The EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Levels for Microorganisms

Contaminant	MCLG1	MCL or TT1	Potential Health Effects from Ingestion of Water	Sources of Contaminant in Drinking Water
	(mg/L)2	(mg/L)2
Cryptosporidium (pdf file)	zero	TT 3	Gastrointestinal illness (e.g., diarrhea, vomiting, cramps)	Human and fecal animal waste
Giardia lamblia	zero	TT3	Gastrointestinal illness (e.g., diarrhea, vomiting, cramps)	Human and animal fecal waste
Heterotrophic plate count	n/a	TT3	HPC has no health effects; it is an analytic method used to measure the variety of bacteria that are common in water. The lower the concentration of bacteria in drinking water, the better maintained the water system is.	HPC measures a range of bacteria that are naturally present in the environment
Legionella	zero	TT3	Legionnaire’s Disease, a type of pneumonia	Found naturally in water; multiplies in heating systems
Total Coliforms (including fecal coliform and E. Coli)	zero	5.0%4	Not a health threat in itself; it is used to indicate whether other potentially harmful bacteria may be present5	Coliforms are naturally present in the environment; as well as feces; fecal coliforms and E. coli only come from human and animal fecal waste.
Turbidity	n/a	TT3	Turbidity is a measure of the cloudiness of water. It is used to indicate water quality and filtration effectiveness (e.g., whether disease-causing organisms are present). Higher turbidity levels are often associated with higher levels of disease-causing microorganisms such as viruses, parasites and some bacteria. These organisms can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated headaches.	Soil runoff

 

Notes

¹ Definitions:
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) – The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology and taking cost into consideration. MCLs are enforceable standards.
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) – The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals.
Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL) – The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants.
Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG) – The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants.
Treatment Technique – A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water.

² Units are in milligrams per liter (mg/L) unless otherwise noted. Milligrams per liter are equivalent to parts per million.

³ EPA’s surface water treatment rules require systems using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water to (1) disinfect their water, and (2) filter their water or meet criteria for avoiding filtration so that the following contaminants are controlled at the following levels:

·         Cryptosporidium: (as of1/1/02 for systems serving >10,000 and 1/14/05 for systems serving <10,000) 99% removal.

·         Giardia lamblia: 99.9% removal/inactivation

·         Viruses: 99.99% removal/inactivation

·         Legionella: No limit, but EPA believes that if Giardia and viruses are removed/inactivated, Legionella will also be controlled.

·         Turbidity: At no time can turbidity (cloudiness of water) go above 5 nephelolometric turbidity units (NTU); systems that filter must ensure that the turbidity go no higher than 1 NTU (0.5 NTU for conventional or direct filtration) in at least 95% of the daily samples in any month. As of January 1, 2002, turbidity may never exceed 1 NTU, and must not exceed 0.3 NTU in 95% of daily samples in any month.

·         HPC: No more than 500 bacterial colonies per milliliter.

·         Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment (Effective Date: January 14, 2005); Surface water systems or (GWUDI) systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must comply with the applicable Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule provisions (e.g. turbidity standards, individual filter monitoring, Cryptosporidium removal requirements, updated watershed control requirements for unfiltered systems).

·         Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (Effective Date: January 4, 2006) – Surface water systems or GWUDI systems must comply with the additional treatment for Cryptosporidium specified in this rule based on their Cryptosporidium bin classification calculated after the completion of source water monitoring.

·         Filter Backwash Recycling; The Filter Backwash Recycling Rule requires systems that recycle to return specific recycle flows through all processes of the system’s existing conventional or direct filtration system or at an alternate location approved by the state.

⁴ more than 5.0% samples total coliform-positive in a month. (For water systems that collect fewer than 40 routine samples per month, no more than one sample can be total coliform-positive per month.) Every sample that has total coliform must be analyzed for either fecal coliforms or E. coli if two consecutive TC-positive samples, and one is also positive for E.coli fecal coliforms, system has an acute MCL violation.

⁵ Fecal coliform and E. coli are bacteria whose presence indicates that the water may be contaminated with human or animal wastes. Disease-causing microbes (pathogens) in these wastes can cause diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. These pathogens may pose a special health risk for infants, young children, and people with severely compromised immune systems.

⁶ Although there is no collective MCLG for this contaminant group, there are individual MCLGs for some of the individual contaminants:

·         Trihalomethanes: bromodichloromethane (zero); bromoform (zero); dibromochloromethane (0.06 mg/L): chloroform (0.07mg/L).

·         Haloacetic acids: dichloroacetic acid (zero); trichloroacetic acid (0.02 mg/L); monochloroacetic acid (0.07 mg/L). Bromoacetic acid and dibromoacetic acid are regulated with this group but have no MCLGs.

⁷ The MCL values are the same in the Stage 2 DBPR as they were in the Stage 1 DBPR, but compliance with the MCL is based on different calculations. Under Stage 1, compliance is based on a running annual average (RAA). Under Stage 2, compliance is based on a locational running annual average (LRAA), where the annual average at each sampling location in the distribution system is used to determine compliance with the MCLs. The LRAA requirement will become effective April 1, 2012 for systems on schedule 1, October 1, 2012 for systems on schedule 2, and October 1, 2013 for all remaining systems.

⁸ Lead and copper are regulated by a Treatment Technique that requires systems to control the corrosiveness of their water. If more than 10% of tap water samples exceed the action level, water systems must take additional steps. For copper, the action level is 1.3 mg/L, and for lead is 0.015 mg/L.

⁹ Each water system must certify, in writing, to the state (using third-party or manufacturer’s certification) that when acrylamide and epichlorohydrin are used in drinking water systems, the combination (or product) of dose and monomer level does not exceed the levels specified, as follows:

·         Acrylamide = 0.05% dosed at 1 mg/L (or equivalent)

·         Epichlorohydrin = 0.01% dosed at 20 mg/L (or equivalent)

 All of this information can be found at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html.

A discussion of torture and waterboarding

Here is a thread that I was a part of discussing waterboarding. To see the whole article go to The Irritable Elephant. The first comment is in response to the post.

environmentalchristian

As someone who lived in the M.E. for a number of years and who has been in a war I can tell you with certainty that violence and hegemony do not, in the long run, prevent violence. You fail to see the long term effects. By sacrificing any moral standing that we have (i.e. unjustly attacking and killing millions of Iraqis, ignoring basic human rights, etc.) we do not prevent new attacks…we postpone them. What do you think the idea of waterboarding does to young men who already have a dislike for America? Have you thought through that? We are breeding thousands and thousands of future attackers. <– That is not some liberal banner statement. It is truth.

No, Bush is not some visionary because he recognizes that al-Qaida does not play by the rules. He simply is too weak to take the higher ground by realizing there are rules to war. This doesnt make us safer…it prolongs our unsafety.

Mark

environmentalchristian,

Thanks for posting. I appreciate all comments regardless of their point of view. But I want to take issue with your premise.

I deeply respect the fact that you lived in the Middle East, an area that I have only visited. But here’s where you and I disagree:

- We unjustly attacked and killed “millions of Iraqis.” I’m interested to see where you get this statistic. Moreover, most opinion polls (as unreliable as they may be in Iraq) show that the majority of Iraqis feel that they are better off under American occupation that in the quarter century, bloodthirsty dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

And about the waterboarding thing. If you are referring to the actual act, it has been reported that less than ten detainees were subjected to this. This could not possibly breed thousands of attackers. If you are referring to the way that biased outlets like Al-Jazeera report on American activities in Iraq (and I am not saying that we don’t have biased outlets here in the U.S.) they are going to hate us anyway if we waterboard or not. The fundamentalist, Islamo-facsists don’t need bulletin board material to hate our guts. They already do and want to convert us to Islam – or kill us. Period.

And my final point is that you state is that “there are rules to war.” Al-Qaida does not play by the rules and my personal opinion is that it is time that our country learned the new rules of engagement.

We disagree, but thanks for posting.

IE

Jethro

Environmental Christian,My wife lived in the ME for years. Her family had to be evacuated by the Royal Air Force when the fanatics took over. These people already have a mindset to hate America and it’s freedom. You’re not creating dissent. It’s already there.

Information is the best way to save lives. One of my closest friends is in the army and is over in Iraq now. He’s handling intel reports. He’s singing a very different tune than you. He’s seeing the bigger picture because he’s there NOW. He’s among the people. He’s helping to capture the enemy and seeing how it affects the local community. Those who are attacking Americans have always had the mindset to attack Americans. However, the locals he’s involved with are extremely thankful that they’re there.

Irritable Elephant

Jethro,

Thanks for your comments. I am corresponding with a Marine Captain in Iraq now, so feel free to check back everyone once in a while.

Thanks for reading.

IE

environmentalchristian March 9, 2008 at 9:25 pm

Mark,

Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it when bloggers discuss rather than just throw mud. It is possible I suppose that there are polls that would show the majority of Iraqis think they are better off now than they were under Saddam. Personally though I find this very doubtful. I cant fathom the majority of Iraqis thinking they are better off now.

My Iraqi friends almost unanimously say that Iraq is far more dangerous now than it was under Saddam. Not only that, but the war has made Iran more powerful. Iraq and Iran have been buffers for each other for a long time. We just removed one.

Surely you are not arguing that the Iraq war has endeared us to Iraqis. Beyond doubt this is not the case. The Arab world feels to be under our thumb more and more and more. Pressure causes reactions. That is a sad fact.

I am referring more to the knowledge that America uses torture techniques rather than the actual act (which is a horrible) being committed to a few prisoners. I would take issue with two statements that I believe have the same seed of thought:

1. “they are going to hate us anyway if we waterboard or not. The fundamentalist, Islamo-facsists don’t need bulletin board material to hate our guts. They already do and want to convert us to Islam – or kill us. Period” Mark

2. “These people already have a mindset to hate America and it’s freedom. You’re not creating dissent. It’s already there” Jethro

To me the seed of thought here is that they already hate us and that is an unrepairable fact. It is not. There are all kinds of people in the Middle East. I have personally only ever encountered two Arabs that hated me just because I was American…two (which I remember well) out of thousands.

Lastly, I notice that you do not seem to take issue with the broader argument that violence in the end only prolongs the destruction. I will admit that torture will sometimes give information that blunts pointed attacks. However, when we open that door and release all the moral authority that we have left we cause a spiral of violence that is much worse.

Irritable Elephant

environmentalchristian,

I respect your comments and will without question leave them up. I think my other readers — 99 percent of whom are respectful — will chime in too.

We might disagree on some points, but you are welcome to post any time. And like you said, reasonable people can disagree. I don’t like it when people start slinging mud either.

IE

 Ryan

This has always been a 7-10 split for me. I think insuring domestic tranquility and providing a common defense are among the most important things (if not the most important) our government does. If making a terror kingpin (who’s goal is to kill as many americans as possible) feel like he’s drowning for a minute or two makes him give up some important info, then I have no problem with doing it.

I do however agree with the moral high ground argument. If later on we get in a war with a legit country (say Iran) and they begin to torture our men and women in uniform, how can we stand up and say they are violating international law? This in a way is exposing our troops in future wars and police actions.

Imo this is what should be done. Under no circumstance should the military be conducting torture. Leave this to professionals (CIA) and use it rarely on prisoners who have a lot of info to give up. The only reason this is being discussed is Abu Ghraib. If that situation never made the light of the media day, this blog post or the LA Times article (and 1000s like it) would have never been written. Military isn’t trained to do this for maximum results. Having ppl in their late teens and early 20s using their best judgment in the torture of ppl who’ve killed their buddies, brothers and sister in arms, or fellow citizens isn’t a likely scenario.

As far as Iraq being worse off then it was under Saddam, well of course it is. This is a messy situation that was handled poorly from the word go. Now we finally have troop levels that allow the generals to get things headed into a positive direction and we should just quit? If we do quit, Iran grabs their piece, Al Qaeda grabs their’s, and the Kurds hold on for dear life while they are acted from every which way.

Do I think we went there under false pretenses and the war should have never happened? Yes, but I nor can anyone else can wish it away. Atleast being there right now there is more control and stability to the situation. Since the surge there has been some reason for hope.

Zelda

I think environmental christian has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the enemy over there. They do not think the same way the West thinks. You’re looking at a place where very little has changed in a 2 millenia except for some clusters of technology (which they had nothing to do with inventing).

The premise of the Geneva convention is that both sides of a conflict will honor it. If one side doesn’t follow it and the other side does, the one who follows it will lose. They put themselves at a disadvantage to really evil people who should not win no matter what.

Waterboarding? Don’t care. Whether we do it or not has no bearing whatsoever upon what AQ will do to anyone they capture. If we do it, they will use it as an excuse to torture people. If we don’t do it, they will praise Allah that he made us weak, and they will torture people anyway. It’s not a logical culture.

As for Iraqis declaring it was better under Saddam, find out whether they were Sunni, Shia or Kurd before you accept their statement blindly.

During the American Revolution, there were probably plenty of people who thought they had it better under the monarchy. But when you persevere in the cause for freedom and win, things will only improve. That’s been proven throughout history and I have no reason to think it wouldn’t be true in Iraq as well.

environmentalchristian

Zelda,I can see why you think I have a misunderstanding of AQ. But, I do not. I understand all to well what the organization is. It is not being argued (in fact this thread takes it as a given) whether AQ will follow the rules of war. Or course they will not.

Yes, you are correct in pointing out that different ethno/religious groups will have different viewpoints on Saddam. I have lived in the Middle East for many years, and I am fluent in Arabic. This is where my knowledge base is coming from.

I do not know your background, but I take great issue with your characterization (or should I say caricaturization) of Arab/Muslim culture. You say,

“Waterboarding? Don’t care. Whether we do it or not has no bearing whatsoever upon what AQ will do to anyone they capture. If we do it, they will use it as an excuse to torture people. If we don’t do it, they will praise Allah that he made us weak, and they will torture people anyway. It’s not a logical culture”

First point, “Waterboarding? Don’t care.” You should care. It is a disgusting act. They are people. They are human beings who deserve basic human rights. What, may I ask, is so much better about our culture if we dont care? We are then identical to them.

Second point, “It’s not a logical culture” What do you mean by this statement? It sounds to me that you have just as much hate as they do.

Listen to me please. Muslims are not murderers. They are lovely, generous, kind, thoughtful people. Do not confuse al-Qaida with Muslims. There are murderers in every culture. Just look at the violence on our College and Junior High/High School campuses here in America. Violence spirals.

BTW most people online just call me EC

That is the end of the thread. If more is added I will add it here if I get a chance.

Logarithmic Socialism

In an effort to improve our country I have invented a new income tax system. This new system is much improved from the previous bracketing system and will provide a more fair means of wealth redistribution. The rich in this country are getting ridiculous. People are making way to much money. They should be forced to give this money back to the government so it can be used with the efficiency and equity that only our government can bestow. This system works especially well for me because I don’t really have much of an income, therefore I wont have to pay to much.  

The new system is based on a piecewise function of my own devising. It is formulated like so:

                        Positive Income             Income Tax = 1.0001^X

                        Negative Income           Income Tax = -1.0001^X

                              

where X is gross individual income in dollars and income tax is in dollars rather than percent. This exponential function will behave like so:

This new system will provide no monetary incentive to make large sums of money because it will only be taken away. In order to calculate your new income tax simply put your gross income into the equation as X. An example of this for a person who makes $40,000 a year would be:

                                    Income Tax = 1.0001⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰ = $54.59

Therefore, a person who makes $40,000 only has to pay $54.59 in federal income tax! Some other sums would yield results like so:

                        $60,000                       1.0001⁶⁰⁰⁰⁰    =  $403.31

                        $80,000                       1.0001⁸⁰⁰⁰⁰    =  $2979.77

                        $100,000                     1.0001¹⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰   =  $22,015.46

                        $110,000                     1.0001¹¹⁰⁰⁰⁰   =  $59,841.22

                        $120,000                     1.0001¹²⁰⁰⁰⁰   =  $162,657.17

As you can see after $116,677.53 there is no more monetary incentive to make more money because the amount owed in taxes exceeds the gross income. Also, it is noted that when an individual loses money and thus earns a negative income the government will actually give him money back. Of course, we wont actually do this, but we will tell everyone we will.