This includes water quality parameter monitoring, optimal corrosion control treatment information. The water system is also informed that it can seek to return to compliance through monitoring. This involves monitoring for two consecutive six month periods and collecting the standard number of samples according to population served by the water system.

AZ By fed regulation procedures. E. g. Public notice, corrosivity, etc. CA Pursuant to 40 CFR 141.85 we work with the system to develop and provide public education materials. If the system has lead service lines we would require replacement pursuant to 40 CFR 141.84. We have not had any systems to date that have had to replace lead service lines after exceeding the action level.

HI The State notifies the water system in writing that the action level has been exceeded, and will identify each action item triggered when the action level was exceeded. The notification letter also identifies the specific dates when each action item must be completed.

NV First we evaluate why there is an apparent exceedance, to determine if there actually is an exceedance. If there is, we require Water Quality Parameter monitoring, development of a corrosion control plan, and public notification to be carried out.

Amer Sam ASEPA notifies ASPA, the utility, guiding them through the requirements of 40 CFR 141.81 and 141.82 and advising them on the requirements for delivery of a public education program per 40 CFR 141.85.

Navajo The PWSSP receives sample results which are evaluated prior to being entered into a database. If there are exceedances of the action level, then the system is notified through informal letters of noncompliance. Confirmation samples are requested. PWSSP uses the NNPDWR to begin corrosion control and recommends pipe replacement. For example, a maintenance worker took samples from a preschool at the request of an official inspection report of the facility. The maintenance worker found that the lead levels in the kitchen sink were elevated. PWSSP recommended pipe replacement to the preschool staff. The maintenance worker replaced the pipes and took another sample. The lead levels were found to be below the action level. The preschool purchases water from a purveyor and was not listed on the purveyor's site sampling plan. AK The system is notified that it has exceeded the AL. A review of the sampling protocol is made with the operator and it is determined whether or not the sample collection protocol was followed. If the results are valid, the system is instructed to collect samples for WQPs and may be required to do a corrosion control study and implement corrosion control.

WA After DOH becomes aware of the exceedance, staff provides detailed corrosion control packet( s) ( Lead only, Copper only, or Lead and Copper). DOH directs systems to submit corrosion control recommendations or Water Quality Parameter information and DOH can use " Black and Veech  Corrosion Control Recommendation Guidance" to offer one or more potential recommendations.

ID Idaho requires a corrosion study with water quality parameters and lead tap samples from 5 or more taps for four consecutive quarters. The correlation between lead levels and water quality parameters is examined with the most practical numbers being used with together with EPA guidance to determine optimal corrosion control.

OR In the initial years of implementing the LCR, the state sent out extensive letters following an exceedance. The letter detailed everything the system must do to come back into compliance. The state then did followup which each system until they returned to compliance. They recently reviewed the database and found a few instances of systems above the action level. The database flags exceedances. The state intents to go through the same process for these systems. Before sending out any information, they will verify that the high samples are representative samples and not invalid. Questions on State Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule July, 2004 Calculation of 90th Percentile State Full Response Describe the protocol used by the state to invalidate samples. MA DEP protocol is based on instructions from EPA Region 1 and is contained in 310 CMR 22.06B( 7)( f).

ME The water system must submit the request in writing outlining the reasons behind the request.

The State will review the circumstances concerning each request for invalidation. The State will inform the water system in writing if a sample can or cannot be invalidated. Water systems are not allowed to challenge the results based on customer sampling error, prior sample results or additional sample results. Water systems can request a sample to be invalidated because the customer contaminated the sample container, or the customer installed a water treatment system without notifying the water system. For NTNC water systems Pb& Cu samples have been invalidated because the " Water Sampler" used invalid sample sites such as Janitor deep sinks,

boiler room taps or outside hose bibs, and then only when the " Chain of Custody Form" specifies the sample site.

RI No answer.

VT The state rarely invaildates samples. Samples are invalidated due to a lab error or inappropriate sampling site. The state requires the water system to submit a written request to invlidate a sample.

NH The system must first take water quality samples. If the water appears non corrosive, resamples may be allowed. In all cases a confirmation sample request in writing is required. CT The CTDPH   DWD is not receiving or accepting any formal written invalidation requests from any Public Water Systems. However, the CTDPH   DWD has initiated the process of invalidating samples based on a determination that the sample was taken from a site that did not meet the site selection criteria and therefore, was not an approved sample site location per the invalidation criteria within the B102 regulations and 40 CFR 141.86( f)( 1)( ii). It should be noted that there have been instances in which Public Water Systems have requested that samples be invalidated based on the analysis results being significantly higher than the remaining samples submitted for compliance. In large part, these requests have been denied.

NY Invalidation of lead samples are uncommon. Determinations for sample invalidation are handled case by case by local health offices. Generally, lead or copper samples would not be subject to invalidation unless the purveyor provided evidence of a laboratory problem, if a sample was destroyed in transit, or if the sample location was from outside the approved sampling pool.

Unexpected results by themselves are not grounds for invalidation.

NJ The State typically invalidate samples under any of following condition: Sample container is damaged, Sample is subjected to any form of tampering, Improper sample analysis is followed,

Site selection criteria is not followed.

MD A written request must be received from the water system. The typical reasons for invalidating a sample include: improper sample site ( tap is not used for consumption   e. g. janitor's mop sink;

outdoor hose bibs; showerhead, etc.) and laboratory error.

DE We work with the system to determine if a sample should be invalidated. The main reason for invalidating a sample is that it was not collected under the proper sampling protocol, i. e., the water sat too long before collection such as a homeowner collecting the sample after returning from vacation.

WV WV has adopted the federal rules by reference, therefore, only those requests that fit the federal rules will be considered. Unaware that any samples have qualified for invalidation to date. PA As per the minor revisions to the LCR, PA DEP staff may invalidate Pb/ Cu tap samples if the lab establishes that improper sample analysis caused erroneous results, DEP determines that the sample was taken from a site that did not meet the site selection criteria, the sample container was damaged, or if there is substantial reason to believe that the sample was tampered with.

DEP's decision and rationale for invalidating a sample is documented in PADWIS and/ or in the system's file.

VA Virginia basically follows the invalidation criteria contained in the Lead and Copper Rule. We would invalidate a lead and copper tap sample if any of the following conditions are met: ( i) The laboratory establishes that improper sample analysis caused erroneous results, ( ii) the sample was taken from a site that did not meet the original materials survey selection criteria, ( iii) the sample container was damaged, or ( iv) there is substantial reason to believe that the sample was subject to tampering. Invalidated samples are not included in determining lead or copper 90 th percentile concentrations.

FL The cause must fall into one of the 4 criteria established in 40 CFR 141.86( f)( 1) for invalidation of samples. The system must report the result( s) of samples for which invalidation is requested.

If we invalidate, the system is informed in writing. The system then has 20 days in which to collect a replacement sample from the same location or, if not available, from a location with the same tier characteristics.

KY Kentucky has no specific protocol for invalidation of lead and copper samples. We would only consider invalidating samples if we were provided with written documentation of improper sample collection or analysis.

MS The state uses the conditions specified in 40 CFR 141.86( f)( 1)( i iv) for determining whether or not a sample can be invalidated. ( Improper sample analysis, invalid site selection criteria utilized,

damaged container, or sample tampering). NC According to 40 CFR 141.86( f)( 1), samples may be invalidated if at least one of the following conditions applies: the laboratory establishes that improper sample analysis caused erroneous results, the sample was taken from a site that did not meet the site selection criteria, the sample was damaged in transit, substantial reason exists to believe that the sample was subject to tampering. The rule manager may also invalidate samples if it is determined that the sample collected was not representative of water that would normally be expected at a sampling site.

Water systems that request invalidation of a sample must do so in writing and explain the circumstances and the rationale for the requested invalidation. The rule manager reviews the request and responds to the water system in writing.

AL If approved the system is given a time frame to collect a replacement sample.

SC The Department may invalidate a sample if one of the following conditions is met: the lab establishes that improper sample analysis caused erroneous results; the Department determines that the sample was collected from a site that did not meet the site selection criteria; the sample container was damaged in transit; or, there is substantial reason to believe the that the sample was subject to tampering.

TN Samples are rarely invalidated. Occasionally a homeowner will admit the sample was collected from a private well or another water system. We inquire of the viability of the sampling location and the methodology employed during sampling. If the samples taken were suspect, a resample is requested and the two results compared. Circumstances which may make a sample suspect include extended stand time of the water due to residents absence prior to sampling, or the sampling of a ` different' location not typically the drinking water source, or a location of minimal use, or plumbing maintenance. Questions are asked of the operators concerning adjustments of pH or chemical feed rates or supplier, etc.

GA Georgia follows the federal regulation according to 40 CFR 141.86( f)( 1 6).

IN The system must send a written request to the state, once received the state reviews the request and denies/ grants it based on the merit of the reason why the system has asked for a sample to be invalidated. MN All SDWA compliance monitoring, including for the LCR, is coordinated through our Drinking Water Program. Annual monitoring schedules are provided to systems prior to 1/ 1 of each year.

MDH coordinates with the MDH Lab and contract labs to send out sample bottles, receive and analyze samples. Once the analyses are completed, the labs provide results to MDH,

electronically. For the LCR, water systems also receive a paper copy of the results from the contract lab. However, calculation of the 90th percentile level for lead/ copper is done at the MDH. Official reports are then sent to the systems. Systems need only to verify the results but need not send the report back. Since systems normally receive the results 1 2 days ahead of the MDH, questions with the test results, are brought to our attention in a timely manner. If the cause for questionable result/ sample is known, and meet one or more of the LCR sample invalidation criteria, the result is invalidated, sample bottle for re sampling will be sent, and the new results will be used in calculating the 90th percentile levels.

MN ( Cont.) Invalidation could be due to Sample was taken from outside tap. Sample was taken from a softened tap. Sample site does not meet tier criteria specified in the rule. Sample was taken from tap that has not been used for sometime. Inconsistent result( s) compared to previous result( s).

Error in sampling process. Resample requested by Minnesota Department of Health. Other ( explain briefly)

OH The protocol used to invalidate samples is contained in rule 3745 81 86( F) of the Ohio Administrative Code and is analogous to paragraph ( f) of 40 CFR 141.86. Samples have been invalidated in Ohio for reasons such as collecting from outside faucets, collecting outside the monitoring period, collecting from a changed site without proper explanation for the change, or collecting from a site that was know to have not sat for the minimum stand time. However, there have been a few cases where samples have been invalidated where water has sat in the line for more than two weeks. Invalidation would occur only upon a written signed statement by the owner. WI The protocol used to invalidate samples is contained in rule 3745 81 86( F) of the Ohio Administrative Code and is analogous to paragraph ( f) of 40 CFR 141.86. Samples have been invalidated in Ohio for reasons such as collecting from outside faucets, collecting outside the monitoring period, collecting from a changed site without proper explanation for the change, or collecting from a site that was know to have not sat for the minimum stand time. However, there have been a few cases where samples have been invalidated where water has sat in the line for more than two weeks. Invalidation would occur only upon a written signed statement by the owner.

MI The water system would contact the state to discuss what they felt were reasons to invalidate a particular analysis, such as the use of a tap other than a cold water kitchen tap or bathroom sink,

or one not representative of the monitoring protocol established by the LCR. If the MDEQ agreed with the invalidation, we would ask them to send us a written explanation that we could approve and place in the files.

IL The water system must submit written request with justification. Procedures as specified in 40 CFR 141.86( f) are followed in determining whether invalidation is granted. If a determination is made to invalidate a sample, the sample and sample results are rejected in SDWIS/ State indicating the reason and SDWIS/ State recalculates the sample summaries.

AR We follow requirements set forth in 141.86( f).

LA In order for the State to invalidate samples, a water system must make such a request in writing.

The public water system must outline the exact reasons as to why the sample( s) should be invalidated. Acceptable reasons for invalidation include sampling from a site that had previously been mistakenly approved and sampling from a tap other than a kitchen or bathroom faucet. The requirement for a written request for invalidation is waived, however, if the state's program coordinator determines a laboratory accident to be the cause of erroneous data.

NM When the state invalidates any samples the protocol is followed as stated in the regulations.

OK Lab error, contaminated or broken bottle, System notifies DEQ that sample was collected by incorrect method. TX PWSs must request invalidation in writing if the sample is not representative of the systems water quality. An example is that the homeowner has a water softener and did not state this during site selection process.

IA A written request for invalidation is required from the system for a sample that they wish to be invalidated. The state reviews the reasons for the requested invalidation, and responds by letter to the request. If allowed to invalidate that sample, the system is required to collect another sample so that they meet the monitoring requirements. In the majority of cases, it's actually the sample site that is invalidated, usually due to the installation of a water softener or refusal of the homeowner to participate in the program anymore.

NE At minimum, a written statement by the certified water operator for the system is required. The reason given for the invalidation request is considered and approved or denied by the Lead &

Copper Rule Monitor ( currently Steve Drda). Sometimes we utilize one of our State Field Representatives to investigate the claim made by the water operator by independently contacting the sample site owner, or personally investigating the site.

MO When a sample result is reviewed, or it is determined that an invalid site was used he system is called by the coordinator. If the coordinator determines, after discussions with the operator, that the site or procedures were not according to protocol the coordinator, at his discretion, may invalidate a sample( s).

KS The state will authorize invalidation of a tap sample if the laboratory documents that the sample was analyzed improperly, the sample was collected from an improper site, the sample container was damaged in transit, or the sample was subject to tampering. To request sample invalidation,

a system must report the results of all the samples to the state, and provide supporting documentation for all the samples to be invalidated. The state will provide the system with written documentation indicating whether or not the sample will be invalidated, and notification of replacement samples when required.. If replacement samples are required, the KDHE lab is notified to schedule replacement samples. Invalidated samples are not used for compliance and are not included in calculation of the 90th percentile. CO The State may invalidate a sample pursuant to 40 CFR 141.86( f). The State has notified public water systems that if they believe there is substantial reason that a lead or copper sample should be invalidated it must request this in writing. The request is required to state all the pertinent facts and the reasons why the public water system believes the sample should be invalidated.

Invalidation of samples will not occur solely based on the fact that a follow up sample result is higher or lower than the original sample. The State does not accept replacement samples prior to the approval of the invalidation request. Once approval has been given, the system is required to resample at the same site or at a replacement site approved of by the State when applicable.

MT A system that can demonstrate that the samples reported do not represent the system as defined in the LCR, may be allowed by the department to resample, collect additional samples, or otherwise supply information that may be used in the compliance decision making process.

ND Generally the only time we invalidate samples is when the sample was collected inappropriately ( i. e., sample was collected from the wrong place or water had sat for an extended period of time). In cases where the water had sat for an extended time, we require a follow up sample to ensure that the lead and copper results come back significantly lower.

SD Normally we don't invalidate many samples, the answer to the next question describes how we replace some samples.

UT According to Utah rule R309 210 6( f), the State may invalidate a lead or copper tap water sample if one of the following conditions is met. ( A) The laboratory establishes that improper sample analysis caused erroneous results. B) The State determines that the sample was taken from a site that did not meet the site selection criteria of this section.

UT ( cont) ( C) The sample container was damaged in transit. ( D) There is substantial reason to believe that the sample was subject to tampering. The system reports the results of all samples to the State and all supporting documentation for any samples the system believes should be invalidated. The water system must collect replacement samples for any samples invalidated under this section. If the system has too few samples to meet the minimum requirements, replacement samples must be taken as soon as possible ( no later than 20 days after the date the State invalidates the sample or by the end of the applicable monitoring period, whichever occurs later). WY Region 8 follows the protocol in 40 CFR 141.86 ( f)

AZ Require sufficient documentation to make invalidation determination.

CA We would invalidate a sample pursuant to 40 CFR 141.86( f).

HI The State uses the protocol in § 141.86( f) of the Lead and Copper Rule.

NV We compare the sample result to past data from the same site, assure that the sample was from the site listed, review who collected the sample and the procedure used, and follow the criteria in 40CFR 141.86( f).

Navajo § 710 ( F) of the NNPDWR ( 40 CFR § 141.86( f)) outlines the process for invalidating samples.

" 3. To invalidate a sample under subsection ( F)( 1) of this section, the decision and the rationale for the decision must be documented in writing. The Director may not invalidate a sample solely on the grounds that a follow up sample result is higher or lower than that of the original sample."

Amer Sam ASEPA follows 40 CFR Section 141.86( f).

AK If samples were taken in a wrong location, or from a faucet that is not in routine use, or exceeded the allowable hold time, or otherwise taken improperly, the sample will be invalidated. System will then be told to resample.

WA Systems must submit written justification for invalidating samples. Some reasons for invalidating samples and re sampling include water sitting too long in pipes or a sample collected from an unoccupied home.

ID Federal regulations govern when it is appropriate to invalidate samples. Idaho works to educate systems about sampling so that invalidation is seldom if ever necessary.

OR Initially this was done on a case by case basis. The state looks at if the sample was taken after the correct amount of time, at the correct location ( tap used for drinking water). They want to ensure it is a representative sample. If the state allows for the replacement of samples for reasons other than invalidation,

please provide the conditions under which such replacement is allowed. CT In large part, requests of this nature have been denied. The CTDPH   DWD has interpreted the B102 regulations and 40 CFR 141.86( f) as not to include any provisions for replacement samples.

MA DEP does not allow replacement samples for reasons other than invalidation.

ME N/ A NH The system must first take water quality samples. If the water appears non corrosive, resamples may be allowed. In all cases a confirmation sample request in writing is required.

RI No answer.

VT Replacement samples are allowed when a sampler uses an inappropriate sampling site or improper sampling technique. Water Systems are required to document in writing any changes.

NY We are not aware of any instances where state or local health offices in NY allowed sample replacement for reason other than invalidation.

NJ Replacement samples are only required when systems would have too few samples to meet minimum sampling requirements.

DE We have found that many systems must find new locations due to lack of continuing interest on the part of homeowners who have participated in the past.

MD N/ A WV Only two instances comes to mind: ( 1) non transient non community systems have collected a sample from a water tap that has been idle for several months. The results are obviously not indicative of the water the consumer would have access and should not have been part of the sampling program. ( 2) The laboratory for some reason did not analyze the samples, gave us a letter admitting that they did not analyze ( the laboratory's fault) we allowed the system to sample out of the seasonal period ( June, July, August, September) to obtain replacement samples. The thinking was that the system did obtain the samples and made a good faith effort to collect the samples and after sending the results to the laboratory, it was not their fault that the samples were not analyzed.

PA PA DEP does not allow for the replacement of samples for reasons other than invalidation.

VA Virginia currently does not have a standing policy on replacement samples. The need for replacement samples would be determined by the Field Office staff on a case by case basis depending upon the monitoring history of the waterworks and other factors. Some situations where we would request waterworks owners to submit a replacement sample include ( i) samples that were less than 1 liter in volume, ( ii) samples collected from taps where the water has not stood motionless for at least six hours, ( iii) samples with results that are obviously anomalies from historical monitoring results.

AL If corrosion control is in place, systems exceeding AL can make minor changes and resample.

FL To date, we have not permitted replacement samples.

MS The state does not allow for the replacement of samples for reasons other than invalidation.

KY Kentucky does not allow replacement of samples.

NC Replacement of compliance samples for reasons other than invalidation is generally not allowed.

SC N/ A TN The state does not allow replacement samples unless the original sample is invalidated.

GA If the lab determines that the sample did not meet the criteria for the collection of Pb/ Cu samples.

( I. E. the sample did not meet the six hour non flush requirement, etc).

MI Michigan does not allow for replacement of samples for reasons other than invalidation.

IL N/ A IN Invalidation of samples, due to improper sampling technique or location, are currently the only conditions in which the state allows the system to resample. MN Replacement of samples is allowed if during site investigation a site is found longer meeting the tier specifications, such as a softener or new plumbing was installed since last sampling, or if the owner refuses further participation.

OH Replacement of samples is only allowed for samples that have been invalidated by the procedure outlined above.

WI The Department has allowed invalidation of results where samples were collected at valid locations, but after water was motionless in the system for long periods of time ( maybe even days).

AR We do not allow replacement samples other than for invalidation.

LA No such replacements are currently allowed.

NM The NMED DWB does not allow for any replacement samples other than invalidated samples or lab error on samples. Such as loss of volume, holding time or PH.

OK N/ A TX If the PWS's 90% results are unusually high they can request a confirmation sample in writing. If confirmation samples also come back high, the results stand. If confirmation results come back under action levels then the results can be changed. Homeowners must collect confirmation samples at first draw after 6 hours minimum to 18 hours maximum detention. If longer the water stands in the pipe the higher the results may be. The proof is in the results and speaking with the homeowner.

IA No instances of replacement that wasn't related to invalidation come to mind.

KS Lost or damaged sample containers are replaced by the KDHE lab when requested by the system.

Systems have reported homeowners discarding the containers, losing the containers, or family pets damaging the containers.

MO None.

NE If a round of samples was taken from a small water system which was vacant or idle at the time of sampling, we allow the entire round to be replaced by another round taken at a time when the water system is again in regular daily use. This situation sometimes occurs with small rural schools which have their own water systems and are idle during the summer months.

CO The state does not currently allow replacement of samples other than for invalidation.

MT Done on a case by case basis as explained above. ND N/ A SD This situation seems to happen at a couple of sites each year. A system will collect their samples and the lab will send us the results and a particular site will have an extremely high lead or copper level. We will look in the database and see if that system has ever lead levels above about 3 ppb and copper above 0.2 ppm, and we look in particular at the site to see if that site has had any levels much above the detection limits. If the site and system both show that they have never had problems in the past, we call the certified operator and ask if they have made many changes in the system. We also ask him to contact the homeowner and ask about how and where the sample was collected and if they changed any plumbing recently. If it appears that there is no reason that the sample should be this high, we will allow them to retake the sample. Almost every time the repeat sample comes back very low. We haven't figured out what causes these spikes, but we always get a couple every year. We are just calling it sampling/ lab error.

UT The State does not allows for the replacement of samples for reasons other than invalidation.

WY Occasionally, a high lead result will be received that is suspect because of the sampling technique.

If the sample was collected from a tap that had not been used for some time, the sample is invalidated and a replacement sample is collected from the same tap after the tap has been unused for six hours. If the location is no longer in active use, a replacement site is selected.

AZ No.

CA We would invalidate a sample pursuant to 40 CFR 141.86( f).

HI The State does not allow replacement of samples other than the reasons stated in § 141.86( f).

NV Only invalidated samples are replaced.

Amer Sam Sample replacement for other reasons is not allowed.

Navajo § 710 ( F)( 4) of the NNPDWR ( 40 CFR § 141.86( f)( 4)) outlines the process for sample replacement AK We do not allow replacement samples for anything other than invalidated samples. WA There are only two types of situations where DOH allows replacement samples for lead &

copper: DOH will allow for a replacement sample result if the tap sat unused for longer than would reasonably be expected ( 12 or more hours) for daily water use. Examples include:

residents were away for the weekend or on vacation or sample was collected from a seldom used tap, like a guest bathroom, workshop sink, or janitors closet, and the water was not run the day before. DOH will allow for a replacement sample if there is a home treatment device before the sample collection point. A sample collected under this situation would not reflect the water quality delivered by the system.

WA ( cont.) DOH almost always requires replacement samples be collected in the same monitoring period. If a monitoring period is over before it is realized that a high sample result fits one of the above criteria, we require the system to take two more six month sets. DOH always requires written documentation from the water system that the first sample fits one of the above criteria before we delete the sample from our database. Justification can be the operator's written description of conversation with the homeowner.

ID Idaho does not have any procedure or policy in place that allows for invalidation or replacement outside of conditions given in the regulations.

OR No. When calculating the 90th percentile does the state require and/ or use the results from all samples collected or the required number of samples? How does the state calculate the 90th percentile if the number of samples is less than the required minimum? CT All tap water lead and copper samples collected during the current monitoring period are required to be considered by the Public Water System and the CTDPH   DWD in making any compliance determinations pursuant to the B102 regulations and 40 CFR 141.86( e). All tap water lead and copper samples submitted to the CTDPH   DWD for compliance purposes are considered in calculating the 90 th percentiles and determining compliance with the lead and copper ALs. Under the scenario in which a Public Water System submits a quantity of tap water samples less than the minimum required the CTDPH   DWD would calculate the 90 th percentile based on the number of samples submitted and also pursue informal, or formal enforcement actions for failure to collect the minimum number of samples required.

MA DEP uses all tap samples collected to calculate the 90 th percentile. DEP calculates the 90 th percentile even if the number of samples collected is less than the minimum required. Both practices are based on instructions from EPA Region 1.

ME The 90 th percentile is calculated using all sample results submitted. The only time the 90 th percentile would be calculated using less then the required minimum is when a system has exceeded the action level in more than 10 percent of the minimum required number of samples.

Example: If the required minimum number of samples for the given water system is 20, and the water system has only submitted 18 sample results and 3 or more samples are above the action level.

NH The WSEB uses all the sample results submitted for any given round. The WSEB does not allow less than the minimum of samples required. RI No answer.

VT Yes. WSD does not calculate the 90% if all the number of samples is less than the required minimum. WSD issues a monitoring violation instead. The WSD does include results for samples taken outside of the monitoring period as long as they are taken relatively close to the designated monitoring period.

NY The 90% level is calculated from all samples collected for the monitoring period, including samples that exceed the minimum number required. An exception to this would be samples taken by a homeowner and analyzed by the system under a voluntary program, when the homeowner is not properly trained and certified. If a sample set is submitted with less than the minimum number of samples, the system is directed to complete the sampling pool immediately. 90%

calculations are only accepted if made on a full set of sampling results. If a sampling set is not completed within the required time frame, then a notice of violation would be issued.

NJ All Samples collected. Must collect replacement samples to make up minimum required, then calculate 90 th percentile DE We calculate based on number of samples collected. We no longer allow a system to collect fewer than the mandated number of samples. In the past we did calculate a 90 th percentile from the number of samples collected.

MD The State uses the results from all valid samples collected in the monitoring period. If an insufficient number of samples are collected for the monitoring period, the testing is considered incomplete and a monitoring violation is reported by MDE. If there is time remaining in the monitoring period, additional samples may be collected by the water system complete the sampling for the minimum number of samples.

WV All samples results submitted are used to compute the 90 th percentile, unless the number of samples is less than the required minimum, then the 90 th percentile is not computed, and only a monitoring violation is issued. Or some of the samples were collected in months other than June,

July, August or September ( those samples are not considered for compliance if submitted). PA Certified labs, acting on behalf of the water suppliers, calculate and submit 90 th percentile values to PA DEP. Provided the additional samples are from the appropriate tier category, the lab may calculate the 90 th percentile value using the results from all samples collected. PADWIS will not recognize a 90 th percentile value for compliance purposes unless the number of samples taken is equal to or greater than the number of samples required. PADWIS will reject the incomplete data and generate a monitoring violation.

VA We normally would use the results of all samples submitted during the monitoring period to calculate the 90 th percentile, excluding any invalidated sample results. If the number of sample results submitted is less that the minimum number required, our first priority is to get the additional results from the waterworks owner. If we are successful, we will use all of the sample results to determine the 90 th percentile   even if the delinquent sample results are collected after the end of the monitoring period. We would issue a Notice of Violation to the waterworks owner for failure to conduct the required monitoring within the established monitoring period.

There have been situations where we determined the 90 th percentile concentration based upon a number of samples that is less than the required minimum. An example would be a waterworks required to submit 20 lead and copper tap samples but only 19 results were submitted. Since, for 20 required samples, the 18 th highest sample result represents the 90 th percentile value, we would use the 18 th highest sample result to determine the 90 th percentile.

AL All. Monitoring violation and we don't.

FL In the event more that the required number are collected, all are taken into consideration when calculating the 90 th percentile provided the additional sample sites are on the system's sampling plan. We have never had the occasion where less than the required are used to determine the 90 th percentile. In the rare instance fewer than the required are submitted, the system representative is contacted immediately and advised to collect the remaining number to meet the minimum requirement. KY The state uses the results from all samples collected to compute the 90 th percentile. If a water system fails to collect their required number of samples, we do not calculate the 90 th percentile from that set. We require the water system to collect a complete set before we calculate the 90 th percentile.

MS The state utilizes the results from all samples collected. The state calculates the 90th percentile even if the system fails to collect the required number. An M/ R violation is issued and the results are interpolated.

NC All samples submitted for analysis, except those that have been invalidated by the rule manager,

are used in the calculation of the 90 th percentile. If a water system submits less than the required number of samples, all samples submitted for analysis are included in the 90 th percentile calculation and a monitoring violation is also issued.

SC All sample results are used to calculate the 90 th percentile for water systems collecting the minimum number of samples or more. If the number of samples is less than the minimum required, the samples are not used for compliance.

TN All samples are used in the calculation unless invalidated, regardless of the number of samples.

However, the samples must be collected during the monitoring period. For systems on reduced monitoring only those samples collected in June, July, August, and September are used.

GA Georgia requires that the proper number of Pb/ Cu samples be collected to calculate the 90th percentile.

MI All valid samples are used in calculating the 90 th percentile. When a sample set is not a multiple of 10 ( which occurs in some consecutive system sampling arrangements), MDEQ interpolates to determine the 90 th percentile values. For any sample set less than 5 samples, all samples had to be below the action levels or a violation has occurred. If the number of sample results reported is less than the minimum number established by MDEQ for a specific monitoring period, we report it as a monitoring violation and use sample results available to calculate a 90 th percentile level.

IL If a 90th percentile can't be calculated, the sample summaries in SDWIS/ State are rejected and a M/ R violation is issued. IN The 90 th percentile is based on the total number of samples submitted. If the system does not submit the required number of samples a telephone call/ letter is sent requesting the missing samples and the 90 th percentile is calculated once the sample( s) is received. The State has accepted samples taken outside of the official monitoring periods.

MN Use all samples ( designated number or required number of samples) collected through a designated monitoring round, though rarely done, may include samples collected outside of monitoring period. For NTNC systems collecting less than 5 samples ( from MDH designated taps), the 90th percentile lead/ copper levels are simply the highest lead/ copper values.

OH Results from all samples collected within the monitoring period are used when calculating the 90th percentile. If less than the required minimum is received, the 90th percentile is not calculated and a monitoring violation is issued.

WI The 90 th percentile is calculated using the results of all valid samples collected within the monitoring period. If the number collected is less than the required minimum, compliance is based on the highest sample result.

AR All routine samples collected are counted, unless invalidated. They sample until they get the minimum number or they get a violation.

LA The state uses all of the results of all of the samples that are submitted for a given monitoring period when calculating the 90 th percentile. However, if less than the required minimum number of samples is submitted, the state will not calculate the 90 th percentile. In such cases, the systems are sent a copy of the results of the samples submitted along with a letter notifying them that more samples are required.

NM All samples collected. State calculates 90 th percentile based on number of samples taken OK All. Sample set is declared " Insufficient" and System is notified to provide correct number.

TX If a set of required samples is incomplete, the TCEQ sends reminder letters to get the missing samples collected as soon as possible. There are a few systems each year that are short by 1 or 2 samples. In this situation a 90% calculation is done on the samples that have been received.

Those with more missing samples or with 5 required samples in which one is missing are sent a notice of violation and are required to collect a complete set on an alternative schedule. IA We use all data from samples collected. If the samples are less than the required minimum, the system receives a monitoring violation.

KS When calculating the 90th percentile, the state uses the results from all samples collected and reported by the system. If the number of samples is less than the required minimum, the 90th percentile is not calculated, and the system receives a monitoring violation.

MO The state uses all samples collected to determine 90th percentile lead levels.

NE Nebraska uses all samples collected when calculating 90 th percentiles as long as those samples were pre designated as " routine" samples at the time they were sent from the Lab to the water system. ( Water systems can pre designate samples as " special" if they do not want the results to be used in calculating 90 th percentiles) 90 th percentiles for incomplete rounds of samples consisting of fewer than 10 samples are recorded as the highest individual result if none of the samples exceeds Action Levels. In other cases, 90 th percentiles are calculated on the actual number of results using straight line interpolation.

CO The State's current policy is to use the required number of samples for calculation of 90 th percentile  no more and no less. Prior to State's revision of the drinking water regulations in 2004, the Regulations provided for less than five samples required of non community systems with less than five buildings. In those cases the 90 th percentile was calculated by multiplying the number of samples by 0.9 and, if the result of the calculation was an integer, the contaminant at this number position was the 90 th percentile; if the result of the calculation was not an integer than an interpolation between the sample results above and below the number position was performed in order to derive the 90 th percentile.

MT The LCR does not limit a system to collecting only the required number. Although the LCR sets a minimum sample number at 5, the department has allowed systems with less than 5 sample taps to collect samples based on the number of sample taps. We believe that although this is less stringent than the standard based on the number of samples required, it is more stringent in terms of the 90 th percentile results as it reduces the amount of " dilution" factored into the calculation. ND We use all the results collected, even if outside of the June  September monitoring period. We try to get all systems to collect their samples during those four months, but occasionally a few systems fail to do so and rather than issue a failure to monitor violation, we will accept samples after September 30.

SD We normally don't see any extra samples collected so we base our 90 th percentile off of the required number of samples. If the number of samples collected is less than the required minimum, a Failure to Monitor Violation is issued. The 90 th percentile is only calculated on the samples that were collected for that monitoring period.

UT The State uses the results from all samples collected. If the number of samples is more or less than the required number, the State calculates the actual 90 th percentile for the given data set.

WY Region 8 uses all of the results that are submitted by a water system to calculate 90 th percentile.

The only exception would involve repeat samples. We use the first sample collected as part of the 90 th percentile calculation. If a water system does not collect enough samples, they are asked to collect additional samples. If the monitoring period has already passed, the system would be notified that they failed to collect enough samples and would be asked to repeat monitor during the next monitoring period. Homeowners served by the water system shall be notified that the water system failed to collect enough samples.

AZ All. All.

CA No answer.

HI The State requires all samples drawn ( unless the sample is invalidated) be included in the 90th percentile calculation. If the number of samples is less than the required minimum, the water system is requested to obtain the required number of samples. In Hawaii, the State Laboratory performs the analyses for most of the water systems, which enables the SDWB to track whether the minimum number of samples were provided for analyses. The state does not use samples collected outside of the monitoring period.

NV All samples are used in determining the 90th percentile value. We require additional sampling to get the minimum required number of samples before determining 90th percentile Amer Sam All sample results are used in calculating the 90th percentile as long as representative sampling sites were used. In the absence of the required minimum number of samples, the available samples would be used to calculate the 90th percentile. Due to the distance from certified laboratories ( Hawaii is the closest) and very limited plane service to the Territory, sample collection and analysis cannot be readily accomplished. This situation has not yet occurred.

Navajo If a sample was invalidated, then replacement samples are used to meet the minimum required samples for the public water system. The minimum required samples are then calculated in the 90th percentile. PWSSP notifies the public water system owner/ operator of their noncompliance of the minimum number of required samples. The 90th percentile is calculated of the minimum number of samples only.

AK The 90 th percentile is calculated from all samples submitted unless the set contains too few samples ( less than the required minimum). If adequate samples sets are received, the 90 th percentile is calculated on the actual number of samples; however, the results are entered as " not for compliance."

WA Currently the new DOH data management system calculates 90th percentiles with as little as two of the required number of samples. This calculation uses an average of the highest and second highest result to determine the 90th percentile. This method of calculation using less than the number of required samples is performed to alert staff to " possible" Action Level incidents to facilitate faster coordination between the system and DOH. If a system took more than the minimum number of samples, then all sample results would be used in calculating the 90 th percentiles. For the purpose of reporting these values to EPA, DOH only reports 90 th percentile for sets that have 100% or greater of the required samples. DOH reports sets that are not 100%

as monitoring violations.

ID If the number of samples is not either 5 samples or some multiple of 10 samples, Idaho does not normally interpolate between two results to calculate the 90 percentile level. However, if the action level lies within the range we would use in an interpolation, then we would interpolate.

The avoidance of interpolation when interpolation would not make a difference in meeting the action level is the only time Idaho does not use all sample results in the calculation of the 90 th percentile. OR Use all results when calculating the 90th percentile. They did not calculate the value if there are not the minimum number of samples. Usually they make the system collect the additional samples needed and are then able to calculate the 90th percentile.

If a system re samples at a location to verify a sample with a high lead concentration, does the state use the second sample or both samples in calculating the 90th percentile? CT All tap water lead and copper samples collected during the current monitoring period are required to be considered by the Public Water System and the CTDPH   DWD in making any compliance determinations pursuant to the B102 regulations and 40 CFR 141.86( e). All tap water lead and copper samples submitted to the CTDPH   DWD for compliance purposes are considered in calculating the 90 th percentiles and determining compliance with the lead and copper ALs.

MA DEP uses both samples based on instructions from EPA Region 1.

ME Sample results cannot be challenged based on previous or additional samples. Each first draw sample is considered a valid sample; both sample results would be used.

NH The WSEB uses only the confirmation sample. The database will not allow two samples from the same site and same compliance period to be used.

RI No answer.

VT Yes.

NY Unless one of these sample are invalidated, both would be used in calculating the 90% result.

NJ Both samples.

DE We use the second sample.

MD Unless the first sample is invalidated, the second sample cannot be counted towards compliance.

WV Only use the results of the second sample. PA PA DEP only recognizes replacement samples when the samples are collected in response to an invalidation event ( described above).

VA As noted previously, we would normally use the results of all samples submitted during the monitoring period to determine the 90 th percentile concentration. There may, however, be special or unique circumstances where we would invalidate the original sample result. As an example, suppose we have a waterworks with a long history of lead and copper tap sample results indicating all individual lead samples are less than 0.005 mg/ L. The owner submits a set of sample results and one site indicates an elevated lead concentration. Our Field Office staff would most likely request that the owner collect a resample to verify the elevated lead result. If the resample indicates a lead concentration of less than 0.005 mg/ L, we would most likely consider the original lead result as an anomaly based upon the monitoring history of the waterworks and not include that result in the 90 th percentile determination.

AL Depends on the situation.

FL Only the initial result is used in determining the 90 th percentile.

KY The state would use both the first and the second samples in calculating the 90 th percentile.

MS The state utilizes both samples to calculate the 90th percentile.

NC In this circumstance, assuming that sample invalidation is not involved and the water system is attempting to rule out the possibility of poor sampling procedures, the results of the first and second ( confirmation) samples at the same location code will be averaged and this average value would then be used in the calculation of the 90 th percentile value.

SC If the proper sampling protocol is followed for both samples, the Department uses the sample testing lower.

TN Without invalidation, we would use the average of the samples from the same site.

GA If a system re samples at a location to verify a sample with a high lead concentration, the original sample is utilized in the 90th percentile calculation, unless that sample can be invalidated under 40 CFR 141.86( f)( 1 6). MI If the second sample was collected within the same monitoring period, and the first sample was not declared invalid for good reason by the state, water systems are expected to report both results in the data used to calculate the 90 th percentile. However, it is possible that some staff have told water systems that only the first sample may be used if it is not declared invalid.

IL Both.

IN The state will use the second sample.

MN The second sample result is used for the calculation of the 90th percentile level for lead and copper. ( Questionable results/ samples are first approved to be invalidated before re sampling take place.)

OH Both samples are used in calculating the 90th percentile.

WI The results of both samples are used to calculate the 90 th percentile, unless one is invalidated.

AR At sites that exceed, the first or exceedance sample counts. If another sample is collected, it would be for investigative purposes and would not count.

LA Because the state does not allow re sampling of sites for reason other than invalidation, only one sample will be available for use in calculating the 90 th percentile.

NM Both samples.

OK System draws a complete new set of samples and 90% is calculated on ALL samples.

TX All samples from the same year and sampling period are used unless the sample IA We can't recall if this has occurred in Iowa.

MO The replacement sample is used if it was determined that the original should be invalidated. A replacement sample is not ordered unless there is good reason to suspect site or sampling error.

NE No. We continue to use the results of only the first sample unless there was justification to invalidate that sample.

CO It is the State's policy not to use a " re sample" such as the one described above for calculation towards the 90 th percentile; however the State would require that a public water system report this type of result nonetheless.

MT That determination is based on the reasons for allowing the re sampling and department determinations.

ND We use both samples, the results are averaged to determine the result. SD If we feel it is due to lab/ sampling error ( as mentioned in question # 2) then we use the second sample, otherwise we would use both samples.

UT In the situation cited, the State would require two samples with comparable results to show that the " high lead" sample result was anomalous. The anomalous sample would be declared invalid ( lab error, or sample did not meet selection criteria, i. e.: significantly longer than six hours of non water use) and as such would not count toward determining Lead/ Copper 90 th percentile levels or toward meeting minimum monitoring requirements. The two replacement samples would be averaged, with the result included with all other samples for the compliance period in calculating the 90 th percentile.

WY Usually, the second sample is not used as part of the 90 th percentile calculation AZ No verification only invalidation.

CA We handle such re sampling situations on a case by case basis. For example, we may use the second sample if all previous data showed no exceedance of the action level.

HI The State does not draw a second sample. The home with the high lead sample is called by the water system and if the sample is drawn from an incorrect location ( e. g., backyard tap), the sample is invalidated and a sample is drawn from the correct tap ( bathroom or kitchen cold water). If the correct tap was used, the homeowner is informed of the high levels and the tap results are used in the 90th percentile calculation.

NV The only reason we consider a second sample is if we have invalidated the first sample, in which case the replacement ( second) sample is used in the calculation.

Amer Sam ASEPA uses both samples in calculating the 90th percentile.

Navajo The second sample is used. PWSSP verifies the resample through the invalidation process described in § 710 ( F) of the NNPDWR.

AK The state replaces the high lead sample result with the new sample result and recalculates the 90 th percentile ( i. e. we use the second sample).

WA If both samples are valid, DOH uses both samples to calculate the 90 th percentile. If the original sample is invalid ( with described justification) then the second or replacement is used. ID Idaho prefers to average samples collected at a single location then use the average as a single result in the calculation of the 90 th percentile. This is to avoid bias introduced by collection of multiple samples from a site that tests either higher than other sites or lower than other sites.

Recent EPA guidance addressing requirements for water systems that do not have the minimum 5 sites that the rule requires be sampled has introduced confusion about the consistency of our historic method of calculation. EPA guidance suggests that systems without enough sample sites must sample multiple times from enough sites to complete a total of at least 5 samples. The justification given was that there can be variation between one sample and the next at a given sample tap. Idaho unsuccessfully argued that the guidance disagreed with reasons given in the preamble to the rule ( 56FR26523) for the collection of multiple samples.

ID ( cont.) The preamble states that multiple samples are justified because of variability between different sample taps and implies that multiple samples are collected as a statistical sampling to account for variability between households ( sample taps). The fact is that small businesses with only two or three taps can indeed feasibly sample from all sample taps to account for variability between different taps. Variability for samples coming from the same tap is accounted for in the regulation by requiring periodic repeat monitoring. Idaho continues to argue that requiring multiple samples from the same tap to complete the requisite number of samples for a particular sampling period serves no practical purpose, is in disagreement with the preamble to the rule, and presents states with the need to decide whether to calculate 90 th percentile levels in an inconsistent manner or to be consistent, follow the guidance and allow the introduction of bias into the results by water systems that intentionally collect multiple samples from a tap that measures low in lead levels.

OR Or does not allow replacement of a sample unless the original one is invalidated. The state will invalidate the original sample and then use a 2nd sample. OR does not allow systems to take multiple samples from the same site. If this does occur, both samples are used to calculate the 90th percentile value. nt. has been invalidated. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 125 Questions on State Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule July, 2004 Treatment Issues State Full Response Have all systems met the required deadlines to install optimal corrosion control treatment [ 40 CFR 141.81( d)( 4);

40 CFR 141( e)( 5)]? If not,

describe how the state is working to address systems that have not met the requirements. CT All ten large Public Water Systems in CT have installed corrosion control treatment into their water treatment process. Currently, there are 1,262 small or medium sized PWS, of which, 264 have installed corrosion control treatment. All small or medium sized PWS that exceed the lead and/ or copper ALs are issued a LCR Exceedance letter and required to perform all applicable actions, as previously stated, which includes proceeding with the Corrosion Control Treatment Steps and eventually installing corrosion control treatment. However, if the PWS is deemed optimized at any point in proceeding through the Corrosion Control Treatment Steps, the PWS may cease proceeding through the Corrosion Control Treatment Steps and continue with tap water monitoring for lead and copper. It should be noted that if the PWS deemed optimized in the previous sentence exceeds the lead and/ or copper ALs from that point forward, the PWS shall proceed with the Corrosion Control Treatment Steps from the point in which the PWS was at when deemed optimized. All PWS that fail to comply with the Corrosion Control Treatment Steps and are not otherwise deemed optimized face informal and/ or formal enforcement actions.

MA Not all systems in MA have met the deadlines to install optimal corrosion control. When a system failed to meet the deadline, in the majority of cases, DEP issued an Administrative Order with an enforceable schedule that described the actions the system had to take and the time period for completing the actions. DEP also offered technical assistance. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 126 ME No. The State has taken enforcement action against several water systems that failed to install treatment or failed to optimize the corrosion control treatment by the due dates. The State entered into Consent Agreements with the water systems until they demonstrated the corrosion control treatment is optimized.

NH Most systems have met their treatment deadlines but a few have not. The systems that have not met their deadlines have been issued violations and public notice has been required.

Unfortunately for a few systems ( approximately 8 to 14 systems out of 1140 systems in the lead and copper program) proper corrosion control treatment that completely controls their lead and copper issues may be difficult to achieve because of system configuration and treatment concerns as the result of water quality issues with regards to other required treatment techniques. Another number of systems ( approximately 20+) need treatment or an upgrade of existing treatment in order to stay below lead and copper action levels or to remains under those levels. However these systems don't have the funds necessary to install or properly maintain existing treatment facilities. The WSEB has worked individually with these systems in order to help them solve their treatment, management and financial concerns but it has been a time consuming process. In addition the WSEB's Capacity Program is now assisting these systems.

RI Yes.

VT No. The Division issues a Temporary Permit to Operate ( TOP) with milestones. If a water system violates the TOP then the WSD issues an NOAV to the system. Those systems which do not comply are referred to the Agency of Natural Resources Enforcement Division.

NY There are a small number of systems statewide that are not in compliance with optimal corrosion control requirements, some of which have vacillated above and below lead and copper action levels. Systems not meeting optimal corrosion control requirements are cited with the appropriate type 58 violation. Forty six violations at forty three systems have been issued since 1996. Of these systems, nineteen are currently inactive. The State is evaluating the status of each of these systems and has directed local health offices to verify and update sampling and compliance data. Follow up is being provided to bring systems into compliance and to ensure that required actions, such as public education, continue to be met.

NJ Yes. N/ A.

DE Yes. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 127 MD No, all water systems have not met the required deadline to install optimal corrosion control treatment. Violations are reported to SDWIS. Systems are referred for technical assistance to the Engineering and Technical Assistance Division, and to the Maryland Rural Water Association circuit rider for on site assistance.

VA The vast majority of waterworks required to install optimum corrosion control treatment have installed treatment within the established deadline. For the few waterworks failing to meet the treatment requirements, our Field Office staff works with the individual waterworks owners to ensure that the required treatment is installed. This work includes routine inspections and sanitary surveys, developing an optimum corrosion control desktop evaluation for the specific waterworks, and, where necessary, initiation of appropriate enforcement actions.

WV No. Work with the system to try and get them to comply informally. If the system does not make adequate progress, then an Administrative Order is issued to the system, establishing deadlines with appropriate penalties for not complying.

PA According to PADWIS, thirty three ( 33) systems have type 58 violations for failure to install OCCT. Of those systems, ten ( 10) have submitted a permit application to install treatment and nine ( 9) have received approval to construct treatment. These systems are being addressed through appropriate enforcement actions.

AL Yes.

FL The vast majority has met the required deadline. A couple systems with unique service areas are allowed additional time to install optimal corrosion control. These cases reflect non traditional corrosion control optimization techniques, such as " Small System Technology", otherwise known as point of use and point of entry filtration, and complete plumbing system replacement programs. There have also been a couple systems that had been deemed optimized that later exceeded either the lead or copper action levels. Those systems were directed to implement the procedures of 40 CFR 141.81( d) or ( e).

KY Yes. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 128 MS 27 systems were initially required to install corrosion control. The ongoing review of the lead and copper program has identified several systems that did not install treatment as required.

These systems were recently acquired by a privately owned operating company. The state is working with this new owner to address these issues.

NC One large system, the Onslow County Water System, is still in the process of completing the installation of corrosion control treatment. The recommendation of corrosion control treatment ( CCT) for this system consisted of adding orthophosphate at dosed levels and was approved in March, 2004. As of approximately one month ago, the system was in the bidding stage of contract award for the installation of corrosion control treatment. Of the medium and small systems that we are aware of that have not met the deadlines, our plan is to monitor this situation more closely in the future by crosschecking the in house CCT database with the sampling results database to determine if some systems have gone beyond the time limitations and to use our tracking program to cite violations as needed.

SC Yes.

TN Yes.

GA No. Systems that continue to exceed lead and/ or copper, continue to receive Pb/ Cu sample kits every six months. Services are offered through a contract with GRWA for continued WQP monitoring at the systems request. Treatment techniques are discussed with the system by the DWP.

MI All small and medium sized systems that exceeded either the lead or copper action level after consecutive rounds of monitoring were required to complete a corrosion control study and install treatment in accordance with the study recommendations. All large systems not designated as already practicing optimal corrosion control were also required to conduct a corrosion control study and install the recommended treatment. To our knowledge at this time,

all systems ( except one) in Michigan have installed treatment by the required deadlines. The one exception is a small apartment complex that failed to complete the study and install treatment by the required deadlines. The state has again asked the system owner to complete a corrosion control study and submit a treatment plan within 90 days. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 129 IL No. Water systems are initially notified when an OCCT recommendation is required and the type of documentation/ information that must be submitted as part of their OCCT recommendation. If the system is overdue in submitting the OCCT recommendation, a second notice is sent. If the water system still does not submit the OCCT recommendation, a violation notice is issued. As of January 2004, all OCCT recommendation tracking is maintained in SDWIS/ State and monthly reports are generated to identify overdue OCCT recommendations that require follow up action.

IN Systems who demonstrate that they can meet the action levels by submitting two consecutive 6

month rounds of sampling before the time specified by the rule are not required to install treatment. Systems who have not met these requirements and are not actively working with the state to address the exceedance are referred to enforcement.

MN Except for one facility which the MDH had issued a NOV for failure to install OCCT by the deadline, all systems with lead exceedance met the deadlines. Among the ones with copper exceedance, the majority of them installed OCCT before the LCR deadlines with the exceptions for some systems  serving pop. < 1,000 and with 90th percentile Cu < 2.0 mg/ L in which the MDH allowed them to used a public education program for the reduction of copper in drinking water as an alternative to chemical treatment.

OH Not all systems have met the required deadlines to install optimal control treatment. Public water systems that do not meet the deadline are issued a " failure to install" violation letter.

WI The City of Madison, which is a large system, has not installed corrosion treatment, but has worked with the Department and USEPA Region 5 on an alternate solution to optimize corrosion control.

AR No. Technical assistance and violations. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 130 LA No, all systems have not met the required deadlines to install optimal corrosion control. The state is using the results of tap samples to determine those systems that need to further optimize their corrosion control techniques. Upon exceedance of an action level, the state requires the system to conduct corrosion control studies and to make a treatment recommendation to the state. Once the treatment is approved and implemented, the state re initiates first draw sample collections from homeowners' taps. Upon meeting the action levels for two consecutive 6

month periods, the systems are determined to have optimal corrosion control treatment.

NM At this time the state has not had a system that has had to install optimal corrosion control treatment.

OK Yes. ( would use NOV or Consent Order)

TX All have complied, if a system did not it would been sent TCEQ's enforcement division.

IA Over 300 systems have failed either lead or copper over the past 12 years. Many of these collected the two follow up rounds of samples and did not do a report or install treatment.

KS Not all systems have met the required deadline to install optimal corrosion control treatment.

Systems failing to install optimal corrosion control treatment by the required deadline receive a treatment technique violation and are required to perform public notification. Systems still failing to install corrosion control treatment receive a violation reminder notice, and the district staff are notified to contact the system. System still failing to install treatment are issued a directive which is followed up with and administrative order if treatment is not installed.

MO All systems have met the required deadlines.

NE No. Several were late in installing OCCT. The State took enforcement action against those systems in the form of administrative penalties ( fines). Monitoring and enforcements by the State continue until systems are back in compliance. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 131 CO Regarding the systems addressed in 40 CFR 141.81( d)( 4); 40 CFR 141( e)( 5) all systems in the State of Colorado have completed installation of optimal corrosion control treatment. There are new systems or recently reclassified systems which are currently in the initial sampling phase in order to determine if an optimal corrosion control treatment plan is in place. In addition, there are some system which are in follow up studies following an exceedance and a desk top study in order to determine if an optimal corrosion control treatment plan has been achieved.

MT No. The process to require compliance with all LCR requirements is on going, including enforcement actions.

ND No, we have nine ( 9) systems that still have a copper action level exceedance. We are working with these nine systems to adjust their treatment and to continue to conduct follow up lead/ copper monitoring. We have no systems in North Dakota that have a lead action level exceedance.

SD Yes, we currently only have one system that is trying to optimize their corrosion control treatment, but they have not passed their deadline.

UT Water systems valid action level exceedences have installed optimal corrosion control treatment.

The water systems with existing corrosion treatment are sampling to verify that adequate treatment is occurring. For water systems that have never sampled, enforcement actions are being taken to see if corrosion control treatment is needed.

WY No. Wyoming has a few systems that have exceeded the lead and/ or copper action levels. An optimal corrosion control treatment plan was approved by Region 8 for some of these systems but the systems have failed to notify Region 8 as to whether or not corrosion control has been installed. We are in the process contacting these systems to learn the current status of their corrosion control treatment. Other systems were requested to submit an optimal corrosion control treatment plan and have not done so. We are also contacting these systems. Systems that refuse to work with Region 8 are referred to enforcement.

AZ Yes.

CA No, many small water systems are still evaluating various corrosion control techniques. These systems are given citations with timelines for compliance.

HI All systems have met the deadlines to install treatment. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 132 NV Yes, except one ( Jarbidge). Jarbidge is very near start up of a new treatment plant ( required under surface water treatment requirements) which includes the capability to implement corrosion control processes.

Amer Sam No. One small satellite system exceeded the action level and we are now into the corrosion control evaluation and implementation phase outlined in 40 CFR 141.81 ( a)( 2).

Navajo No, not all systems met the deadline. PWSSP writes letters of noncompliance and meets with the public water system owner/ operator. PWSSP elevates the letters to Notices of Violations ( NOVs), Compliance Agreements and Administrative Orders to Comply as necessary.

AK No, some systems that have failed to meet their deadline have been issued NOVs;

Administrative Penalties is the next step if they fail to comply.

WA No. The lead and copper rule allow approximately 48 months for water systems to complete the entire corrosion control process. DOH monitors progress with corrosion control milestones on a quarterly basis and works with systems when a major milestone is missed.

ID Idaho has started or completed enforcement actions against all water systems that we have determined to be late with the installation of optimal corrosion treatment for lead. Presently we have 6 fully executed enforcement actions for lead corrosion optimization and 2 more actions being routed for signatures.

OR While the majority of systems have installed the required corrosion control, the state is still working with a few systems who have not found a successful method of corrosion control.

How do systems notify the state of treatment changes? Does the state require that systems provide information about potential effects of treatment changes on corrosion control? DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 133 CT Public Water Systems notify the CTDPH   DWD of treatment changes in writing. All Public Water Systems, pursuant to the B102 regulations, are required to notify and gain the approval of the CTDPH   DWD prior to any construction of sanitary significance, this would include any changes in water treatment. The B102 regulations also incorporate similar rhetoric as the 40 CFR 141.81( b)( 3)( iii) requiring that any Public Water System deemed to have optimized corrosion control shall obtain the approval of the CTDPH   DWD in writing prior to any change in treatment or the addition of a new source. In regards to the Public Water Systems being required to provide information about the potential effects of such treatment changes on corrosion control, the Public Water Systems are not required to provide such information,

however, the information is gained by the CTDPH   DWD through technical assistance or research.

MA Systems are required to seek approval for all changes. DEP requires information about potential effects of treatment changes on corrosion control.

ME Water system must inform the state prior to making any treatment changes. The State requires the water system to collect water quality parameters prior to a treatment change and again after the treatment is installed to determine if the system is maintaining their optimum corrosion control treatment.

NH Systems are required to inform the WSEB of treatment changes in writing.

RI Systems are required to submit plans stamped by a registered engineer for any treatment installation / change in treatment. Yes.

VT The system may or may not notify the State of treatment changes. Notification occurs in writing, via phone calls, or is documented during sanitary surveys. Per the VT Water Supply Rule, water systems are required to apply for a construction permit for any improvements which affect water quality and quantity of water service rendered. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 134 NY Purveyors are required by regulation to obtain approval for modifications to a public water supply before the modifications are implemented, including any change in treatment. If the proposed treatment changes could affect water chemistry, state and local health offices request information on potential effects of the changes on corrosion control, and after implementation of the changes require re testing for lead and copper. Changes to coagulation or water softening are probably the most common treatment changes that require new evaluations for lead and copper.

NJ By State regulation, N. J. A. C. 7: 10 2.4, a supplier of water shall notify in writing the Bureau of Safe Drinking Water at least 5 working days before undertaking any planned change. Yes,

implicitly. State Regulation, N. J. A. C. 7: 10 11.5( a) requires " No person shall construct or modify a public community water system prior to obtaining a permit from the department" and in ~ ( b) " the permit application shall include an engineer's report" which in ~( 5) include " a description of proposed treatment processes, including data demonstrating that the processes will produce treated water that meets the requirement of the State primary and secondary drinking water regulations".

DE Systems are required to submit plans before making any changes to their treatment processes.

Yes, the idea of installing treatment is to reduce corrosion.

MD The water systems are asked to notify the State in writing when treatment has been installed. In some cases, field staff identify the treatment change during a sanitary survey. If a major treatment change is expected to impact corrosion control, a water system may be asked to perform lead and copper monitoring before the next scheduled sample period.

VA The Commonwealth of Virginia Waterworks Regulations require that the State Health Commissioner issue a Waterworks Construction Permit for any water treatment unit processes to be installed or modified. Before a Construction Permit can be issued, plans and specifications must be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the respective Office of Drinking Water Field Office for review. During our review of the proposed treatment, any potential impact on corrosion control is evaluated. If deemed necessary, we will require that additional lead and copper tap samples be collected by the waterworks owner after any treatment modifications to demonstrate that optimum corrosion control treatment is maintained. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 135 WV Any significant change to treatment must be submitted through the construction permit process.

Information about potential corrosion control effects may be required to be addressed in the permit process.

PA Water suppliers are required to obtain a permit prior to installing/ modifying any treatment scheme. Through the permitting process, systems are required to address any simultaneous compliance issues that may result from a treatment change.

AL In writing. No, but they are required to inform us in writing of any treatment changes.

FL Systems are required by rule to notify the state in the event they change any treatment technique. In the past, the treatment changes were primarily corrosion control treatment changes, i. e., changing from one orthophosphate to another. However, recently we are seeing an increasing number of systems switching from gas chlorine to hypochlorite and from traditional chlorination to chloramines. As a general rule, we require systems to increase lead and copper monitoring until we are sure there have been no changes in the corrosivity of the water.

KY Water systems are required to request treatment changes through the Drinking Water Branch's Plans Review Section. The proposed changes are evaluated to determine if there would be any impact on the system's corrosion control program and whether the system will need to return to initial monitoring after the treatment change is in place.

MS Treatment changes are identified during the annual sanitary survey or communicated by the system to regional MSDH staff. If regional staff determine that treatment process changes may affect corrosion control, systems are alerted so that adjustments can be made. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 136 NC As specified in 40 CFR 141.90( a)( 3), certain water systems are required to notify the state in writing no later than 60 days after any treatment changes or the addition of a new water source.

These systems are encouraged to notify the state prior to making any changes and to consider the effect the changes may have on corrosion control and to minimize the risk of undesirable effects. Water systems are required to consider the interactions between treatment processes and corrosion control when completing their corrosion control studies. Often, this task is handled by consulting engineers completing the study. Generally, the submittal of engineering reports, plans and specifications is required for approval prior to making any changes that affect the functioning of treatment processes. Based on input from our regional offices, some small water systems do not follow the notification requirements addressed in this question and,

subsequently, exceed the action levels after making these " adjustments."

NC ( cont) Other small water systems subject to triennial monitoring make treatment changes without notification and without sampling to determine the effects of the changes. These circumstances are often discovered during inspection visits and sanitary surveys. The large and medium water systems tend to be more conscientious about discussing treatment changes and the possible effect on corrosion control with the regional offices prior to implementation of the changes.

SC A system that is using treatment as a means of complying with the LCR must submit a request to change that treatment along with their reasoning for that change. The Department will then determine whether or not to approve the change and if approved, will provide the system with a timeframe for making the change. The Department generally will not request the system to provide any potential health affects as a result of the change.

TN TN requires systems to obtain state approval before changing any processes affecting the quality or quantity of water produced. T. C. A. 68 221 706 requires the Department to review and approve any change planned for a public water system that may affect the quality or quantity of water produced. State regulation 1200 5 1. 05 also addresses the issue. Changes may result in systems being directed to resume standard or accelerated monitoring.

GA Requests for treatment changes are made to the State in writing. Yes DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 137 MI Systems are to notify MDEQ staff either in writing or verbally to request permission to change treatment processes or alter chemicals applied to the water system. When a treatment change request is submitted, MDEQ staff review the request to make certain that the change will work for its intended purpose, and also for its effect on the corrosivity of the water. If the change involves significant modifications to facilities or equipment, a construction permit will be issued.

If the changes are primarily in the chemical compound being applied, approval may be given in writing or verbally. It is possible staff may not find out about minor treatment changes until after they are already in place. In this situation, a review of the changes is still conducted by staff.

IL Regional Offices are notified of treatment changes through notification by the water system or through inspections. The Regional Offices notifies the Central Office where updates are made to SDWIS/ State. In addition, systems are required to obtain a construction and operating permit from the state whenever a treatment change is made. The supplier shall evaluate the effect of the chemicals used for corrosion control treatment on other water quality treatment processes in the Desktop Evaluation.

IN Systems are require to notify the state by letter of any treatment changes if it could potentially effect the corrosion control treatment already in place to treat their lead/ copper problem.

MN The large and medium sized systems, in general, do consult with the MDH when considering making treatment changes and/ or switching from a corrosion inhibitor blend to another,

particularly when there is a change in the make up of the ortho/ poly ratio. Otherwise, treatment changes are identified via plan review approval process or via sanitary survey. The MDH does require systems proposing making treatment changes to address the potential effects on Pb/ Cu corrosion control.

OH Public water systems must submit detail plans for approval prior to making treatment changes.

There is no formal requirement that systems provide information about potential effects of treatment changes on corrosion control. The system may include potential effects with their detail plans if they are known to the system.

WI The chemical feed change requires written notification as part of the plan review process.

Systems must provide information on the chemical currently used, the proposed chemical, and justification for the change. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 138 AR In general they do not. Regional staff inform Tech Staff of changes directly or through searchable databases updates. Systems are required to notify the State of changes, but there is no tracking mechanism to ensure that they do.

LA The systems are required to submit a request for treatment changes to the state's regional engineering offices for review. Upon review of such a request, the regional engineering office may request information about potential effects of treatment changes on corrosion control if any significant effects are expected or suspected.

NM No answer.

OK In writing. Yes.

TX Notification of all treatment changes is required in writing by Rule and, if applicable, corrosion control effects must be included.

IA The question is not clear. Once we have designated a specific corrosion control technique and treatment has been installed, any request to change or modify that process must be submitted in writing for approval. For other treatment plant changes, we typically do not require an assessment on its impact on corrosion control.

KS Systems are required to notify the state in writing of any treatment changes and potential effects on corrosion control.

MO No procedure established for changes in treatment process, and changes within a treatment process are not monitored. All water treatment plants run a saturation test that would show corrosion regardless of treatment process. We would learn of treatment process changes through discussion with the public water system, submission of plans and specs to install a treatment process change, and regular inspections and contact by our regional office staff.

NE Systems are required to notify the State when changes in treatment include any installation of new equipment ( feeders, pumps, tanks, etc.) and when any change in treatment will affect monitoring and reporting requirements. So far, Nebraska has not required specific information from systems on the potential effects of treatment changes on corrosion control.

CO The Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations require public water systems to notify the State in writing of any treatment changes that occur or new sources that come on line that would potential effect the systems optimal corrosion control treatment plan. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 139 MT A PWS may not modify, alter, or extend its system without prior department plan review and approval. That is addressed by the reviewing engineer.

ND Systems are required to notify us of any changes in their treatment process through plan and specification review. No information is required about the potential effects treatments changes may cause.

SD All systems get a sanitary survey every three years and we can catch changes at a minimum at least that often. Most systems call us when they are making a change to their system. If they change water sources or if they hookup to rural water we usually catch those right away and get them back on routine monitoring.

UT The State identifies construction and treatment modifications including corrosion control treatment and treatment chemical changes as " public drinking water project" see Utah Rule R309 500 5( 1). The State's require that notification for all projects be made by the public water system on a form provided by the State. Further, the State rules require plan approval before commencement of construction or treatment chemical change. For non corrosion control types of treatment that might affect corrosivity, the State is currently looking at rule changes to ensure that the proposed treatment will not increase the corrosive nature of the water. In the interim, before rule changes are finalized, staff will encourage the design community to properly evaluate the effects of the proposed treatment on water corrosivity.

WY By letter, by telephone or through sanitary surveys. No AZ Approval from State required. It is evaluated in the approval process.

CA System are required to obtain an amended operating permit before any treatment changes can be made. The proposed changes would be contained in their application to amend their permit.

Yes, the potential effects are evaluated as part of the issuance of the amended permit.

HI Water systems are required to notify the State of treatment changes in writing. The water system is not required to notify the State if a change in disinfection is implemented. No. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 140 NV Changes involving process equipment or facilities changes require submittal of plans and specifications; changes involving chemicals used in treatment also require submittal of specifications of the chemicals to be used. These requirements are in the Nevada Administrative Code ( NAC) in the sections dealing with Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Public Water Systems. When changes in process equipment, facilities, or chemicals are proposed and submitted for required approval, our review can require that information about potential effects on corrosivity and corrosion control be addressed. Systems are required to operate a system for the control of corrosion that minimizes the concentration of lead and copper at the consumers' taps where warranted ( NAC 445A. 66675), and this requirement can be re evaluated in light of any other changes in treatment.

Amer Sam ASEPA works closely with ASPA, the utility, on all matters related to drinking water treatment.

Treatment changes, should they occur, would be implemented in consultation with ASEPA.

Navajo § 706( H) of the NNPDWR describes the requirement that the system notify the Director of treatment changes. The systems are required to notified the Director and undocumented changes are " found" during regular sanitary survey inspections. The PWSSP does not require the system to provide information about potential effects of treatment changes on corrosion control. This is not required but if a PWSSP staff is working with the system and the potential effects along with other potential effects of other NNPDWR are evident, the information about the treatment change is requested.

AK Yes, the systems are required to submit all design modifications to the DW Program for review and approval.

WA DOH most frequently learns of treatment changes when a water system submits an engineering project for treatment change for corrosion control or other treatment processes. DOH may also learn of the change through conversation between DOH staff and the utility, or through the sanitary survey process. As stated in the CFR, the utility has the obligation to inform the state.

ID Changes that involve physical facility changes are required to undergo engineering review by the state. Idaho does not have rules requiring the reporting of operations changes so long as the changes do not require any plant hardware changes. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 141 OR Yes, the systems notify the state through letters, phone calls, email, etc. They usually notify before they make a change in treatment but sometimes the states learns of these changes after they are made. Systems often ask the state for advice on what the potential effects of treatment changes may be on corrosion control.

Has the state ever adjusted corrosion control treatment decisions because of concerns with simultaneous compliance with other national primary drinking water regulations, or because of changes in lead levels? CT The CTDPH   DWD has not officially adjusted any corrosion control treatment decisions besides alterations to the designated water quality parameters for optimized corrosion control per the language within the B102 regulations and 40 CFR 141.82( h). The CTDPH   DWD has made unofficial " minor" alterations to corrosion control treatment decisions while providing technical assistance on overall compliance concerns. The Public Water Systems are, in large part, responsible for maintaining compliance with the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and the State of Connection regulations that follow with the CTDPH   DWD providing detailed technical assistance to all Public Water Systems ensuring that compliance is maintained and pursuing appropriate enforcement actions when compliance is not achieved.

MA Yes.

ME Yes.

NH Yes.

RI Yes. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 142 VT WSD is concerned with the impact treatment has on compliance with other national primary drinking water regulations, particularly DBP Rule. The WSD does revisit corrosion control treatment when the action level is exceeded in all cases. If a system fails again they are required to revisit their treatment and re sample for the water quality parameters.

NY State and local health offices occasionally receive requests, or make requirements, for systems to adjust or change corrosion control treatment based on lead and or copper results. It is more common that treatment modifications made to meet surface water treatment rules lead to changes in corrosion control requirements. Systems that need to change treatment to meet disinfection byproduct standards and systems constructing new filtration plants are prime examples. Several systems in Westchester County that are under consent order for improvements required under surface water treatment rules have been permitted to delay some lead and copper rule requirements in anticipation of planned changes to water treatment. These systems rely on New York City's Croton water supply and are awaiting completion of filtration treatment by New York City. These systems have not yet met optimal corrosion control requirements, but are implementing the public education requirements of the rule. These systems will be required to address all lead and copper requirements upon implementation of required improvements.

NJ Yes.

DE Not to my knowledge.

MD Corrosion control treatment decisions have been modified based on other related compliance decisions such as NPDES permits ( phosphate addition); consecutive water system coordination of treatment.

VA There have been several occasions where we have made modifications to corrosion control treatment decisions to reduce lead levels at waterworks. These modifications have usually been to change the method of corrosion control treatment at specific waterworks. We are not aware of situations that required a need to modify corrosion control treatment decisions due to concerns of compliance with other primary drinking water regulations.

WV No.

PA Yes. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 143 AL No, the state has not adjusted corrosion control treatment but has required systems to adjust existing corrosion control based on lead or copper action level exceedances.

FL Generally the state does not change corrosion control treatment decisions made by water systems. If the decision the system makes turns out not to work, the state requires further study and the selection of a different CCT method.

KY No.

MS Only one system ( surface water) has had to make changes to corrosion control treatment in order to maintain compliance with the Stage 1 DBP Rule. This change in treatment has not affected lead/ copper levels NC Adjustments to corrosion control treatments because of concerns with simultaneous compliance with other national primary drinking water regulations were initiated by the water systems and were not directed by the state. Based on input from our regional offices, once compliance standards are achieved, the water systems generally do not make treatment changes. During initial implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule, systems reviewed the various chemical products and their effects on treatment processes. Chemical products and/ or vendors, as well as, dosage rates were changed by the systems to achieve compliance with action levels. Some systems also stopped using zinc orthophosphate compounds because of concerns with toxicity at their wastewater treatment facilities.

SC No. However, in the case where a system has implemented an OCCT recommendation and continues to exceed either action level, the Department will require the system to provide the Department with a new OCCT recommendation. If the system fails to, or cannot provide an approvable OCCT, then the Department will designate an appropriate OCCT recommendation.

TN No specific examples come to mind, but it is an issue that is given consideration. Systems that cannot meet the action level are reviewed and changes are made to achieve compliance with the action level. If this means adjusting or modifying the corrosion control treatment, it is changed.

GA Yes.

MI The answer to the first part is no. The answer to the second part is yes  there have been a few cases where the state has advised the water supplier to adjust or modify the chemical feed system based on lead and/ or copper levels getting near, but not exceeding the action levels. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 144 IL The Agency has modified a previous corrosion control treatment decision when it has been determined that such change is necessary to insure that the supplier continues to optimize corrosion control treatment, such as a change in pH or the addition of a treatment process.

However to date, a corrosion control treatment decision has never been modified due to concerns with simultaneous compliance with other national primary drinking water regulations.

IN The PWS is required to submit a revised OCCTR each time they continue to exceed the action level during a monitoring period.

MN In few incidents, after the MDH had specified the OWQP and systems were operating within the specified OWQP limits yet exceeded the lead A. L. and/ or experienced increases in copper levels, the MDH did adjust the OWQP specifications, such as requiring systems to increase the feed rate or to maintain a higher orthophosphate residual level in their water distribution systems.

OH No, the state does not adjust corrosion control treatment decisions because of concern with simultaneous compliance with other national primary drinking water regulations. Systems typically propose treatment recommendations and the state evaluates them based in part on the system's submittal of US EPA Form 141 C " Desktop Evaluation Short Form for Small and Medium PWS Treatment Recommendations".

WI No.

AR Corrosion control treatment strategies are reviewed in context with other competing rules.

LA As stated previously, the state's regional engineering offices review all requests for treatment changes, including corrosion control treatment. To our knowledge, no regional office has ever adjusted corrosion control treatment decisions because of concerns for compliance with other national primary drinking water regulations. However, a few systems are currently undergoing a re evaluation process to determine if their corrosion control treatment is sufficient to maintain low levels of lead.

NM No answer.

OK No.

TX Yes, the TCEQ has adjusted corrosion control treatment for PWSs, but not because of pH level changes. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 145 IA We have not had any system request a change due specifically to concerns about simultaneous compliance with other NPDWR. We have had systems where the state has changed or adjusted corrosion control treatment decisions, but these have primarily been due because the original treatment option was not working. The system wished to try another option to see if that option might be more effective.

KS The state has not adjusted corrosion control treatment decisions because of concerns with other national primary drinking water regulations of because of changes in lead levels.

MO No.

NE No.

CO The State does not initiate adjustments to a public water system's corrosion control treatment plan. However, if a public water system has exceeded a lead or copper action level and is undergoing a corrosion control study the State provides direct technical assistance to help the system to make adjustments in order to obtain an optimal corrosion control treatment plan. In addition, if a system is requesting or applying for a plan review because of a treatment change or added source the State might also direct decisions concerning adjustment of corrosion control.

MT Not to my knowledge.

ND Yes, we always encourage systems to evaluate their corrosion control treatment if an action level is exceeded on an ongoing basis, or if they previously met the action levels and subsequently have an exceedance. Water Quality Parameters can not be exceeded, as these results only provide information on the water chemistry for the system so they can provide an effective treatment for their corrosion problem, specific to their water chemistry.

SD No.

UT The State does adjusted corrosion control treatment decisions because of changes in lead levels.

In the case of a system that completed lead service line replacement, corrosion control treatment was eliminated when the lead levels dropped below the action level. If the action level is exceeded the State begins a process of evaluation, advise and counsel to ensure optimal corrosion control.

WY No. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 146 AZ Situation has not occurred yet. This is something EPA should be considering when promulgating rules.

CA No.

HI Yes. Corrosion control treatment was revised because the phosphate chemical did not reduce lead levels below the lead action level, or because of community concerns that the phosphate addition caused health problems.

NV No.

Amer Sam No.

Navajo No, but PWSSP may be interested in the affects relating to compliance of other NNPDW Regulations.

AK Answer unknown, not automatically tracked. Under these circumstances, the state would ask for a change in design modifications.

WA Yes when higher health risk issues are present ( i. e., surface water treatment, disinfection,

ground water under the influence of surface water, etc.), DOH has adjusted schedules so utilities can meet other rule requirements. Additionally, the LCMR allows small and medium systems to conduct special monitoring after an exceedance to verify results. If two rounds of six month sampling are below the action level, the system is considered to have optimized for corrosion control through monitoring. Lastly a system can investigate switching, replacing, or blending sources; or have a water line extension to another system in lieu of corrosion control.

Has the state ever required a system to conduct more frequent monitoring to evaluate the potential effects of treatment changes?

ID No.

OR No. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 147 Has the state ever required a system to conduct more frequent monitoring to evaluate the potential effects of treatment changes? CT Increases in tap water monitoring or the return to initial/ standard monitoring is a common action taken by the CTDPH   DWD to evaluate the effects of treatment changes and other changes of significance relative to lead and copper.

MA Yes.

ME No, but we have recommended increased monitoring several times after treatment changes have been implemented NH No, the WSEB has not required a system to conduct more frequent monitoring but the WSEB has requested that systems conduct noncompliance sampling in order to determine the effectiveness of existing, new and changes to treatment.

RI Yes.

VT Only when treatment has failed. Water systems will make changes to treatment and in these cases conduct increase monitoring.

NY Yes. For treatment modifications designed or expected to impart changes to water quality, post modification monitoring for lead and copper is required even if not scheduled under the system's monitoring schedule. A typical example: as a condition of approval to add polyphosphate to sequester, a system is required to redo the initial lead and copper monitoring required by rule.

NJ No.

DE We have recommended that system conduct monitoring but I don't believe we have mandated it.

MD Yes.

VA See our response to question C2. If deemed necessary, we will require that additional lead and copper tap samples be collected by the waterworks owner to demonstrate that optimum corrosion control treatment is maintained. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 148 WV No. We do have a policy in place where the system must conduct two six month monitoring periods when a change in source ( specifically was a producing system and changed to a purchase system, or vice versa). If both periods are below the action level, then can go directly to triennial sampling at reduced number of sites.

PA Yes.

AL Yes.

FL There have been occasions where the state has required additional monitoring. For instance,

systems changing from chlorine to chloramines are asked to increase monitoring until we are sure the chloramines are not adversely affection the Lead and Copper Rule. Also, we have had occasions where the treatment process is changed or additional treatment is added. For example, we had a plant whose treatment process was lime softening. The plant added a reverse osmosis facility and blends the water from the two treatment processes. When these kinds of changes occur, the state requires increased monitoring.

KY Yes. In certain instances, the state has made water systems that have initiated a significant change in treatment to go back to the initial lead and copper monitoring ( sampling for 2 consecutive 6 months periods) at full sample set collection.

MS No.

NC Yes, the rule manager has required systems to conduct more frequent monitoring to evaluate the potential effects of treatment changes. These circumstances have been addressed on a case

bycase basis SC No.

TN Yes. This also includes a change of source water( s).

GA Yes.

MI Yes, there have been cases after a treatment change was made that MDEQ required additional/ more frequent monitoring to assure that the change did not impact lead/ copper levels in the finished water. Chelsea, Hudson, Coldwater and Battle Creek are examples of water systems where additional monitoring was imposed after treatment changes.

IL If it is felt warranted. To date, one large system was required to conduct a study that involved additional lead/ copper sampling. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 149 IN Systems implementing corrosion control or making significant changes to their already existing corrosion control are required to conduct initial sampling ( 6 month rounds) to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment.

MN In most cases, the MDH worked with systems to establish testing protocols to evaluate the treatment effectiveness. Typically involve collecting additional first draw Pb/ Cu and WQPs samples at 4  6 demo sites, on a monthly or bimonthly basis. ( Since the MDH pays for the additional testing, systems almost always follow the established protocols.

OH Yes, the state has required this of at least one system. That particular system, a middle school,

was required to conduct two additional 6 month monitoring periods over the original two 6 month monitoring periods to assure that the orthophosphate feed system was operating properly and correcting the exceedance as anticipated.

WI Yes.

AR Systems monitor as per 141.80 141.90.

LA The state requires a system to conduct more frequent monitoring in order to evaluate the potential effects of treatment changes only when the Lead and Copper sampling event following the change indicates levels near the action levels.

NM No answer.

OK Yes. Daily MOR sampling at WTP.

TX Yes, we require additional sampling if treatment is questionable.

IA No.

KS The state has required systems to resume standard monitoring after adjustment of treatment.

MO No.

NE No.

CO The State's plan review process for changes to treatment includes a requirement for the public water systems to indicate whether the treatment change has been evaluated for impacts to lead and copper.

MT Some treatment changes have resulted in the system being returned to initial monitoring.

ND No, we do not require systems to conduct more frequent monitoring when changes are made to treatment. We feel this is the responsibility of the system, although we do strongly encourage them to conduct their own monitoring to ensure that the treatment is effective. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 150 SD No, we are now considering it for systems that are switching from chlorine to chloramines.

UT Increase monitoring will be imposed in cases where there is insufficient analytical data to enable the State review engineer to make a proper evaluation.

WY No.

AZ This is embedded in the approval process.

CA No.

HI The state specifies when lead and copper monitoring should be conducted after changes to treatment are made. This is specified in all cases.

NV No.

Amer Sam No.

Navajo No, not to date. Currently, PWSSP is working with a purveyor in a community showing elevated levels of copper. Corrosion control is not requested yet and PWSSP has required the purveyor to collect confirmation samples. Pipe replacement will be recommended.

AK Satisfactory Pb/ Cu results are required to test for corrosion control treatment effectiveness prior to an Approval to Operate is granted.

WA No. However, some systems do investigative monitoring and DOH has developed guidance to assist them when systems collect investigative samples, in response to treatment coming on line,

a new source, or when complaints are received.

ID No.

OR The state usually requires the system to start over with initial monitoring. It depends on exactly what the change is but usually they need to do at least two rounds of 6 month monitoring to make sure the changes are not going to cause a problem. DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 151 DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 152 DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 153 DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 154 DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 155 DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 156 DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 157 DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 158 DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 159 DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 160 DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 161 DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 162 DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 163 DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 164 DCTM_ ARP. xls Page 165 .