approved a system’s watershed control program, states should receive the following

information from the system within each approval period for the system to continue to be eligible for the

0.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment credit:

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

period.

• An annual state-approved watershed sanitary survey report.

• An application for review and re-approval of the watershed control program and for a

continuation of the 0.5 log treatment credit for a subsequent approval period. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 82

The annual watershed control program status report must describe the system’s implementation of the

approved plan and assess whether the plan achieved its goals. It must explain how the system is

addressing any shortcomings in plan implementation, including those previously identified by the state or

identified during the watershed survey. 

The watershed survey must be conducted according to state guidelines and by persons approved by the

state to conduct watershed surveys. The survey must encompass the area of the watershed that was

identified in the state-approved watershed control plan as the area of influence and, at a minimum, assess

the priority activities identified in the plan and identify any significant new sources of Cryptosporidium.

The application for re-approval must be provided to the state at least 6 months before the current period

expires or by a date determined by the state. The application must include a summary of activities and

issues identified during the previous period and a revised plan to address activities for the next period,

including new, actual, or potential source of Cryptosporidium and details of any proposed or expected

changes from the existing state-approved program.

The annual status reports, watershed control plan, and annual watershed sanitary surveys must be made

available to the public upon request. These documents must be in a plain language format and include

criteria for evaluating the success of the program in achieving plan goals. The state may withhold

portions of the annual status report, watershed control plan, and watershed sanitary survey from the public

based on security considerations.

3.9.1.3 What Resources are Available to Systems and States?

Source water assessments conducted by states under section 1453 of the SDWA can provide a foundation

for a watershed vulnerability analysis by providing the preliminary analyses of watershed hydrology, a

starting point for defining the area of influence, and an inventory and hierarchy of actual and potential

contamination sources. In some cases, these portions of the source water assessment may fully satisfy

those analytical requirements. 

EPA developed the Draft Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) to assist water

systems in developing their watershed control programs and states in their assessment and approval of

these programs. The guidance addresses contamination by Cryptosporidium and other pathogens from

both non-point sources (e.g., agricultural and urban runoff, septic tanks) and point sources (e.g., sewer

overflows, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and concentrated animal feeding operations

(CAFOs)). In addition, the guidance manual incorporates available information on the effectiveness of

different control measures to reduce Cryptosporidium levels and provides case studies of watershed

control programs. The manual also includes resources available to assist systems in building partnerships

and implementing watershed protection activities. 

3.9.2 Alternative Source [proposed §141.725(b)]

Plants may be able to reduce influent Cryptosporidium levels by changing the intake placement (either

within the same source or to an alternate source) or by managing the timing or level of withdrawal. 

Because the effect of changing the location or operation of a plant intake on influent Cryptosporidium

levels will be site specific, states may not grant presumptive credit for this option. Rather, if a system is

concerned that Cryptosporidium levels associated with the current plant intake location and/or operation

will result in a bin assignment requiring additional treatment under the LT2ESWTR, the system may
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 83

conduct concurrent Cryptosporidium monitoring reflecting a different intake location or different intake

management strategy. 

States should ensure that systems’ concurrent monitoring conforms to the sample frequency, sample

volume, analytical method, and other requirements that apply to the system for Cryptosporidium

monitoring. The system must monitor its current plant intake in addition to any alternative intake location

or withdrawal strategy, and must submit sampling plans for both strategies to the state 3 months prior to

the start of sampling. In addition to all monitoring results, states should also receive supporting

information from the system documenting the conditions under which the alternative intake

location/management samples were collected. The state will then make a determination as to whether the

plant may be assigned to an LT2ESWTR bin using alternative intake location/management monitoring

results. 

If a plant’s bin assignment is based on a new intake operation strategy, it is important for the plant to

continue to use this new strategy in routine operation. Therefore, the state must receive documentation

from the system on its new intake operation strategy along with additional monitoring results.

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

This option is only available to systems without a pre-sedimentation basin at the time of source water

monitoring. Systems with pre-sedimentation basins at the time of source water monitoring must sample

after the pre-sedimentation basin. 

States may grant 0.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment credit to a system with a presedimentation process

that achieves at least 0.5 log influent turbidity reduction in at least 11 of the 12 previous months, based on

the monthly mean of daily turbidity readings. If the presedimentation process has not been in operation

for the previous 12 months, then the state must base its determination on the last 12 months of operation

and whether influent turbidity reduction in 11 of those months was at least 0.5 log reduction. In addition,

the presedimentation process must comply with the following on a monthly basis: (1) continuous

operation while basin is in use; (2) treat 100 percent of the plant flow; and (3) continuous addition of a

coagulant.

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

States may grant 0.5 log credit to systems with lime softening plants, depending on the treatment process. 

Lime softening can be categorized into two general types: (1) single-stage softening that includes a

primary clarifier and filtration components; and (2) two-stage softening, which has an additional clarifier

located between the clarifier and filter. 

In order to grant the 0.5 log credit, the state must ensure that the plant has a second clarification stage

between the primary clarifier and filter that is operated continuously and that both clarification stages

individually must treat 100 percent of the plant flow. In addition, a coagulant must be present in both

clarifiers (the coagulant may be precipitated metal salts).

3.9.5 Bank Filtration [proposed §141.726(c)]

In order for a state to grant a system Cryptosporidium treatment credit, its wells must be drilled in an

unconsolidated, predominantly sandy aquifer. Wells must also be located at least 25 horizontal feet (in

any direction) from the surface water source for 0.5 log credit and at least 50 feet for 1.0 log credit. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 84

Systems must characterize the aquifer by collecting core samples from the surface to at least the bottom of

the well screen. From grain analyses, at least 90 percent of the recovered core material must contain at

least 10 percent fine-grained material (grains less than 1.0 mm diameter).

Bank filtration devices must be continuously monitored for turbidity at the wellhead. The state must

receive notification if a system’s monthly average exceeds 1 NTU using the daily maximum turbidity

values. The state must determine whether previously allowed credit is still appropriate based on the

system’s assessment identifying the cause of the high turbidity levels in the well. 

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

States may grant additional Cryptosporidium treatment credit to certain plants (i.e., conventional or direct

filtration processes) that maintain finished water turbidity at levels significantly lower than previously

required (i.e., 0.3 NTU). Conventional and direct filtration plants may receive an additional 0.5 log

towards Cryptosporidium treatment requirements if the CFE is less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least

95 percent of the measurements taken each month for compliance with the SWTR and IESWTR or

LT1ESWTR. Compliance with this criterion must be based on turbidity measurements of the CFE every

4 hours (or more frequently) while the plant system serves water to the public. States may not grant this

credit to systems with membrane, bag/cartridge, slow sand, or diatomaceous earth plants, due to the lack

of documented correlation between effluent turbidity and Cryptosporidium removal in these processes. 

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

States may grant systems with conventional or direct filtration processes an additional 1.0 log

Cryptosporidium treatment credit if turbidity measurements collected for IESWTR or LT1ESWTR

compliance meet the following turbidity criteria: (1) filtered water turbidity less than 0.1 NTU in at least

95 percent of the maximum daily values recorded at each filter in each month, excluding the 15 minute

period following backwashes; and (2) no individual filter has a measured turbidity level greater than 0.3

NTU in two consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart. 

States may not grant systems that receive 1 log treatment credit for individual filter performance an

additional 0.5 log credit for the CFE option.

3.9.8 Membrane Filtration [proposed §141.728(b)]

To grant removal credit to systems using membrane filtration, states must ensure that the membrane

technology is a pressure- or vacuum-driven separation process in which particulate matter larger than 1

:m is rejected by a nonfibrous, engineered barrier, primarily through a size exclusion mechanism. The

membrane technology must also allow for routine direct integrity testing while in operation that verifies

the removal efficiency demonstrated through challenge testing is being achieved. This definition is

intended to include microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis. 

Compliance for a membrane process has three components: 

• Challenge test—a test of the membrane’s ability to remove introduced Cryptosporidium

oocysts or surrogates in simulation of operational conditions. Challenge testing is

required for specific products and is not intended to be site specific. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 85

• Direct integrity test—Routine testing of each membrane unit that demonstrates removal

efficiency equal to or greater than that awarded from the challenge test. Systems must

conduct testing at least once per day while in operation and submit a monthly report to

the state summarizing all direct integrity test results above the control limit associated

with the Cryptosporidium removal credit and the corrective action that was taken in each

case. 

• Indirect integrity monitoring—continuous monitoring of each membrane unit. If direct

integrity testing is continuous, systems are not subject to indirect integrity testing

requirements. 

The removal efficiency demonstrated during challenge testing establishes the maximum removal credit

that a membrane filtration process is eligible to receive, provided this value is less than or equal to the

maximum log removal value that can be verified by the direct integrity test (a physical test applied to a

membrane unit to identify and isolate integrity breaches such as leaks). The state may use its discretion in

considering data from challenge studies conducted prior to promulgation of this regulation in lieu of

additional testing. 

Additional requirements and guidance for conducting the three tests to comply with the LT2ESWTR is

provided in the Draft Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-008, June 2003).

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

States can grant systems using bag and cartridge filters for secondary filtration (i.e., they have a primary

filtration process that meets the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR finished water turbidity requirements) a 1 and 2

log Cryptosporidium treatment credit, respectively. To be eligible for removal credit, the filtration

process must be a pressure driven separation process that removes particulate matter larger than 1 :m

using an engineered porous filtration media through either surface or depth filtration. Removal efficiency

must be demonstrated through a challenge test conducted on a full-scale bag or cartridge filter. 

Challenge testing involves evaluating each bag or cartridge filter for its removal efficiency of

Cryptosporidium oocysts (or a surrogate that is removed no more efficiently than Cryptosporidium

oocysts). Challenge testing is not required to be site specific; rather, it is intended to be product-specific. 

Due to the variability in performance, the LT2ESWTR requires bag filters to demonstrate 2.0 log removal

for a 1.0 log credit and cartridge filters to demonstrate 3.0 log removal for a 2.0 log credit. States may

use their discretion in considering data from challenge studies conducted prior to promulgation of this

regulation in lieu of additional testing. Requirements and guidance for conducting challenge studies on

bag and cartridge filters are presented in the Draft Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June

2003).

3.9.10 Second Stage Filtration [proposed §141.728(c)]

States can grant systems using a second filtration stage an additional 0.5 log Cryptosporidium removal

credit if the secondary filtration consists of rapid sand, dual media, GAC, or other fine grain media in a

separate stage following rapid sand or dual media filtration. A cap, such as GAC, on a single stage of

filtration will not qualify for this credit. The first stage of filtration must be preceded by a coagulation

step, and both stages must treat 100 percent of the flow. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 86

3.9.11 Slow Sand Filters [proposed §141.728(d)]

States can grant systems using slow sand filtration as a secondary filtration step following a primary

filtration process (e.g., rapid sand or slow sand) an additional 2.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment credit. 

There must be no disinfectant residual in the influent water to the slow sand filtration process, and all

flow must be treated by both filtration processes to receive credit. 

Note that this proposed credit differs from the credit proposed for slow sand filtration as a primary

filtration process, where states can grant plants a Cryptosporidium removal credit of 3 log for the

LT2ESWTR. In other words, slow sand filtration plants are equivalent to conventional filtration plants

for the purposes of determining additional treatment requirements for bins 2-4.

While the removal mechanisms that make slow sand filtration effective as a primary filtration process

would also be operative when used as a secondary filtration step, EPA has little data on this specific

application. The 2.5 log credit for slow sand filtration as a secondary filtration step, in comparison to 3

log credit as a primary filtration process, is a conservative measure reflecting greater uncertainty in its

effectiveness. In addition, the 2.5 log credit for slow sand filtration as part of the microbial toolbox is

consistent with recommendations in the Stage 2 M-DBP Agreement in Principle.

3.9.12 Chlorine Dioxide [proposed §141.729(b)]

Inactivation credit for Cryptosporidium is dependent on the “CT” achieved on a daily basis. CT is the

product of the disinfectant concentration (“C”) and disinfectant contact time (“T”, in minutes). States

must receive calculated CT values from systems for each day, based on measurements of C during peak

hourly flow and use the CT values presented in proposed §141.729 and the Draft Toolbox Guidance

Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003). Systems with several disinfection segments (i.e., a treatment

unit process with a measurable disinfectant residual level and a liquid volume) may calculate CT values

for each segment and sum those values to obtain a total log inactivation. 

Alternatively, states may consider CT values from a system other than those specified in the LT2ESWTR

if the system can demonstrate, through the use of a state-approved protocol for on-site disinfection

challenge studies, that the CT values are adequate to achieve the inactivation required under the

LT2ESWTR. The Draft Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) provides guidance

for conducting a site-specific inactivation study.

3.9.13 Ozone [proposed §141.729(c)]

As with chlorine dioxide, the CT values are used to determine the level of Cryptosporidium inactivation

by ozone disinfection. States should refer to either the rule language or the Draft Toolbox Guidance

Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) for CT values for various log inactivation credits. This manual

also provides guidance on calculating CT values for different disinfection reactor designs and operations.

States may consider CT values from a system other than those specified in the LT2ESWTR if the system

can demonstrate, through the use of a state-approved protocol for on-site disinfection challenge studies,

that the CT values are adequate to achieve the inactivation required under the LT2ESWTR. The Draft

Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) provides guidance for conducting a sitespecific inactivation study.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 87

3.9.14 Ultraviolet Light [proposed §141.729(d)]

States may award credit to systems using UV disinfection processes for inactivation of Cryptosporidium,

Giardia, and viruses. To be eligible fo UV disinfection credit, the system must demonstrate a delivered

UV dose using the results of a reactor validation test and on-line monitoring. Validation testing must

determine a range of operating conditions under which the reactor delivers the required UV dose and can

be monitored by the system. 

• Operating conditions must include flow rate, UV intensity, and lamp status, at a

minimum. 

• Validated conditions determined by testing must account for UV absorbance of the water,

lamp fouling and aging, measurement uncertainty of on-line sensors, UV dose

distributions arising from the velocity profiles through the reactor, failure of UV lamps or

other critical system components, and inlet and outlet piping or channel configurations of

the UV reactor.

UV reactors may be validated for a specific system or validated under a wide range of conditions, thus

providing disinfection credit for a variety of applications. Monitoring is used to demonstrate that the

system maintains validated operating conditions during routine use. EPA’s Draft UV Disinfection

Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-007, June 2003) provides a protocol for validating reactors and

guidance on the design and implementation of UV systems. 

The LT2ESWTR presents the UV doses used in validation to receive credit for up to 3 log inactivation of

Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia and up to 4 log inactivation of viruses. These dose values are for

UV light at a wavelength of 254 nm as delivered by a low pressure mercury vapor lamp and intended for

post-filter applications of UV in filtration plants and for systems that meet the filtration avoidance criteria. 

However, the dose values can be applied to other UV applications (e.g., medium pressure mercury vapor

lamps), as described in the Draft UV Disinfection Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-007, June 2003).

3.9.15 Demonstration of Performance

Where a system can demonstrate that a plant, or a unit process within a plant, achieves a Cryptosporidium

removal efficiency greater than the presumptive credit specified in the LT2ESWTR, it may be appropriate

for the state to grant the system a higher Cryptosporidium treatment credit. 

States may award a higher level of Cryptosporidium treatment credit to a system where the state

determines, based on site-specific testing with a state-approved protocol, that a treatment plant (or a unit

process within a plant) reliably achieves a higher level of Cryptosporidium removal on a continuing basis. 

Alternatively, states may award a lower level of Cryptosporidium treatment credit to a system where a

state determines, based on site specific information, that a plant (or a unit process within a plant) achieves

a Cryptosporidium removal efficiency less than a presumptive credit specified in the LT2ESWTR.

The state may require systems receiving additional Cryptosporidium treatment credit, through a

demonstration of performance, to report operational data on a monthly basis to establish that the

conditions under which demonstration of performance credit was awarded are maintained during routine

operation. The Draft Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) will describe potential

approaches to demonstration of performance testing. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 88

Note that plants that receive additional Cryptosporidium treatment credit through a demonstration of

performance are not also eligible for the presumptive credit associated with microbial toolbox

components if the additional removal stemming from a toolbox component is captured in the

demonstration of performance credit. For example, if a conventional filtration plant receives a

demonstration of performance credit higher than the assumed 3.0 log, the plant may not also receive

additional presumptive credit for the combined filter effluent toolbox option. 

3.10 Oversee Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking

The state should review the system’s disinfection profiling data during the sanitary survey process. In

addition, when a system required to conduct profiling plans to make a significant change to their

disinfection process, it must calculate a benchmark and submit it to the state with an evaluation of how

the new process will effect the current benchmark. Significant changes in disinfection practice are

defined as: 1) moving the point of disinfection (this is not intended to include routine seasonal changes

already approved by the state); 2) changing the type of disinfectant; 3) changing the disinfection process;

or 4) making other modifications designated as significant by the state. 

3.11 Review Changes in Treatment or Control Measures Used to Meet

Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements

Depending on the toolbox option, systems are required to submit plans, testing data, and monitoring

results to ensure the additional treatment is appropriate. As described above, systems will submit

documentation supporting any change in their disinfection process. States will need to review that

documentation and any documentation specific to the toolbox option in a timely manner to ensure a PWS

is operating in compliance. 

3.12 Evaluate Risk Mitigation Plans for Systems with Uncovered Finished Water

Reservoirs

The LT2ESWTR requires that systems with uncovered finished water reservoirs must: 1) cover the

reservoir; 2) treat reservoir discharge to the distribution system to achieve a 4 log inactivation; or 3)

receive a state determination that existing risk mitigation is adequate and have a state-approved risk

mitigation plan.

Systems that exercise the third option (i.e., do not cover the reservoir or treat the effluent) are required to

implement risk mitigation plans. These plans must address physical access and site security, surface

water runoff, animal and bird waste, and on-going water quality assessment and must include a schedule

for plan implementation. Where applicable, the plans should account for cultural uses by Indian tribes. 

Systems must cover or treat uncovered finished water reservoirs or have a state-approved risk mitigation

plan within 3 years following rule promulgation, [ ], with the possibility of a 2-year

extension granted by states for systems making capital improvements. Systems seeking approval for a

risk mitigation plan must submit the plan to the state within 2 years following rule promulgation [

].
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 89

3.13 Approve Laboratories for Monitoring Cryptosporidium

Given the potentially significant implications in terms of both cost and public health protection of

microbial monitoring under the LT2ESWTR, analytical work must be accurate and reliable within the

limits of approved methods.

Because states do not currently approve laboratories for Cryptosporidium analysis and LT2ESWTR

monitoring will begin 6 months after rule promulgation [ ], EPA will initially assume

responsibility for Cryptosporidium laboratory approval. EPA expects, however, that states will include

Cryptosporidium analysis in their state laboratory certification programs in the future. EPA has

established the Lab QA Program for Cryptosporidium analysis to identify laboratories that can meet

LT2ESWTR data quality objectives. This is a voluntary program open to laboratories involved in

analyzing Cryptosporidium in water. Under this program, EPA assesses the ability of laboratories to

reliably measure Cryptosporidium occurrence with EPA Methods 1622 and 1623 using both performance

testing samples and an on-site evaluation. 
This page intentionally left blank
Section 4 

State Primacy Revision

Application
This page intentionally left blank
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 93

Proposed §142 sets out requirements for states to obtain and/or retain primary enforcement responsibility

(primacy) for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program as authorized by section 1413 of the

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The 1996 SDWA Amendments update the process for states to obtain

and/or retain primacy. On April 28, 1998, EPA promulgated the Primacy Rule to reflect these statutory

changes (63 FR 23361).

4.1 State Primacy Program Revision

Pursuant to proposed §142.12, Revision of State Programs, complete and final requests for approval of

program revisions to adopt new or revised EPA regulations must be submitted to the EPA Administrator

no later than 2 years after promulgation of the new or revised federal regulations (see Table 4-1). Until

those applications are approved, EPA regions have responsibility for directly implementing the

LT2ESWTR. The state and EPA can agree to implement the rule together during this period. However,

if a state is eligible for interim primacy it will have full implementation and enforcement authority (once

it submits a complete and final revision package). A state may be granted an extension of time, up to 2

years, to submit its application package. During any extension period, an extension agreement outlining

the state’s and EPA’s responsibilities is required. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 94

Table 4-1. State Rule Implementation and Revision Timetable for the LT2ESWTR

EPA/State Action Time Frame

Rule published by EPA

State and region establish a process and agree upon a schedule for application

review and approval (optional)

State, at its option, submits draft program revision package including:

Preliminary approval request

Draft state regulations and/or statutes

Regulation Crosswalk

Regional (and Headquarters if necessary) review of draft Completed within 90 days of

state submittal of Draft

(Suggested)

State submits a complete and final program revision package including:

Adopted State Regulations

Regulation Crosswalk

§ 142.10 Primacy Update Checklist

§ 142.14 and 142.15 Reporting and Recordkeeping

§ 142.16 Special Primacy Requirements

Attorney General’s Enforceability Certification

**

EPA final review and determination:

Regional Review (program and ORC)

Headquarters Concurrence and Waivers (Office of Ground Water and Drinking

Water (OGWDW) and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

(OECA))***

Public Notice

Opportunity for Hearing

EPA’s Determination

Completed within 90 days of

state submittal of final

45 days region

45 days Headquarters***

Rule Compliance Date *

* See disclaimer #2.

** EPA suggests submitting an application by to ensure timely approval. EPA regulations allow until

 for this submittal. An extension of up to 2 additional years may be requested by the state. 

*** At least one state per region.

4.1.1 The Revision Process

The approval of state program revisions is recommended to be a two-step process comprised of

submission of a draft request (optional) and then submission of a complete and final request for program

approval. Figure 4-1 diagrams these processes and their timing.

Draft Request—At the state’s option, it may submit a draft request for EPA review and tentative

determination. The request should contain drafts of all required primacy application materials (with the

exception of a draft Attorney General’s Statement). A draft request should be submitted within 9 months

of rule promulgation. EPA will make a tentative determination on whether the state program meets the

applicable requirements. The tentative determination should be made within 90 days.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 95

Complete and Final Request—This submission must be in accordance with 40 CFR 142.12(c)(1) and

(2) and include the Attorney General’s statement. The state must also include its response to any

comments and/or program deficiencies identified in the tentative determination (if applicable). Regions

should make states aware that submission of only a final request may make it more difficult for the states

to address any necessary changes within the allowable time for state rule adoption.

EPA recommends that states submit their complete and final revision package within 21 months of rule

promulgation. This will ensure that states will have interim primacy as soon as possible and will prevent

states from becoming backlogged with revision applications to adopt future federal requirements. 

The state and region should agree to a plan and timetable for submitting the state primacy revision

application as soon as possible after rule promulgation—ideally within 5 months of promulgation.

4.1.2 The Final Review Process

Once a state application is complete and final, EPA has a regulatory (and statutory) deadline of 90 days to

review and approve or disapprove of the revised program. OGWDW and OECA will conduct detailed

reviews of the first state package from each region. The regional office should submit its comments with

the state’s package for review by Headquarters (HQ). When the region has identified all significant

issues, OGWDW and OECA will waive concurrence on all other state programs in that region, although

EPA HQ will retain the option to review additional state programs as appropriate. The Office of General

Counsel has delegated its review and approval to the Office of Regional Counsel (ORC).
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 96

Figure 4-1. Recommended Review Process for State Request for Approval of Program Revisions

Timeline

Start

EPA Promulgates the 

LT2ESWTR

Establish Process and Tentative 

Schedule for State Rule 

Approval

State Submits Draft Primacy 

Revision Application to EPA 

(optional) §142.12(d)(1)(i)

EPA Review and Tentative 

Determination (suggested within 

90 days) §142.12(d)(1)(ii)

State Submits Complete and 

Final Primacy Revision 

Application to EPA 

§142.12(d)(2)

EPA Review and Determination 

(within 90 days) §142.12(d)(3)

State Request for 

Extension §142.12(b)

Denied

Granted

Additional 

Time 

Given

[insert date]

[insert date] 2 Months

6 Months [insert date]

By 24 Months1 [insert date]

1 Start date may be extended if State grants system additional time

In order to meet the 90-day deadline for packages undergoing review by HQ, the review period will be

equally split by giving the regions and HQ 45 days each to conduct their respective reviews. For the first

package in each region, regions should forward copies of the primacy revision applications and their

evaluations no later than 45 days after state submittal to the Drinking Water Protection Division Director

in OGWDW, who will take the lead on the HQ review process. OGWDW will provide OECA with a

copy for their concurrent review. 

4.2 State Primacy Program Revision Extensions

4.2.1 The Extension Process

Under proposed §142.12(b), states may request that the 2-year deadline for submitting the complete and

final packages for EPA approval of program revisions be extended for up to 2 additional years in certain

circumstances. The extension request must be submitted to EPA within 2 years of the date that EPA

published the regulation. The Regional Administrator has been delegated authority to approve extension

applications. Concurrence by HQ on extensions is not required.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 97

Therefore, the state must either adopt regulations pertaining to the LT2ESWTR and submit a complete

and final primacy revision application or request an extension of up to 2 years by [

].

4.2.2 Criteria that an Extension Request Must Meet

For an extension to be granted under proposed §142.12(b), the state must demonstrate that it is requesting

the extension because it cannot meet the original deadline for reasons beyond its control and despite a

good faith effort to do so. A critical part of the extension application is the state’s proposed schedule for

submission of its complete and final request for approval of a revised primacy program. The application

must also demonstrate at least one of the following:

(i) That the state currently lacks the legislative or regulatory authority to enforce the new or

revised requirements;

(ii) That the state currently lacks the program capability adequate to implement the new or

revised requirements; or,

(iii) That the state is requesting the extension to group two or more program revisions in a

single legislative or regulatory action.

In addition, the state must be implementing the EPA requirements to be adopted in its program revision

within the scope of its current authority and capabilities.

4.2.3 Conditions of the Extension

Until the State Primacy Revision Application has been submitted, the state and appropriate EPA regional

office will share responsibility for implementing the primary program elements as indicated in the

extension agreement. The state and the EPA regional office should discuss these elements and address

terms of responsibility in the agreement.

These conditions will be determined during the extension approval process and are decided on a case-bycase basis. The conditions must be included in an extension agreement between the state and the EPA

regional office.

Conditions of an extension agreement may include:

• Informing PWSs of the new EPA (and upcoming state) requirements and the fact that the

region will be overseeing implementation of the requirements until they approve the state

program revisions or until the state submits a complete and final revision package if the

state qualifies for interim primacy.

• Collecting, storing, and managing laboratory results, public notices, and other

compliance and operation data required by the EPA regulations.

• Assisting the region in the development of the technical aspects of enforcement actions

and conducting informal follow-up on violations (e.g., telephone calls, letters, etc.).

• Providing technical assistance to PWSs.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 98

• For states whose request for an extension is based on a current lack of program capability

adequate to implement the new requirements, taking steps agreed to by the region and the

state to remedy the deficiency during the extension period.

• Providing the region with all the information required under 40 CFR 142.15 on state

reporting.

Figure 4-2 provides a checklist the region can use to review state extensions or to create an extension

agreement.

Until states have primacy, EPA is the primacy enforcement authority. However, historically states have

played a role in implementation for various reasons—most importantly, since states have the local

knowledge and expertise and have established relationships with their systems.

The state and EPA should be viewed as partners in this effort, working toward two very specific public

health-related goals. The first goal is to achieve a high level of compliance with the regulation. The

second goal is to facilitate successful implementation of the regulation during the transition period before

the state has primacy, including interim primacy, for the rule. In order to accomplish these goals,

education, training, and technical assistance will need to be provided to water suppliers on their

responsibilities under the LT2ESWTR.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 99

Example 4-1. Example Extension Request Checklist

{Date}

{Regional Administrator}

Regional Administrator

U.S. EPA Region {Region}

{Street Address}

{City, State, Zip}

RE: Request/approval for an Extension Agreement

Dear {Regional Administrator}:

The state of {state} is requesting an extension to the date that final primacy revisions are due to

EPA for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) until {insert date - no

later than January 2006}, as allowed by 40 CFR 142.12 and would appreciate your approval. Staff of

the {State Department/Agency} have conferred with your staff and have agreed to the requirements

listed below for this extension. This extension is being requested because the state of {state}:

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

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

‘ Currently lacks adequate program capability to implement the new or revised requirements.

{State Department/Agency} will be working with EPA to implement the LT2ESWTR within the

scope of its current authority and capability, as outlined in the six areas identified in 142.12(b)(3)(i-vi):

i) Informing PWSs of the new EPA (and upcoming state) requirements and the fact that EPA will

be overseeing implementation of the requirements until EPA approves the state revision. 

State EPA

____ ____ Provide copies of regulation and guidance to other state agencies, public water supplies

(PWSs), technical assistance providers, associations, or other interested parties.

____ ____ Educate and coordinate with state staff, PWSs, the public, and other water associations

about the requirements of this regulation.

____ ____ Notify affected systems of their requirements under the LT2ESWTR.

____ ____ Other:

ii) Collecting, storing and managing laboratory results, public notices, and other compliance and

operation data required by the EPA regulations.

State EPA

____ ____ Devise a tracking system for PWS reporting pursuant to the LT2ESWTR.

____ ____ Keep PWSs informed of SDWIS reporting requirements during development and

implementation.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 100

____ ____ Report LT2ESWTR violation and enforcement information to SDWIS as required.

____ ____ Other:

iii) Assisting EPA in the development of the technical aspects of the enforcement actions and

conducting informal follow-up and violations (telephones calls, letters, etc.). 

State EPA

____ ____ Issue notices of violation for treatment technique and monitoring/reporting violations of

the LT2ESWTR.

____ ____ Provide immediate technical assistance to PWSs with treatment technique and

monitoring/reporting violations to try to bring them into compliance.

____ ____ Refer all violations to EPA for enforcement if they have not been resolved within 60 days

of the incident that triggered the violation. Provide information as requested to conduct

and complete any enforcement action referred to EPA.

____ ____ Other:

iv) Providing technical assistance to PWSs.

State EPA

____ ____ Conduct training within the state for PWSs on LT2ESWTR rule requirements.

____ ____ Provide technical assistance through written and/or verbal correspondence with PWSs.

____ ____ Provide on-site technical assistance to PWSs as requested and needed to ensure

compliance with this regulation.

____ ____ Coordinate with other technical assistance providers and organization to provide accurate

information and aid in a timely manner.

____ ____ Other:

v) Providing EPA with all information prescribed by the State Reporting Requirements in § 

142.15.

State EPA

____ ____ Report any violations incurred by PWSs for this regulation each quarter.

____ ____ Report any enforcement actions taken against PWSs for this regulation each quarter.

____ ____ Report any variances or exemptions granted for PWSs for these regulations each quarter.

____ ____ Other:

vi) For states whose request for an extension is based on a current lack of program capability to

implement the new or revised requirements, taking the following steps to remedy the capability

deficiency.

State EPA

____ ____ Acquire additional resources to implement these regulations (list of specific steps being

taken attached as {List A}).

____ ____ Provide quarterly updates describing the status of acquiring additional resources.

____ ____ Other:
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 101

I affirm that the {State Department/Agency} will implement provisions of the LT2ESWTR as outlined

above.

______________________________________________________________________________

{Agency Director or Secretary} Date

______________________________________________________________________________

{Name of State Agency}

I have consulted with my staff and approve your extension for the aforementioned regulation. I affirm

that EPA Region {Region} will implement provisions of the LT2ESWTR as outlined above.

______________________________________________________________________________

Regional Administrator Date

EPA Region {Region}

This Extension Agreement will take effect upon the date of the last signature.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 102

4.3 State Primacy Package

The Primacy Revision Application package should consist of the following sections:

‘ State Primacy Revision Checklist

‘ Text of the State’s Regulation

‘ Primacy Revision Crosswalk

‘ State Reporting and Recordkeeping Checklist

‘ Special Primacy Requirements

‘ Attorney General’s Statement of Enforceability

4.3.1 The State Primacy Revision Checklist

This section is a checklist of general primacy requirements, as shown in Figure 4-3. In completing this

checklist, the state must identify the program elements that it has revised in response to new federal

requirements. If an element has been revised the state should indicate a “Yes” answer in the

“Revision to State Program” column and should submit appropriate documentation. For elements

that did not require revision, the state need only list the citation and date of adoption in the “Revision to

State Program” column. During the application review process, EPA will insert findings and comments

in the final column. 

The 1996 SDWA Amendments include new provisions for PWS definition and administrative penalty

authority. States must adopt provisions at least as stringent as these new provisions, now codified at

§142.2 and 142.10. Failure to revise these elements can affect primacy for the LT2ESWTR. However, a

state may still receive primacy for the LT2ESWTR even if it has not yet revised its base program to

comply with the new statutory requirements, provided that the state has received an extension to adopt

these requirements and that this extension period has not expired (as late as [

] with full extension). 

States may bundle the primacy revision packages for multiple rules. If states choose to bundle

requirements, the Attorney General’s Statement should reference all of the rules included. 

4.3.2 Text of the State’s Regulation

Each primacy application package should include the text of the state regulation.

4.3.3 Primacy Revision Crosswalk

The Primacy Revision Crosswalk in Appendix A should be completed by states in order to identify state

statutory or regulatory provisions that correspond to each federal requirement. If the state’s provisions

differ from federal requirements, the state should explain how its requirements are “no less stringent.”
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 103

Table 4-2. State Primacy Revision Checklist

Required Program Elements

Revision to State 

Program

EPA

Findings/Comments

§ 141.2 Definitions

§ 142.10(b)(6)(iii) Right of entry

§ 142.10(b)(6)(iv) Authority to require records

§ 142.10(b)(6)(v) Authority to require public notification 

§ 142.10(b)(6)(vi) Authority to assess civil and criminal

penalties

§ 142.10(b)(6)(vii) Authority to require Consumer

Confidence Reports

§ 142.10(c) Maintenance of records

§ 142.10(d) Variance/exemption conditions (if

applicable)*

§ 142.10(e) Emergency plans

§ 142.10(f) Administrative Penalty Authority**

* New regulations published in the August 14, 1998 Federal Register.

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

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

The state should use the Primacy Revision Crosswalk in Appendix A to demonstrate that state reporting

and recordkeeping requirements are consistent with federal requirements. If state requirements are not the

same as federal requirements, the state must explain how its requirements are “no less stringent” as per 40

CFR §142.10.

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

the state must:

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

• Keep records of the Cryptosporidium risk bin classification for each filtered system,

including any changes to initial bin classification based on watershed survey or second

round of monitoring. 

• Keep records of the determination of whether each unfiltered system has a mean source

water Cryptosporidium level above 0.01 oocysts/L, along with any changes in this

determination due to the second round of source water monitoring.

• Keep records of the treatment processes or control measures that each system employs to

meet their Cryptosporidium treatment requirements. 

• Keep a list of systems required to cover or treat the effluent of an uncovered finished

water reservoir. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 104

• Keep a list of systems for which the state has waived the requirement to cover or treat the

effluent of an uncovered finished water reservoir, along with supporting documentation

of the risk mitigation plan. 

• Report to EPA the initial bin classification for each system and any changes in bin

classifications due to watershed assessment during sanitary surveys or the second round

of Cryptosporidium monitoring.

• Report to EPA the determination of whether each unfiltered system meeting proposed

filtration avoidance criteria has a mean source water Cryptosporidium level above 0.01

oocysts/L, along with any changes in this determination due to the second round of

source water monitoring.

4.3.5 Special Primacy Requirement [Proposed §142.16]

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

4.3.6 Attorney General’s Statement of Enforceability [Proposed §142.12(c)(2)]

The complete and final primacy revision application must include an Attorney General’s Statement

certifying that the state regulations were duly adopted and are enforceable (unless EPA has waived this

requirement by letter to the state). The Attorney General’s Statement should also certify that the state

does not have any audit privilege or immunity laws, or if it has such laws, that these laws do not prevent

the state from meeting the requirements of SDWA. If a state has submitted this certification with a

previous revision package, then the state should indicate the date of submittal, and the Attorney General

need only certify that the status of the audit laws has not changed since the prior submittal. An example

of an Attorney General’s Statement is presented in Figure 4-5.

4.3.6.1 Guidance for States on Audit Privilege and/or Immunity Laws

In order for EPA to properly evaluate the state’s request for approval, the State Attorney General or

independent legal counsel should certify that the state’s environmental audit immunity and/or privilege

and immunity law does not affect its ability to meet enforcement and information gathering requirements

under SDWA. This certification should be reasonably consistent with the wording of the state audit laws

and should demonstrate how state program approval criteria are satisfied.

EPA will apply the criteria outlined in its “Statement of Principles” memo issued on February 14, 1997,

(http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/planning/state/authorities.html) to determine whether states with audit

laws have retained adequate enforcement authority for any authorized federal programs. The principles

articulated in the guidance are based on the requirements of federal law, specifically the enforcement and

compliance and state program approval provisions of environmental statutes and their corresponding

regulations. The Principles provide that if provisions of state law are ambiguous, it will be important to

obtain opinions from the State Attorney General or independent legal counsel interpreting the law as

meeting specific federal requirements. If the law cannot be so interpreted, changes to state laws may be

necessary to obtain federal program approval. Before submitting a package for approval, states with audit

privilege and/or immunity laws should initiate communications with appropriate EPA regional offices to

identify and discuss the issues raised by the state’s audit privilege and/or immunity law.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 105

Example 4-2. Example of Attorney General’s Statement

Model Language

I hereby certify, pursuant to my authority as (1) and in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act as amended,

and (2), that in my opinion the laws of the [State/Commonwealth of (3)] [or tribal ordinances of (4)] to carry out

the program set forth in the “Program Description” submitted by the (5) have been duly adopted and are

enforceable. The specific authorities provided are contained in statutes or regulations that are lawfully adopted at

the time this Statement is approved and signed and will be fully effective by the time the program is approved.

Model Language

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

Furthermore, I certify that [State/Commonwealth of (3)] has not enacted any environmental audit privilege and/or

immunity laws.

II. For States with Audit Laws that do Not Apply to the State Agency Administering the Safe

Drinking Water Act 

Furthermore, I certify that the environmental [audit privilege and/or immunity law] of the [State/Commonwealth

of (3)] does not affect the ability of (3) to meet enforcement and information gathering requirements under the

Safe Drinking Water Act because the [audit privilege and/or immunity law] does not apply to the program set

forth in the “Program Description.” The Safe Drinking Water Act program set forth in the “Program Description”

is administered by (5); the [audit privilege and/or immunity law] does not affect programs implemented by (5),

thus the program set forth in the “Program Description” is unaffected by the provisions of [State/Commonwealth

of (3)] [audit privilege and/or immunity law].

III. For States with Audit Privilege and/or Immunity Laws that Worked with EPA to Satisfy

Requirements for Federally Authorized, Delegated, or Approved Environmental Programs

Furthermore, I certify that the environmental [audit privilege and/or immunity law] of the [State/Commonwealth

of (3)] does not affect the ability of (3) to meet enforcement and information gathering requirements under the

Safe Drinking Water Act because [State/Commonwealth of (3)] has enacted statutory revisions and/or issued a

clarifying Attorney General’s Statement to satisfy requirements for federally authorized, delegated, or approved

environmental programs.

Seal of Office

_______________________________________

Signature

_______________________________________

Name and Title

_______________________________________

Date

(1) State Attorney General or attorney for the primacy agency if it has independent legal counsel

(2) 40 CFR 142.11(a)(6)(i) for initial primacy applications or 40 CFR 142.12(c)(1)(iii) for primacy program

revision applications

(3) Name of state or commonwealth

(4) Name of tribe

(5) Name of primacy agency
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 106

4.4 Guidance for the Special Primacy Requirements of the LT2ESWTR

To ensure that a state program includes all the elements necessary for an effective and enforceable

program under the LT2ESWTR, a state primacy application must include a description of how the state

will accomplish the following:

• Assess significant changes in the watershed and source water as part of the sanitary

survey process and determine appropriate follow-up action.

• Approve watershed control programs for the 0.5 log watershed control program credit in

the microbial toolbox.

• Approve protocols for removal credits under the demonstration of performance toolbox

option and for alternative ozone and chlorine dioxide values.

• Determine that a system with an uncovered finished water reservoir has a risk mitigation

plan that is adequate for purposes of waiving the requirement to cover the reservoir or

treat the reservoir effluent.

This section contains information and guidance that states can use when addressing these special primacy

requirements of the LT2ESWTR. The guidance addresses special primacy conditions in the same order

that they occur in the rule. Additional information related to these requirements is available in the Draft

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

4.4.1 Assessment of Significant Changes in Watershed and Source Water

Proposed §142.16 Special primacy requirements. (n): Requirements for states to adopt proposed §141,

subpart W. In addition to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in this part, including the

requirements that state regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for

approval of a state program revision that adopts proposed §141, subpart W, must contain a description

of how the state will accomplish the following program requirements where allowed in state programs. 1)

Assess significant changes in the watershed and source water as part of the sanitary survey process and

determine appropriate follow-up action.

Guidance

States must conduct sanitary surveys for all surface water and GWUDI systems that assess the condition

of eight primary water system components, including the source water (40 CFR 142.10(b)(2) and

142.16(b)). Proposed §142.16(n)(1) requires states to “assess significant changes in the watershed and

source water as part of the sanitary survey process and determine appropriate follow-up action.”

During a sanitary survey, the state must assess whether significant changes have occurred in the

watershed since the system conducted source water monitoring for bin classification that could lead to

increased contamination of the source water. In the cases where a significant change has occurred, states

must decide whether corrective measures or additional treatment are needed and determine appropriate

follow-up action. States should first suggest that corrective measures be taken to address the source of

contamination. Where this is not feasible or not successful, states may reclassify the system into a higher
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 107

treatment bin. If a system is re-classified as the result of the sanitary survey, states must report the reclassification to EPA (proposed §142.15). 

This guidance discusses three components of the watershed and source water assessment process:

preparing for the sanitary survey, conducting the survey, and determining follow-up action.

Preparation for the Survey

The following aspects of source water protection are discussed in the EPA guidance documents Guidance

Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems; Surface Water and Ground Water

Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI) (EPA 815-R-99-016, April 1999) and State Source Water

Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance, USEPA (EPA 816-R-97-009,.August 1997). The state

or state-approved surveyor, should review or address these items before conducting a sanitary survey of a

watershed:

• The state source water delineation and assessment for the watershed.

• Historical and current raw water quality records, particularly microbial analyses.

• Water system drawings and design information.

• Water quality violation history.

• Previous sanitary survey reports.

• Complaints received by local, state, and federal agencies regarding water quality or

potential contamination within the watershed.

• Updates from local, state, or federal regulatory agencies regarding their monitoring of

permitted discharges within the relevant watershed(s) (e.g., NPDES and TMDL

programs).

• Updates from state and federal land-management agencies regarding their monitoring of

on-going activities within the relevant watershed(s).

• Where applicable, states may also wish to request that the system personnel that were

involved in preparation of a watershed control plan accompany the surveyor during the

survey.

Where available, the inspector should also review the following information from unfiltered systems or

from filtered systems that receive 0.5 log Cryptosporidium removal credit for watershed control under the

LT2ESWTR:

• The system’s watershed control plan.

• The annual watershed control program status reports submitted by the system, where

applicable (systems that have received 0.5 log Cryptosporidium credit for watershed

control under the LT2ESWTR must submit an annual report).
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 108

Copies of relevant information should be taken along during the survey. Potential changes in the

watershed or source water conditions that are identified from these references should then be evaluated

during the survey. States may wish to require that their surveyors take specific equipment (e.g.,

cameras/camcorders, sampling/analysis equipment, and GPS devices) to document the status of potential

threats to water quality. Chapter 2 of the Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public

Water Systems; Surface Water and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI) (EPA 815-R-99-

016, April 1999) contains a more detailed list of equipment.

Evaluation During the Survey

Chapter 3 of the Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems; Surface

Water and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI) (EPA 815-R-99-016, April 1999)

discusses the source component of a sanitary survey. The following topics are addressed:

• Watershed management program.

• Source vulnerability assessment.

• Source water quality.

• Source water quantity.

• Location of source facilities.

• Capacity of source facilities.

• Design of source facilities.

• Condition of source facilities.

• Transmission of source water.

Also, Chapter 2 of the Draft Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Toolbox Guidance

Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) provides recommendations for implementing the watershed

sanitary survey required by the proposed §141.725(a)(4)(ii) and suggests activities to complete during the

survey. While these recommendations were developed for systems that have an approved watershed

control plan for supplemental Cryptosporidium treatment credit, they also address several issues that

should be considered when evaluating watersheds.

• Review the effectiveness of the watershed control program to date. (For example, have

water quality monitoring results indicated a change in water quality?)

• Identify any new significant actual or potential sources of Cryptosporidium.

• Verify and re-evaluate the vulnerability analysis by reviewing the applicability of the

area of influence, potential and existing sources of Cryptosporidium, monitoring

locations and results, and the implementation of control measures.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 109

• Verify that the system has control and practices such control over watershed areas and

activities as described in the Watershed Protection Plan.

• Confirm that public access is properly restricted from areas identified in the Watershed

Control Plan. Review the means by which the system monitors and enforces restrictions.

• Confirm that fencing and signs have not been vandalized or removed.

• Identify any significant hydrological changes in the watershed that could affect

Cryptosporidium loading.

• Inspect the intake structure and identify any modifications to its location or design.

Finally, existing vulnerabilities and elements of watershed control plans that require on-going efforts by

the system should be evaluated during the survey. High-risk sources should be assessed and discussed

with system staff. Site visits to the more critical sources may be appropriate. Development patterns

should be reviewed because urban and suburban growth are difficult to control in some areas. Water

quality control measures that rely upon “gentlemen’s agreements,” public education, or even bestmanagement practices are often difficult to enforce and should be reviewed for adequacy. Because

funding for such efforts are often reduced during tight budgetary conditions, the surveyor may wish to

assess such efforts if they are a significant component of watershed protection. The surveyor should also

assess whether the system is regularly evaluating the effectiveness of its watershed control program (if

one has been implemented).

Follow-up Action

States should also develop criteria for assessing whether changes within watersheds require corrective

measures by the systems. Certain changes may warrant immediate action (i.e., changes that can have an

immediate impact upon water quality). Examples of those warranting immediate action include: 

• Inadequate implementation of best management practices.

• NPDES permit violations at wastewater treatment plants, confined animal feedlot

operations, etc. 

• Dramatic natural events (floods, forest fires, earthquakes, ice flows, landslides) can

transport or expose contaminants (e.g. fine-grained sediments, mining wastes, animal and

septic system wastes).

• Prolonged drought conditions may warrant special preparatory measures to minimize

impacts from waste accumulations that are washed into source waters when precipitation

returns. 

• Lack of a current emergency response plan.

• Accidental or illegal waste discharges and spills.

Other changes may not result in immediate impacts, but may still warrant corrective measures to

minimize long-term impacts. Examples include the following:
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 110

• New NPDES permits or changes in existing NPDES permits that involve increased

loading of contaminants. 

• Changes in land use patterns.

• Changes in agricultural cropping, chemical application, or irrigation practices.

• Unattended soil erosion.

• Changes in other nonpoint discharge source activities (e.g. grazing, manure application,

commercial or residential development).

• Stream or riverbed modifications. 

• A watershed public education program that no longer receives adequate funding and/or

that has poor stakeholder participation.

As discussed earlier, corrective measures should generally be progressive in nature. In any case, states

should have the authority to require corrective measures, and to enforce all original and subsequent

conditions of watershed protection. Where land in the watershed is publically owned, state or federal

land-management agencies can often help states and systems to implement corrective actions. 

Following is a discussion of appropriate follow-up actions from the Guidance Manual for Conducting

Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems; Surface Water and Ground Water Under the Direct Influence

(GWUDI) (EPA 815-R-99-016, April 1999).

“Deficiencies of a minor nature may require no more response than to notify the system operator

of the violation and set a time frame for the operator to correct the situation. A moderate

deficiency could prompt the state to require the operator to respond within 30 days with a

proposed solution to the deficiency and a schedule for correcting the situation. For significant

deficiencies, the state must immediately inform the system operator of the deficiency. In some

cases, the deficiency may be such that a boil water notice must be issued to the customers in

order to protect public health. In all cases, the state should indicate the required time frame for a

response, the required action for the response, and the consequences of failing to respond. The

consequences could include revocation of the operating permit, suspension of the permit until the

deficiency is corrected, and fines or penalties levied against the system operator. When

significant deficiencies exist, a consent agreement, administrative order, or litigation by the

appropriate court may be necessary to ensure prompt and proper correction. The state should

make regular and continued inspections of the facility until all deficiencies have been corrected ...

The system operator, upon receipt of the sanitary survey report, should prepare a response to the

state addressing the survey findings which may include deficiencies of varying degrees of

severity. The water system’s response should be returned to the state within 45 days, and must be

returned within the 45-day timeframe when the sanitary survey findings include significant

deficiencies.”

The Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems; Surface Water and

Ground Water Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI) (EPA 815-R-99-016, April 1999) discusses all

aspects of sanitary surveys from survey preparation through follow-up compliance activities. In
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 111

particular, the manual discusses source water vulnerability, protection, quality, and quantity and

evaluation of infrastructure, including the location, design, capacity and condition of critical source water

collection facilities. Citations and locations of this manual and other helpful references are listed below.

References for more detailed guidance

1. Draft Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Toolbox Guidance Manual. 

USEPA, 2003. EPA 815-D-03-009. (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/guides.html)

2. Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems; Surface Water and

Ground Water Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI). USEPA, 1999. EPA 815-R-99-016. 

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

3. Watershed Sanitary Survey Guidance Manual. Cal-Nevada Section AWWA, 1993. 

(http://www.ca-nv-awwa.org/)

4. State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance. USEPA, 1997. EPA 816-

R-97-009. (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/source/swpguid.html)

4.4.2 Approval of Watershed Control Programs

Proposed §142.16 Special primacy requirements. (n): Requirements for states to adopt proposed §141,

subpart W. In addition to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in this part, including the

requirements that state regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for

approval of a state program revision that adopts proposed §141, subpart W, must contain a description

of how the state will accomplish the following program requirements where allowed in state programs. 

2) Approve watershed control programs for the 0.5 log watershed control program credit in the microbial

toolbox.

Guidance

Filtered systems that develop a state-approved watershed control program designed to reduce the level of

Cryptosporidium in the watershed can receive a 0.5 log credit towards the Cryptosporidium treatment

requirement of LT2ESWTR. EPA has specified the elements that must be included in a watershed

control program to obtain this credit. The required elements are found in proposed §141.725(a) and are

briefly described below:

• An analysis of Cryptosporidium vulnerability, including characterization of watershed

hydrology, identification of the area of influence to be considered in future watershed

surveys, identification of both potential and actual sources of Cryptosporidium

contamination, relative impact of the sources of Cryptosporidium on the system’s source

water, and an estimate of the seasonal variability of the contamination.

• An analysis of control measures that could mitigate contamination.

• A plan that establishes goals and defines and prioritizes specific actions to reduce source

water Cryptosporidium. The plan must explain expectations, partners and their roles,

resource requirements and commitments, and schedule for plan implementation.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 112

Systems must notify the state of their intent to develop a watershed control program. Notification must

occur within 1 year of completing source water monitoring requirements of proposed §141.702(b).

Systems must submit a proposed initial watershed control plan and a request for plan approval. The

proposal is due within 2 years of completing source water monitoring requirements of proposed

§141.702(b). The state may approve, reject, or conditionally approve the plan.

To meet this special primacy requirement, states must provide a description of how they will approve a

watershed control program for the 0.5 log credit. A key element of the approval would be that the system

provides to the state sufficient information to indicate at least 0.5 log reduction of the source water

Cryptosporidium concentration is feasible through implementation of the watershed control program. If a

watershed program is already in place, the description must include additional measures that will be

implemented to reduce source water contamination. The description of the state’s approach to this

approval process should include the elements of the review process as well as criteria for granting

approval. 

Chapter 2 of the Draft Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) provides information

intended to assist systems in developing their watershed control programs and to assist states in assessing

these programs. The chapter includes case studies on successful programs, system steps in applying for

approval, required components of the program, and suggestions for maintenance of the program. The

guidance addresses assessments of plans by the state, including an extensive checklist containing potential

assessment criteria that will help states review systems’ watershed control plans (Table 2.1 in the Draft

Toolbox Guidance Manual) and evaluations of annual status reports. EPA is requesting comment and

recommendations regarding components that may be included in the checklist. Guidance also includes

suggested components of a watershed sanitary survey. An adequate response to this special primacy

requirement could include reference to the use of this guidance document for evaluating and approving

proposed plans. 

In addition to the Draft Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003), states may utilize

the EPA’s new Watershed Initiative to help formulate effective watershed control programs. The

Watershed Initiative was conceived to encourage successful community-based approaches to restore,

preserve, and protect the nation’s watersheds. This is a competitive grant program that provides funding

to watershed organizations to encourage the protection and restoration of water resources. EPA plans to

select up to 20 watersheds throughout the country for grants to support promising watershed-based

approaches to improving water quality. More information on the program as well as criteria for

nomination materials and the process for applying for these grant monies are available through the

Watershed Initiative website indicated below.

In late 2003, EPA also expects to release a Waterborne Microbial Disease Control Strategy. Objectives of

the strategy are to address all important sources of contamination, anticipate emerging problems, and use

program and research activities to unite the influences of both the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean

Water Act on microbial contamination of the nation’s waters. A presentation titled, “Developing a

Strategy for Waterborne Microbial Disease Control,” from the November 6, 2001, Waterborne Microbial

Disease Stakeholder Meeting is available at the Web site provided below.

References for more detailed guidance

1. Draft Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Toolbox Guidance Manual. 

USEPA, 2003. EPA 815-D-03-009. (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/guides.html)
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 113

2. EPA Watershed Initiative, as proposed in 67 FR 36172, January 15, 2002.

(http://www.epa.gov/owowwtr1/watershed/initiative/background.html)

3. Developing a Strategy for Waterborne Microbial Disease Control. USEPA, 2002.

(http://www.epa.gov/ost/humanhealth/microbial/proceedings/strategy/)

4.4.3 Establishment of Protocols for Approving Removal Credits Under the

Demonstration of Performance Toolbox Option

Proposed §142.16 Special primacy requirements. (n): Requirements for states to adopt proposed §141,

subpart W. In addition to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in this part, including the

requirements that state regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for

approval of a state program revision that adopts proposed §141, subpart W, must contain a description

of how the state will accomplish the following program requirements where allowed in state programs. 3)

Approve protocols for treatment credits under the demonstration of performance toolbox option and for

alternative ozone and chlorine dioxide CT values. 

Guidance

As discussed in detail in section 3.9.15, when a system can demonstrate that a plant (or a unit process

within a plant) achieves a Cryptosporidium removal efficiency greater than the presumptive credit

specified in the proposed §141.720 and §§141.725 through 141.728 the system may be able to receive a

higher Cryptosporidium treatment credit based on site-specific testing with a state-approved protocol. 

The treatment plant (or a unit process within a plant) must reliably achieve a higher level of

Cryptosporidium removal on a continuing basis. States may also award a lower level of Cryptosporidium

treatment credit to a system if the state determines, based on site specific information, that a plant or a

unit process within a plant achieves a Cryptosporidium removal efficiency less than a presumptive credit

specified in the LT2ESWTR. 

The demonstration of performance toolbox option applies to physical treatment processes including

presedimentation, coagulation/flocculation, sedimentation, filtration (including bank filtration and

secondary filtration), and two-stage softening. Treatment credit for disinfection processes is based on

system performance (i.e., CT values). Under the proposed §141.729, the rule allows systems to develop

alternative CT values using a state-approved protocol. Appendix A of the Draft Toolbox Guidance

Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003) provides guidance for conducting Cryptosporidium inactivation

experiments and determining CT values.

Since demonstration of performance applies to physical removal processes at a treatment plant, systems

may not claim presumptive credit for the toolbox options listed below if that component is included in the

demonstration of performance credit. 

• Presedimentation.

• Two-stage lime softening.

• Bank filtration.

• Combined or individual filter performance.

• Membrane filters.

• Bag and cartridge filters.

• Second stage filtration.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 114

Additionally, some treatment options may enhance Cryptosporidium treatment while reducing the

effectiveness of other aspects of treatment. For example, optimizing the sedimentation process could

reduce removal by the filters, resulting in an overall removal equal to or less than the presumptive credit. 

Therefore, systems and states should carefully evaluate the overall treatment process in addition to the

portion addressed in the demonstration of performance.

As implied above, states must establish criteria for determining how additional credits will be granted. 

States also have the authority to request additional information not specified by the rule to document that

systems are in compliance. The demonstration of performance process for microbial treatment is

discussed in Chapter 12 of the Draft Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D-03-009, June 2003). 

Chapter 12 discusses critical aspects of developing and administrating a demonstration of performance

process, including criteria development and evaluation, testing protocol, monitoring, and reporting. 

States are encouraged to use the manual in preparing their demonstration of performance program and

primacy revision applications.

Systems serving at least 10,000 people must report the results of their demonstration of performance

testing to the primacy agency by [ ]. Systems serving less

than 10,000 people must report the results of their demonstration of performance testing to the primacy

agency by [ ]. If states are interested in this demonstration

of performance toolbox option, state primacy regulations should be developed, reviewed, and approved in

advance of these deadlines to allow systems adequate time to pursue the option.

References for more detailed guidance

Draft Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Toolbox Guidance Manual. USEPA, 2003. 

EPA 815-D-03-009. (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/guides.html)

4.4.4 Evaluation of Risk Mitigation Plans for Systems with Uncovered Finished

Reservoirs

Proposed §142.16 Special primacy requirements. (n): Requirements for states to adopt proposed §141,

subpart W. In addition to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in this part, including the

requirements that state regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for

approval of a state program revision that adopts proposed §141, subpart W, must contain a description

of how the state will accomplish the following program requirements where allowed in state programs. 4)

Determine that a system with an uncovered finished water reservoir has a risk mitigation plan that is

adequate for purposes of waiving the requirement to cover the reservoir or treat the reservoir effluent 

Guidance

EPA will develop guidance and a simple checklist for the Draft Toolbox Guidance Manual (EPA 815-D03-009, June 2003) that states may use to review systems’ risk mitigation plans. EPA is requesting

comment and recommendations regarding components that may be included in the checklist.

In states that allow open finished water reservoirs, systems that do not cover an open reservoir or treat the

effluent are required to implement risk mitigation plans. Where applicable, the plans should account for

cultural uses by Indian tribes. As stated in section 3.13, systems must cover or treat uncovered finished

reservoirs or have a state-approved risk mitigation plan within 3 years following rule promulgation [

], with the possibility of a 2-year extension granted by states for systems making capital
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 115

improvements. Systems seeking approval for a risk mitigation plan must submit the plan to the state

within 2 years following rule promulgation [ ].

Although the reasons for covering reservoirs seem obvious, there may be some situations where an open

reservoir can be properly managed without a cover or additional treatment. In these situations, systems

should carefully evaluate options before making a final decision. All background information and

decisions and should be documented. A complete list of operation and maintenance practices,

management policies, and standard operating procedures should be developed. Water quality monitoring

and record keeping should be included. Staff authority and responsibilities should be defined. Security

and emergency response plans should be addressed. This information should be developed for each open

reservoir. 

Many potential sources of contamination can lead to the degradation of water quality in uncovered

finished water reservoirs. These include surface water runoff, algal growth, insects and fish, animal

wastes, airborne deposition, groundwater infiltration, and human activity. In order to minimize

contamination, systems may implement various controls such as liners, regular draining and

washing/disinfection, security equipment, increased water quality monitoring, regular inspections, animal

and insect control programs, and drainage design to prevent surface runoff from entering the facility. 

A critical component of open reservoir management is animal and insect control. Contamination of open

reservoirs has been frequently associated with birds. Although waterfowl species are obvious suspects,

non-waterfowl species have also been associated with reservoir contamination. Fish have even been

found in open reservoirs. Fencing, bird deterrent wires, noisemakers, regular inspections and cleaning,

and animal control ordinances are all commonly used. Seasonal spraying of nearby vegetation for insect

control may be appropriate under some circumstances, but should obviously be practiced when risks from

aerosol drift are minimal.

Control of unauthorized access by humans is also important. Such access can result in unintentional or

intentional contamination. Intentional contamination includes swimming, discarded trash, terrorism (e.g.,

intentional contamination by introducing a biological or chemical agent), or other wastes. Unintentional

contamination includes drift of aerosols, such as pesticides. Fencing, security cameras and lighting,

ordinances, and public education are all possible deterrents. 

Algae can thrive in open reservoirs without adequate control. Algae can cause taste and odor problems

and can also be a precursor to DBP formation where a free chlorine residual is present in the finished

water. Common control measures include the addition of water-safe chemicals (e.g. copper sulfate,

chlorine dioxide, periodic higher doses of free chlorine, and draining and cleaning).

Groundwater intrusion can also be a problem in uncovered (or covered) reservoirs. Liners are often

provided for reservoirs where intrusion is a threat. 

Systems may consult the EPA’s Uncovered Finished Water Reservoir Guidance Manual (EPA 815-R-99-

011, 1999) for more detail on the various options.

References for more detailed guidance

Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs Guidance Manual. USEPA, 1999. EPA 815-R-99-011. 

(http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/implement.html)
This page intentionally left blank
Section 5

SDWIS Reporting and SNC

Definitions
This page intentionally left blank
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 119

5.1 Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Reporting Under the

LT2ESWTR

SDWIS/FED (Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal version) is EPA’s national database of

routine information about the nation’s drinking water. Designed to replace the system known as FRDS

(Federal Reporting Data System), SDWIS/FED stores the information EPA needs to monitor

approximately 175,000 PWSs. 

States supervise drinking water systems within their jurisdictions to ensure that each PWS meets state and

EPA standards for safe drinking water. The SDWA requires states to report drinking water information

periodically to EPA. This information is maintained in SDWIS/FED. 

States report the following information to EPA: 

• Basic information on each water system, including: name, ID number, number of people

served, type of system (year-round or seasonal), and source of water (ground water or

surface water).

• Violation information for each water system: whether it has followed established

monitoring and reporting schedules, complied with mandated treatment techniques, or

violated any MCLs.

• Enforcement information: what actions states have taken to ensure that drinking water

systems return to compliance if they are in violation of a drinking water regulation.

• Sampling results for unregulated contaminants and for regulated contaminants when the

monitoring results exceed the MCL.

EPA uses this information to determine if and when it needs to take action against non-compliant

systems, oversee state drinking water programs, track contaminant levels, respond to public inquiries, and

prepare national reports. EPA also uses this information to evaluate the effectiveness of its programs and

regulations and to determine whether new regulations are needed to further protect public health. 

5.1.1 Federally Reported Violations

Under SDWIS/FED reporting, states only report when violations occur. In the interest of reducing the

reporting burden on states, EPA has limited the number and type of violations to be reported to

SDWIS/FED. However, PWSs must still keep records and report all required information to the state. 

Any violation, whether included in the accompanying table or not, is a basis for a state or federal

enforcement action. 

Table 5.1 summarizes the violation and contaminant codes that will be used to report violations of the

LT2ESWTR to SDWIS/FED. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 120

Table 5-1. SDWIS/FED Codes for Federal Reporting Under the LT2ESWTR

Violation

Code 

Contaminant

Code TT Violations

07 LT2E Failure to cover or treat the effluent from an uncovered finished water reservoir

or implement a state-approved risk-mitigation plan

07 LT2E Failure to receive approval from the state before making a significant change in

disinfection practice

07 LT2E Failure to provide the level of treatment appropriate for the system’s bin

classification

07 LT2E Failure of unfiltered systems to meet TT requirements

Monitoring and Reporting (M&R) Violations

03 LT2E Failure to conduct source water monitoring (initial or second round)

03 LT2E Failure to submit a sampling schedule

03 LT2E Failure to collect samples in accordance with sampling schedule

03 LT2E Failure to use required analytical methods

03 LT2E Failure to use an approved laboratory

03 LT2E Failure to report results of source water monitoring (initial or second round)

03 LT2E Failure to conduct disinfection profiling

03 LT2E Failure to report information to determine if a system must create disinfection

03 LT2E Failure to report information about toolbox components

Recordkeeping Violations

09 LT2E Failure to maintain disinfection profiles

09 LT2E Failure to maintain source water monitoring and bin classification (initial or

second round)

Table 5.2 contains the federally reportable violations for the LT2ESWTR in more detail. These violations

are listed by contaminant or requirement and violation type. The table includes the SDWIS/FED

reporting codes, the regulatory citation, system type affected, a detailed description of the violation, and

the initial compliance date. This table will allow a user to better understand violations listed in SDWIS. 

For more information on how to report LT2ESWTR violations to SDWIS, please refer to the

Appendix D.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 121 

Table 5-2. Federal Reporting for LT2ESWTR

SDWIS

Reporting

Code

Regulated

Contaminant/

Requirement

Citation Violation Type System Size and Type Affected Violation Initia

1 2 34 5 6 

Treatment Technique Violation

07/LT2E Uncovered

Finished WaterReservoirs

proposed§141.724

TT All Subpart H systems

with uncoveredfinished waterreservoirs.

Failure to meet one of thethree criteria in proposed§141.724(a) regardinguncovered finished waterreservoirs.

36 months of the LT2

07/LT2E Significant

Change inDisinfection

proposed§141.714

TT All Subpart H systems

required to prepare adisinfection profileunder proposed§141.711 that seek tomake a significantchange to theirdisinfection practice.

Making a significantchange in disinfectionpractice without stateapproval.

Day on whmade or thconstructi

07/LT2E Treatment Based

on BinClassification

proposed§141.720

TT All Subpart H systems

that have a binclassification of 2, 3,or 4, or that have notdetermined their binclassification and donot have at least 5.5log ofCryptosporidiumtreatment in place.

Failure to provide thelevel of treatmentappropriate for thesystem’s binclassification and existingtreatment.

According in proposeround of sand in second roumonitorin
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

SDWIS

Reporting

Code

Regulated

Contaminant/

Requirement

Citation Violation Type System Size and Type Affected Violation Initia

1 2 34 5 6 

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 122 

07/LT2E Treatment for

UnfilteredSystem

proposed§141.721

TT All Subpart H systems

that do not filter andmeet the criteria foravoidance of filtrationunder 40 CFR 141.71.

Failure of unfilteredsystem to providetreatment in accordancewith proposed §141.721.

According in proposeround of sand in 

second roumonitorin

Monitoring and Reporting Violations

03/LT2E Source Water

Testing andCharacterization

proposed§141.702

M&R All Subpart H systems

that do not provide atotal of 5.5 logtreatment forCryptosporidiumbefore the date theyare required to beginsource watermonitoring.

Failure to conduct sourcewater testing (eitherinitial or second round)and characterize sourcewater as specified in therelevant portion ofproposed §141.701 andproposed §141.702.

According schedules and propo

03/LT2E Submitting

SamplingSchedule

proposed§141.703(a)

M&R All Subpart H systems

required to conductsource watermonitoring.

Failure to submit asampling schedule thatspecifies the calendardates that all samples(initial and second round)required under proposed§141.701-702 will betaken.

3 months to begin s(initial or 

03/LT2E Following

SamplingSchedule

proposed§141.703(b)-(d)

M&R All Subpart H systems

required to conductsource watermonitoring.

Failure to collect asample within 2 days ofthe date indicated insampling schedule.

2 days aftsupposed 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

SDWIS

Reporting

Code

Regulated

Contaminant/

Requirement

Citation Violation Type System Size and Type Affected Violation Initia

1 2 34 5 6 

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 123 

03/LT2E Sampling

Location

proposed§141.704

M&R All Subpart H systems

required to conductsource watermonitoring.

Failure to sample atrequired location.

Violations system’s s

03/LT2E Analytical

Methods

proposed§141.705

M&R All Subpart H systems

required to conductsource watermonitoring.

Failure to use requiredmethods to analyzesource water samples. 

2 days aftsupposed 

03/LT2E Approved

Laboratory

proposed§141.706

M&R All Subpart H systems

required to conductsource watermonitoring.

Failure to use approvedlaboratory to analyzesource water samples.

Violations system’s s

03/LT2E Reporting

Source WaterInformation

proposed§141.707

M&R All Subpart H systems

required to conductsource watermonitoring.

Failure to report sourcewater monitoringinformation as requiredby proposed §141.707.

10 days afmonth folsample wa

03/LT2E Bin

Classification

proposed§141.709

M&R All Subpart H systems

required to conductsource watermonitoring.

Failure to properlycalculate and specifyCryptosporidium binclassification (initial andsecond round).

According in proposeinitial roumonitorin

second roumonitorin
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

SDWIS

Reporting

Code

Regulated

Contaminant/

Requirement

Citation Violation Type System Size and Type Affected Violation Initia

1 2 34 5 6 

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 124 

03/LT2E Disinfection

Profiling

proposed§141.713

M&R All Subpart H systems

that do not have atleast 5.5 log ofCryptosporidiumtreatment in place bythe applicable date inproposed §141.701(e)or small systems thathave to monitor forCryptosporidium,have a TTHM LRAAof $0.064 mg/L, or

HAA5 LRAA of

$0.048 mg/L.

Failure to developGiardia and virusdisinfection profiles inaccordance withrequirements of proposed§141.713.

According in propose

03/LT2E Toolbox

ComponentInstallation andOperation

proposed§141.730(e)

M&R All Subpart H systems

required to provideadditional treatmentunder proposed§141.720.

Failure to provideinformation regardingproper installation andoperation of toolboxcomponents (as specifiedin proposed §141.725-141.729).

According in propose

03/LT2E Submitting

Reports forDisinfectionProfile

proposed§141.711proposed§141.712(a)

M&R All Subpart H systems

serving <10,000people that are notrequired to monitorfor Cryptosporidium.

Failure to submit reportsnecessary to determine ifsystem is or is notrequired to developdisinfection profile. 

42 months the LT2ES
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

SDWIS

Reporting

Code

Regulated

Contaminant/

Requirement

Citation Violation Type System Size and Type Affected Violation Initia

1 2 34 5 6 

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance 125 

Recordkeeping Violations

09/LT2E Maintaining

DisinfectionProfiles

proposed§141.713(d)proposed§141.731(c)

Recordkeeping All Subpart H systems required to conduct

Cryptosporidiummonitoring underproposed §141.731(c).

Failure to maintainGiardia and virusdisinfection profiles onfile for state reviewduring sanitary surveys.

When sysstate becohave been 

09/LT2E Maintaining

Monitoring/BinCharacterizationResults

proposed§141.731(a)

Recordkeeping All Subpart H systems required to conduct

source watermonitoring underproposed §141.731(a).

Failure to keepmonitoring and bincharacterization resultsfor 36 months after thecompletion of sourcewater monitoring.

When sysor state beinformatio
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 126

5.2 LT2ESWTR - SNC Definition

Draft SNC Definitions for the LT2ESWTR

Significant non-compliers (SNCs) are CWSs, NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs that have more serious, frequent,

or persistent violations. The criteria that designate a system as a SNC vary by contaminant. Once a

system is designated as a SNC, it is subject to EPA’s timely and appropriate policy. SNCs that have not

returned to compliance or are not addressed timely and appropriately are called Exceptions. Timeliness

for SNCs is 8 months after the system became a SNC (2 months for the state to determine and become

aware of the system’s SNC status and 6 months in which to complete the follow-up/enforcement action). 

The types of actions considered appropriate include the issuance of a formal state or federal

administrative or compliance order, a civil or criminal referral to the state’s Attorney General or

Department of Justice, or a state bilateral compliance agreement signed by both the state and the violator. 

The following are SNC definitions for the LT2ESWTR. 

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

5.3 LT2ESWTR Data Entry Instructions

EPA is developing a draft reporting guidance manual for the LT2ESWTR. This manual will include

examples and instruction on determining proper violations and violation codes for the requirements of the

LT2ESWTR and will be included in Appendix D.
Section 6 

Public Notification and

Consumer Confidence Report

Examples
This page intentionally left blank
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 129

This section provides examples of violations that systems may incur under the LT2ESWTR. These

examples address the public notification and CCR requirements for systems that incur these kinds of

violations. Public notification and notification in the CCR are required follow-up activities for violations

of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Also included in the examples are sample public

notices and sample excerpts from CCR reports that would meet these public notification and CCR

requirements. In the public notification samples, the language in italics is required in Appendix B to

Subpart Q of proposed §141. The examples in this section are adapted from examples in Appendix D. 

For more information on SDWIS reporting, refer to this draft manual and the examples contained therein. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 130

Example 1: Failure to Take Action on Uncovered Finished Water Reservoir

System Description - System A

System A is a Subpart H system serving 12,000 people. The system has five finished water reservoirs,

two of which are uncovered.

Situation

On January 1, ], System A submits plans to the state

detailing how and when it plans to cover its two uncovered finished water reservoirs.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System A has committed a TT violation as a result of the system’s failure to have both of its uncovered

finished water reservoirs covered within 36 months of LT2ESWTR’s promulgation (i.e., by January 1,

]). The system could have chosen instead to treat the

discharge from its uncovered finished water reservoirs to achieve 4-log virus inactivation or to implement

a state-approved risk-mitigation plan. However, since System A failed to implement any of the above

options with regard to its finished water reservoirs within 36 months of LT2ESWTR’s promulgation, the

system is in violation of the LT2ESWTR. System A met the requirements by covering its two uncovered

finished reservoirs on January 27, ], at which

time the system returned to compliance with the LT2ESWTR. This is a treatment technique (TT)

violation and requires Tier 2 public notification. The system must provide public notification within 30

days of learning of the violation. Notification must be provided by mail or other direct delivery method

(such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected individuals that would not

have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used. For any unresolved violation

following an initial Tier 2 notice, notice must be repeated every 3 months for as long as the violation

persists. The system was aware of the violation on January 1, 

]. Repeat public notification is required in this instance since the violation was not resolved

until January 27, ]. 

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown

in Example 6-1. 

All treatment technique violations must also be included in the CCR. An explanation of how the system

returned to compliance could also be included. An example of a report of this violation that could be

used in the system’s CCR is shown in Example 6-2.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 131

Example 6-1. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for Failure to Take Action on Uncovered Finished

Water Reservoir

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER

System A Failed to Take Action on Uncovered Finished Water Reservoir

Our water system recently violated a standard that requires all finished water reservoirs to be covered. 

Although this incident was not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right to know what happened and

what we did to correct this situation.

We were required to covered all uncovered finished water reservoir by January 1, 

]. However, we have not yet covered our finished water reservoir.

What should I do?

There is nothing you need to do unless you have a severely compromised immune system, have an infant, or

are elderly. These people may be at increased risk and should seek advice about drinking water from their

health care providers. General guidelines on ways to lessen the risk of infection by microbes are available

from EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1 (800) 426-4791. If you have specific health concerns, consult

your doctor.

You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. If a situation arises where the water is no

longer safe to drink, you will be notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22

or Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).

What does this mean?

This is not an emergency. If it had been, you would have been notified within 24 hours.

An uncovered reservoir used to store treated water is susceptible to contamination from animals, such as

birds. Inadequately treated water may contain disease-causing organisms. These organisms include

bacteria, viruses, and parasites which can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and

associated headaches.

What is being done?

We are developing plans to cover our uncovered finished water storage reservoirs. We expect to have the

reservoirs covered by the end of January ]. Until

our finished water reservoirs are covered, you will receive a notice similar to this every 3 months.

For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System A, at 555-1234 or write to 2600

Winding Rd., Townsville, GA 12345.

Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not

have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and

businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

This notice is being sent to you by System A.

State Water System ID# GA1234582. Sent: 1/15/ ]
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 132

Example 6-2. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Take Action on Uncovered Finished

Water Reservoir

Water Quality Data

Contaminant MCL/

MRDL/

TT

MCLG Value Date Violation Source

Giardia lamblia,

Heterotrophic plate

count bacteria,

Legionella,

Cryptosporidium

TT 0 1/1/

]

Yes* Sewage treatment

plants, septic

systems, agricultural

livestock operations,

and wildlife.

*System A incurred a treatment technique violation for failing to cover its uncovered finished water storage

reservoirs by January 1, ]. More information about this

violation is provided in the violation section.

Violation

• On January 1, ] we realized we had failed to comply

with a requirement to cover our uncovered finished water storage reservoirs. The standard is that all

uncovered finished water storage reservoirs must be covered by January 1, 

].

An uncovered reservoir used to store treated water is susceptible to contamination from animals, such as

birds. Inadequately treated water or contaminated water that has been treated may contain diseasecausing organisms. These organisms include bacteria, viruses, and parasites which can cause symptoms

such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated headaches.

This situation was resolved when we installed covers on the reservoirs on January 27, 

].
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 133

Example 2: Failure to Receive Approval Before Making a Significant Change in Disinfection

Practice

System Description - System B

System B is a large Subpart H system serving 109,000 people. It currently uses a conventional filtration

treatment plant as defined in 40 CFR 141.2 and chlorinates its water. System B created a disinfection

profile under proposed §141.711.

Situation

On January 1, , System B submits a plan to the state

detailing modifications to its disinfection process that include using ultraviolet (UV) as its primary

disinfectant. The plan contains all the elements described in proposed §141.714(a)(6). A month later,

without receiving approval of the plan from the state, contractors for System B begin construction

necessary to implement the plan.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

Although System B appropriately prepared the necessary significant disinfection practice modification

plan and submitted it to the state by January 1, ], it

has committed a TT violation as a result of the system’s initiation of construction of significant treatment

process modifications without receiving approval from the state. The state approved System B’s plans on

March 1, , returning the system to compliance. This

is a treatment technique (TT) violation and requires Tier 3 public notification. Notification must be

provided by mail or other direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable

method to reach affected individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct

delivery method used. Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill and other service

connections to which water is delivered.

Since System B is a community water system, it could use the CCR to inform the public of the Tier 3

violations if the CCR is released within 1 year of the system learning of the violations. For this particular

example, the system became aware of the violations on February 1, 

. The public could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced for calendar

year if the CCR is released prior to February 1, (the CCR for calendar year is

required to be released by July 1, , for compliance with the CCR Rule). In this situation, additional

public notification would not be required. However, whether public notification is provided by the CCR

for calendar year or by other means, this violation would still have to be reported by the system in

the CCR produced for calendar year , since all violations of National Primary Drinking Water Rules

must be reported in the CCR for the calendar year in which the system became aware of the violation. 

The violation report in the CCR should include similar information contained in the public notice. 

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown

in Example 6-3. An example of a report of these violations in the CCR is shown in Example 6-4.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 134

Example 6-3. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Receive Approval Before Making a

Significant Change in Disinfection Practice

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER

System B Failed to Receive Approval Before Making a Significant Change in Disinfection Practice

Our water system recently failed to wait for approval from the state prior to modifying our disinfection

practices. Although this incident was not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right to know what

happened and what we did to correct this situation.

On January 1, ] we submitted to the state, specific

information on proposed changes to our disinfection practices, including a description of the proposed

change to our disinfection practices, specific disinfection records, and an analysis of how the proposed

change would affect the levels of disinfection in our system. However we were required to wait for approval

from the state before making any changes to our disinfection practices. On , our

contractors began construction necessary to implement the plan before approval was received from the state. 

What should I do?

There is nothing you need to do unless you have a severely compromised immune system, have an infant, or

are elderly. These people may be at increased risk and should seek advice about drinking water from their

health care providers. General guidelines on ways to lessen the risk of infection by microbes are available

from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1 (800) 426-4791. If you have specific health concerns, consult

your doctor.

You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. If a situation arises where the water is no

longer safe to drink, you will be notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22

or Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).

What does this mean?

This is not an emergency. If it had been, you would have been notified within 24 hours.

A change to our disinfection practices without state approval may have impacted our water. Inadequately

treated water may contain disease-causing organisms. These organisms include bacteria, viruses, and

parasites which can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated headaches. 

However, we were not aware of any health effects on you, our customer, as a result of this modification.

What is being done?

The state approved our plans on March 1, . All

proposed changes have been implemented. 

For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System B, at 555-1234 or write to 2600

Winding Rd., Townsville, GA 12345.

Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not

have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and

businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

This notice is being sent to you by System B.

State Water System ID# GA1234582. Sent: 3/20/ ]
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 135

Example 6-4. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Receive Approval Before Making a

Significant Change in Disinfection Practice

Water Quality Data

Contaminant MCL/

MRDL/

TT

MCLG Value Date Violation Source

Giardia lamblia,

Heterotrophic plate

count bacteria,

Legionella,

Cryptosporidium

TT 2/1/

]

Yes* Sewage treatment

plants, septic

systems, agricultural

livestock operations,

and wildlife.

*System B incurred a treatment technique violation for failing to receive approval before making a

significant change to their disinfection practice. More information about this violation is provided in the

violation section.

Violation

• On January 1, ] we submitted to the state, specific

information on proposed changes to our disinfection practices, including a description of the proposed

change to our disinfection practices, specific disinfection records, and an analysis of how the proposed

change would affect the levels of disinfection in our system. However we were required to wait for

approval from the state before making any changes to our disinfection practices. On ,

our contractors began construction necessary to implement the plan before approval was received from

the state. 

A change to our disinfection practices without state approval may have impacted our water. 

Inadequately treated water may contain disease-causing organisms. These organisms include bacteria,

viruses, and parasites which can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated

headaches. However, we are not aware of any health effects on you, our customer, as a result of this

modification.

We received approval for the changes to our disinfection practices on March 1, 

. This violation is now resolved.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 136

Example 3: Failure to Provide the Level of Treatment Appropriate for Bin Classification

System Description - System C

System C is a small Subpart H system using GWUDI and serving 7,500 people. It currently uses a

conventional filtration treatment plant as defined in 40 CFR 141.2 and uses chlorine gas as its primary

disinfectant.

Situation

After System C finishes conducting 12 months of source water monitoring for its initial round on March

1, , the system determines that its Cryptosporidium

bin concentration is 0.9 oocysts/L, which classifies it as bin 2. System C therefore, needs to provide an

additional 1 log of Cryptosporidium treatment. System C chooses to install UV disinfection to achieve

the necessary treatment credits. Since UV will meet Giardia and Cryptosporidium requirements, System

C will decrease the amount of chlorine. The system is required to submit its plans to the state for

approval. After receiving approval of its plan from the state, System C proceeds to install and operate its

additional treatment. On March 1, , System C

installs and begins operating UV disinfection applied as the last step of treatment. Since this treatment is

operational before March 1, ], System C is in compliance

with the TT requirement of proposed of proposed §141.720.

After conducting a second round of source water monitoring, System C determines that its new

Cryptosporidium bin concentration is 1.1 oocysts/L, moving System C from bin 2 to bin 3. System C,

however, provides no additional treatment for Cryptosporidium.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System C has committed a TT violation. As a result of the second round of source water monitoring,

System C was re-classified into bin 3. Therefore it needed to install an additional 1 log treatment for

Cryptosporidium in order to meet the 2 log removal requirement (it was already receiving one-log credit

for its UV disinfection). System C must install and have additional treatment operating that equals 1 log

of Cryptosporidium removal by . This is a

treatment technique (TT) violation and requires Tier 2 public notification. The system must provide

public notification within 30 days of learning of the violation. Notification must be provided by mail or

other direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected

individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used. For

any unresolved violation following an initial Tier 2 notice, notice must be repeated every 3 months for as

long as the violation persists. The system was aware of the violation on January 1, 

]. Repeat public notification is required in this instance since the

violation was not resolved until January 27, ]. 

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown

in Example 6-5. 

All treatment technique violations must also be included in the CCR. An explanation of how the system

returned to compliance could also be included. An example of a report of this violation that could be

used in the system’s CCR is shown in Example 6-6.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 137

Example 6-5. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for Failure to Provide the Level of Treatment

Appropriate for Bin Classification

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER

System C Failed to Provide the Level of Treatment Appropriate for Bin Classification

Our water system failed to provide the level of treatment appropriate for our system’s treatment classification

until January 27, . Although this incident was not an emergency,

as our customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we did to correct this situation.

We are required to install and have additional treatment operating to provide additional Cryptosporidium

inactivation or removal by 

What should I do?

There is nothing you need to do unless you have a severely compromised immune system, have an infant, or

are elderly. These people may be at increased risk and should seek advice about drinking water from their

health care providers. General guidelines on ways to lessen the risk of infection by microbes are available

from EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1 (800) 426-4791. If you have specific health concerns, consult

your doctor.

You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. If a situation arises where the water is no

longer safe to drink, you will be notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22

or Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).

What does this mean?

This is not an emergency. If it had been, you would have been notified within 24 hours.

Inadequately treated water may contain disease-causing organisms. These organisms include bacteria,

viruses, and parasites which can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated

headaches.

What is being done?

We are developing plans to install additional treatment that provides additional Cryptosporidium inactivation

or removal. We expect to have the additional treatment installed by 

For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System C, at 555-1234 or write to 2600

Winding Rd., Townsville, GA 12345.

Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not

have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and

businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

This notice is being sent to you by System C.

State Water System ID# GA1234582. Sent: 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 138

Example 6-6. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Provide the Level of Treatment

Appropriate for Bin Classification

Water Quality Data

Contaminant MCL/

MRDL/

TT

MCLG Value Date Violation Source

Cryptosporidium TT 0 200X+X

[

].

Yes*

*System C incurred a treatment technique violation for failing to provide the level of treatment appropriate

for our system’s treatment classification. More information about this violation is provided in the violation

section.

Violation

• Our water system failed to provide the level of treatment appropriate for our system’s treatment

classification. We are required to install and have additional treatment operating to provide additional

Cryptosporidium removal by 

Inadequately treated water may contain disease-causing organisms. These organisms include bacteria,

viruses, and parasites which can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated

headaches.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 139

Example 4: Failure to Conduct Source Water Monitoring (Initial or Second Round) and Report the

Results

System Description - System E

System E is a small Subpart H system serving 3,000 people that uses a small lake as a source. Small

systems that provide filtration or are required to provide filtration must initially conduct 1 year of

bi-weekly sampling (one sample every 2 weeks) for E. coli, beginning no later than

]. These systems are triggered into Cryptosporidium monitoring only if the initial

E. coli monitoring indicates a mean concentration greater than 10 E. coli/100 mL for systems using a

reservoir or lake as their primary source. The small systems that exceed these E. coli trigger values must

conduct 1 year of twice-per-month Cryptosporidium sampling beginning

].

Situation

System E begins conducting E. coli monitoring on January 1, 

]. Based on the results of that monitoring, System E determines that its annual mean E. coli

concentration is 31 E. coli/100 mL. System E does not conduct any further source water monitoring.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System E has committed a monitoring and reporting (M&R) violation. Based on the annual mean

concentration of E. coli determined by the initial source water monitoring (31 E. coli/100 mL is greater

than 10 E. coli/100 mL), System E is required to begin source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium at

least twice each month no later than January 1, ]. Not

doing so is an M&R violation and leads to the classification of the system into bin 4. This is an M&R

violation and the system must provide Tier 3 public notice within 1 year of learning of the violation. 

Notification must be provided by mail or other direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any

other reasonable method to reach affected individuals that would not have received the information by

mail or the direct delivery method used. Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill and

other service connections to which water is delivered. 

Since System E is a community water system, it could use the CCR to inform the public of the Tier 3

violations if the CCR is released within 1 year of the system’s learning of the violations. For this

particular example, the system became aware of the violations on February 10, 

. The public could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR

produced for calendar year if the CCR is released prior to February 10, (the CCR for

calendar year is required to be released by July 1, , for compliance with the CCR Rule). In

this situation, additional public notification would not be required. However, whether public notification

is provided by the CCR for calendar year or by other means, this violation would still have to be

reported by the system in the CCR produced for calendar year , since all violations of National

Primary Drinking Water Rules must be reported in the CCR for the calendar year in which the system

became aware of the violation. The violation report in the CCR should include similar information

contained in the public notice. 

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown

in Example 6-7. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-8.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 140

Example 6-7. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Conduct Source Water Monitoring

(Initial or Second Round) and Report the Results

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER

Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System E

Our water system recently failed to conduct additional source water monitoring as required, leading to a

violation that began on January 1, . Although this

incident was not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we did

to correct this situation. 

What should I do?

There is nothing you need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. You

may continue to drink the water. If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be

notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or Radio Station KMMM (97.3

FM).

What was done?

On February 10, we began collecting the required

source water monitoring samples. 

For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System E, at 555-1234 or write to 2600

Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 12345.

Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not

have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and

businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

This notice is being sent to you by System E.

State Water System ID# GA1234589. Sent: April 20, 

Example 6-8. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Conduct Source Water Monitoring

(Initial or Second Round) and Report the Results

Violation

• Our water system recently failed to conduct additional source water monitoring as required. We were

required to begin source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium at least twice each month no later than

January 1, ].

On February 10, we began collecting the required

source water monitoring samples. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 141

Example 5: Failure to Submit a Source Water Monitoring Schedule 3 Months Prior to Date System

is Required to Begin Monitoring

System Description - System F

System F is an unfiltered Subpart H system serving 2,500 people that meets all the criteria for avoiding

filtration found in 40 CFR 141.71.

Situation

System F submits a sampling schedule to the state for the initial round of source water monitoring

January 1, , however, it forgets about the second

round of source water monitoring that is required and does not submit a sampling schedule. On February

1, ], 1 month before System F is required to begin

the second round of source water monitoring, a neighboring water system reminds System F that it is

required to conduct a second round of source water monitoring. System F develops a sampling schedule

and fulfills its source water monitoring and reporting requirements in accordance with the schedule in

proposed §141.702(d)(3).

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System F has committed an M&R violation for failing to submit a sampling schedule to the state for the

second round of source water monitoring before October 1, 

] (i.e., 3 months before the second round of source water monitoring), even though it

conducted the required monitoring and reported the results to the state. This is an M&R violation and the

system must provide Tier 3 public notice of the violation. The system must provide public notification

within 1 year of learning of the violation. Notification must be provided by mail or other direct delivery

method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected individuals that would

not have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used. Notice must be provided to

each customer receiving a bill and other service connections to which water is delivered. 

Since System F is a community water system, it could use the CCR to inform the public of the Tier 3

violations if the CCR is released within 1 year of the system’s learning of the violations. For this

particular example, the system became aware of the violations on February 1, 

]. The public could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR

produced for calendar year if the CCR is released prior to February 1, (the CCR for

calendar year is required to be released by July 1, , for compliance with the CCR Rule). In

this situation, additional public notification would not be required. However, whether public notification

is provided by the CCR for calendar year or by other means, this violation would still have to be

reported by the system in the CCR produced for calendar year , since all violations of National

Primary Drinking Water Rules must be reported in the CCR for the calendar year in which the system

became aware of the violation. The violation report in the CCR should include similar information

contained in the public notice. 

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown

in Example 6-9. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-10.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 142

Example 6-9. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Submit a Source Water Monitoring

Schedule 3 Months Prior to Date System is Required to Begin Monitoring

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER

Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System F

Our water system recently failed to submit a source water monitoring schedule 3 months before the date we

were required to begin the monitoring. Although this incident was not an emergency, as our customers, you

have a right to know what happened and what we did to correct this situation.

What should I do?

There is nothing you need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. You

may continue to drink the water. If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be

notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or Radio Station KMMM (97.3

FM).

What was done?

On February 1, ] 1 month before we were required to

begin the source water monitoring, we developed a monitoring schedule and fulfilled our source water

monitoring and reporting requirements as required. 

For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System F, at 555-1234 or write to 2600

Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 12345.

Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not

have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and

businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

This notice is being sent to you by System F.

State Water System ID# GA1234589. Sent: March 20, ]

Example 6-10. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Conduct Source Water Monitoring

(Initial or Second Round) and Report the Results

Violation

• We failed to submit a source water monitoring schedule 3 months before the date we were required to

begin the source water monitoring.

On February 1, 200Z [insert date 155 months after rule promulgation] 1 month before we were required

to begin the source water monitoring, we developed a sampling schedule and fulfilled our source water

monitoring and reporting requirements as required. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 143

Example 6: Failure to Collect Samples in Accordance with Sampling Schedule

System Description - System G

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

Situation

System G has two qualified operators. While System G is conducting its required source water

monitoring for E. coli, the operator that usually collects the bi-weekly E. coli sample goes on vacation for

1 month. System G’s other operator decides to wait until his/her colleague returns to work to continue the

required source water monitoring instead of collecting the samples on his/her own.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System G has committed an M&R violation for failing to sample within 2 days of the scheduled date,

March 1, . Proposed §141.703(c) allows systems

that face “extreme conditions,” situations “that may pose danger to the sampler,” “unforeseen” situations,

or situations that “cannot be avoided” to sample as close to the scheduled date as is feasible and to submit

an explanation for the alternative sampling date with the analytical results. A vacationing operator does

not satisfy any of the requirements of proposed §141.703(c). This is an M&R violation and the system

must provide Tier 3 public notice of the violation. The system must provide public notification within 1

year of learning of the violation. Notification must be provided by mail or other direct delivery method

(such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected individuals that would not

have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used. Notice must be provided to

each customer receiving a bill and other service connections to which water is delivered. 

Since System G is a community water system, it could use the CCR to inform the public of the Tier 3

violations if the CCR is released within 1 year of the system’s learning of the violations. For this

particular example, the system became aware of the violations on March 15, 

]. The public could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced

for calendar year if the CCR is released prior to March 15, (the CCR for calendar year

 is required to be released by July 1, , for compliance with the CCR Rule). In this situation,

additional public notification would not be required. However, whether public notification is provided by

the CCR for calendar year or by other means, this violation would still have to be reported by the

system in the CCR produced for calendar year , since all violations of National Primary Drinking

Water Rules must be reported in the CCR for the calendar year in which the system became aware of the

violation. The violation report in the CCR should include similar information contained in the public

notice. 

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown

in Example 6-11. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-12.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 144

Example 6-11. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Collect Samples in Accordance

with Sampling Schedule

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER

Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System G

Our system failed to collect samples in accordance with our sampling schedule. Our system is required to

collect bi-weekly source water samples. On March 1, 

we failed to take a sample. Although this incident was not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right

to know what happened and what we did to correct this situation.

What should I do?

There is nothing you need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. You

may continue to drink the water. If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be

notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or Radio Station KMMM (97.3

FM).

What was done?

On March 15, we returned to having a full staff of

operators and all required samples have been collected since then. This situation is now resolved. 

For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System G, at 555-1234 or write to 2600

Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 12345.

Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not

have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and

businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

This notice is being sent to you by System G.

State Water System ID# GA1234589. Sent: June 8, ]

Example 6-12. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Collect Samples in Accordance with

Sampling Schedule

Violation

• We failed to collect samples in accordance with our sampling schedule. Our system is required to

collect bi-weekly source water samples. Since we failed to take a sample on March 1, 

, our results are unknown and, therefore, any potential health effects

related to the use of that water are also unknown.

On March 15, we returned to having a full staff of

operators and all required samples have been collected since then. This situation is now resolved. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 145

Example 7: Failure to Sample at an Appropriate Location

System Description - System H

System H is a large Subpart H system serving 15,000 people. System H uses bank filtration to meet the

requirement of 40 CFR 141.173(b).

Situation

On May 1, , System H begins to conduct monitoring

for Cryptosporidium. System H collects its first five samples from the well, after bank filtration.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System H has committed an M&R violation. Systems using bank filtration as an alternative filtration to

meet the Giardia lamblia and viruses inactivation and Cryptosporidium removal requirements of 40 CFR

141.173(b) or 141.552(a) must take surface water samples. Only unfiltered GWUDI systems meeting the

filtration avoidance criteria in 40 CFR 141.71 and bank filtered systems that provide additional filtration

can collect samples from the well (after bank filtration). This is an M&R violation and the system must

provide Tier 3 public notice of the violation. The system must provide public notification within 1 year

of learning of the violation. Notification must be provided by mail or other direct delivery method (such

as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected individuals that would not have

received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used. Notice must be provided to each

customer receiving a bill and other service connections to which water is delivered. 

Since System H is a community water system, it could use the CCR to inform the public of the Tier 3

violations if the CCR is released within 1 year of the system’s learning of the violations. For this

particular example, the system became aware of the violations on April 10, 

]. The public could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced

for calendar year if the CCR is released prior to April 10, (the CCR for calendar year

 is required to be released by July 1, , for compliance with the CCR Rule). In this situation,

additional public notification would not be required. However, whether public notification is provided by

the CCR for calendar year or by other means, this violation would still have to be reported by the

system in the CCR produced for calendar year , since all violations of National Primary Drinking

Water Rules must be reported in the CCR for the calendar year in which the system became aware of the

violation. The violation report in the CCR should include similar information contained in the public

notice. 

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown

in Example 6-13. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-14.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 146

Example 6-13. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Sample at an Appropriate

Location

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER

Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System H

Our system failed to collect samples at the appropriate location. Our system uses bank filtration to meet the

Giardia lamblia and virus inactivation and Cryptosporidium removal requirements and must take surface

water samples. On May 1, , we began to conduct

monitoring for Cryptosporidium, however the first five samples collected were collected at the wrong

location in the system. Although this incident was not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right to

know what happened and what we did to correct this situation.

What should I do?

There is nothing you need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. You

may continue to drink the water. If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be

notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or Radio Station KMMM (97.3

FM).

What was done?

On July 15, it was identified that the samples were

collected at the wrong location. The sampling location has been corrected and the samples will now be

collected at the appropriate location. This situation is now resolved. 

For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System H, at 555-1234 or write to 2600

Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 12345.

Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not

have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and

businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

This notice is being sent to you by System H.

State Water System ID# GA1234589. Sent: July 25, ]

Example 6-14. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Sample at an Appropriate Location

Violation

• We failed to collect samples at the appropriate location in our system. Our system uses bank filtration to

meet the Giardia lamblia and viruses inactivation and Cryptosporidium removal requirements and must

take surface water samples. On May 1, , we began

to conduct monitoring for Cryptosporidium, however the first five samples collected were collected at

the wrong location in the system. 

On July 15, it was identified that the samples were

collected at the wrong location. The sampling location has been corrected and the samples will now be

collected at the appropriate location. This situation is now resolved. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 147

Example 8: Failure to Use an Approved Laboratory or Approved Analytical Method

System Description - System I

System I is a large Subpart H system serving 50,000 people. System I has its own on-site laboratory that

has been approved by the state for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity analysis.

Situation

System I usually collects its monthly E. coli sample on the last Wednesday afternoon of the month and

analyzes it the following morning. Overnight the sample is kept at 5/C. During the month of July,

however, the operator who usually analyzes the samples was sick on the Thursday following the E. coli

sample’s collection. When the operator returned to work on Friday, the sample was analyzed for E. coli.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

Although the E. coli sample was kept between 0/C and 5/C, System I has committed an M&R violation

because the sample was not analyzed within 24 hours of its collection. The E. coli sample is invalid

because the holding time was longer than 24 hours, the maximum holding time allowed by the

LT2ESWTR. The system collects and analyzes another sample on August 26, . This is an M&R

violation and the system must provide Tier 3 public notice of the violation. The system must provide

public notification within 1 year of learning of the violation. Notification must be provided by mail or

other direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected

individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used. 

Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill and other service connections to which water is

delivered. 

Since System I is a community water system, it could use the CCR to inform the public of the Tier 3

violations if the CCR is released within 1 year of the system’s learning of the violations. For this

particular example, the system became aware of the violations on August 1, . The public could

therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced for calendar year if the CCR is released

prior to August 1, +1. In this situation, additional public notification would not be required. 

However, whether public notification is provided by the CCR for calendar year or by other means,

this violation would still have to be reported by the system in the CCR produced for calendar year ,

since all violations of National Primary Drinking Water Rules must be reported in the CCR for the

calendar year in which the system became aware of the violation. The violation report in the CCR should

include similar information contained in the public notice. 

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown

in Example 6-15. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-16.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 148

Example 6-15. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Use an Approved Laboratory or

Approved Analytical Method

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER

Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System I

Our system failed to use an approved laboratory or approved analytical method. In July, a water sample was

collected and analyzed for E. coli, however it was not analyzed within 24 hours of being collected as

required. Although this incident was not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right to know what

happened and what we did to correct this situation.

What should I do?

There is nothing you need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. You

may continue to drink the water. If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be

notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or Radio Station KMMM (97.3

FM).

What was done?

On August 26, we collected and analyzed all required samples. This situation is now resolved. 

For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System I, at 555-1234 or write to 2600

Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 12345.

Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not

have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and

businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

This notice is being sent to you by System I.

State Water System ID# GA1234589. Sent: September 5, 

Example 6-16. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Use an Approved Laboratory or

Approved Analytical Method

Violation

• We failed to use an approved laboratory or approved analytical method. In July, a water sample was

collected and analyzed for E. coli, however it was not analyzed within 24 hours of being collected as

required. 

On August 26, we collected and analyzed all required samples. This situation is now resolved. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 149

Example 9: Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus Disinfection Profiles

System Description - System K

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

Situation

Based on the results of its E. coli monitoring, System K was required to conduct source water monitoring

for Cryptosporidium. However, System K’s LRAA for TTHM was less than 0.064 mg/L at every

monitoring site, and its LRAA for HAA5 was less than 0.048 mg/L at every monitoring site. Based on

these DBP averages, System K determined that it did not need to conduct disinfection profiling.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System K has committed an M&R violation. While its DBP levels are below the disinfection profiling

triggers, the system is required to conduct source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium. Systems

serving fewer than 10,000 people are required to create a disinfection profile under the LT2ESWTR by

July 1, ] if they are required to conduct source water

monitoring for Cryptosporidium and have not developed a disinfection profile under the LT1ESWTR, or

if their LRAAs exceed specified values for TTHM and HAA5. System K developed its disinfection

profile and submitted it to the state on October 31, , returning the system to compliance. This is an

M&R violation and the system must provide Tier 3 public notice of the violation. The system must

provide public notification within 1 year of learning of the violation. Notification must be provided by

mail or other direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach

affected individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method

used. Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill and other service connections to which

water is delivered. 

Since System K is a community water system, it could use the CCR to inform the public of the Tier 3

violations if the CCR is released within 1 year of the system’s learning of the violations. For this

particular example, the system became aware of the violations on September 1, . The public could

therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced for calendar year if the CCR is released

prior to September 1, +1. In this situation, additional public notification would not be required. 

However, whether public notification is provided by the CCR for calendar year or by other means,

this violation would still have to be reported by the system in the CCR produced for calendar year ,

since all violations of National Primary Drinking Water Rules must be reported in the CCR for the

calendar year in which the system became aware of the violation. The violation report in the CCR should

include similar information contained in the public notice. 

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown

in Example 6-17. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-18.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 150

Example 6-17. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus

Disinfection Profiles

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER

Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System K

Our system failed to conduct an analysis of our disinfection practice (profile) and submit the report to the

state. Although this incident was not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right to know what

happened and what we did to correct this situation.

What should I do?

There is nothing you need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. You

may continue to drink the water. If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be

notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or Radio Station KMMM (97.3

FM).

What was done?

On October 31 ] we submitted our disinfection profile to

the state. This situation is now resolved. 

For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System K, at 555-1234 or write to 2600

Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 12345.

Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not

have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and

businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

This notice is being sent to you by System K.

State Water System ID# GA1234589. Sent: November 1, ]

Example 6-18. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus

Disinfection Profiles

Violation

• Our system failed to conduct an analysis of our disinfection practice (profile) and submit the report to the

state. 

On October 31 ] we submitted our disinfection

profile to the state. This situation is now resolved. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 151

Example 10: Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus Disinfection Profiles

System Description - System L

System L is a small Subpart H system serving 3,000 people. Recently System L, with approval from the

state, moved its point of disinfection and began applying chlorine after the sedimentation basin.

Situation

Based on the results of source water E. coli monitoring, System L is required to monitor for

Cryptosporidium. As a result, System L is required to create a disinfection profile for Giardia lamblia

and viruses by July 1, ]. System L elects to conduct

no additional monitoring to comply with the disinfection profiling requirements of the LT2ESWTR. 

Instead, it uses data collected prior to the change in point of disinfection (i.e., when the system applied

chlorine before flocculation/sedimentation) to create a disinfection profile for viruses in accordance with

the methods approved by the state. 

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System L has failed to comply with the disinfection profiling requirements of the LT2ESWTR. While

System L did not change sources, it did make a significant change in its treatment practice by moving its

point of disinfection in between the time it collected the disinfection profiling data and the time it was

required to create a disinfection profile. Therefore, System L has committed an M&R violation since the

use of grandfathered data is not acceptable. System L is required to notify the state of its plan to make a

significant change in its disinfection practice. Since System L has to monitor for Cryptosporidium, it is

not required to report data on its TTHM and HAA5 LRAAs. It must, however, receive approval from the

state within 54 months of the LT2ESWTR promulgation to use its existing profile. This is an M&R

violation and the system must provide Tier 3 public notice of the violation. The system must provide

public notification within 1 year of learning of the violation. Notification must be provided by mail or

other direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected

individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used. 

Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill and other service connections to which water is

delivered. 

Since System L is a community water system, it could use the CCR to inform the public of the Tier 3

violations if the CCR is released within 1 year of the system’s learning of the violations. For this

particular example, the system became aware of the violations on July 15, 

]. The public could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced

for calendar year if the CCR is released prior to July 15, +1. In this situation, additional

public notification would not be required. However, whether public notification is provided by the CCR

for calendar year or by other means, this violation would still have to be reported by the system in

the CCR produced for calendar year , since all violations of National Primary Drinking Water Rules

must be reported in the CCR for the calendar year in which the system became aware of the violation. 

The violation report in the CCR should include similar information contained in the public notice. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 152

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown

in Example 6-19. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-20.

Example 6-19. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus

Disinfection Profiles

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER

Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System L

Our system failed to use the correct data when developing an analysis of our disinfection practice (profile). 

We used data collected prior to our changing the point of disinfection (i.e., data from when we applied

chlorine before flocculation/sedimentation) to create a disinfection profile for viruses. Although this incident

was not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we did to correct

this situation.

What should I do?

There is nothing you need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. You

may continue to drink the water. If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be

notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or Radio Station KMMM (97.3

FM).

What was done?

On August 15 ] we submitted a correct disinfection

profile to the state. This situation is now resolved. 

For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System L, at 555-1234 or write to 2600

Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 12345.

Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not

have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and

businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

This notice is being sent to you by System L.

State Water System ID# GA1234589. Sent: September 1, ]

Example 6-20. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Develop Giardia and Virus

Disinfection Profiles

Violation

• Our system failed to use the correct data when developing an analysis of our disinfection practice

(profile). We used data collected prior to our changing the point of disinfection (i.e., data from when we

applied chlorine before flocculation/sedimentation) to create a disinfection profile for viruses. 

On August 15 ] we submitted a correct disinfection

profile to the state. This situation is now resolved. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 153

Example 11: Failure to Report Information to Determine if a System Must Create a Disinfection

Profile 

System Description - System M

System M uses GWUDI and serves 8,000 people.

Situation

Based on monitoring to comply with the Stage 2 DBPR, System M determines that its highest LRAA for

TTHM is less than 0.064 mg/L and its highest LRAA for HAA5 is less than 0.048 mg/L. Based on this,

System M decides it does not have to create disinfection profiles under the LT2ESWTR. Thinking that

all of its obligations are satisfied, System M does not report any information to the state regarding its

DBP averages.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System M has committed an M&R violation. Every Subpart H system serving fewer than 10,000 people

that does not have to monitor for Cryptosporidium has to submit a report on its DBP averages to the state

no later than July 1, . Even though System M’s DBP

averages are below the triggers for disinfection profiling, it still has to report that information to the state. 

System M finally submits the report to the state on February 1, . This is an M&R violation and

the system must provide Tier 3 public notice of the violation. The system must provide public

notification within 1 year of learning of the violation. Notification must be provided by mail or other

direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected

individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used. 

Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill and other service connections to which water is

delivered. 

Since System M is a community water system, it could use the CCR to inform the public of the Tier 3

violations if the CCR is released within 1 year of the system’s learning of the violations. For this

particular example, the system became aware of the violations on December 10, 

]. The public could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR

produced for calendar year if the CCR is released prior to December 10, (the CCR for

calendar year is required to be released by July 1, , for compliance with the CCR Rule). In

this situation, additional public notification would not be required. However, whether public notification

is provided by the CCR for calendar year or by other means, this violation would still have to be

reported by the system in the CCR produced for calendar year , since all violations of National

Primary Drinking Water Rules must be reported in the CCR for the calendar year in which the system

became aware of the violation. The violation report in the CCR should include similar information

contained in the public notice. 

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown

in Example 6-21. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-22.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 154

Example 6-21. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Report Information to Determine

if a System Must Create a Disinfection Profile

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER

Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System M

Our system failed to report information to the state needed for the state to determine if our system must

develop an analysis of our disinfection process. Since our system is not required to monitor for

Cryptosporidium, it had to submit a report on its disinfection byproduct averages to the state no later than

July 1, . Even though our disinfection byproduct

averages are below the levels requiring an analysis of our disinfection process, we were still required to

report the disinfection byproduct averages to the state. Although this incident was not an emergency, as our

customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we did to correct this situation.

What should I do?

There is nothing you need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. You

may continue to drink the water. If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be

notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or Radio Station KMMM (97.3

FM).

What was done?

On February 1, we submitted the report to the state. This situation is now resolved. 

For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System M, at 555-1234 or write to 2600

Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 12345.

Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not

have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and

businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

This notice is being sent to you by System M.

State Water System ID# GA1234589. Sent: March 2, 

Example 6-22. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Report Information to Determine if a

System Must Create a Disinfection Profile

Violation

• We failed to report information to the state needed for the state to determine if our system must develop

an analysis of our disinfection process. Since our system is not required to monitor for Cryptosporidium,

it had to submit a report on its disinfection byproduct averages to the state no later than July 1, 

. Even though our disinfection byproduct averages are

below the levels requiring an analysis of our disinfection process, we were still required to report the

disinfection byproduct averages to the state. 

On February 1, we submitted the report to the state. This situation is now resolved.
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 155

Example 12: Failure to Report Information About Toolbox Components

System Description - System N

System N is a large Subpart H system serving 35,000 people. It uses a conventional filtration plant and

treats its water with chlorine gas. 

Situation

System N was placed in bin 2 and, therefore, must provide an additional 1 log of treatment. In order to

comply with the additional treatment requirements of the LT2ESWTR, System N decides to use UV for

primary disinfection and chlorine for secondary disinfection. It submits a proposal outlining the change

to its disinfection practice to the state. The report contains all of the information required in proposed

§141.714(a)(6). After receiving approval from the state, System N installs a UV reactor validated

according to 141.729(d)(3) and operates within conditions determined during validation in January 1,

. After this initial demonstration, System N submits

no further information to the state.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

Although System N installed the necessary treatment before January 1, 

], it has committed an M&R violation. System N is required to submit monthly

operational reports to the state summarizing the percentage of water entering the distribution system that

was not treated by UV reactors operating within the conditions required to receive credit for additional

Cryptosporidium treatment. System N begins submitting monthly operational reports to the state on June

1, . This is an M&R violation and the system must provide Tier 3 public notice of the violation. 

The system must provide public notification within 1 year of learning of the violation. Notification must

be provided by mail or other direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable

method to reach affected individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct

delivery method used. Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill and other service

connections to which water is delivered. 

Since System N is a community water system, it could use the CCR to inform the public of the Tier 3

violations if the CCR is released within 1 year of the system’s learning of the violations. For this

particular example, the system became aware of the violations on April 20, 

]. The public could therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced

for calendar year if the CCR is released prior to April 20, (the CCR for calendar year

 is required to be released by July 1, , for compliance with the CCR Rule). In this situation,

additional public notification would not be required. However, whether public notification is provided by

the CCR for calendar year or by other means, this violation would still have to be reported by the

system in the CCR produced for calendar year , since all violations of National Primary Drinking

Water Rules must be reported in the CCR for the calendar year in which the system became aware of the

violation. The violation report in the CCR should include similar information contained in the public

notice. 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 156

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown

in Example 6-23. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-24.

Example 6-23. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Report Information About

Toolbox Components

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER

Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Not Met for System N

Our system failed to submit monthly operational reports to the state summarizing the percentage of water

entering the distribution system that was not treated by UV reactors operating within the conditions required

to receive credit for additional Cryptosporidium treatment. Although this incident was not an emergency, as

our customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we did to correct this situation.

What should I do?

There is nothing you need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. You

may continue to drink the water. If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be

notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or Radio Station KMMM (97.3

FM).

What was done?

On April 20, ] we realized we were not submitting the

required reports. On June 1, ] the system began

submitting monthly operational reports to the state. This situation is now resolved. 

For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System N, at 555-1234 or write to 2600

Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 12345.

Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not

have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and

businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

This notice is being sent to you by System N.

State Water System ID# GA1234589. Sent: June 30, ] 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 157

Example 6-24. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Report Information About Toolbox

Components

Violation

• We failed to submit monthly operational reports to the state summarizing the percentage of water

entering the distribution system that was not treated by UV reactors operating within the conditions

required to receive credit for additional Cryptosporidium treatment. 

On April 20, ] we realized we were not submitting

the required reports. On June 1, ] the system began

submitting monthly operational reports to the state. This situation is now resolved. 

Example 13: Failure to Maintain Disinfection Profiles

System Description - System P

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

Situation

System P created a disinfection profile for Giardia lamblia and for viruses under the provisions of the

IESWTR. After receiving state approval to use its existing profile to satisfy the profiling requirements of

the LT2ESWTR, System P discards its profiling data on January 1, . It reasoned that, because the

state had already reviewed the profiles in two sanitary surveys in between the promulgation of the

IESWTR and the LT2ESWTR, it no longer needed to retain that information.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System P has committed a recordkeeping violation. Systems must retain their disinfection profiles and

the underlying data indefinitely. This requirement is not only to allow states to review the data during

sanitary surveys, but if the system ever makes a significant change in disinfection practice, the profiling

data will be needed to create a disinfection benchmark. The system obtained copies of their missing data

from the state on June 1, . The system must provide Tier 3 public notice of the violation. The

system must provide public notification within 1 year of learning of the violation. Notification must be

provided by mail or other direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable

method to reach affected individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct

delivery method used. Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill and other service

connections to which water is delivered. 

Since System P is a community water system, it could use the CCR to inform the public of the Tier 3

violations if the CCR is released within 1 year of the system’s learning of the violations. For this

particular example, the system became aware of the violations on May 20, . The public could

therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced for calendar year if the CCR is

released prior to May 20, (the CCR for calendar year is required to be released by July 1,
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 158

, for compliance with the CCR Rule). In this situation, additional public notification would not be

required. However, whether public notification is provided by the CCR for calendar year or by

other means, this violation would still have to be reported by the system in the CCR produced for

calendar year , since all violations of National Primary Drinking Water Rules must be reported in

the CCR for the calendar year in which the system became aware of the violation. The violation report in

the CCR should include similar information contained in the public notice. 

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown

in Example 6-25. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-26.

Example 6-25. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Maintain Disinfection Profiles

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER

Recordkeeping Requirements Not Met for System P

Our water system recently failed to keep records on file for the specified time period. Although this incident

was not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we did to correct

this situation.

We created an analysis of our disinfection processes in 2000. After receiving state approval to use this

analysis to satisfy new requirements, we discarded the profiling data on January 1, . The state had

already reviewed the profiles in two sanitary surveys since 2000. 

What should I do?

There is nothing you need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. You

may continue to drink the water. If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be

notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or Radio Station KMMM (97.3

FM).

What was done?

On June 1, we obtained copies of our missing data from the state. This situation is now resolved. 

For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System P, at 555-1234 or write to 2600

Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 12345.

Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not

have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and

businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

This notice is being sent to you by System P.

State Water System ID# GA1234571. Sent: June 20, 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 159

Example 6-26. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Maintain Disinfection Profiles

Violation

• Our water system recently failed to keep records on file for the specified time period. We created an

analysis of our disinfection processes in 2000. After receiving state approval to use this analysis to

satisfy new requirements we discarded the profiling data on January 1, . The state had already

reviewed the profiles in two sanitary surveys since 2000. 

On June 1, we obtained copies of our missing data from the state. This situation is now resolved. 

Example 14: Failure to Maintain Source Water Monitoring Results and Bin Classification (initial

or second round)

System Description - System Q

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

Situation

System Q was required to conduct source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium. Based on that

monitoring, which the system completed on June 30, , it determines that it is a bin 1 system because

its mean Cryptosporidium concentration was less than 0.075 oocysts/L. Because it does not have to

provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium, System Q discards its source water monitoring results

and fails to replace them.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System Q has committed a recordkeeping violation. All Subpart H systems are required to maintain the

results of their source water monitoring and their bin classification for at least 36 months after they

complete their source water monitoring. The system must provide Tier 3 public notice of the violation. 

The system must provide public notification within 1 year of learning of the violation. Notification must

be provided by mail or other direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable

method to reach affected individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct

delivery method used. Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill and other service

connections to which water is delivered. 

Since System Q is a community water system, it could use the CCR to inform the public of the Tier 3

violations if the CCR is released within 1 year of the system’s learning of the violations. For this

particular example, the system became aware of the violations on September 1, . The public could

therefore be informed of the violation in the CCR produced for calendar year if the CCR is released

prior to September 1, . In this situation, additional public notification would not be required. 

However, whether public notification is provided by the CCR for calendar year or by other means,

this violation would still have to be reported by the system in the CCR produced for calendar year ,

since all violations of National Primary Drinking Water Rules must be reported in the CCR for the
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 160

calendar year in which the system became aware of the violation. The violation report in the CCR should

include similar information contained in the public notice. 

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown 

in Example 6-27. An example of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-28. 

Example 6-27. Example Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Maintain Source Water

Monitoring Results and Bin Classification (initial or second round)

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER

Recordkeeping Requirements Not Met for System Q

Our water system recently failed to keep records on file for the specified time period. Although this incident

was not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we did to correct

this situation.

We were required to conduct source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium. Based on that monitoring,

which we completed on June 30, , we do not have to provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium,

and we discarded the source water monitoring results in August . We were, however, required to

maintain the results of this source water monitoring and bin classification for at least 36 months after

completing the source water monitoring.

What should I do?

There is nothing you need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. You

may continue to drink the water. If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be

notified within 24 hours. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or Radio Station KMMM (97.3

FM).

What was done?

Because of the nature of this violation no further action was required. 

For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System Q, at 555-1234 or write to 2600

Winding Rd., Townsville, SA 12345.

Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not

have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and

businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

This notice is being sent to you by System Q.

State Water System ID# GA1234571. Sent: September 1, 
Draft for Comment Based on the Proposed LT2ESWTR

Draft LT2ESWTR Implementation Guidance November 2003 161

Example 6-28. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Maintain Source Water Monitoring

Results and Bin Classification (initial or second round)

Violation

• Our water system recently failed to keep records on file for the specified time period. We were required

to conduct source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium. Based on that monitoring, which we

completed on June 30, , we do not have to provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium, and

discarded the source water monitoring results in August . We were required to maintain the results

of this source water monitoring and bin classification for at least 36 months after completing the source

water monitoring.
This page intentionally left blank