Revised Total Coliform Rule Sample Siting Plan Inspection

It checks whether routine and repeat bacteriological sampling sites are identified, distributed, documented, and accessible as required by the Revised Total Coliform Rule. The template also verifies plan control items such as versioning, approval, and who is responsible for updates. It is focused on the siting plan itself, not on laboratory method validation or water quality treatment operations. Use it to confirm the field plan matches the current distribution system.

Use it whenever the siting plan is created, revised, or reviewed for the current monitoring period. It is also useful after main extensions, pressure zone changes, service area changes, or repeated unavailable-site events. Many systems run it before routine sampling rounds and again after any repeat-sample trigger. The right cadence is the one that keeps the plan aligned with actual field conditions.

A water quality or compliance lead usually owns the review, with operations input from the field staff who actually collect the samples. If the system uses contractors, the responsible utility staff should still verify the plan and approve changes. The inspector should understand the distribution system layout and the RTCR monitoring schedule. A signature or reviewer field helps show accountability.

Yes. It is built around the Revised Total Coliform Rule monitoring framework and the expectation that sampling sites are representative, documented, and usable when needed. It also supports broader drinking water program controls commonly expected under state primacy programs and utility quality procedures. The template is not a substitute for the rule itself, but it helps document that the siting plan is being maintained. That makes it easier to defend sampling decisions during an audit or sanitary survey.

Common issues include routine sites clustered too close together, repeat sites not bracketing the original positive sample location, and maps that no longer match the current distribution system. Inspectors also find missing site IDs, vague location descriptions, and sites that field staff cannot safely access. Another frequent problem is failing to document substitutions when a primary site is unavailable. Those gaps can lead to invalid sampling follow-up or repeat work.

Start by matching the site list to your actual pressure zones, dead ends, and representative hydraulic areas. Then add the identifiers your crews already use, such as asset IDs, addresses, or GPS coordinates. If your system has seasonal operations, interconnections, or booster stations, include those in the mapping notes where they affect sample access. Keep the core RTCR checks intact so the template still verifies distribution and repeat-site logic.

Yes. The site list and map fields can be linked to GIS layers, asset records, or a CMMS if your workflow uses those systems. Many teams attach the current map, store site IDs in the asset register, and route updates through a change-control process. The key is that the inspection record should still show the designated site, the actual collected site, and any substitution reason. That creates a clear audit trail even when the data lives in multiple systems.

The plan should identify an alternate repeat or routine site in advance, and the substitution should be documented with the reason and date. Field staff should not improvise a new location without review, because that can break the representativeness of the sampling set. If the unavailable site is recurring, the plan should be updated and reapproved. This template helps capture that follow-up instead of letting exceptions become the new normal.

An ad hoc checklist only confirms that a sample was collected, while this template verifies that the sampling network itself is valid and maintained. It checks site distribution, repeat-site logic, map accuracy, and plan control before the sample event happens. That matters because RTCR compliance depends on using the right locations, not just collecting any sample. The result is a stronger record for audits, investigations, and routine operations.