LT2...What are the chances?

[Whiskeytown]

I was reviewing some of the rulemaking discussion for LT-2 in the Federal Register, but it was breaking my eyes. It seems that one assumption in the cost-benefit analysis was that only a small percentage of small filtered systems would fall in bins above 1. Does anyone recall how they made that assumption? I am looking at making proposals to systems that may or may not have to treat under the rule. One system apparently has GWUDI with an e coli count around 50 in the stream which supplies their well, and thus are monitoring for cryptosporium. What are their odds of falling in bins 2 through 4? What are the general parameters that would allow one to guess pending the testing results?

 

[hydrae]

I was just told recently by our local EPA LT-2 rep that the count targets have doubled to 100 for instream and 20 for ponds/lakes.
will that help?
For the small systems I work with, if they needed more treatement I would look at UV, but it looks like they will fall into bin 1.
Hydrae

 

[Whiskeytown]

Oh! Thank you for this tip. I will sound like the smartest person in the world if I break this news to the owner.

 

[Whiskeytown]

I don't see anything from the EPA or any chatter on the web. Is there any source that can be quoted on this?

 

[hydrae]

I sent a reply email to my contact for more info.

 

[Whiskeytown]

I talked with the state LT2 coordinator, and she confirmed it. Will be sending a letter to the utilities on this. Turns out the owner and city engineer knew about this but weren't too chatty, so I was the last, not the first to know.

 

[hydrae]

I got the letter, basically they reran the numbers of crypto to Ecoli ratio with more data from larger systems who are doing the full testing. Caution: The new numbers are not cast in stone, the states can choose which data-set to use.

I can post the letter if you need me to.

Hydrae