-------
JK
is 1 «
r£ O. to
» 1* J3
c fed OT
1 -1
1 1 «
§ S c.
li Qi 4)
*! '1 s
Q a °
/•—s
gj1 G*
I s
s |.
g ^
o ®
c "
O **
G 1
S c
OS O
*; en
03 a
O.
s
S
-0
1

•o
£


Federal Requirement





















X
o"

™~;
5
=0=
. -S!
Treatment techniques employed must reliably achieve 99% removal of
Cryptosporidium for filtered systems; or Cryptosporidium control mil!
be included in the watershed control plan for unflltered systems





















S
o"
r-
"^
5
cos

Compliance with the profiling and benchmark requirements under the
provisions of §141.172




















^
X
o^

~;
3
«"

PWS is considered in compliance if it meets the requirements for
avoiding filtration in §141.71 and §141.171 and the disinfection
requirements in §141.72 and §141.172




















_
X
o"
r-
~",
•?
CO3

PWS is in compliance if it meets the applicable filtration requirements
in §141.173 or §141.73 and the disinfection requirements in §141.72
and §141. 172





















^_^
£

^
5
=00

PWSs are not permitted to begin construction of an uncovered finished
water storage facility beginning February 16, 1999




























§ 141.171 CRITERIAFOR AVOIDING FILTRATION





















^_^
•&
r^

5
«»

System that does not filter must maintain watershed control program
under § 141.71(b)(2) to minimize potential contamination by
Cryptosporidium






,














^^
-5-

—i
•3-
^

System that does not filter must identify watershed characteristics and
activities for Cryptosporidium that may have an adverse effect on
source water quality





















S
•S-

—
5
=0,
o
System that does not filter must monitor the occurrence of activities
that may have an adverse effect on source water quality with respect d
Cryptosporidium





















X~N
^

— ;
5
cos

State determines during onsite inspection whether watershed control
program is adequate to limit potential contamination by
Cryptosporidium
VI
<
 X
•5
•2
a

-------
_e
1 f 1
S H T»
2 « §
III
fa "3 n
iment title,
/paragraph)
*-2
S* "
^•^ o
C 03
S b"
2 -o
« 1
C3 O
55 8?
c.
c
Is
0
"3
S
o
•a
r«.





Federal Requirement





















a
z
3
hM
t6
^s
s
§ 141.172 DISINFECTION PROFILING AND BENC


















S


_.
^p
—



«
Subpart H systems serving-at least 10,000 people must determine it
TTHM and HAA5 annual averages using procedures in (a)(I) and
(a)(2)

















X
*s*


"^
?
—
CO9



TTHM annual average must be the annual average during the same
period as is used for the HAAS annual average
















§

*S'
CN
r-

^
—
«»



Systems that collected ICR data must use the results of samples
collected during the last 4 quarters of monitoring under §141.142
















:%S
S
S


"""!
^
—


o
.c H
Systems that use "grandfathered" HAAS occurrence data that meet
provisions of (a)(2)(ii) must use TTHM data collected at the same t
under the provisions of §14 1.12 and §141. 30
















S>
S
•S*
OJ
r-

?
*~<



-  S
 o. §
 G  .§
 O  3


    e
    o
I

-------
g
IB - o
rvT &. 0)
**< X ,C
g Cd »
s ** **
* a 2
** * «
Sec.
11 1
g CT- 0
C B
* So
1 2
s .!•
S B
1 ••=
*"""' cu
o W-
S -o
S|
S «
S3 
•s
fa


Federal Requirement
























S

i^
^/
oT
V 	 '
d
CM

^
2;
«»
= S
Systems that do not conduct monitoring in (A) must comply with a
other provisions of this section as if HAAS monitoring had been
conducted and the results required compliance with (b) of this secth




























c*?
^=^
C3
01

^
2;
ten

System may request that state approve a more representative annua
data set than the data set determined under (a)(l) or (a)(2) for the
purposes of determining applicability of the requirements of this
section




























^s
x:

of

~-
2;
cos
1 §
State may require that the system use a more representative annual
set than the data set determined under (a)(l) or (a)(2) for the purpos
of determining applicability with this section




























>o*
^^
CO
O>J
r~.
~^
2;
«»
e
System must submit applicability data to the state on the schedule i
(a)(5)(i) through (v)


























f 	 ^
^.
V~l
^^
IA
of
t—
_;
2;
=«
'o 1
CO "~* *
Systems that collected TTHM and HAAS data under the provision
the ICR must submit the results of the samples collected during the
1 2 months of monitoring under § 1 4 1 . 1 42 no later than December 3 1
1999


























y^-.
^^
^~
^^
CO
cS'
r-
M
^
iOo
-•s - -,
Systems that collected 4 quarters of HAAS occurrence data that mei
the monitoring sample number and location forTTHM in §141.12 a
§141.30 and handling and analytical methods requirements of
§141.142(b)(l) must submit these data to the state no later than Ap
16, 1999; until the data has been approved the system must conduci
monitoring for HAAS using the monitoring requirements in (a)(2)(iii


























^^
O-
v^1
^^
e3
CS
r-»
*^
H
=00

Systems that conducted monitoring for HAA5 using monitoring
requirements specified in (a)(l)(iii) and (a)(2)(ni)(A) must submit
these data no later than March 3 1 . 2000


























*^"
;O*
?r
^^
CO
ol
t~
^
2;
=«
S
c ..
Systems that elect to comply with all other provisions of this sectia
if HAAS monitoring had been conducted and the results required
compliance with this section must notify the state in writing of thei
election no later than December 31, 1999


























, — *
si.
V">

'c?
CsT
t^
™~J
•5-
«*
o
c
Systems that elect to request that the state approve a more
representative annual data set must submit their requests in writing
later than December 31, 1999
fN
 5

 §
 g

-------
C
•si*
£ g-a
P £3 w
0 0. £
<~ "S 5
'S S es
3 S c.
£• O O
<£J •— "
5- "2 B
5 | °
-&
O dt
S 2
i 1
if
•a U
"•* o
S ">
i i
51
33 c?
c.
e
o
ta
6

o
£

Federal Requirement

























S
S
S
2J
M>S
Any system having a TTHM annual average 20.064 mg/L or an HAAS
annual average *0.048 mg/L during the period in (a)(l) and (2) must
develop a disinfection profile as described in (b)

























X
.n
S
5?
CO3
System that meets applicability criteria in (a)(6) must develop a
disinfection profile for its disinfection practice for period of up to 3
years





3
^,
CN
r-
5
«»
System must monitor daily for a period of 12 consecutive calendar
months to determine total logs of inactivation for each day of
operation; based on CT99.9 in §141.74(b); must begin monitoring no
later than Aoril 1, 2000: system with single noint of disinfectant








application must conduct monitoring in (b)(2)(i) through (iv); system
with more than one point of disinfectant application must conduct
monitoring in (b)(2)(i) through (iv) for each disinfection segment;
system must monitor necessary parameters to determine total "
inactivation ratios using analytical methods in §141.74(a)
























©
S
.0
E
5
=0,
Temperature of disinfected water must be measured once per day at
each residual disinfectant concentration sampling point during peak
hourly flow























r 	 ^
^,
S
Q
r-
;?
*»
pH of disinfected water must be measured once per day at each
disinfectant residual concentration sampling point during peak hourly
flow if system uses chlorine























^
•3,
S
;.O
CN
5
^
Disinfectant contact time(s) ("T") must be determined for each day
during peak hourly flow























x-s
•o
CN
Q
[--
5
«»
Residual disinfection concentration(s) ("C") of the water before or at
first customer prior to each additional point of disinfection must be
measured each day during peak hourly flow

























S
e

2J
«=
In lieu of the monitoring under (b)(2) to develop a profile a system
may elect to meet requirements of (b)(3)(i)
  '
§•
oo
<
 X

-------
e
"2 ll
E W «
° 5: £
** o> is
g s §.
§ £ %
% "a s
Q g" °
gf
i I
E .a.
s-' o
c »»
.2 C
3s •=>
6|
« c
« O
•+•• Oft
60 «
D.
S
_o
s
MM
03

•e
£


Federal Requirement



^^
CO
ro
cs'

*~~!
g
COS









>^ a>
PWS that has 3 years of existing operational data may submit those
data, a profile generated using those data, and a request that the stat<
approve use of these data in lieu of monitoring under (b)(2) no later
than March 31. 2000: state must determine if the data are suhstantin1
equivalent to the data collected under (b)(2); data must be
representative of Giardia lamblia inactivation through the entire
treatment plant; until state approves the data set the system is requi
to conduct monitoring under (b)(2)





















.0
g
fi
r>f

"~t
S
CO3
d. ZI?
PWS that has existing operational data may use those data to develoj
disinfection profile for additional years; systems may use the
additional yearly disinfection profiles to develop a benchmark under
(c); state must determine whether the operational data are substantia
equivalent to the data collected under (b)(2); data must be
representative of inactivation through entire the treatment plant






















g
S


"- 1 . -
5?
cos

System must calculate the total inactivation ratio(s) as specified in
(b)(4)(i) through (iii)





















f 	 ^
1
S"1
>—^

— ;
5
COS
m
If the system uses 1 point of disinfection it may determine the total
inactivation ratio based on either method in (b)(4)(i)(A) or (b)(4)(i)(I





















&
g
S
^_^

— i
•5-
=0=
£0
If the system uses 1 point of disinfection it may determine one
inactivation ratio (CTcalc/CT99 9) before or at the first customer durii
peak hourly flow





















X
1
^3"
cs'

-^
E
cos
.
If the system uses 1 point of disinfection it may determine successiv
CTcalc/CT99.9 values representing sequential inactivation ratios
between the point of disinfectant application and a point before or al
the first customer during peak hourly flow; system must calculate th
total inactivation ratio by determining (CTcalc/CT,, 9) for each
sequence and then adding (CTcalc/CT99 9) values to determine
(£(CTcalc/CT99.9))





















^^
g
^5"
CN'
t*-

5
CO3
S §
If system uses more than 1 point of disinfectant application before tl
first customer the system must determine CT value of each-disinfecti
sequence immediately prior to the next point of disinfectant
application, or for the final segment before or at the first customer
during peak hourly flow; .(CTcalc/CT99.9) value of each sequence and
(£(CTcalc/CT99.9)) must be calculated using methods in (b)(4)(i)
 n.
 o.
1

-------
.5
•3 *C5 *J
S & f
<§ s* g
1 fl
cs °3 e
5 S °
eT "S,
i S,
o a
g O.
3 B
o S
O i^
e w
.2 iT
S.8
51

S Si
w «
c.
0
•js
G
2
o
•g
to

•*-»
Federal Requiremeri























iif
£
of
I—
*
'S'
ucn
mtion by multiplying the
m by 3.0
System must determine the total logs of inaclh
value calculated in (b)(4)(i) or (ii) of this sectio
























1
CM
t—
3
2
CO3
nary disinfection must
s using a method
System that uses chloramines or ozone for prir
also calculate the logs of inactivation for viruse
approved by the state
























2)
CM
I—
~-
2;
CO3
i in graphic form, as a
o the state for review as
e
System must retain the disinfection profile datE
spreadsheet, or some other format acceptable t
part of sanitary surveys conducted by the stat
























§
CM

~-
2;
ten
le under (a) and (b) that
ifection practice must
ange
System required to develop a disinfection profi
decides to make a significant change to its disir
consult with the state prior to making such a ch























is-
S
CM'
r-
™^
2;
=0=
iges to point of
Significant change to disinfection practice: char
disinfection























.^
X
CN
r-
~^
2;
COS
iges to disinfectant(s)
Significant change to disinfection practice: char
used in treatment plant























S
i
CM
r~

2;
ten
iges to disinfection
Significant change to disinfection practice: char
process























."?
s
cs'

"
2;
ceo
other modification
Significant change to disinfection practice: any
identified by the state
























S
CM

•—;
2;
z,
llculate disinfection
) through (ii)
System modifying disinfection practice must CE
benchmark using procedure specified in (c)(2)(i























g?
S
oT

^|
2;
«=0
the system must
lamblia inactivation in
line average Giardia
r each year of profiling
lia logs of inactivation
nth
For each year of profiling data collected in (b)
determine the lowest average monthly Giardia
each year of profiling data; system must determ
lamblia inactivation for each calendar month fo
data by dividing the sum of daily Giardia lamb
by the numbef of values calculated for that mo























.O1
X
o
cs*
r—

2;
CO5
average (systems with 1
monthly average values
ta) of monthly logs of
jfiling data
Disinfection benchmark is the lowest monthly
year of profiling data) or the average of lowest i
(systems with more than 1 year of profiling dal
Giardia lamblia inactivation in each year of pr<

 s
 o
 §
 g

•Si
 a.
 a

-------
c
•a '3 <->
-S!
0 C'- S
cfa B a

S E Q.
t- Q> 0>
53 J- «>
«S '5 s
Q IT °
oT c.
5T «
•j- J-
1 2
s S.
9 C
o S
i?
a "
O .**
§1

ta o>
S OB
§.
s
_o
S
"*-J
fe

£ «-l
For systems using conventional/direct filtration the turb
representative samples of a system's filtered water mus
in at least 95% of monthly measurements measured as s]
§141.74(a)and(c)





'




















s
03
£

2;
•^
u~
o a
o .1
^ 0
>, c
=§ f -3-
For systems using conventional/direct filtration the turbi
representative samples of a system's filtered water mus
exceed 1 NTU measured as specified in §141.74(a) and (


























S
rt
t-

2;
^
.1
'^j.t
ea
OT
g
Systems that use lime softening may acidify representati
prior to analysis using a protocol approved by the state
1
 o.
 Q.
I

I
 §•

-------
.5
•a cs -*-»
fi g-s
s "3 2
o c^- S
*g g
g s S.
C G> 03
O *•• V>
«= "H B
e °
- §•
| 2
1|
^•3. ej
^""^ O
C «

1H p
j™ *O
« 1
S §n
35 a
c.
e
G
"3
L.
O

1

Federal Requirement























s2.



g
eO»
For systems using other than convenlional/direct/slow
sand/diotomaceous earth filtration the system may use a filtration
technology not listed in (a) or § 141.73(b) or (c) if it demonstrates that
the alternative filtration technology in combination with disinfection
treatment that meets the requirements in § 141 .72(b) consistently
removes/inactivates 99.9% ofGiardia lamblia cysts, 99.99% of
viruses, and 99% of Cryptosporidium oocysts; state must approve the
use of the technology; state will set turbidity performance
requirements that the system must meet 95% of the time and the
system may not at any time exceed a level that removes/inactivates
99.9% Giardia lamblia, 99.99% viruses, 99% Cryptosporidium





























§141.174 FILTRATION SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS























S



5?
«»
Subpart H systems using conventional/direct filtration must conduct
continuous turbidity monitoring for each individual filter using an
approved method in §141.74(a) and must calibrate turbidimeters using
the procedure specified by the manufacturer; system must record the
results of individual filter monitoring every 15 minutes























;£,



§jj
m
If there is a failure in continuous turbidity monitoring equipment the
system must conduct grab sampling every 4 hours in lieu of
continuous monitoring, but for no more than-five working days
following the failure of the equipment


























z
1
H
a
§141.175 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUI


tri
In addition to requirements in §141.75, Subpart H systems using
conventional/direct filtration must report monthly to the state the
information in (a) and (bl beeinnine January 1 . 2002; systems using
alternative filtration technologies must report monthly to the state the
information in (a) in lieu of reporting in (b)(l)























S

r~

5?
«»
Turbidity measurements must be reported within 10 days after the end
of each month the system serves water to the public






















g
CS

r;

j?
C03
Information that must be reported: total number of filtered water
turbidity measurements taken during the month
I
I
 I
-§

 g.
Cs
O
-------
•S
*B ,C% *•*
SI&I w
^^ .
0 t>- .JJ
 .*-< U9

C.
o
•c
a
0
"«
1
O
fa


Federal Requirement




























s
-S
is
•
2;
^»
s
Information that must be reported: number and percentage of filtered
water turbidity measurements taken during the month that are less tha
or equal to the turbidity limits specified in §141.173(a) or (b)




























3
-S-
r-i

5
=0*

Information that must be reported: date and value of any turbidity
measurements taken during the month that exceed 1 NTU for systems
using conventional/direct filtration or that excee'd the maximum level
set by the state under § 1 4 1 . 1 73(b)





























<£•
tQ

5
f"
fl^ Ci
Systems must maintain the results of individual filter monitoring for at
least 3 years; systems must report they have conducted individual filti
monitoring within 10 days after the end of each month the system
serves water to the public; system must report individual filter
turbidity measurements within 10 days after the end of each month th
system serves water to the public only if the measurements
demonstrate 1 or more of the conditions in (b)(l) through (4); system
using lime softening may apply to the state for alternative exceedance
levels if they can demonstrate that the higher turbidity levels in
individual filters are due to lime carryover and not to degraded filter
performance




























X
_D
t—

5
CO5

For any individual filter that has measured a turbidity level of greater
than 1 .0 NTU in 2 consecutive measurements taken 1 5 minutes apart
the system must report filter number, turbidity measurements, and
date(s) of exceedance; system must produce a filter profile within 7
days of the exceedance and report that the profile has been produced
OR report the obvious reason for the exceedance




























3
S_
fC

;?
coa
C
For any individual filter that has measured a turbidity level of greater
than 0.5 NTU in 2 consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart
after the first four hours of continuous operation after filter has been
backwashed or otherwise taken offline the system must report filter
number, turbidity measurements, and date(s) of exceedance; system
must produce a filter profile within 7 days of the exceedance and
report that the profile has been produced OR report the obvious reaso
for the exceedance
<
X
§
I
-------
_a
i? "E. S
£ W *
<§ ^ f
S P c.
o ^ w
53 *S C
s g- °
2*
-sT "5«
1 1
e> J3
s .s-
II
s if
S -a
21

C3 O
55 8f
c.
e
^o
1

x^
(U
•s
fc.

eral Requirement
1






















3
S
"0
r-
*"^
2;
«O9
has measured a turbidity level of greater
ve measurements taken 15 minutes apart
nths the system must report filter number,
date(s) of exceedance; system must
"the filter within 14 days of the
le self-assessment has been conducted;
I of an assessment of filter performance,
le, identification and prioritization of
mance, an assessment of the applicability
fa filter self-assessment report
J1I1HHII
jllflljlll






















£
S

C--
— ^
2;
Z,
has measured a turbidity level of greater
ve measurements taken 15 minutes apart
system must report filter number, turbidity
f exceedance; system must contact the
t a comprehensive performance evaluation
ng the exceedance and have the evaluation
the state no later than 90 days following
For any individual filter that
than 2.0 NTU in 2 consecuti
in 2 consecutive months the
measurements, and date(s) o
state or a 3"1 party to conduc
no later than 30 days followil
completed and submitted to
the exceedance






















c;
J?


™
?h
Z,
xceeds 1 NTU in representative samples of 1
1 If at anytime the turbiditve;
ne conventional filtration treatment or 1
1 filtered water in a svstem usi
nust inform the state as soon as possible. 1
1 direct filtration, the svstem r
he next business day.
1 but no later than the end oft






















S
f^^


— ;
5-
^
i representative samples of filtered water 1
1 If at anv time the turbidity ir
set by the state under 1 4 1 . 1 73 (b) for 1
1 exceeds the maximum level i
than conventional filtration treatment. 1
1 filtration technologies other I
Itration. or diatomaceous earth filtration. 1
1 direct filtration, slow sarid fil
state as soon as possible, but no later than 1
1 the svstem must inform the i
"O
I the end of the next business

•o
 c
 0>
 o.
 D.
I
-------


















1
w
B
05
O
to
J
^
C/3
1
u
z
LCYREVISIO
I
CL,
3
^.
s
•o
o
u
o
£
•o
R
CA
"o
e-
CO
o
_o
e
"S.
X
|
"S
0
"cS
fe
T3
CU
to






Federal Requirement























;*
H
»H
3 .
' t/5
TRESPON
1
a
£
O
1
i
PH
.05,





























§ 142. 14 RECORDS KEPT BY STATES




















cn^.

if
3
ceo


e

c .
15
~* SOS
•fi r—
Records of turbidity measurements must be kept for not less t
that makes them comparable with the limits specified in §141.
§141. 173, §141. 175




















X
2=^
£
i
cos


0 I

meters necessar;
72 and §141.74,
Records of disinfectant residual measurements and other parai
document disinfection effectiveness, in accordance with §141.'
be kept for not less than 1 year




















X
^s^
^
r-i
cos



» O
lust be kept for r
Records of reporting requirements of §141.75 and §141.175 n:
less than 1 year




















S
^^
f
9
COS


,fi
on
y-case basis mui
Records of decisions made on a system-by-system and case-b
kept in writing and kept at the state




















X
;^c
^
r-i
cos



3
fication to their
e consultation m
Records of .systems consulting with the state concerning modi
disinfection practices under §14 1.1 72(c) including status of th
be kept




















x
X

i
cos


at"
§.g-g
! I HI
"o | _S 'Z g
"5 & "c "« *"
m Q. 03 
-------
c/>
•3
o
o
C3
3
"S
CL,
S
00
o
s
.2
e
"E.
X
W
B
o
£
U™"

"5
o
•3
b



1
1
1
1
1





























1 §142.16 SPECIAL PRIMACY REQUIREMENTS



















£5*
'•§.

s
3*

CN
CO*
e E
1 S
States must have the appropriate rules or other authority to assure that PWSs
respond to significant deficiencies outlined in sanitary survey reports no later tl
45 days after receipt of the report indicating how and on what schedule the sysl
will address significant deficiencies noted in the survey



















:—
'^
^,
g
vo

CN
z,
0
.M
ex
States must have the appropriate rules or other authority to assure that PWSs t:
the necessary steps to address significant deficiencies identified in the sanitary
survey reports if such deficiencies are within the control of a PWS and its
governing body




















^^
G-
g
vo"

??
ten
p
CS
Application must describe how the state will implement a sanitary survey progi
that meets requirements in (b)(3)(i) through (v)



















f — .
>•;
Ci-
e
VO

CN
CO3
a „
_r-t >~»
Conduct sanitary surveys that address the 8 sanitary survey components for all
Subpart H systems no less frequently than every 3 years for CWS and no less t
every 5 years for NCWS; state may allow sanitary surveys conducted after
December 1995 to serve as the first set of required sanitary surveys if the surv<
address the 8 sanitary survey components


















<;
*— •
><
G*
g

p— <
§!
Z>


1 Sanitary survey component: source


















CQ
^^
><
G-
g
VO

CN
Z,


1 Sanitary survey component: treatment


















o
2=^
><
O
g
vo
•— •
CN
cos


Sanitary survey component: distribution system


















a
^^
><
C*"l
@

— i
§
z>


Sanitary survey component: finished water storage


















S?
^^
><
C-
S
vo

CS
CO*


1 Sanitary survey component: pumps, pump facilities, and controls


















cZ^
^^
><
s3-
@
vo
™
9
^


Sanitary survey component: monitoring, reporting, and data verification


















O
)=^
><
S3-
g

^
9
C03


1 Sanitary survey component: system management and operation


















S
^x^
><
G/
g

^->
9
C03


I Sanitary survey component: operator compliance with state requirements



















s^z-
;—;
Q
S

•— .
CN
Z,
- b
•S. g M>
For CWSs determined by the state to have outstanding performance based on p
sanitary surveys, subsequent sanitary surveys may be conducted no less than e
5 years; state must describe how it will decide whether a system has outstandin
performance and is eligible for sanitary surveys at a reduced frequency



















:«
jS;
Cx
g
VO

??
cos
•8
en
CO
Components of the sanitary survey may be completed as part of a staged or ph
state review process within the established frequency

§
 <
 X
-------

2
3
•a
CJ
o
£
•a
e
a
VI
"o
O<
1
o
e
S
"3.
s
S
0
2
Q)
"2
fa



Federal Requirement





















c?
@

^~*
§
cos
CO
S
ction profile as part of the sanitary survey for systei
ith the profiling requirements in § 141 . 172
te must review the disinfe
: are required to comply w
S _§
oo -5



















CO
2]

"^
s
cos


11 decide whether a deficiency identified during the
for purposes of (b)(l)(ii)
te must describe how it wil
itary survey is significant
GO 5



















z?
X
*o
— '
s
«=


iate rules or other authority to require PWSs to
it PWSs implement the followup recommendations
tes must have the appropr
duct a CCP and assure tha
: result from a CCP
-2 g 1
oo t> •S



















R
3

<— i
f?
cos

^
more representative annual data set than the data se
:he purposes of determining the applicability of the
N the state will a approve
§141.172(a)(l)or(2)for1
airementsof§141.172
E<2 sf



















S

iff

c-i
CO3


e method to calculate the logs of inactivation for
cllloramines or ozone for primary disinfection
v the state will approve th
ises for a system that uses
o .si
i


















X
3
VO

CN
cos
C

:h PWSs to evaluate modifications to their disinfecti
v the state will consult wil
;tices
Z g



















(N~
1

•— *
S
cos

i.
that a PWS may use an alternative filtration
,vith disinfection it achieves 99.9% removal/
'a, 99.99% of viruses, 99% of Cryptosporidium; hov
performance requirements that a system must meet
exceed at any time a level that consistently
Giardia lamblia, 99.99% of viruses, 99% of
v the state will determine ;
inology if in combination i
itivation of Giardia lambli
state will set the turbidity
o of the time and may not i
oves/inactivates 99.9% of
ptosporidium
0 -o « o £ G K
X S .S -S at S, G
 
-------
-------
Appendix B
Sample Extension
Agreement
Under 40 CFR 142.12, states must adopt the requirements of the Interim Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) within 2 years of the final rules' publication or by December
16, 2000.

An extension agreement will be necessary only when states have not submitted a complete and
final primacy revision application package by December 16, 2000. For further detail, please refer
to Section III B.

A sample extension agreement is presented on the following pages.
-------
                                   This page is left intentionally blank.
June 2001                    ,                Appendix B-2               IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
                                     Extension Agreement

                                      Name of State Agency
                         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region	
                                      Extension Agreement
                                     for Implementation of the
                    Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR)

 On December 16, 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the final Interim
 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR).  This rule amends the National Primary Drinking
 Water Regulations, 40 CFR Part  141 and the regulations for implementation of the National Primary
 Drinking Water Regulations, 40 CFR Part 142. Most provisions of the rules take effect 36 to 60 months '
 after publication. Some provisions however, affect public water systems (PWSs) earlier.

 The April 28, 1998 revisions to the Primacy Rule extend the time allowed for States to adopt new Federal
 regulations from 18 months to 2  years. Therefore, the State must adopt regulations pertaining to the
 IESWTR and submit a complete  and final primacy revision application by December 16, 2000 unless it
 requests an extension of up to 2 years to adopt the new or revised regulation.

 This document records the terms of a Primacy Extension Agreement between the (Name of State
 Agency) (the State) and the EPA, Region	for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment  Rule,
 and shall remain effective from the date (for State's eligible for interim primacy) this extension
 agreement is signed until either December 16, 2002 or the date the State's primacy application is
 submitted under 40 C.F.R. §142.12. To retain primacy the State must submit a final and approvable
 primacy revision application incorporating the  above-referenced provisions of the Federal Register to
 EPA, Region	by December 16, 2000, or no later than December 16, 2002, if the State has been
 granted an extension.

 Until the State primacy revision application has been submitted, for States eligible for interim primacy,
 or approved, the State and EPA, Region _,	will share responsibility for implementing the primary
 program elements as indicated below.

 This Extension Agreement outlines the responsibilities of (Name of State Agency) and EPA, Region
 	as partners in this effort, working toward two very  specific public health-related goals. The first
 goal is to achieve a high level of compliance with the regulation. The second goal is to facilitate
 successful implementation of the  regulation during the transition period before the State has interim
 primacy for the rule. In order to accomplish these goals, education and training will need to be provided
 to water suppliers on their responsibilities under the IESWTR.
IESWTR Implementation Guidance             Appendix B-3                                  June 2001
-------
Activities to be carried out by the State or Region:

Q      Notify PWSs within 60 days of signing this extension agreement of the requirements of the
        IESWTR;

Q      Identify other State agencies that should receive copies of the IESWTR. Within 60 days of
        signing this extension agreement, provide EPA Region with the names, addresses, and phone
        numbers of contacts identified within those agencies;

Q      Train State staff and PWSs on the requirements of the IESWTR;

Q      Devise a tracking system for PWSs' monitoring and reporting performed pursuant to the
        IESWTR;

Q      Issue notices to PWSs that fail to meet requirements of the IESWTR;

Q      Provide copies of the IESWTR in response to public inquiries;

Q      Report IESWTR violation and enforcement information to SDWIS as required;

Q      Coordinate with water associations to increase awareness of requirements;

Q      Assist with public outreach  efforts to inform and educate PWSs;

Q      Prepare guidance as needed, or forward national guidance to the States;

Q      Keep States informed of SDWIS reporting requirements during development and
        implementation;

Q      Compliance assistance; and,

Q      Notify States of all Federal enforcement actions.
June 2001                                   Appendix B-4 '             IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
 This Extension Agreement will take effect upon the date of the last signature.


        Dated this	day of	, 2000



        Agency Director or Secretary


        Name of State Agency


        Dated this	day of	, 2000
        Regional Administrator ,
        EPA, Region	
IESWTR Implementation Guidance              Appendix B-5                                  June 2001
-------
                                   This page is left intentionally blank.
June 2001                                    Appendix B-6              IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
Appendix C
Statement of
Principles—Guidance on
Audit Law Issues
-------
                                   This page is left intentionally blank.
June 2001
                                            Appendix C-2              IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
                        UNmED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                                  , Q.C.
                                      FEB U JS9T
        SUBJECT:    Statement of Principles
                     Effect of State Audit LamimtyJPrivilege: Laws
                      On Enforcement Authority for Federal PKjgtarcs

        TO'.          Regional Aiaiaistrators
FROM:       SteveaA,He:
             Assistant.
                                       !tor,'OECA
                     Robert PercLasepe
                     Assistant AH

                     MaiyNich,o£s
                     Assistant

                     Timothy Fields
                     Acting Assistant

               XJnder federal Saw, states saost have, adopts authority to enforce fhc teqiunancats of any
         fof era! programs they aws aufliotbied tb atiiaaiistitr- Stxaw state iaadit tDmimity/privS^e laws
         place iastnc401is Q n &* abiiity of staites to -obtain, penalties sad injuactrve relief &r-vioisdocB of
         federal program requiremeats, or to obtam. in&nnation^that.ttiay i« ufiedisd to determina
         coraplustqc status. TSJs statcnattit-.ofprincipl« reflects EPA's odcatatioa, t<; a$pro-ring new- state
         programs or program, madiiications irt-the race of state audit laws that-restrict stats, enforcement
         and inffonnaiion gsdieiing asiifaciity, .WHlc' such, state laws may raise questions aboot other
         fiste^.piwgrajnreqmrsinants, ftisstaiejnMins litnitedto the qacstioaof -wbffft earoKWirtenit and
         jfifonaatjon' gathering autharity may be coRskfcrerf adequate for tfae-purposs of'appro viag or
         ddegataJij* programs in stetes-w-itis audit privilege or onmuoily laws,            "*
IESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                     Appendix C-3
ywwe 2001
-------
 I. Audit LmEnmity Laws

       Federal law and regulation requires state'to. hive aothoriiy to obtain iajuactiyc relief sad
 civil and criminal penalties far any-violation of-program-requirements. la.dftteOTUimg whether
 to authorize -or approve a program or program modification in a state wrti. aa audit Jmmtirtity
 law, EPA must consider whether the sale's enfercement authority meets federal program
• -requirements. To maintain such au&ority while at the same time providing incentives for self-
 policing in appropriate circumstances, states should; rely on policies rather than, enact statutory
 immunities for any Violations. "However, in ditermtaiag wtsrfaertaese reqmrerusiits.aie met in
 stales with laws pertaininB to -voluntary auditing, EPA will-be particularly concerned, among
 other factors, -wife whether ibe state has the ability to:

        1) Obtain immediate sad complete injiinctive relief;.

        2) Recover civil penalties for:

               i) significant econamic benerst;

               ii) repeat violatiocs and violatiorts of judicial oradiaiaistrativs ordos;

               iii) serious haim;

               iv) activities tltar ooay present irnsaiaeffiE & substantial sadaagenaeat
       I-
               in addition for violations that result fiom. gross iiagligeac* tader the Clean Watsr Act,

        The piesumptioii is that each o£ thssm aiithoritLis abist be present at-a minmttnn before the state's
        enforocaicnt aKriiorisy may be coaskteK^ adequate. Ho wcver, other fectors-mfhestatatiK may
        eliminate or so narrow ti» scope of penalty immunity' to the point wfeere EPA's 'concems are
        met. Forexampler                                     '                               "

               1)' The immunity provided by the statute may be  limited to .minor violations and contain
               other restricdons that sharply limit its spplHJabn&y to federal prograaos,

               2) The statute may inclndft ejpiidt ptovisioas that make it inapplicable to federal.
               programs,

        d. Audit Privilege Laws

               Adequate civil and ertraitisl enforcement au.thoritj' means fiiat die state must have the
        ability to obtain information deeded to identify aonccunpUaiice and criminal conduct. ' In

June 2001                                    Appendix C-4               IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
        anaiiiijt,privjle:te:the.sta(Kto:

               I) rttaia. information gatteiag authority it is required to- have radec the specific.                    > I
               requirements of regulations governing authorized or delegated programs;                          . c
                                                                                                          5.
               2) avoid aakHif ih* privilege applicable to ettminai iavestigatioBS, grand jmy                       |
               proceedings, and prosecutions, or exempt .evidence of encanaJ conduct from the' scope of             R
               privilege;           .                               •                     "                    j?
               3} preserve the ri giit of ths.pubnc to
               violations and bring «aibrcorcant qualifications:

                1) "While these jsnnciples will be consisseBfly applied .ta r«viewiii.g staja safercemcat  ..
                sutibnty aader federal programs, stats Jaws vary its thfiir detail. It -wiE b« important to
                scrudnise the provisions of such statiitss dosely 5n d etennirong whether «tx&rc«n«nt
                authority is provided.

              •  Z) Many .provision* of state Issv may be. anibi^iovis, sad st will gen«irailY be important to
                obtaiaaa optnion from the state Attorney General regarding £tic meaning of .the state law

IESWTR Implementation Guidance               Appendix C-5                                     June 2001
-------
             and the effect of th* state's law oa iiis cdbrcsswatattttoaty aa ft is outlined in tfasac
             principles. Depending on its «jnclu5Kms,EPA naay d«tersamcthat tfae Attorney
             General's opinion is sufficient to establish 'ibai'tias? siste ias the required enforcement
             authority.

             3} TkeS4 principles ase. broadly .applicable to t}» reqmrecieaj$ for penalty aaa..i»fonaa!ioa
             ^acring authority for cadi of fiwprogranis d«(J sbov*. To t3w wctent, to diferaat or
             more specific requirements Sot eofbrasment authority may be found in federal, law or
             regulations,. EPA' will tatos tijcse iiuo jKcamit 5n condlicfing its review of sate programs,
             In addition, this memorandum docs aot address other issues tlbat could be raised by state
             audit laws, such as tiie scope of public participation or die availability to the public of
             rnfonretwn within the stale's possesstoa.           .          —.      ...   .

        fV.Ntst Steps                  "

              Regional 6fficcs_sfcould, in oons«ltati<*o with OEC A sod national program offices^
        develop a staie-by-stalc plan to work wtth states to remedy any 'problems idetitifiad pursuant to
        application, of these principfcs. As a first step, regiocs stould'conuct state attorneys general for
        aa opinion regarding die eifect'ofany audit privilegs or foirnanity lav on eafocccnieai; authonty
       _ as discussed fottwse principles.

J«ne 200;                                    Appendix C-6               IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
Appendix D
IESWTR Plain English
Summary
-------
This page is left intentionally blank.
-------
        United States         Office of Water    EPA 816-R-01-015
        Environmental Protection      (4606)       June 2001
        Agency
£EPA   The Interim Enhanced Surface
        Water Treatment Rule
        What Does it Mean to You?
-------
This page is left intentionally blank.
-------
TABLE  OF CONTENTS
Definitions and Abbreviations 	3
1.  Introduction	 5
       Purpose of the Guide	5
       Background	5
       Development of the Rule	6
       Benefits of the Rule	7
2.  Applicability and Compliance Dates	7
3.  Summary of Requirements	9
       Disinfection profiling and benchmarking	9
       Cryptosporidium  	10
       Strengthened turbidity requirements	10
       Individual filter monitoring requirements	 10
       Uncovered finished water storage facilities -	10
       Public water system recordkeeping and reporting requirements	10
       Sanitary surveys	 11
       Unfiltered Systems	11
4.  Additional Information	11
5.  Detailed regulatory requirements	13
       Combined filter effluent turbidity monitoring	14
       Individual filter turbidity monitoring	20
       Disinfection profiling and benchmarking .	24
                                           Pagel
-------
This page is left intentionally blank.
              Page 2
-------
Definitions and Abbreviations
Definitions

Comprehensive performance evaluation (CPE) — is a thorough review and analysis of a treatment
plant's performance-based capabilities and associated administrative, operation and maintenance
practices. It is conducted to identify factors that may be adversely impacting a plant's capability to
achieve compliance and emphasizes approaches that can be implemented without significant capital
improvements.

Disinfection profile — is a summary of daily Giardia lamblia inactivation through the treatment plant.

Filter profile — is a graphical representation of individual filter performance, based on continuous
turbidity measurements or total particle counts versus time for an entire filter run, from startup to
backwash inclusively, that includes an assessment of filter performance while another filter is being
backwashed.

Uncovered finished water storage facility — is a tank, reservoir, or other facility used to store water
that will undergo no further treatment except residual disinfection and is open to the atmosphere.
Abbreviations  Used in  This Document

CCP:                Composite Correction Program
CDC:                Centers for Disease Control
CPE:                Comprehensive Performance Evaluation
CTA:                Comprehensive Technical Assistance
CWS:               Community Water System
DBF:                Disinfection Byproducts
DBPP:              Disinfection Byproducts Precursors
DBPR:              Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule
EC:                 Enhanced Coagulation
EPA:                United States Environmental Protection Agency
ES:                 Enhanced Softening
ESWTR:             Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
FACA:              Federal Advisory Committee Act
FR:                 Federal Register
GAC10:             Granular activated carbon with ten minute empty bed contact time and 180 day
                    reactivation frequency
GWR:               Ground Water Rule
GWUDI:             Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water
HAAS:              Haloacetic acids (Monochloroacetic,  Dichloroacetic, Trichloroacetic,
                    Monobromoacetic and Dibromoacetic Acids)
hrs:                 Hours
ICR:                Information Collection Rule

                                           Page3
-------
IESWTR:
Log Inactivation:
Log:
LT1ESWTR:
LT2ESWTR:
LTESWTR:
MCL:
MCLG:
M-DBP:
MR:
MRDL:
MRDLG:
NCWS:
NSCEP:
NTIS:
NTNCWS:
NTU:
PWS:
RegNeg.:
SDWAor'TheAct":
SDWIS:
Subpart H:

SUVA:
SWTR:
TNCWS:
TOG:
TTHM:
x log removal:
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Logarithm of (N(/NT)
Logarithm (common, base 10)
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Long Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Maximum Contaminant Level
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
Microbial and Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts
Monitoring/Reporting
Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level
Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal
Non-Community Water System
National Service for Environmental Publications
National Technical Information Service
Non-Transient Non-Community Water System
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Public Water System
Regulatory Negotiation
Safe Drinking Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Information System
PWS using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface
water
Specific Ultraviolet Absorption
Surface Water Treatment Rule
Transient Non-Community Water System
Total Organic Carbon
Total Trihalomethanes
Reduction to 1 /10X of original concentration
                                            Page 4
-------
 1. Introduction
Purpose of the Guide

The purpose of this guide is to detail the regulatory requirements of the Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (IESWTR), The IESWTR, published in the Federal Register on December 16, 1998 (63
FR 69478; www.epa.gov/OGWDW/mdbp/ieswtrfr.html: 66 FR 3770;
www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/iesfr.html: Appendix H—rule language only), is the first part of a series of
rules, the "Microbial-Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Cluster" (M-DBP Cluster), to be published
over the next several years that are intended to control microbial pathogens while minimizing the public
health risks of disinfectants and disinfection byproducts (DBFs). The IESWTR is designed to address the
health risks from microbial contaminants without significantly increasing the potential risks from
chemical contaminants. This rule was published concurrently with the Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR), which addresses control of disinfectants and their byproducts.
Background

The 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) called for EPA to regulate drinking water by creating the
national interim primary drinking water regulations (NIPDWR).  In 1979, the first interim standard
addressing DBFs was set for total trihalomethanes (TTHMs), a group of four volatile organic chemicals
which form when disinfectants react with natural organic matter in the water.

Although SDWA was amended slightly in 1977, 1979, and 1980, the most significant changes to the
1974 law occurred when SDWA was reauthorized in 1986.  Disease-causing microbial contamination
had not been sufficiently controlled under the original Act. To safeguard public health, the 1986
Amendments required EPA to  set health goals, or maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for 83 named contaminants.  EPA was also required to establish
regulations within certain time frames, require disinfection of all  public water supplies, specify filtration
requirements for nearly all water systems that draw their water from surface sources, and develop
additional programs to protect ground water supplies.

In 1989, EPA issued two important National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR):  The Total
Coliform Rule (TCR) and the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR).  The TCR and SWTR provide the
foundation for the M-DBP Cluster and are summarized below.

The TCR covers all public water systems.  Since coliforms are easily detected in water, they are used to
indicate a water system's vulnerability to pathogens in the water. In the TCR, EPA set a MCLG of zero
for total coliforms. EPA also set a MCL for total coliforms.  If more than 5.0 percent of the samples
contain coliforms within a month, water system operators must report this violation to the state and the
public. In addition, sanitary surveys are required every five or ten years (depending on the quality of the
source water) for every system that collects fewer than five samples per month (typically systems that
serve less than 4,100 people).

EPA issued the SWTR in response to Congress'  mandate requiring disinfection, and where necessary,
filtration of systems that draw their water from surface sources before distribution. The SWTR applies to
all systems that use surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI).
The rule sets MCLGs for  Legionella, Giardia lamblia, and viruses at zero since any exposure to these
contaminants presents some  level of health risk.
                                              PageS
-------
Specifically, the rule requires that a surface water system have sufficient treatment to reduce the source
water concentration ofGiardia lamblia and viruses by at least 99.9 percent (3 log) and 99.99 percent (4
log), respectively. A detectable disinfection residual must be maintained throughout the entire
distribution system. For systems that filter, the adequacy of the filtration process is determined by
measuring the turbidity of the treated water since high levels of turbidity often indicate that the filtration
process is not working properly. The goal of the SWTR is to reduce risk to less than one infection per
year per 10,000 people. However, the SWTR does not account for systems with high pathogen
concentrations that, when treated at the levels required under the rule, still may not meet this health goal.
and the rule does not specifically control for the protozoan Cryptosporidium.

In 1990, EPA's Science Advisory Board, an independent panel of experts established by Congress, cited
drinking water contamination as one of the most important environmental risks and indicated that
disease-causing microbial contaminants (i.e., bacteria, protozoa, and viruses) are probably the greatest
remaining health-risk management challenge for drinking water suppliers. Data from the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC) confirm this concern and indicate that between 1980 and 1994, 379 waterborne
disease outbreaks were reported, with over 500,000 cases of disease. During this period, a number of
agents were implicated as the cause, including protozoa, viruses, bacteria, and several chemicals. Most of
the cases (but not the outbreaks) were associated with surface water, including a single outbreak of
cryptosporidiosis in Milwaukee (over 400,000 cases).

In response to these findings, the SDWA was further amended in 1996 to improve public health
protection by incorporating new data on the adverse health effects of contaminants, the  occurrence of
contaminants in public water systems, and the estimated reduction in health risks that would result from
further regulation.  The Act also increased scientific research requirements and emphasized cost-benefit
analyses in the regulatory decision process.

Based  on prevailing scientific data, the M-DBP Cluster is intended to control microbial pathogens while
minimizing the public health risk from disinfectants and DBFs.  Since multiple threats require multiple
barriers, the IESWTR  and Stage 1 DBPR expand on the foundation of the TCR, SWTR,  and TTHM
standards to target health risk outliers unaddressed by prior regulations. By targeting these gaps, multiple
threats can be minimized.

The IESWTR builds on the SWTR by adding protection from Cryptosporidium through strengthened
combined filter effluent turbidity performance standards and individual filter turbidity provisions for
filtered systems that serve greater than 10,000 people.  For unfiltered systems, Cryptosporidium must be
included in the watershed control requirements.  In addition, the IESWTR builds on the TCR by
requiring sanitary surveys for all public water systems using surface water and ground water under the
direct influence of surface water.  The IESWTR also requires covers for all new finished water storage
facilities and includes disinfection benchmark provisions to ensure continued levels of microbial
protection while taking the necessary steps to comply with the DBF standards. Collectively, the SWTR
and IESWTR place stringent treatment requirements on. systems using surface water as  a source.

By building on the foundation set forth by the original SDWA, the quality of drinking water has
improved and public health protection has increased. The IESWTR and Stage 1 DBF Rules are part of a
series of rules designed to expand on the foundation of prior rulemaking efforts.  By encompassing
previously unaddressed health risks from microbials and disinfection byproducts, the M-DBP Cluster
continues to maximize drinking water quality and public health protection.
                                               Page 6
-------
Development of the Rule

The new rules are a product of 6 years of collaboration among the water supply industry, environmental
and public health groups, and local, state, and federal governments. EPA first launched a rule-making
process in 1992 and convened a Regulatory Negotiation (RegNeg) Advisory Committee under the
Federal Advisory Committees Act (FACA), representing a range of stakeholders affected by possible
regulation. The 1996 SDWA Amendments required EPA to develop rules to balance the risks between
microbial pathogens and disinfection byproducts.

In 1997, a similar FACA process was implemented with the Microbial-Disinfectants/Disinfection
Byproducts (M-DBP) Advisory Committee. The M-DBP Committee convened to collect, share, and
analyze new information available since 1994, review previous assumptions made during the RegNeg
process, as well as build consensus on the regulatory implications of this new information. Negotiations
resulted in the following three proposals:

        •      A staged approach to regulation of DBFs (referred to as the Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBPRs)
               incorporating Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), Maximum Residual Disinfectant
               Levels (MRDLs), and treatment technique requirements;

        •      A companion Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) designed to
               improve control of microbial pathogens and prevent inadvertent reductions in microbial
               safety as  a result of DBP control efforts; and,

        •      An Information Collection Rule (ICR) to collect information necessary to reduce many
               key uncertainties prior to subsequent negotiations for the Stage 2 DBPR.

Benefits of the Rule

The IESWTR will improve public health by increasing the level of protection from exposure to
Cryptosporidium and other pathogens in drinking water supplies through improvements in filtration at
water systems. According to the risk assessment performed for the Regulatory Impact Analysis, the
IESWTR decreases the likelihood of endemic illness (constant, low-level presence of a disease or
infection) from Cryptosporidium by  110,000 to 463,000 cases annually. Based on these values, the
estimated annual benefits of reducing the illness range from $0.263 billion to $1.240 billion per year.
This calculation is based on a valuation of $2,000 per incidence of cryptosporidiosis prevented. The
IESWTR will also reduce the risk of more severe health impacts on sensitive populations, including the
risk of mortality. Additionally, the IESWTR will reduce the likelihood of outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis
and its associated costs by providing a larger margin of safety against such outbreaks in some systems.
2.  Applicability and Compliance Dates
The IESWTR applies to public water systems (PWSs) that use surface -water or ground -water under the
direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) as a source (also known as subpart H systems) and serve
10,000 or more people. Additionally, it establishes a schedule by which states are required to conduct
sanitary surveys for all subpart H systems.

Subpart H systems serving at least 10,000 people must comply with the turbidity and monitoring
requirements, the primary requirements of the IESWTR, no later than January 1, 2002. However, PWSs
with elevated levels of DBFs (total trihalomethanes—TTHM; and five haloacetic acids—HAAS) are

                                              Page 7
-------
required to develop an evaluation of their existing disinfection practices—a disinfection profile—no later
than April 2001.
The timetable for the IESWTR is presented in Table 1. The compliance .dates for the associated Stage 1
Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR) are January 2002 and January 2004. Subpart
H systems that serve 10,000 or more people will have to comply with the provisions of the Stage 1 DBPR
by January 2002. Subpart H systems that serve fewer than 10,000 people and all ground water systems
will have to comply with the provisions of the rule by January 2004. The rules to provide  additional
microbial protection for small subpart H systems (Long Term 1 ESWTR) and ground water systems
(Ground Water Rule) are scheduled to be finalized in Spring/Summer 2001, with compliance required by
Spring/Summer 2004.

                    Table 1: Timetable for the IESWTR Requirements
Date
December 16, 1998
February 16, 1999
February 16, 1999
March 16, 1999
April 16, 1999
DecemberSl, 1999
DecemberSl, 1999
DecemberSl, 1999
March 3 1,2000
March 3 1,2000
April 1,2000
April 1, 2000
March 31, 2001
IESWTR Requirement
Rule is published in Federal Register [63 FR241 69478].
60-day legal challenge period ends.
Construction of uncovered finished water storage facilities is prohibited [40 CFR
141.170(c)].
After this date, TTHM and HAAS monitoring must begin for systems that do not have
ICR or occurrence data and wish to determine if they must develop a disinfection profile
[40 CFR 141.172(a)(2)(iii)].
Systems that have 4 consecutive quarters of HAAS occurrence data that meet the TTHM
monitoring requirements must submit those data to the state to determine if they must
develop a disinfection profile [40 CFR 141.172(a)(5)(ii)].
TTHM and HAAS data are due for those systems that collected data under the ICR to
determine if they must develop a disinfection profile [40 CFR 141.172(a)(5)(i)].
Systems that elect to profile without conducting 4 quarters of TTHM and HAAS
monitoring must notify the state of their election [40 CFR 141.172(a)(5)(iv)].
Systems that wish to request state approval of "a more representative annual data set"
than the ICR data set to determine if they must develop a disinfection profile must do so
in writing [40 CFR 141. 172(a)(5)(v)].
TTHM and HAAS monitoring must be complete for systems determining if they must
develop a disinfection profile [40 CFR 141.172(a)(2)(iii)(A)].
If system is using 3 years of existing operational data to develop the disinfection profile,
the profile generated from these data and a request for state approval must be submitted
[40 CFR 141.172(b)(3)(i)].
Systems determining if they must develop a disinfection profile must submit their .
TTHM and HAAS data to the state [40 CFR 141.172(a)(5)(iii)].
Systems must begin developing a disinfection profile if either their annual average
TTHM s 0.064 mg/L or their annual average HAAS ;> 0.048 mg/L [40 CFR
141.172(b)(2)].
Disinfection profile is complete [40 CFR 141.172(b)(2)].
                                             PageS
-------
Date
March 3 1,2001
December 3 1,2001
December 3 1,2001
December 3 1,2001
January 1,2002
December 2004
December 2006
IESWTR Requirement
After this date, systems that were required to develop a disinfection profile that wish to
make a significant change to their disinfection practice must first calculate a disinfection
benchmark and consult with the state [40 CFR 141.172(c)].
Systems that are not required to filter must comply with the requirements for TTHM in
§141.12 and §141.30 until this date. After this date, systems must comply with the
requirements in Subpart L for TTHM, HAAS, bromate, chlorite, chlorine, chloramines,
and chlorine dioxide [40 CFR 141.71(b)(6)].
Systems that do not meet all of the criteria for avoiding filtration and use
conventional/direct filtration must meet the turbidity requirements of the rule [0.3 NTU
CFE (combined filter effluent) 95 percent of the time, at no time exceed 1 NTU] [40
CFR 141.173].
Alternative technologies for systems that serve at least 10,000 people must remove 99
percent of Cryptosporidium oocysts, and the state must establish alternative turbidity
performance standards that must be met 95 percent of the time and a maximum [40 CFR
141.173(b)].
Systems must comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR
141.175, including turbidity exceptions reporting. Systems must, when appropriate:
• Produce filter profiles or identify obvious reason for poor filter performance.
• Report profile has been produced or identify obvious reason for poor filter
performance.
• Conduct filter self-assessments.
• Have 3rd party CPEs performed.
State must have first round of sanitary surveys completed for Subpart H CWSs [40 CFR
142.16(b)(3)(i)].
State must have first round of sanitary surveys completed for Subpart H NCWSs [40
CFR 142.16(b)(3)(i)].
3.  Summary of Requirements

Disinfection profiling and benchmarking

Surface water or GWUDI systems having average annual TTHM s 0.064 mg/L or annual average HAAS
s 0.048 mg/L must develop a disinfection profile. The disinfection profile is a compilation of daily
measurements of microbial inactivation by disinfection, collected over the period of 1 year. From the
disinfection profile, the PWS calculates the average microbial inactivation potential for each month, and
the lowest monthly average inactivation becomes the disinfection benchmark.

The purpose of these provisions is to provide a process whereby a public water system (PWS) and the
state, working together, assure that there will be no significant reduction in microbial protection as the
result of disinfection practice modifications designed to meet the more restrictive maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) for DBFs established in the Stage 1 DBPR. Those PWSs required to develop disinfection
profiles, and that then wish to modify their disinfection practices to meet the new MCLs, must establish
the disinfection benchmark and consult with the state prior to implementing such modifications. In
addition, PWSs must keep the disinfection profile on file for the state to review during their sanitary
surveys. The benchmark does not set a new regulatory floor for disinfection practice, but instead
                                             Page 9
-------
 characterizes current practice so that the system, in consultation with the state, can make an informed
 decision when implementing a modification.

 Cryptosporidium

 The IESWTR sets a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of zero for the protozoan
 Cryptosporidium. It also establishes a requirement for 2-log (99%) removal of Cryptosporidium for
 systems that must currently filter under the SWTR. Systems that use conventional or direct filtration
 meet this requirement if they are in compliance with the strengthened turbidity performance standards for
 combined filter effluent in the IESWTR (discussed below). Systems that use slow sand or diatomaceous
 earth filtration meet the 2-log removal requirement if they are in compliance with the existing turbidity
 performance standards under the SWTR.

 The IESWTR also extends the existing watershed control requirements for unfiltered systems to include
 the control of potential sources of Cryptosporidium. Such sources must be included in an unfiltered
 system's watershed control plan.

 These new provisions, along with the new turbidity requirements, will better protect consumers from
 Cryptosporidium and other pathogens.

 Strengthened turbidity requirements

 The IESWTR includes a series of requirements related to turbidity. These requirements strengthen
 current SWTR requirements for combined filter effluent for systems that use conventional or direct
 filtration. The turbidity level of a system's combined filtered water at each plant must be less than or
 equal to 0.3 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) in at least 95 percent of the measurements taken each
 month,  and the turbidity level of a system's combined filtered water must at no time exceed 1 NTU
 (under the SWTR, these turbidity requirements are 0.5 NTU and 5 NTU, respectively).

 Individual filter monitoring requirements

 The IESWTR requires continuous turbidity monitoring for individual filters. The rule requires that
 surface water and GWUDI systems that use conventional or direct filtration must conduct continuous
 turbidity monitoring (every 15 minutes) on the effluent of each individual filter. PWSs must report
 instances of poor filter performance to the state, and, based on performance triggers, must take prescribed
 actions  to identify and correct the cause(s). This requirement will allow systems to identify filters whose
 poor performance might be masked in a combined filter effluent.

 Uncovered finished water storage facilities

 The rule prohibits building any uncovered finished water storage facilities (reservoir, holding tank, or
 other storage facility) for which construction begins after February 16, 1999. This provision will help
 limit recontamination of treated water, but does not require that existing uncovered finished water
 storage  facilities be covered.


Public water system recordkeeping and reporting requirements

 The IESWTR requires PWSs to submit  combined filter effluent monitoring and compliance data and
 report that they have conducted individual filter turbidity monitoring to states within 10 days after the
 end of each month the system serves water to the public. Additionally, PWSs must report to the state if
 certain individual filter monitoring trigger levels are exceeded.  In this case, systems must report turbidity

                                              Page 10
-------
 measurements and report that filter profiles, filter self-assessments, or Comprehensive Performance
 Evaluation (CPE) reports have been produced or conducted when instances of poor filter performance
 occur or persist based on monitoring of individual filter performance.  Systems must maintain the results
 of individual filter monitoring for at least three years.

 Sanitary surveys

 The IESWTR requires that the state must conduct sanitary surveys for all PWSs using surface water or
 ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI), regardless of the population served,
 no less frequently than every 3 years for community water systems and every 5 years for noncommunity
 systems. For community water systems determined by the state in previous sanitary surveys to have
 "outstanding performance," successive sanitary surveys may be conducted at up to 5-year intervals.

 Unfiltered Systems

 The IESWTR requires unfiltered systems to continue to meet the SWTR source water and site-specific
 requirements to remain unfiltered.  In addition, unfiltered systems must include Cryptosporidium in their
 watershed control programs and must meet all Stage 1 DBPR MCLs and MRDLs to remain unfiltered.
 Like filtered systems, they are subject to disinfection profiling and benchmarking and sanitary surveys.


 4.  Additional Information

 A series of guidance manuals have been developed to support the Interim Enhanced Surface Water
 Treatment Rule and the Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule. The manuals will aid EPA,
 state agencies and affected public water systems in implementing the two interrelated rales, and will help
 to ensure that implementation among these groups is consistent. The manuals are available on EPA's
 website at www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/implement.html.  Additional information on ordering these
 manuals is provided below.

 The manuals for the IESWTR include:

 Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual (EPA 815-R-99-013)

 Objective: To help determine if a disinfection profile (an evaluation of current disinfection practice) is
 required and how to do one; when a disinfection benchmark must be determined and how  to extract it
 from the profile; and how a public water system uses the benchmark, in consultation with the state, to
protect from microbial risk when the system changes disinfection practice.

 Contents: The manual provides detailed information on the  following subjects: applicability of the
profiling and benchmarking requirements to public water systems; procedures for generating a
disinfection profile, including example profiles; methods for calculating the disinfection benchmark,
including example calculations; the use of the benchmark in modifying disinfection practices,
communicating with the state, and assessing significant changes to disinfection practices; the
development of the profiling and benchmarking regulations; the significance of the log inactivation  •
concept and CT values for inactivations achieved by various disinfectants;  and the determination of
contact time.
                                             Page 11
-------
Guidance Manual for Compliance with the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule:
Turbidity Provisions  (EPA 815-R-99-010)

Objective: The first section provides technical information regarding specific requirements of the
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule relating to turbidity and is intended for experienced
operators and others in the regulated community. The second section of the document provides
background on concepts surrounding turbidity and serves as a primer for less experienced operators and
individuals.

Contents: The first section contains key regulatory requirements including combined filter effluent
monitoring and individual filter monitoring;  recordkeeping and reporting requirements; additional
compliance issues such as compliance schedule, public notification, variances/exemptions, and follow-up
action requirements; approved methods and additional measurement and calibration issues; components
and description of a filter self-assessment; and components and description of a Comprehensive
Performance Evaluation.The second section of the manual includes more basic information on turbidity;
description of the particles (both natural and man-made) which typically contribute to turbidity;
discussion of typical steps in a treatment process and how turbidity is removed or created in each step;
discussion of turbidity in different source waters with an emphasis  of how changes in source water effect
turbidity; and basic turbidimeter design.

Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual (EPA 815-R-99-014)

Objective: To provide technical data and engineering information on disinfectants and oxidants that are
not as commonly used as chlorine, so that systems can evaluate their options for developing disinfection
schemes to control water quality problems such as zebra mussels and Asiatic clams, and oxidation to
control water quality problems associated with iron and manganese.

Contents: The manual discusses six disinfectants and oxidants: ozone,  chlorine dioxide, potassium
permanganate, chloramines, ozone/hydrogen peroxide combinations, and ultraviolet light.  A decision
tree is provided to help evaluate which disinfectant(s) is most appropriate given certain site-specific
conditions (e.g., water quality conditions, existing treatment and operator skill).  The manual also
contains a summary of existing alternative disinfectants use in the United States and cost estimates for
the use of alternative disinfectants.

Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts Simultaneous Compliance Manual (EPA 815-R-99-015)

Objective: To help public water systems achieve simultaneous compliance with various drinking water
regulations (e.g., Stage 1 Disinfectants and  Disinfection Byproducts Rule, Interim Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule, Lead and Copper Rule and the Total Coliform Rule). The manual discusses
operational problems systems may encounter when implementing these rules.

Contents: The manual provides detailed information on the requirements in the Stage 1 Disinfectants
and Disinfection Byproducts Rule and the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.

Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems: Surface Water and
Ground Water Under the Direct Influence (GWUDI) (EPA 815-R-99-016)

Objective: The guidance manual provides an overview of how to conduct a sanitary survey of all  water
systems using surface water and ground water under the direct influence of surface water. It is intended
to help state agencies improve their sanitary survey programs where needed.
                                              Page 12
-------
Contents: The manual provides information about the objective and regulatory context of sanitary
surveys. It covers four principal stages of a sanitary survey: planning, including preparatory steps to be
taken by inspectors before conducting the onsite portion; conducting the onsite survey; compiling a
sanitary survey report; and performing follow-up activities.

Uncovered Finished  Water Reservoirs (EPA 815-R-99-011)

Objective: To provide information on v/ays systems can limit water quality degradation in existing
finished water reservoirs.

Contents: The manual provides detailed information on the following subjects: developing and
implementing comprehensive open finished water reservoir management plans based on site-specific
conditions; identifying potential sources  of contamination in open finished water reservoirs and potential
mitigation measures; employing different methods to control the degradation of water quality while it
resides in the reservoir; monitoring schemes that can be  used to characterize water quality and identify
water quality degradation before it becomes severe and is difficult to correct.
 To order copies of these^gmdance manuals youTmay contact the,"Safe Drinking Water Hotline at   . --^
 (800)426^4791 oryou'maydownloadan'electronic version'frornthe^OGWTJW syebSite at:-J," "' '  ^> *
  *   :'      ,-',  '*•»  .-'-  v* ''*'•"/'  ;vy:^,  :V   \     >>"   -."f'-~V
    1  ^"""      '   *  „,    wwwlepa.gov/safewater/mdbp/implement.html   ~  "  T       ^
         ft                     J^  i^     ^  *  f^          ^ *   -t~,              rt^^X^f*,!,
                   W ^ ~  ? ,   ^ *^ ** ± "** £   *          ~ "^                 "^"     ->^<- *      "°  V f '
 Guidance manuals are aiso~availableTlirougfi-the National^Service Center lor, Environmentel  ^ „ ^     % - ;
 Publications "(NSCEP) Cfree of cljiarge);  Tnese documents may alsp-be' pittchasedjhrough National
 Technical Information Serv|cex(NTIS)"*-,   ~   ^    v.  :                   '        ~%        '
                               ~~  s-  *. -,  *     _.   '3^    __   I    <£,
                               KSCEP:   i;80a490.9t98  "^       '
                                         1.800.55316847"  ~'^     \-        -~  *
5.  Detailed regulatory requirements

Detailed descriptions of the monitoring and reporting requirements for public water systems (PWSs) are
presented in the following section. The IESWTR applies only to subpart H systems that serve 10,000 or
more people, with the exception of a sanitary survey provision that applies to all subpart H systems (the
state or a third party conducts the sanitary survey). These systems are all required to monitor and report
similar data, with the exception of turbidity exceedance reports that will be prepared as required.

Combined filter effluent turbidity monitoring

The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment. Rule (IESWTR) establishes a number of provisions
related to the performance of filters used in drinking water treatment.  These provisions include treatment
technique requirements restricting turbidity levels in the combined filter effluent.  These requirements
are designed to decrease risk from waterborne microbial pathogens by limiting levels of particulate
material in finished water.   EPA has used a treatment technique because it is neither technically nor
economically feasible to measure pathogens such as Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and viruses in either the
source water or treated water.
                                             Page 13
-------
Which systems must comply with turbidity requirements for the combined filter effluent under the
DESVVTR?
The treatment technique requirements for combined filter effluent turbidity under the IESWTR apply to
public water systems (PWS) that use surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface
water (GWUDI), serve 10,000 or more people, and are required to filter.

What are the maximum allowable levels of turbidity in the combined filter effluent?
For systems using conventional filtration or direct filtration, the turbidity level of representative samples
of a system's filtered water must be less than or equal to 0.3 NTU in at least 95 percent of the
measurements taken each month, and must never exceed 1 NTU. For slow sand and diatomaceous earth
filtration systems, requirements for turbidity levels in the combined filter effluent remain as specified
under the SWTR (less than or equal to 1 NTU in 95 percent of the measurements taken each month and
never greater than 5 NTU).  For systems using filtration  technologies other than conventional, direct,
slow sand, or diatomaceous earth, the systems must demonstrate to the state, using pilot plant studies or
                                             Page 14
-------
c ™
Is1
                                                                                aa

                                                                                £
-------
 other means, that the alternative filtration technology in combination with disinfection treatment
 consistently achieves 99.9 percent removal and/or inactivation ofGiardia lamblia cysts, 99.99 percent
 removal and/or inactivation of viruses, and 99 percent removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts.  For each
 approval of an alternative filtration technology, the state will set turbidity performance requirements that
 the system must meet at least 95 percent of the time,  and that the system may not exceed at any time, at
 values that consistently achieve these levels of removal and/or inactivation ofGiardia lamblia, viruses,
 and Cryptosporidium. Failure to meet these requirements is a treatment technique violation.

 What are the monitoring requirements for combined filter effluent turbidity?
 Systems must monitor combined filter effluent turbidity as specified under the SWTR.  This specifies
 that turbidity measurements must be performed on representative samples of the system's filtered water
 every four hours (or more frequently) that the system serves water to the public.  A public water system
 may substitute continuous turbidity monitoring for grab sample monitoring if it validates the continuous
 measurement for accuracy on a regular basis using a  protocol  approved by the state. For any systems
 using slow sand filtration or filtration treatment other  than conventional treatment, direct filtration, or
 diatom'aceous earth filtration, the state may reduce the sampling frequency to once per day if it
 determines that less frequent monitoring is sufficient to indicate effective filtration performance.
 Turbidity must be measured using methods approved  by EPA and by a party approved by the state. A
 system that uses lime softening may acidify representative samples prior to analysis using a protocol
 approved by the state. Failure to meet these requirements is a monitoring violation.

 What are the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for turbidity in the combined filter
 effluent?
The reporting requirements for combined filter effluent turbidity are unchanged from those established
under the SWTR, except where reporting levels have been modified to reflect more stringent turbidity
requirements established under the IESWTR.  Required turbidity measurements must be reported within
 10 days after the end of each month the system serves water to the public.  Information that  must be
reported includes: 1) the total number of filtered water turbidity measurements taken during the month;
2) the number and percentage of filtered water turbidity measurements taken during the month which are
less than or equal to the turbidity limits established under the SWTR for diatomaceous earth and slow
sand filtration systems, and under the IESWTR for conventional, direct, and alternative filtration
systems; and 3) the date and value of any turbidity measurements taken during the month which exceed 1
NTU for conventional and direct filtration systems, 5  NTU for slow sand and diatomaceous earth
filtration systems, and the maximum level established by the state for alternative filtration technology
systems. Failure to meet these requirements is a reporting/recordkeeping violation.

                      DESWTR COMBINED FILTER EFFLUENT TURBIDITY
                                 COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
FILTRATION TECHNOLOGY
Conventional filtration
Direct filtration
Diatomaceous earth filtration
Slow sand filtration
Filtration technologies not listed above
95thPERCENTELE
TURBIDITY (NTU)
0.3
0.3
1
1
as determined by the state
MAXIMUM
TURBIDITY (NTU)
1
1
5
5
as determined by the state
                                              Page 16
-------
                                 Combined Filter Effluent Provisions of IESWTR
                            (Applicable to Conventional and Direct Filtration Systems)
Turbidity Performance Requirements
 - Measurements are taken every 4 hours of
representative samples of the systems
filtered water (as required under the SWTR)

- Turbidity must at no time exceed 1 NTU

- Turbidity must be less than or equal to
 0.3 NTU in at least 95 percent of the
measurements taken each month.
                                                             Reporting and Recordkeepinq Requirements
                                                             Within 10 days after the end of the month, system must
                                                             provide a report of turbidity measurements to the State
                                                             which includes:
                                                             - Total number of measurements taken during the
                                                             month
                                                             - Number and percentage of measurements less than
                                                             or equal to 0.3 NTU
                                                             - Date and value of any measurements taken during
                                                             the month which exceed 1 NTU.
                                         Did System
                                       report all required
                                   information to State within
                                     0 days after the end of,
                                         the month?
                                            Did  .
                                       turbidity exceed
                                      1 NTU at any time?
                                            Was
                                 turbidity less than or equal to
                                     0.3 NTU in at least 95
                                 ,  ercent of the measurements
                            YES  \   taken each month?
                                                 Page 17
-------
                      Alternative Filtration Requirements of the IESWTR
(Filtration Technologies other than conventional, direct, slow sand or diatomaceous earth)
                    Alternative Filtration Technologies
                    System must demonstrate to the State that the alternative filtration technology,
                    in combination with disinfection consistently meets:
                      - 3 log Glardia and 4 log virus
                    removal/inactivation
                      - 2 log Cryptosporidium removal
                                                 Did State
                                            approve the alternative
                                            filtration technology?
                               TT Violation^
                                              YES
              Alternative Turbidity Performance Requirements
              The State will set turbidity performance requirements that the system must meet 95 percent of
              the time (95th PERCENTILE)
              The State will set turbidity performai
              time (MAXIMUM)
                                              s requirements that the system may not exceed at any
              These performance requirements will be set at a level that consistently achieves 3 log Glardia
              removal/inactivation, 4 log virus removal/inactivation and 2 log Cryptosporidium removal
              Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
              Within 10 days after the end of the month, the system must provide a report of turbidity
              measurements to the State which includes:

                 1)Total number of measurements taken during the month
                 2)Number and percentage of measurements less than or equal to 95TH PERCENTILE
                 3)Date and value of any measurements taken during the month which exceed MAXIMUM
                       Drd system report
                   to State within 10 days after
                     the end of the month?
                         Did turbidity
                 exceed State-set MAXIMUM at
                          any time?
                        Was turbidity
                      less than or equal to
                 State-set 95TH PERCENTILE in
                    at least 95 percent of the
                   measurements taken each
                           month?
NO
                                                                 YES
NO
                                                Page 18
-------
                                       Combined Filter Effluent Provisions of SWTR
                        (Applicable to Systems using Slow Sand and Diatomaceous Earth Filtration)
Turbidity Performance Requirements
Systems must meet the following provisions:

- Measurements are taken every 4 hours of
representative samples of the systems filtered water

- State may reduce the monitoring frequency to once
per day for systems using slow sand or that serve
<500

- Turbidity must at no time exceed 5 NTU

- Turbidity must be less than or equal to 1  NTU in at
least 95 percent of measurements taken each month.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
Within 10 days after the end of the month. System
must provide a report of turbidity measurements
 to the State which includes:

- Total number of measurements taken during the
month

- Number and percentage of measurements less than
or equal to 1 NTU

- Date and value of any measurements taken during
the month which exceed 5 NTU.
                                         Did System
                                       report all required
                                       information to the
                                      State within 10 days
                                       fter the end of the
                                           month?
                                         Did turbidity
                                       exceed 5 NTU at
                                          any time?
                                       Was turbidity less
                                   than or equal to 1 NTU in at
                                     least 95 percent of the
                                   measurements taken each
                            YES  \       month?
                                                       Page 19
-------
Individual filter turbidity monitoring

The IESWTR establishes a number of requirements related to the performance of filters used in drinking
water treatment. Included in these requirements are provisions mandating that certain systems monitor
the effluent of individual filters. These provisions are designed to decrease the risk of microbial
pathogen contamination of finished .waters by focusing greater attention on the performance of individual
filters.

Which systems are required to monitor individual filters?
The filtration requirements of the IESWTR apply to PWSs that use surface water or GWUDI, serve
10,000 or more people, and are required to filter. Systems that provide conventional or direct filtration
treatment must monitor individual filters.

What are the monitoring requirements for individual filters?
Systems must continuously measure the effluent turbidity of each individual filter using a method
approved by EPA, and must record the results  every 15 minutes.  If there is a failure in the continuous
turbidity monitoring equipment, the system must conduct grab sampling every four hours in lieu of
continuous monitoring until the turbidimeter is  repaired or replaced,  and is in violation if the turbidimeter
is not replaced or repaired within five working days following the failure of the equipment.  Failure to
comply with these requirements is a monitoring violation.

What are the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for individual filter monitoring?
Systems required to monitor individual filters must maintain the results of this monitoring for at least 3
years.  Within 10 days after the end of each month, these systems must make a report to the state that
they have conducted individual filter turbidity monitoring. Systems  must report individual filter turbidity
measurements only if the measurements demonstrate any of the following four exceedance conditions:

        1)      Any individual filter that has a measured turbidity level of greater than 1.0 NTU in two
                consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart. The system must report the filter
                number, the turbidity measurement, and the date(s) on which the exceedance occurred.
                The system must also either identify and report an obvious reason for the exceedance or
                produce a filter profile for the filter within  7 days of the exceedance and report that the
                profile has been produced.  (A filter profile is a graphical representation of turbidity or
                total particle counts as a function of time for an entire filter run. A discussion of filter
                profiles is included in EPA's guidance document on turbidity.)

        2)      Any individual filter that has a measured turbidity level of greater than 0.5 NTU in two
                consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart at the end of the first four hours of
                continuous filter operation after the filter has been  backwashed or otherwise taken
                offline. The system must report the filter number,  the turbidity measurement, and the
                date(s)  on which the exceedance occurred.  The system must also either identify and
                report an obvious reason for the exceedance or produce a filter profile for the filter
                within 7 days of the exceedance and report that the profile has been produced.  (A filter
                profile is a graphical representation of turbidity or total particle counts as a function of
                time for an entire filter run. A discussion of filter profiles is included in EPA's  guidance
                document on turbidity.)

       3)      Any individual filter that has a measured turbidity level of greater than 1.0 NTU in two
                consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart  at any time in each of three
                consecutive months. The system must report the filter number, the turbidity
                measurement, and the date(s) on which the exceedance occurred. The system must
                conduct a self-assessment of the filter within 14 days of the exceedance and report that

                                               Page 20
-------
                the self-assessment was conducted in the monthly report.  The self-assessment must
                consist of at least the following components: assessment of filter performance,
                development of a filter profile, identification and prioritization of factors limiting filter
                performance, assessment of the applicability of corrections, and preparation of a filter
                self-assessment report.

        4)      Any individual filter that has a measured turbidity level greater than 2.0 NTU in two
                consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart at any time in each of two consecutive
                months. The system must report the filter number, the turbidity measurement, and the
                date(s) on which the exceedance occurred. The system must arrange for the conduct of
                a comprehensive performance evaluation (CPE) by the state or a third part approved by
                the state no later than 30 days following the exceedance. (A CPE is a thorough review
                and analysis of a treatment plant's performance-based capabilities and associated
                administrative, operation and maintenance practices.) The CPE must be completed and
                submitted to the state no later than 90 days following the exceedance.

The turbidity guidance manual has detailed information about filter profiling, filter self-assessments, and
CPEs. Systems using lime softening may apply to the state for alternative exceedance levels to those
specified above if they can demonstrate that higher turbidity levels in individual filters are due to lime
carryover only and not due to degraded filter performance.

Failure to comply with these requirements is a reporting  violation. However, the exceedance criteria are
not treatment technique requirements, and systems have  not committed a violation solely by
demonstrating any of the exceedance conditions in their individual filters.
                                              Page 21
-------
-------
What ROUTINE MONITORING must I conduct under the IESWTR?
What do I have to REPORT to the State?

IMPORTANT: The information in the table below does not include the requirements for determining
profiling applicability, disinfection profiling, and disinfection benchmarking. Please refer to the section
on Disinfection Benchmarking for these monitoring and sampling requirements.
    Activity
                                     Requirement
 Combined filter
 effluent
 monitoring
All systems must continue to monitor the combined filter effluent at the same location and
frequency as under the SWTR.
Turbidity
Monitoring at
Individual
Filters
   All systems using conventional filtration treatment or direct filtration must conduct
   continuous turbidity monitoring for each individual filter using an approved method and
   Individual must calibrate turbidimeters using the procedure specified by the manufacturer.
   Systems must record the results of individual filter monitoring every 15 minutes.
   If there is a failure in the continuous turbidity monitoring equipment, the system must
   conduct grab sampling every 4 hours in lieu of continuous monitoring .
Triggers for
Turbidity
Exceptions
Reporting for
Individual
Filters
   For any individual filter that has a measured turbidity level of greater than 1.0 NTU in 2
   consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart, the system must report the filter number,
   turbidity measurement, and date of exceedance. The system must produce a filter profile for
   the filter within 7 days of the exceedance and report that the profile has been produced or
   report the obvious reason for the exceedance.

   For any individual filter that has a measured turbidity level of greater than 0.5 NTU in 2
   consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart after the first 4 hours of operation after the
   filter has been backwashed  or otherwise taken offline, the system must report the filter
   number, turbidity measurement, and date of exceedance. The system must produce a filter
   profile for the filter within 7 days of the exceedance and report that the profile has been
   produced or report the obvious reason for the exceedance.

   For any individual filter that has a measured turbidity level of greater than 1.0 NTU in 2
   consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart in each of 3 consecutive months, the
   system must report the filter number, turbidity measurement, and date of exceedance. The
   system must conduct a self-assessment of the filter within 14 days of the exceedance and  •
   report that the self-assessment was conducted.

   For any individual filter that has a measured turbidity level of greater than 2.0 NTU in 2
   consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart in 2 consecutive months, the system must
   report the filter number, turbidity measurement, and date of exceedance. The system must
   contact the state or 3rd party to conduct a CPE no later than 30 days following the
   exceedance and have the evaluation completed and submitted to the state no later than 90
   days following the exceedance.
Reporting and
iecordkeeping
Individual Filter Data
   Results of individual filter monitoring must be maintained for at least 3 years.
   Individual filter data must be reported only if there has been a turbidity exceedance
Combined Filter Effluent Data Reporting
                   Total number of combined filter effluent turbidity measurements taken during last month that
                   do not exceed the turbidity limits.
                   Date and value of any turbidity measurements taken during the month that exceed 1 NTU for
                   systems using conventional or direct filtration.
                   Turbidity measurements must be reported within 10 days after the end of each month the
                   system serves water to the public.
                                               Page 23
-------
Disinfection profiling and benchmarking

The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) establishes disinfection benchmarking
as a procedure requiring certain public water systems (PWSs) to evaluate the impact on rnicrobial risk of
proposed changes in disinfection practice. It is designed to help utilities and states work together to
assure that pathogen control is maintained while the provisions of the Stage 1 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR) are implemented.  This procedure involves a PWS
charting daily levels of pathogen inactivation for a period of at least one year to create a profile of
inactivation performance.  The PWS then uses this profile to determine a baseline or benchmark of
inactivation against which proposed changes in disinfection practices can be measured.  Profiling and
benchmarking is explained in detail in the Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual

Who is required to prepare a  disinfection profile?
Surface water or GWUDI systems having average annual TTHM z 0.064 mg/L or annual average
HAAS £ 0.048 mg/L as a result  of data or specific monitoring conducted by March 31, 2000 must
develop a disinfection profile. These levels, equal to 80% of the MCLs established for these  compounds
by the Stage 1 DBPR, are intended to include most systems that will modify their disinfection practices
to comply with the Stage 1 DBPR.  To determine applicability, systems that collected TTHM and HAAS
data under the ICR must use the results of the last 12 months of ICR monitoring unless the state
determines there is a more representative data set. Non ICR  systems may either use existing  TTHM and
HAAS data, if approved by the state, or must conduct TTHM and HAAS monitoring for four quarters.
This monitoring must be completed before April 2000.  Alternatively, systems can elect to forgo this
monitoring if they construct a disinfection profile.

How are the disinfection profile and benchmark developed?
A disinfection profile consists of a compilation of daily Giardia lamblia log inactivations (plus virus
inactivations for systems using either chloramines or ozone for primary disinfection) computed over a
period of at least one year through the entire treatment plant. It is based on daily measurements of
disinfectant residual concentration(s), contact time(s), temperature, and pH. A system with more than
one point of disinfection application must conduct this monitoring for each disinfection segment. The
profile may also be developed using up to 3 years of existing (i.e. grandfathered) data if the state finds
the data acceptable. Systems having less than 3 years of acceptable grandfathered data are required to
conduct one year of monitoring  to create the profile.  This monitoring must be completed by April 2001.
The disinfection benchmark is equal to the lowest monthly average inactivation level in the disinfection
profile (or average of low months for multi-year profiles).

How are the disinfection profile and benchmark used?
Any system required to develop  a disinfection profile under the IESWTR that decides to make a
significant change to its disinfection practice must calculate its benchmark and consult with the state
prior to and only if making a significant change. Significant changes in disinfection practice are defined
as: 1) changes to the point of disinfection; 2) changes to the disinfectant(s) used in the treatment plant; 3)
changes to the disinfection process; and 4) any other modification identified by the state. As part of the
consultation process, the system must submit to the state the  following information: a description of the
proposed change; the disinfection profile for Giardia lamblia (and, if necessary, viruses) and benchmark;
and an analysis of how the proposed change will affect the current levels of disinfection. In addition, the
state is required to review the disinfection profile as part of its periodic sanitary survey.
                                              Page 24
-------
                                     Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Provisions (1998IESWTR)
                                                                                   Profiling and Benchmarking
                                                                                    provisions do not apply.
System needs to determine whether
Profiling and Benchmarking is required.


                                                                                     Has the system
                                                                                 collected 4 consecutive
                                                                                    quarters of TTHM
                                                                                  compliance data and
                                                                                    HAA5 occurrence
                                                                                         data?
     Has the
State determined if
  there is 3 more
representative data
      set?
     Did system
collect TTHM and
  data under the 1996
 Information Collection
     Rule (ICR)?
   Has the State
approved the use of
    this data for
    applicability
   etermination?4^
                                                                                        Has the
                                                                                    system elected to
                                                                                    forgo TTHH/HAA5
                                                                                      monitoring'
                                                                                System must notify State
                                                                                in writing no later than 12
                                                                                                                     the State by March 2000
                                                                                                                                     Systems must submit data to
                                                                   Did
                                                                  system
                                                                 develop a
                                                                 profile and
                                                                  keep it
                                                                  on file?
                           Has system
                         decided to make
                        significant change
                          to disinfection
                                                                                                                             State no later than 4 mos
                                                                                         after promulgation (Apr *99)
                          ^1     with Profiling and
                                   Benchmarking
                             V     requirements.
                                                                             compliance with Profiling and Benchmarking
                                                                                     requirements.
                                                                              sinfection Profile is not needed.
NOTES
'TTHM and HAAS averages must be taken from same time period.
2 Any lab approved under the ICR or using ICR-approved methods may conduct HAAS analyses.
3TTHM and HAAS monitoring must meet same sampling number and location requirements as TTHM in 141.12 and 141.30; and same handling
and analytical requirements as the ICR in 141.142{b)(1).
'System must conduct HAAS monitoring until stale approves of the existing data.
5State may also require a more representative data set.
"Disinfection Profile must be kept on file for State to review during Sanitary Survey.
                                                           Page 25
-------
This page is left intentionally blank.
             Page 26
-------
     Appendix E
     IESWTR Rule Language
This appendix contains the rule language for the IESWTR incorporating the technical amendments.
Changes to the original rule language are shown as highlighted text. A complete electronic copy of the
IESWTR including preamble as published on December 16, 1998, can be found on the EPA web site at
www.epa.gov/ogwdw/mdbp/ieswtrfr.hmiL A complete electronic copy of the technical amendments for the
IESWTR and Stage 1 DBPR, including preamble as published on January 16, 2001, can be found on the
EPA website at www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/iesfr.html.
-------
                                 This page is left intentionally blank.
June 2001                                  Appendix E-2             IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

PART 9 - [AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j,
346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 U.S.C.  1251 etseq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1342,
1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361;  E.G. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241,
242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-l, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300J-1, 300J-2, 300J-3, 300j-
4, 300J-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048..

2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding the new entries to the table to read as follows:
§9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
*****
40 CFR Citation     OMB Control No.
*       *       *      *      *

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
*****

141.170                2040-0205
141.172                2040-0205
141.174                2040-0205
141.174 (a) - (b)        2040-0205
141.175                2040-0205
141.175 (a)-(b)        2040-0205
141.175 (c)             2040-0090
*****

PART 141 - National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
3. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows:
       Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-l, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300J-4, 300J-9, and
300J-11.

4. Section 141.2 is amended by revising the definition of "ground water under the direct influence of
surface water" and adding the following definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows:

§141.2 Definitions.
*****
Comprehensive performance evaluation (CPE) is a thorough review and analysis of a treatment plant's
performance-based capabilities and associated administrative, operation and maintenance practices.  It is
conducted to identify factors that may be adversely impacting a plant's capability to achieve compliance and
emphasizes approaches  that canJbejmplemented without significant capital improvements. For purposes of
compliance with subpart P £>f iffiisj$art, the comprehensive performance evaluation must consist of at least
the following components:  assessment  of plant performance; evaluation of major unit processes;
identification and prioritization of performance limiting factors;  assessment of the applicability of
comprehensive technical assistance; and preparation of a CPE report.
*****
Disinfection profile is a  summary of daily Giardia lamblia inactivation through the treatment plant. The
procedure for developing a disinfection  profile is contained in §141.172.
IESWTR Implementation Guidance            Appendix E-3                                 June 2001
-------
.M


 C3
J



 (D
 o

 ff
 o.
                                                                                           8
                                                                                           c
                                                                                           I
                                                                                           s
                                                                                           "a,

                                                                                           ^


                                                                                           I

                                                                                           §
<
 *

'•5

 g
 ex,
 a.
                                                                                            a
-------
 §141.71 Criteria for avoiding filtration.
 *****
  (b) ***                                                                        .
  (6) The public water system must complywith the: requirements for trihaiomethanes in §§141.12 and
 141.30 until EfecerhbiMiS 1,20011  After i>e^m|grSl|;2do|, the system must comply with the requirements
 for total trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids (five), bromate, chlorite, chlorine, chloramines,and chlorine
 dioxide in subpart L.
 *****

 9.  Section 141.73 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(3) and revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

 §141.73 Filtration.
 ******
  (a) ***
  (3) Beginning Januaiy r,j200;2, systems serving at least 10,000 people must meet the turbidity
 requirements in §141.173(a).
 *****
  (d) Other filtration technologies. A public water system may use a filtration technology not listed in
 paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section if it demonstrates to the State, using pilot plant studies or other
 means, that the alternative filtration technology, in combination with disinfection treatment that meets the
 requirements of § 141.72(b), consistently achieves 99.9 percent removal and/or inactivation of Giardia
 lamblia  cysts and 99.99 percent removal and/or inactivation of viruses. For a system that makes this
 demonstration, the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section apply.  Beginning January:: ljj,20S2, systems
 serving at least 10,000 people must meet the requirements for other filtration technologies in §141.173(b).

 10.  Section 141.153 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(4)(v)(C) to  read as follows:

 §141.153 Content of the reports.
 *****
  (d)***
  (4) ***
  (v)***
  (C) When it is reported pursuant to §§141.73 or 141.173: the highest single measurement and the lowest
 monthly percentage of samples meeting the turbidity limits specified in §§141.73 or 141.173 for the filtration
 technology being used. ***
 *****

 11. Part 141 is amended by adding a new subpart P to read as follows:
Subpart P-Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection
Sec.
141.170       General requirements.
141.171       Criteria for avoiding filtration.
141.172       Disinfection profiling and benchmarking.
141.173       Filtration.
141.174       Filtration sampling requirements.
141.175       Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

§141.170 General requirements.
 (a) The requirements of subpart P  constitute national primary drinking water regulations. These regulations
establish requirements for filtration and disinfection that are in addition to criteria under which filtration and


IESWTR Implementation Guidance             Appendix E-5                                  June 2001
-------
 disinfection is required under subpart H.  The requirements of this subpart are applicable to subpart H
 systems serving at least 10,000 people, beginning Jaimip3^1;,:2(|02 unless otherwise specified in this subpart.
 The regulations in this subpart establish or extend treatment technique requirements in lieu of maximum
 contaminant levels for the following contaminants: Giardia lamblia. viruses, heterotrophic plate count
 bacteria, Legionella. Crvptosporidium. and turbidity. Each subpart H system serving at least 10,000 people
 must provide treatment of its source water that complies with these treatment technique requirements and
 are in addition to those identified in §141.70. The treatment technique requirements consist of installing and
 properly operating water treatment processes which reliably achieve:
  (1) At least 99 percent (2-log) removal of Crvptosporidium between a point where the raw water is not
 subject to recontamination by surface water runoff and a point downstream before or at the first customer
 for filtered systems, or Crvptosporidium control under the watershed control plan for unfiltered systems.
  (2) Compliance with the profiling and benchmark requirements under the provisions of §141.172.
  (b) A public water system subject to the requirements of this subpart is considered to be in compliance
 with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section if:
  (1) It meets the requirements for avoiding filtration in §§141.71 and 141.171 and the disinfection
 requirements in §§141.72 and  141.172 ; or
  (2) It meets the applicable filtration requirements hi either §141.173 or §141.73 and the disinfection
 requirements in §§141.72 and  141.172.
  (c) Systems are not permitted to begin construction of uncovered finished water storage facilities beginning
 February 16, 1999.

 §141.171 Criteria for avoiding filtration.
  In addition to the requirements of §141.71, a public water system subject to the requirements of this
 subpart that does not provide filtration must meet all of the conditions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
 section.
  (a) Site-specific conditions. In addition to site-specific conditions in §141.71(b), systems must maintain the
 watershed control program under §141.71(b)(2) to minimize the potential for contamination by
 Crvptosporidium oocysts in the source water. The watershed control program must, for Crvptosporidium:
  (1) Identify watershed characteristics and activities which may have an adverse effect on source water
 quality; and
  (2) Monitor the occurrence of activities which may have an adverse effect on source water quality.
  (b) During the onsite inspection conducted under the provisions of §141.71(b)(3), the State must determine
 whether the watershed control program established under §141.71(b)(2) is adequate to limit potential
 contamination by Crvptosporidium oocysts. The adequacy of the program must be based on the
 comprehensiveness of the watershed review; the effectiveness of the system's program to monitor and
 control detrimental activities occurring in the watershed;  and the extent to which the water system has
 maximized land ownership and/or controlled land use within the watershed.

 §141.172 Disinfection profiling and benchmarking.
  (a) Determination of systems required to profile. A public water system subject to the requirements of this
 subpart must determine its TTHM annual average using the procedure in paragraph (a)(l) of this section
 and its HAAS annual average using the procedure in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The annual average is
 the arithmetic average of the quarterly averages of four consecutive quarters of monitoring.
  (1) The TTHM annual average must be the annual average during the same period as is used for the
 HAAS annual average.
  (i) Those systems that collected data under the provisions of subpart M (Information Collection Rule)
 must use the results of the samples collected during the last four quarters of required monitoring under
 §141.142.
  (ii) Those systems that use "grandfathered" HAAS occurrence data that meet the provisions of paragraph
 (a)(2)(ii) of this section must use TTHM data collected at the same tune under the provisions of §§141.12
 and 141.30.
  (iii) Those systems that use HAAS occurrence data that meet the provisions of paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(A) of
 this section must use TTHM data collected at the same time under the provisions of §§141.12 and  141.30.


June 2001                                   Appendix E-6             IESWTR Implementation  Guidance
-------
 (2) The HAAS annual average must be the annual average during the same period as is used for the
TTHM annual average.
 (i)  Those systems that collected data under the provisions of subpart M (Information Collection Rule)
must use the results of the samples collected during the last four quarters of required monitoring under
§141.142.
 (ii) Those systems that have collected four quarters of HAAS occurrence data that meets the routine
monitoring sample number and location requirements for TTHM in §§141.12 and 141.30  and handling and
analytical method requirements of §141.142(b)(l) may use those data to determine whether the
requirements of this section apply.
 (iii) Those systems that have not collected four quarters of HAAS occurrence data that meets the
provisions of either paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section by *Klareh;J.6,^||99 must either:
 (A) Conduct monitoring for HAAS that meets the routine monitoring sample number and location
requirements for TTHM in §§141.12 and 141.30 and handling and analytical method requirements of
§141.142(b)(l) to determine the HAAS annual average and whether the requirements of paragraph (b) of
this section apply.  Tjiis^ionitoring must be completed so that the applicability determination can be made
no later than Mt|^3jv:2Q(D6. or
 (B) Comply with all other provisions of this section as if the HAAS monitoring had been conducted and the
results required compliance with paragraph (b) of this section.
 (3) The system may request that the State approve a more representative annual data set than the data set
determined under paragraph (a)(l) or (2) of this section for the purpose of determining applicability of the
requirements of this section.
 (4) The State may require that a system use a more representative annual data set than the data set
determined under paragraph (a)(l) or (2) of this section for the purpose of determining applicability of the
requirements of this section.
 (5) The system must submit data to the State on the schedule in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (v) of this
section.
 (i)  Those systems that collected TTHM and HAAS data  under the provisions of subpart M (Information
Collection Rule), as required by paragraphs (a)(l)(i) and (a)(2)(i) of this section, must submit the results of
the sjimples collected during the last 12 months of required monitoring under §141.142 not later than
December 3 1,1 999.
 (ii) Those systems that have collected four consecutive quarters of HAAS occurrence data that meets the
routine monitoring sample number and location for TTHM in §§141.12 and  141.30 and handling and
analytical method requirements of §141.142(b)(l), as^allowed by paragraphs (a)(l)(ii) and (a)(2)(ii) of this
section, must submit those data to the State not later £Jgi8.:jL: •§£ Jt9j> 91 Until the State has approved the data,
the system must conduct monitoring for HAAS using the monitoring requirements specified under paragraph
(a)(2)(iii) of this section.
 (iii) Those systems that conduct monitoring for HAAS using the monitoring requirements specified by
paragraphs (a)(l)(iii) and (a)(2)(iii)(A) of this section, must submit TTHM and HAAS data not later than
Aprill',;2000.
 (iv) Those systems that elect to comply with all other provisions of this section as if the HAAS monitoring
had been conducted and the results required compliance with this section, as allowed mder paragraphs
(a)(2)(iii)(B) of this section, must notify the State in writing of their election not later than December ,31,
 (v) If the system elects to request that the State approve a more representative annual data set than the
data set determined .under •paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, the system must submit this request hi writing
not later than D^ebibiiSlg;!!^
 (6) Any system having either a TTHM annual average £ 0.064 mg/L or an HAAS annual average S: 0.048
mg/L during the period identified in paragraphs (a)(l) and (2) of this section must comply with paragraph
(b) of this section.
 (b) Disinfection profiling. (1) Any system that meets the criteria in paragraph (a)(6) of this section must
develop a disinfection profile of its disinfection practice for a period of up to three years.
 (2) The system must monitor daily for a period of 12  consecutive calendar months to determine the total
logs of inactivation for each day of operation, based on the CT99.9 values in Tables 1.1-1.6, 2.1, and 3.1 of


IESWTR Implementation Guidance            Appendix E-7                                  June 2001
-------
 §141.74(b), as appropriate, through the entire treatment plant.  This system must begin this monitoring not
 later than April 1, 2000.  As a minimum, the system with a single point of disinfectant application prior to
 entrance to the distribution system must conduct the monitoring in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this
 section.  A system with more than one point of disinfectant" application must conduct the monitoring in
 paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section for each disinfection segment. The system must monitor the
 parameters necessary to determine the total inactivation ratio, using analytical methods in §141.74(a), as
 follows:
  (i) The temperature of the disinfected water must be measured once per day at each residual disinfectant
 concentration sampling point during peak hourly flow.
  (ii) If the system uses chlorine, the pH of the disinfected water must be measured once per day at each
 chlorine residual disinfectant concentration sampling point during peak hourly flow.
  (iii) The disinfectant contact time(s) ("T") must be determined for each day during peak hourly flow.
  (iv) The residual disinfectant concentration(s) ("C") of the water before or at the first customer and prior
 to each additional point of disinfection must be measured each day during peak hourly flow.
  (3) In lieu of the monitoring conducted under the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this section to develop
 the disinfection profile, the system may elect to meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section.
 In addition to the monitoring conducted under the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this section to develop
 the disinfection profile, the system may elect to meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section.
  (i) A PWS that has three years of existing operational data may submit those data, a profile generated using
 those data, and a request that the State approve use of those data in lieu of monitoring under the provisions
 of paragraph (b)(2) of this section not later than Marfch./3'lj20QG. The State must determine whether these
 operational data are substantially equivalent to data collected under the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this
 section.  These data must also be representative of Giardia lamblia  inactivation through the entire treatment
 plant and not just of certain treatment segments. Until the State approves this request, the system is required
 to conduct monitoring under the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
  (ii) In addition to the  disinfection profile generated under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, a PWS that has
 existing operational data may use those data to develop a disinfection profile for additional years. Such
 systems may use these additional yearly disinfection profiles to develop a benchmark under the provisions
 of paragraph (c) of this section. The State must determine whether these operational data are substantially
 equivalent to data collected under the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this section.  These data must also
 be representative of inactivation through the entire treatment plant and not just of certain treatment
 segments.
  (4) The system must calculate the total inactivation ratio as follows:
  (i) If the system uses  only one point of disinfectant application, the system may determine the total
 inactivation ratio for the disinfection segment based on either of the methods in paragraph (b)(4)(i)(A) or
 (b)(4)(i)(B) of this section.
  (A) Determine one inactivation ratio (CTcalc/CT99 9) before or at the first customer during peak hourly
 flow.
  (B) Determine successive CTcalc/CT99 9 values, representing sequential inactivation ratios, between the
 point of disinfectant application and a point before or at the first customer during peak hourly flow. Under
 this alternative, the system must calculate the total inactivation ratio by determining (CTcalc/CT99 9) for
 each sequence and then adding the (CTcalc/CT99 9) values together to determine (6(CTcalc/CT99 9)).
  (ii) If the system uses more than one point of disinfectant application before the first customer, the system
 must determine the CT value of each disinfection segment immediately prior to the next point of disinfectant
 application, or for tiiefijialjegment, before_ory at t^
 (GTcalc/GT^ o) value of ;each segment Md(G(C^
 paragraph,(b)(4)(i)>of MsjsectioM
  (iii) The system must  determine the total logs of inactivation by multiplying the value calculated in
 paragraph (b)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section by 3.0.
  (5) A system that uses either chloramines or ozone for primary disinfection must also calculate the logs of
 inactivation for viruses using a method approved by the State.
  (6) The system must retain disinfection profile data in graphic form, as a spreadsheet, or in some other
 format acceptable to the State for review as part of sanitary surveys conducted by the State.


June 2001                                  Appendix E-8             IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
 (c) Disinfection Benchmarking
 (1) Any system required to develop a disinfection profile under the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of
 this section and that decides to make a significant change to its disinfection practice must consult with the
 State prior to making such change. Significant changes to disinfection practice are:
 (i) Changes to the point of disinfection;
 (ii) Changes to the disinfectant(s) used, in the treatment plant;
 (iii) Changes to the disinfection process; and
 (iv) Any other modification identified by the State.
  (2) Any system that is modifying its disinfection practice must calculate its disinfection benchmark using
 the procedure specified hi paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (ii) of this section.
  (i) For each year of profiling data collected and calculated under paragraph (b) of this section, the system
 must determine the lowest average monthly Giardia lamblia inactivation in each year of profiling data.  The
 system must determine the average Giardia lambh'a inactivation for each calendar month for each year of
 profiling data by dividing the sum of daily Giardia lambh'a of inactivation by the number of values calculated
 for that month.
  (ii) The disinfection benchmark is the lowest monthly average value (for systems with one year of profiling
 data) or average of lowest monthly average values (for systems with more than one year of profiling data)
 of the monthly logs of Giardia lamblia inactivation in each year of profiling data.
  (3) A system that uses either chloramines or ozone for primary disinfection must also calculate the
 disinfection benchmark for viruses using a method approved by the State.
  (4) The system must submit information in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section to the State as
 part of its consultation process.
  (i) A description of the proposed change;
 (ii) The disinfection profile for Giardia lamblia (and, if necessary, viruses) under paragraph (b) of this
 section and benchmark as required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section; and
 (iii) An analysis of how the proposed change will affect the current levels of disinfection.
IESWTR Implementation Guidance             Appendix E-9                                   June 2001
-------
§141.173 Filtration.
  A public water system subject to the requirements of this subpart that does not meet all of the criteria in
this subpart and subpart H for avoiding filtration must provide treatment consisting of both disinfection, as
specified in §141.72(b), and filtration treatment.which ^comglies with the requirements of paragraph (a) or
(b) of this section or §141.73 (b) or (c) by December'Ij^lppl;
  (a) Conventional filtration treatment or direct filtration.
(1) For systems using conventional filtration or direct filtration, the turbidity level of representative samples
of a system's filtered water must be less than or equal to  0.3 NTU in at least 95 percent of the
measurements taken each month, measured as specified in §141.74(a) and (c).
  (2) The turbidity level of representative samples of a system's filtered water must at no time exceed 1
NTU, measured as specified in § 141 -74(a) and (c).  '
  (3) A system that uses lime softening may acidify representative samples prior to analysis using a protocol
approved by the State.
  Co) Filtration technologies other than conventional filtration treatment direct filtration, slow sand filtration.
or diatomaceous earth filtration. A public water system may use a filtration technology not listed in
paragraph (a) of this section or in §141.73(b) or (c) if it demonstrates to the State, using pilot plant studies
or other means, that the alternative filtration technology, in combination with disinfection treatment that
meets the requirements of §141.72(b), consistently ^achieves 99.9 percent removal and/or inactivation of
Giardia lamblia cysts and 99.99 percent removal  and/or inactivation of viruses, and 99 percent removal of
Crvptosp'oridium oocysts, and the State approves the use of the filtration technology. For each approval,
the State will set turbidity performance requirements that the system must meet at least 95 percent of the
time and that the system may not exceed at any tune at a level that consistently achieves 99.9 percent
removal  and/or inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts, 99.99 percent removal and/or inactivation of viruses,
and 99 percent removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts.

§141.174 Filtration sampling requirements.
  (a) Monitoring requirements for systems using filtration treatment. In addition to monitoring required by
§141.74, a public water system subject to the requirements of this subpart that provides conventional
filtration treatment or direct filtration must conduct continuous monitoring of turbidity for each individual
filter using an approved method in § 141.74(a) and must calibrate turbidimeters using the procedure
specified by the manufacturer.  Systems must record the results of individual filter monitoring every 15
minutes.
  (b) If there is a failure in the continuous turbidity monitoring equipment, the  system must conduct grab
sampling every four hours in lieu of continuous monitoring, but for no more than five working days
following the failure of the equipment.

§141.175 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
  In addition to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in §141.75, a public water system subject to
the requirements of this subpart that provides conventional filtration treatment or direct filtration mustjeport
monthly  to the State the information specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section beginning Jauraary||>
2002. In addition to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in § 141.75, a public water system
subject to the requirements of this subpart that provides filtration approved under §141.173(b)i_niustjreport
monthly  to the State the information specified in  paragraphs (a) of this section  beginning January;:'$ Jjs&flSi
The reporting in paragraph (a) of this section is in lieu of the reporting specified in §141.75(b)(l).
  (a) Turbidity measurements as required by §141.173 must be reported within 10 days after the end of each
month the system serves water to the public. Information that must be reported includes:
  (1) The total number of filtered water turbidity measurements taken during the month.
  (2) The number and percentage of filtered water turbidity measurements taken during the month which are
less than or equal to the turbidity limits specified in §141.173(a) or (b).
  (3) The date and value of any turbidity measurements taken during the month which exceed 1 NTU for
systems using conventional filtration treatment or direct filtration, or which exceed the maximum level set by
the State under §141.173(b).
June 2001                                  Appendix E-10            IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
  (b) Systems must maintain the results of individual filter monitoring taken under §141.174 of this subpart
 for at least three years. Systems must report that they have conducted individual filter turbidity monitoring
 under §141.174 of this subpart within 10 days after the end of each month the system serves water to the
 public.  Systems must report individual filter turbidity measurement results taken under §141.174 of this
 subpart within 10 days after the end of each month the system serves water to the public only if
 measurements demonstrate one or more of the conditions in paragraphs (b)(l) through (4) of this section.
 Systems that use lime softening may apply to the State for alternative exceedance levels for the levels
 specified in paragraphs (b)(l) through (4) of this section if they can demonstrate that higher turbidity levels
 in individual filters are due to lime carryover only and not due to degraded filter performance.
  (1) For any individual filter that has a measured turbidity level of greater than 1.0 NTU in two consecutive
 measurements taken 15 minutes apart, the system must report the filter number, the turbidity measurement,
 and the date(s) on which the exceedance occurred. In addition, the system must either produce a filter
 profile for the filter within 7 days of the exceedance (if the system is not able to identify an obvious reason
 for the abnormal filter performance) and report that the profile has been produced or report the  obvious
 reason for the exceedance.
  (2) For any individual filter that has a measured turbidity level of greater than 0.5 NTU in two consecutive
 measurements taken 15 minutes apart at the end of the first four hours  of continuous filter operation after
 the filter has been backwashed or otherwise taken offline, the system must report the filter number, the
 turbidity, and the date(s) on which the exceedance occurred.  In addition, the system must either produce a
 filter profile for the filter within 7 days of the  exceedance (if the system is not able to identify an obvious
 reason for the abnormal filter performance) and report that the profile has been produced or report the
 obvious reason for the exceedance.
  (3) For any individual filter that has a measured turbidity level of greater than 1.0 NTU in two consecutive
 measurements taken 15 minutes apart at any time in each of three consecutive months, the system must
 report the filter number, the turbidity measurement, and the date(s) on  which the exceedance occurred.  In
 addition, the system must conduct a self-assessment of the filter within 14 days of the exceedance and
 report that the self-assessment was conducted. The self assessment must consist of at least the following
 components: assessment of filter performance; development of a filter profile; identification and
 prioritization of factors limiting filter performance; assessment of the applicability of corrections; and
 preparation of a filter self-assessment report.
  (4) For any individual filter that has a measured turbidity level of greater than 2.0 NTU in two consecutive
 measurements taken 15 minutes apart at any time in each of two consecutive months, the system must
 report the filter number, the turbidity measurement, and the date(s) on which the exceedance occurred.  In
 addition, the system must arrange for the conduct of a comprehensive performance  evaluation by the State
 or a third party approved by the State no later than 30 days following the exceedance and have the
 evaluation completed and submitted to tire State no later thanJWjiays/ollowing the exceedance. __
 (c) Additional reporting requirements. .(1) If at any time the tarbidity exceeds 1 NTU in representative
 samples of filtered water in a system' using conventional filtration treatment or direct filtration, the system
 must inform^the State as soon as possible, but no later than the end of the next business day.
  (2) If at any time the turbidity in representative samples of filtered water exceeds the maximum level set by
 the State under §141.173(b) forffltration technologies other than conventional filtration treatment, direct
 filtration, slow sand filtratioiyor diatomaceous earth' filtration, the system must inform'the State as soon as
 possiblejbut nqJgter than the endjof Jhejaext business day.

 PART 142-NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTATION

 The authority citation for Part 142 continues to read as follows:
 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-l, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300J-4, SOOjf?, and 300J-11.
22. In Section 142.12, revisepara^rajpl^(b)(3)(l), andJae lastsentencej>f (d)(2),1oread,asfollows:
§i42.12 Rey|sipnjg£State programs.
                              *
IESWTR Implementation Guidance            Appendix E-l 1                                 June 2001
-------
(3)***
(i) Informing public water systems of the new EPA (and upcoming State) requirements and that EPA will be
overseeing implementation of the requirements until the State, if eligible for interim primacy, submits a
complete and final primacy revisioa request to EPA, or in. all other cases, until EPA approves the State
program revision;
***
(d)***
(2) Final Request. * * * (Complete and final State Requests for program revisions shall be submitted within
two years of the promulgation of the new or revised EPA regulations, as specified in paragraph (b) of this
section.
§ 142.14 Records kept by States.
 (a)* * *
 (3) Records of turbidity measurements must be kept for not less than one year. The information retained
must be set forth in a form which makes possible comparison with the limits specified in §§141.71, 141.73,
141.173 and 141.175  of this chapter. Until June 29, 1993, for any public water system which is providing
filtration treatment and until December 30, 1991, for any public water system not providing filtration
treatment and not required by the State to provide filtration treatment, records kept must be set forth in a
form which makes possible comparison with the limits contained in §141.13  of this chapter.
*****
(4)(i) Records of disinfectant residual measurements and other parameters necessary to document
disinfection effectiveness in accordance with §§141.72 and 141.74 of this chapter and the reporting
requirements of §§141.75 and 141.175 of this chapter must be kept for not less than one year.
(ii) Records of decisions made on a system-by-system and case-by-case basis under provisions of part 141,
subpart H or subpart P of this chapter, must be made in writing and kept at the State.
*       *      *  ,     *      *       .   ,
 (7) Any decisions made pursuant to the provisions of part 141, subpart P of this chapter.
 (i) Records of systems consulting with the State concerning a modification to disinfection practice under
§141.172(c) of this chapter, including the status of the consultation.
 (ii) Records of decisions that a system using alternative filtration technologies, as allowed under
§141.173(b) of this chapter, can consistently achieve a 99.9 percent removal and/or inactivation of Giardia
lamblia cysts, 99.99 percent removal and/or inactivation of viruses,  and 99 percent  removal of
Cryptosporidium oocysts. The decisions must include State-set enforceable turbidity limits for each system.
A copy of the decision must be kept until the decision is reversed or revised. The State must provide a
copy of the decision to the system.
 (iii) Records of systems required to do filter self-assessment, CPE, or CCP under the requirements of
§141.175 of this chapter.
*****
Section 142.15 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:

§ 142.15 Reports by States.
*****
(c)***
(5) Sanitary surveys. A list of subpart H systems that have had a sanitary survey completed during the
previous year and an annual evaluation of the State's program for conducting sanitary surveys under
§142.16 (b)(3) of this chapter.
*****
§ 142.16 Special primacy requirements.
*****
  (1) Enforceable requirements,  (i)
June 2001                                  Appendix E-l 2            IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
  (ii) States must have the appropriate rules or other authority to assure that PWSs respond in writing to
 significant deficiencies outlined in sanitary survey reports required under paragraph (b)(3) of this section no
 later than 45 days after receipt of the report, indicating how and on what schedule the system will address
 significant deficiencies noted in the survey.
  (iii)  States must have the appropriate rules or other authority to assure that PWSs take necessary steps to
 address significant deficiencies identified in sanitary survey reports required under paragraph (b)(3) of this
 section, if such deficiencies are within the control of the PWS and its governing body.
 *****
  (3) Sanitary survey. In addition to the general requirements for sanitary surveys contained in
 §142.10(b)(2), an application must describe how the State will implement a sanitary survey program that
 meets the requirements in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this section. For the purposes of this
 paragraph, "sanitary survey" means  an onsite review of the water source (identifying sources of
 contamination using results of source water assessments where available), facilities, equipment, operation,
 maintenance, and monitoring compliance of a public water  system to evaluate the adequacy of the system,
 its sources and operations and the distribution of safe drinking water.
  (i) The State must conduct sanitary surveys for all surface water systems (including groundwater under the
 influence) that address the eight sanitary survey components listed in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) through (H) of
 this section no less frequently than every three years for community systems and no less frequently than
 every five years for noncommunity systems. The State may allow sanitary surveys conducted after
 December 1995 to serve as the first  set of required sanitary surveys if the surveys address the eight sanitary
 survey components listed in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) through (H) of this section.
  (A) Source.
  (B) Treatment.
  (C) Distribution system.
  jTJ>) Finished water storage.
  (E) Pumps, pump facilities, and controls.
  (F) Monitoring and reporting and data verification.
  (G) System management and operation.
  (H) Operator compliance with State requirements.
  (ii) For community systems determined by the State to have outstanding performance based  on prior
 sanitary surveys, subsequent sanitary surveys may be conducted no less than every five years.  In its
 primacy application, the State must describe how it will decide whether a system has outstanding
 performance and is thus eligible for sanitary surveys at a reduced frequency.
  (iii) Components of a sanitary survey may be completed as part of a staged or phased state review process
 within the established frequency.
  (iv) When conducting sanitary surveys for systems required to comply with the disinfection profiling
 requirements in §141.172 of this chapter, the State must also review the disinfection profile as part of the
 sanitary survey.
  (v)   In its primacy application, the State must describe how it will decide whether a deficiency identified
 during a sanitary survey is significant for the purposes of paragraph (b)(l)(ii) of this section.
 *      *       *       *       *
  (g) Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFR part 141, subpart P Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection. In
 addition to the general primacy requirements enumerated elsewhere in this part, including the requirement
 that State provisions are no less stringent than the federal requirements, an application for approval of a
 State program revision that adopts 40 CFR part 141, subpart P Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection, must
 contain the information specified in this paragraph:
  (1) Enforceable requirements.  States must have the appropriate rules or other authority to require PWSs
 to conduct a  Composite Correction Program (CCP)  and to assure that PWSs implement any followup
 recommendations that result as part of the CCP. The CCP  consists of two elements - a Comprehensive
 Performance Evaluation (CPE) and Comprehensive Technical Assistance (CTA).  A CPE is a thorough
review and analysis of a plant's performance-based capabilities and associated administrative, operation and
maintenance  practices.  It is conducted to identify factors that may be adversely impacting a plant's
 capability to achieve compliance and emphasizes approaches that can be implemented without significant


IESWTR Implementation Guidance             Appendix E-13                                 June 2001
-------
capital improvements. A CTA is the performance improvement phase that is implemented if the CPE
results indicate improved performance potential. During the CTA phase, the system must identify and
systematically address plant-specific factors.  The CTA is a combination of utilizing CPE results as a basis
for followup, implementing process control priority-setting techniques and maintaining long-term
involvement to systematically train staff and administrators.
 (2) State practices or procedures.
 (i) Section 141.172(a)(3) of this chapter- How the State will approve a more representative annual data set
than the data set determined under §141.172 (a)(l) or (2) of this chapter for the purpose of determining
applicability of the requirements of §141.172 of this chapter.
 (ii) Section  141.172(b)(5) of this chapter-How the State will approve a method to calculate the logs of
inactivation for viruses for a system that uses either chloramines or ozone for primary disinfection.
 (iii) Section 141.172(c) of this chapter- How the State will consult with PWSs to evaluate modifications to
disinfection practice.
 (iv) Section 141.173(b) of this chapter-For filtration technologies other than conventional filtration
treatment, direct filtration, slow sand filtration, or diatomaceous earth filtration, how the State will determine
that a public water system may use a filtration technology if the PWS demonstrates to the State, using pilot
plant studies  or other means, that the alternative filtration technology, hi combination with disinfection
treatment that meets the requirements  of §141.172(b) of this chapter, consistently achieves 99.9 percent
removal and/or inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts and 99.99 percent removal and/or inactivation of
viruses, and 99 percent removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts. For a system that makes this demonstration,
how the State will set turbidity performance requirements that the system must meet 95 percent of the time
and that the system may not exceed at any time at a level that consistently achieves 99.9 percent removal
and/or inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts, 99.99 percent removal and/or inactivation of viruses, and 99
percent removal of Crvptosporidium oocysts.
June 2001                                  Appendix E-14            IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
Appendix F
Examples of IESWTR
Monitoring Forms for States
This appendix contains example monitoring forms that may be helpful if your state is developing
monitoring forms for the IESWTR. These examples are provided for demonstration purposes only.
Therefore, instructions for completing the forms are not provided.
-------
                                 This page is left intentionally blank.
June 2001                                  Appendix F-2            IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
 Contents
 Examples of Combined Filter Effluemt Forms	5
        State of Idaho
        A.      IESWTR Turbidity Report	7

        State of Texas
        B.      Surface Water Monthly Operating Report-Summary Page  	8
        C.      Surface Water Monthly Operating Report-Turbidity Data Page	9

 Examples of Individual Filter Effluent Forms  	11
        State of Wyoming
        A.      Monthly Report to the Primacy Agency for Individual Filter (IF) Turbidity Monitoring  . 13

        State of Texas
        B.      Filter Profile Report for Individual Filters	14
        C.      Surface Water .Monthly Operating Report-Filter Data Page	15
        D.      Filter Assessment Report for Individual Filters	16
IESWTR Implementation Guidance           Appendix F-3                                June 2001
-------
                                 This page is left intentionally blank.






                                                                                                           *
June 2001                                  Appendix F-4            IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
                          Examples of Combined Filter Effluent Forms

       State of Idaho                                                         •
       A.     Sample IESWTR Turbidity Report	7
                                                 *

       State of Texas

       B.     Sample Surface Water Monthly Operating Report-Summary Page  	8
       C.     Sample Surface Water Monthly Operating Report-Turbidity Data Page	9
IESWTR Implementation Guidance            Appendix F-5                               June 2001
-------
                                 This page is left intentionally blank.






                                                                                                            *
June 2001                                  Appendix F-6             IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
A.   Sample IESWTR Turbidity Report from the State of Idaho


^^^ IDAHO DEPARTMENT
P™9 OF ENVIRONMENTAL IESWTR TURBIDITY REPORT
IQfgP QUALITY
(See reverse for turbidity standards and monitoring frequency)









Water System Name:
Source Name: .»|., Submitted by:
Turbidimeter
Calibration method: Date:
• primary standard 	
• secondary standard 	
• another meter

PWS ID #: Month:
Year:
County:
PLANT TYPE: O conventional 




easurem
5th





„

A
•^
^
^ :
**

»







ents as
6th





















HIGHEST READING
LEVEL
(NTU)



v




•j;" ''-.-;.,
'•''•-/ >:-,.











TIME -'•-•


























MONTHLY SUMMARY


# days plant operated this month: 	 	
Total # hours plant operated this month: 	
Total number of turbidity measurements: 	
Number of measurements below performance standard: 	
(see reverse for performance standards)
95% of measurements at or below standard? DYES D NO
All measurements at or below 1 NTU? DYES D NO

   IESWTR Implementation Guidance
Appendix F-7
June 2001
-------
B.     Sample Surface Water Monthly Operating Report-Summary Report from the State
        of Texas
                                  SURFACE WATER MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT
                                   FORPUBUC WATER SYSTEMS THAT ARE USING SURFACE WATER SOURCES
                                   OR GROUND WATER SOURCES UNDERTHE INFLUENCE OF SURFACE WATER
                                                      Summary Page
     PU BUG WATER
     SYSTEM NAME:
     PWSDN04
     Report for
     tho Month of:
                                      PDWS Water Treatment Plant
                                                            1 certify that I
                                                            to.the
 P.LANT NAME
 OR NUMBER:   	
n famiBar-ViBlh.ttw.infomiatJon'contained in this report and that,
                 'complete, and accurate.
                  February 2002
Operator's Signature:

Certfficate No. & Grade:
                                                            12MS6789.-BSW-
                                               Date:  March 1,2002

Total number of turbidity readings: 133^
Number of readings above 0.10 NTU: 11*
Number of readings above 0 .3 NTU: ~_^1_J?
Numberof readings above 0.5 NTU: 	 ^
Number of readings above 1.0 NTU: ^
Maximum allowable tumidity level: 0.3
Percentaoe of raadEnas abov* this limit: I s!Sl % (1)
Statistical jp^T! Maximum turbidity reading
Additional reoort(s)forlndivIdualfiUermonItorinfl required: ^
Additional report(s}for Individual filter monitoring submitted:
NumberofdayswitnaiowCT , v , .. ^
lor no more than 4.0 consecutive hours: '•.,"/•'• 1
Number of day* with a towCT * - f
for more than 4,0 consecutive hours: I 1-'- '26l (4)
Minimum disinfectant residual required leaving the ptant^
Number of days with a tow residual . ^ ,_>•-.,
farnatnor*than4.0eonxecutlvehours: ^ ." 1
Nufnb«fofdayswlthalowjesldual . ' "- 	
for more than 4J) consacuthm hours: V '-"••• r | _6| (51
•Number of 4*hour,periods when plant was off-line:
Number of 4-hour periods when plant was on-line
but turbidity data was not collected;
Numberof days with readings above 1.0 NTU:
Number of days with readings above 5.0 NTU:
"*" 71.17 NTU 'T'";,™ > Average turbidity value:
GO? NTU ""'. -.:*: --. Standard deviation:
NONE' • FUterProftle I *•• FitterAssessment
NONE : •- Filter Profile j Fitter Assessment
Number of dayswtwn plant was on-line
but individual filter turbidity data was not collected:
Average fog Inactivatioh for Giardia:
Average log iiiactivation fory ruses
Number of days when profiling data1 was not collected:
Number of days when CT data was, not collected:
34
i"

_1 (2)
0(3)
0.23 NTU
0.149" NTU
CPE I
CPE |
*»
0.00
0.0?
0
0.5 mqA. Free Chlorine ; Total Chlorine !
Numberof days when disinfectant residual ^ ^
leaving the plant was not property monitored: N / 	 1


tiK&jJffiiT' i'&tJtx&SMf^^ 	 DISiKitsUiiON SYsrfc-nrt 	 ^^^^S^^m^m^^^^^m^^f-^m^ ^M^>^
M'mlmum disinfectant residual required In distribution system: ^ 0-5 mgrt. Free Chlonne Total Chlorine 1
Total number of readin$3,th!s month: -. v< 	 3^ - 	
Avcraqo disinfectant residual value: 1-32 Percentage of readings with a low residual this month [-„„— 5'Jl % f6*)
Number of readings wfth a low residual: ^ i •
Number of readings with no detectable residual: 0 Percentage of readings With a low residual last month | 	 2.S % (GB)

TREATMENT TECHNIQUE VIOLATIONS
Were more than 5.0% of the turbidity readings above,th« acceptable level?.
Were there any days with turbidity readings above 1.0 NTU? - see (2) above
Were there any days with turbidity readings above 5.0 NTU? - see (3) above
YES/NO
'-«•(!) No
Yes
No
Were there any periods when the plant failed to meet the CT requirements for more than 4.0. yes
Were there any periods when the residuals leaving the plant felt below th« acceptable level for more No
W«r« mort than 5.0% of tho residuals In the distribution system below the acceptable level for two ^
tf YES, date when notice was aiven to:
COMMISSIONt

February 5, 2002




CUSTOMERS'

February 8, 2002




                                                                           t Du. by ths'end of the next business day.
                                                                           • Copies of each Public Notice must accompany this report.
                             Submit the report by the 10th of the month following the reporting period to:
     June 2001
            Appendix F-8
             IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
C.   Sample Surface Water Monthly Operating Report-Turbidity Data Page From the
     State of Texas
PUBLIC WATER
SYSTEM NAME:
PWS ID No.:
Month:

Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Total
Avg
Max
Mln
Raw
Water
Pumpage
(USD}
1.411
1.484
1.598
1.154
0.000
2.650
1.302
1.337
1.701
1.408
1.457
1.537
1.092
1564
1.361
1.879:
0:109
10.230
1.630
1.293
1.249
1.913
1.926
1.018
1.104
1.934
1.337
1.909



38.587
1.378
2.650
0.000
SURFACE WATER MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT
FOR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS THAT ARE USING SURFACE WATER SOURCES
OR GROUND WATER SOURCES UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SURFACE WATER (conL)
A Turi&jity rDate Page
'" \v „ ^.PLANTNAME
TNRCCWSC <.' i * ORNUMBER PDWS Water Treatment Plant "
1234567 - "
Connection's^ ,
„ ^> * f< "•«'
February Year 2002 -• ,. Pomilatten-

Treated
Water
Pumpage
(MGD)
1.322
1.444
1.511
1.084
0.889
1.103
1.239
1.230
1.687
1.397
1.402
1.522
1.084
1.506
1.278
1.794
0000
~* "0.050
1.557
1.272
1210
. 1.894
1834
0.930
1.016
1.896
1.321
1.893



36.415
1.301
1.896
0.000
iL.
SUBMITTED BY: e9FG



*
PERFORMANCE-DATA ,
RAWWATER
ANALYSES
NTU
49
26
12
80
X
15
73
10
24
16
70
98
16
68
93
10
91
.>,-',•. 95
' - 26
21
80
91
95
23
60
25
50
64



Alk.
52
68
59
92
X
61
55
47
53
44
62
43
57
^48
-X69!
•*c-SS'
^SS-
64
. 53
39
61
71
66
"54
47
48
37
47



SErTLEDWATERTURBIDimias,
:(OptIbnai Data)
Basin;No.
1
2.4
2.8
2.1
52
X
1.8
23
1.7
1.9
1.2
1.8"
32-
2.2
:s-;-2.o
..-'•-tie
::•' 2.1
'": 2.2
Kv-. 2.5
••-..3.0
.23
2.9
2.7
2.4
15
22
17
2.6
2.5



2
1.9
1.8
2.2
43-
X"-
14
20^
1.9
16
1.1
,1.5
2.3
18
1.7.
2.1
13
X
X
2.5
2.4
25
2.0
1.8
1.6
14
- 15
22
1.9



3

it





























4






















'








S





















;









6s
































11,900
35,700 "

- »,v FINISHED WATER QUALITY
Turbidity:.
NTU1
XA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* X
X
X
X
X
X
X



'NTU2
0:19,
.0.33
023
0:34
X
X
013
0.-27
0.24.
0.04
0;33
029
0.33
0.23
030
0;31
0.20
0.17
0.22
0.16
0.29
0.14
0.23
0.19
0.20
0.25
0.18
0.21



NTU3
007
S ;0.24
0.08
0.46
I X
0.26
0.28
, 0.24
. "0.32
;'vO;08
Ji'0.06
"'-am
V-0.28
*0.28
0.20
0.21
0.31
0.13
0.09
0.11
0.26
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.24
0.17
0.30
0.19



^ ^ * NOTE: ONLY use the "Tl
t, £ disinfectant residual ent
x^>s •> acceptable level.
.^-J__ OfLm.L—m, Certificate No.
vlfUir efE/WVMB* and Grade: 123^5-6789, BSW


NTlMi
003
027
-.012
0.78
X
0.32
0.38
0.17
0.25
0.07
0,20
0.16
0.10
0.31
.V..0.23
•-•"iO.17
6T24
0.16
0.15
0.19
0.12
0.04
0.26
0.14
0.21
0.27
0.28
0.26



NTU5
0.31
0.15
0.17
1.06
X
0.21
0.34
0.19
0.18
0.21
0.23
0.14
0.27
0.28
0.05
0.28
,*:r,o.34
i::.6:32
0.16
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.27
0.22
0.18
0.29
0.33
0.15



NTU6

0.12
0.26
1.17
X
0.10
0.30
0.04
0.12
0.11
0.34
0.27
0.29
0.03
0.25
0.22
0.20
0.28
0.11
0.05
0.31
0.33
0.24
0.32
0.15
0.14
0.27
0.12



Lowest
Residual
2.4
3.4
3.1
2.3
1.1
2.8
3.0
2.7
0.3
1.9
22
3.1
2.0
1.4
1.8
1.5
X

2.6
2.6
2.9
• 1.6
3.0
22
2.3
32
1.7
2.3



Tlmet








0.75






















me*" column to show the length of time that the
erlng the distribution system fell below the
Date: March 1,2002


  IESWTR Implementation Guidance
Appendix F-9
June 2001
-------
                                 This page is left intentionally blank.
June 2001                                 Appendix F-10            IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
                           Examples of Individual Filter Effluent Forms
    State of Wyoming
    A.     Sample Monthly Report to the Primacy Agency for Individual Filter (IF) Turbidity Monitoring  .  13

    State of Texas
    B.     Sample Filter Profile Report for Individual Filters	14
    C.     Sample Surface Water Monthly Operating Report-Filter Data Page	15
    D.     Sample Filter Assessment Report for Individual Filters	 .  16
IESWTR Implementation Guidance            Appendix F-ll                                June 2001
-------
                                 This page is left intentionally blank.
June 2001                                  Appendix F-12            IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
A.   Sample Monthly Report to the Primacy Agency for Individual Filter (IF)
     Turbidity Monitoring from the State of Wyoming

Monthly Report to the Primacy Agency for Individual Filter (IF) Turbidity Monitoring
This report is only required for a PWS that utilizes conventional or direct filtration and serves greater than
10,000 people. These PWSs must record the turbidity from every filter every 15 minutes. Grab sampling
every 4 hrs is allowed if the continuous IF turbidimeter fails but for no more than 5 working days. Report
within 10 days of the next month.) IF turbidimeters were last
calibrated
Date: Svstem/Treatrr
Plant
PWSID # Prepan
Bv
lent
3d „
"•*. " ^

Year
Month 	
1
2
3
4
5
6 -""' ,
7 " , ~~
8
9
10
11
12
13

29
30
31
List all filters* that
exceeded turbidity
levels of 0.5 NTU
after 4 hrs., 1.0 NTU,
and 2.0 NTU in 2
consecutive IF
readings taken 15
minutes apart.


\ ~

i ^

* X


I
*






If 1.0 NTU** was"
exceeded was a
filter profile
completed within 7
days?






-


/

-

v^;>'



If 0 5 NTU** was
'exceeded 4 hrs after, a
backwash or filter-
sstartup was a.filter
profile,completed
within 7 days'










V ^

f
,



If 1.0 NTU*** was
exceeded in the":same
filter 3 months in S'
row was a self-
•-assessment j
completed in 14
days? " "~
\


*
-
-Is,












If 2.0 NTU*** was
exceeded in the
same filter 2
months in a row
.was a 3rd party CPE
arranged in 30 days
and completed &
submitted in 90
days?





*...
'••^w










*For each filter, attach information identifying the every 15 minute turbidity readings that caused the exceedance (s).
**If the IF exceedance was caused by obvious reason(e.g., valve malfunction, etc.) submit a written explanation describing the
situation that caused the turbidity exceedance in lieu of the filter profile.
***If a PWS has reported an obvious reason for an exceedance in column 3 & 4 it does not count as one of the consecutive
months.

IESWTR Implementation Guidance
Appendix F-13
June 2001
-------
B.   Sample Filter Profile Report for Individual Filters from the State of Texas
FILTER PROFILE REPORT FOR INDIVIDUAL FILTERS
THE INFLUENCE OF SURFACE WATER THAT ARE REQUIRED TO CONDUCT ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL FILTER MONITORING
PUBLIC WATER , ; J "; v: PLANT NAME
SYSTEM NAME: v ' :1OR NUMBER:

PWSDNoj
Month:. '•'; . Year:

•Eftiaty.?;-.-.? ! n'V* :';r"^;3«ta:Si«B1i(iHaii -'OBVIOUS REASONS
OBVIOUS REASONS fCnecfcaairiatacpM
NONE IDENTIFIED -A FllUrPmlito must bo submitted
Filter Problems
Post-Backwash Turbidity Spike
Prolonged Fitter RunTime
Excessive Filler-Loading Rate
Rate-of-FIow Control Valve Failure
Media Defects (insufficient depth, mudballs, etc.)
Inadequate Surface Wash or Backwash Facilities
TurbldEmetor Errors
Incorrect Calibration
Air Bubble
Debris
Backwash Artifact
Chemical Feed Equipment Failure
Coagulant
Coagulant Aid
Filter Aid
Poor Raw WaterQuallty
Other Major Unit Process FalluresTMalntenance Activities
Specify; .^
FILTERNO.:/ -' '"••'•• FILTERNO.: HLTERNO.:
DATE: 'v., .'. ••:-, •:••. .'DATE:-''. DATE
TIME: Vj . : . •:•"- TIME:- TIME:
DURATION: r . Vn': DURATION: . .,'. 	 _, DURATION:
-TURBIDITY: % :TURaiDITY: TURBIDITY:
(SeePmOeNo 	 ) (SeeProfleNo 	 ) (See Profile No. 	 )

^f^f^^H''fl^'fyS^':S>S^f^S3(^f:lsifi&slSf
OBVIOUS REASONS ICneckaftrutappfy)
NONE IDENTIFIED -AFttUr Profile must be submitted
FinerProblcms
Post-Backwash Turbidity-Splko
Prolonged Fitter Run Time
Excessive. Fitter-Loading Rate
Rate-of-FIow Control Valve Failure
Media Defects (insufficient depth, mudbals. etc.)
Inadequate Surface Wash or Backwash Facilities
Turbidlmeter Errors
IncorreclCaiibration
Air Bubble
Debris
Backwash Artifact
Chemical Feed Equipment Failure
Coagulant
Coagulant Aid
Filter Aid
Poor Raw WaterQuality
Other Major Unit Process Failures/Maintenance Activities
Specify;
SUBMITTED BY:

OBVIOUS REASONS
•HLTERNO.:;, v.MHLTERNO.: H'i FILTER NO.:
.DATE: '.,:.: • '-DATE: ".BATE:
TIME: TIME: . TIME:
DURATION: ' DURATION: DURATION:
'TURBIDITY: > ' . TURBIDITY: TURBIDITY:
" (See Profile No~ 	 ?~ (See Profile No. 	 ) (See Profile No. 	 ;
Certificate No.
and Grade: Date: •


   June 2001
Appendix F-14
IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
C.   Sample Surface Water Monthly Operating Report-Filter Data Page from the State of
     Texas

PUBLIC WATER
SYSTEM NAME:
PWSIDNo.:

Date
1
2
3
4
5
S
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

Z
O
S
u
2
S
o
o

<
S


SURFACE WATER MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT
FOR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS THAT ARE USING SURFACE WATER SOURCES
OR GROUND WATER SOURCES UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SURFACE WATER (conL)
«,_ Filter Data Page
'~'f PLANT NAME
TNRCCWSC " OR NUMBER PDWS Water Treatment Plant *
1234567 "

Monte


February * Yean 2002

PERFORMANCE DATA

Filter No. 1
Max
0.37
0.38
0.41
1.32
X
0.27
0.35
0.33
0.28
0.21
0.24
0.36
0.19
0.29
0.42
0.26
0.34
0.18
0.26
0.25
0.41
0.39
0.32
0.27
0.22
0.26
0.31
0.29



4 Mrs
0.19
0.21
0.27
0.57
X
0.16
0.22
0.17
. 0.15
0.19
0.17
0.20
0.12
0.18
0.21
0.17
X
0.16
0.18
0.15
0.24
St'tf.22
':•: 0:19
' V0.17
V 0:15
-v';:6.21
•-'0.25:
0.20



INDIVIDUAL FILTERTURBIDITY
Filter No. 2
Max
0.18
0.21
0.23
0.72
X
0.27
0.17
0.22
0.16
0.14
0.18
0.19
0.10
0.23
0.22
0.15
0.25
0.24
0.14
0.20
0.23
7-0.19
. : b.iB
i. 0.22
0.21
0.16
0.25
,-* 0.16
.«.-.
,,-.,.,.,
•-.i
4 Mrs
0.11
0.13
0.15
0.34
X
0.14
0.09
0.12
0.08
0.07
0.11
0.10
0.06
0.09
0.13
0.08
0.12
0.14
0.08
0.11
0.10
0.13
-.. 0.09
. 'Os15
"' MS
0.07
0.11
0.09



Filter No. 3
Max
0.22
0.25
0.21
0.67
X
0.29
0.23
0.17
0.24
0.11
0.30

0.26
0.18
0.16
0.27
X
X
0.23,
0.27,
0.18
0.20;
0.26':
0.28
0.14
0.17
0.21
0.19



4Hrs
0.14
0.11
0.13
0.26
X
0.09
0.12
0.08
0.10
0.05
0.16

0.11
0.10
0.06
0.15
X
X
-50,14
s-to.T?;
fiOM,
«OJ13
:.>o.ia
•Vi031
•;0.bs
0.08
0.12
0.10


^
Fitter No. 4
Max
0.31
0.33
0.29
0.87
X
0.42
0.37
0.32
0 11
036
0.34;
0.42
0.33"
0:35
'0?8
%032
>
>
0.32
•V 0.38
•"» 0:33
"OJ9
0.41
0.39
0.31
-\0.29
;':; 0.35
0.30



4 Mrs
0.16
0:13
0.13!
0:48
X
0.20
0.16
:0.13
014
015
'0.14
1,0.21
0.17
:0,16
0:12
0.19
X
X
0:17
0.18
0.15,
0.20
K23
019
0.20
0.16
014
0.18



Criteria
Filter No. S
Max
'0.42
047
039
105
.X
046
,0.49
0.38
0.34
041
0.28
0.48
0.43
0.40
•0.37
,0.39
X
X
0.46
0.39
0.32
042
037
0.40
0.35
045
041
:o.38





Number of days with events) above0.5LNTUat;*0,hrs this month:
Number of days with event(s) above 1 .0 NTU this month
Number of days with event(s) above 1.0 NTU two months ago
Total number of days with event(s) above 1.0 NTU In three month;
Number of days with event(s) above 2.0 NTU this month
Number of days with eventfs) above 2.0 NTU last month x
Does the plant have an approved corrective action schedule?
Is the plant required to submit a Filter Profile Report? v.
Is the plant required to submit a Filter Assessment Report?
Is the plant required to submit a Request for Compliance CPE?
SUBMITTED BY:
6
Max
035
040
0.27'
084
X
0.37'
0.33
0.26
0.29
0.32
025
0.38
0.22
0.29
031
0.36
X
X
0.32
0.26
0.38s
023
0.33
0.37
0.35
,0:30
0.27
0.29'




2,^
0
0
NA
0
4Hrs
0.18
0.13
019
040
X'
10.12
,0.18
0.17
0.10
0.23
0.16
0.20
015
013
0.19
0.21
.X
X
0.16
0.13
0.20
-0.17
'0.12
0.18
0.20
0.15
0.11
0.13




'3-
0
0
NA
0
^Filter No. 7
Max
































4
0
0
NA
0
t\£r
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
4Hrs































Fllte
5
0
1
NA
1
^Filter No. 8
Max































No.
6
0
0
NA
0
4Hrs
































7




Filter No. 9
Max
































8




4Hrs
































9




Filter No. 10
Max
































10





N
Y
N
N
N
N












.- v* « v «•%%?« -if „ if 4 v ">a!-*£5- " rAa&f**** i"-"^^^
Certificate No.
and Grade:
4 Mrs































Plant
%&.
r8$>"
&^
0
0
N
Hi
N
123-4S«7B9,BSW " Date: March1,2002

-
   IESWTR Implementation Guidance
Appendix F-15
June 2001
-------
D.  Sample Filter Assessment Report for Individual Filters from the State of Texas
    (Page 1)






FILTE
FOR PUBLIC;
THE1NFLUE
PUBLIC WATER
SYSTEM NAVE
PWSlDNo.:
R ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR INDIVIDUAL FILTERS
WATER SYSTEMS THAT ARE USING SURFACE WATER SOURCES OR GROUND WATER SOURCES UNDER
JJCE OF SURFACE WATER THAT ARE REQURHD ; TO.CONDUCT AN INDIVIDUAL FILTER ASSSESSMENT
: .PLANTNAME
> ;.-'. OR NUMBER:


FILTER
NUMBERS;

vi^~:v 	 ";T"'r^~,Jr-;*;;c '? "xssn DESIGN SIPECIFICATIONS

MEDIA BED
MEDIA TYPE
MEDIA SPECS
Layer 1 Material
Lavcr Z Material
Layer 3 Material
Lavcr 4 Material
TOTAL DEPTH
UD RATIO
UNDERDRAW TYPE
SUPPORT GRAVEL
TROUGHS
No.

OPERATING MODE
FLOW DISTRIBUTION
f ~: .1. :" j:;,.; • ,;„: ;i
FILTER FLOW RATE
FLT. LOADING RATE
BACKWASH RATE
BW LOADING RATE
?37. 3 Turbidimeter


Msxmium




LOHG


ADOmOMAL REMARKS: N '!. . ,
' ... •-..-' " "'<•' x ••;«" - -
V

--^.^.;vJ".'".:3'i"';-T;w.:«s;?3«-if-cSiJss8ai OPERATING PROCEDURES »
CALIBRATION
Method -:
Frcooencv ••
Date of Last ' .-"• • "
BACKWASH
Criteria
MonHorinq Interval
SOPs
Start-up
Shutdown
Backwash
Filter Insoectio. n
Flow Meter



Turbidity


BSM5S5iS?SSES





Backwash Meter NTU (



LOH Rirr


>rimafv} NTU (Secondary}



Time RunVohme


ROF(p




ADDITIONAL REMARKS:




1 certify that 1 am farrtHar with the Mbrmafon ccntomed-in this repqrt and that to the best of my knowledge, the
information is true, complete, and accurate.
Operator's _
Signature:

Certificate No.
& Class:

Date:


   June 200/
Appendix F-16
IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
D.   Sample Filter Assessment Report for Individual Filters from the State of Texas
     (Page 2)
FILTER ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR INDIVIDUAL FILTERS
PLANT NAME
SYSTEM NAME: ' ' OR NUMBER:

PWS ID No.:


FILTER
x NUMBER:
•>
CURRENT;CONDITIONS: '> ?^ f?^W ^ * ^"^^ii^ & & ' "*" I**


DATE

TIME

PHYSICAL CONDITION
Walls
Troughs
Suppl. Backwash
Flow Meter
ROFC
Flow Control Valve
Turbidimeter
LOHG









TURBIDITY

LOH - RUNTIME RUN VOLUME

ADDITIONAL REMARKS: ,
,~
•^•<~V'^.f^Sf^3^/ieff-y-/^'^.~y~^S{ MEDIA SURFACE CONDITIONS


MOUNDS
No.
Lenqth
Width
Heiqht
DEPRESSIONS
No.
Length
Width
Depth
ACCUMULATED FLOC
Thickness
Distribution
Before BW
^ "* ^N* '" &

*.
-

tSfSOf- CD ~_.
-
- V


<••"


^After BW




_^




>••


s
ADDtnONAL REMARKS ""'-' -«- "• •-















RETRACTION ' „ i , v rt'» . ' ,
No.
Lenqth
Width
Deoth
CRACKS ' », 1 ' , * ". , "J --v'
No.
Length
Width
'Depth
MUDBALLS ^ ' " < , > "5 .,-
Quantity
Size
Distribution
N> '•. *

;^f 7 ,< -sf^f j ^ r ^¥3^» '3»ftfe 1 BACKWASH CONDITIONS


FLOW RATE-
RISE RATE •*. ->
FILTRATION RATE
DURATION
VOLUME
TROUGHS
Levelness
Flooding
SUPPL. BACKWASH
Duration
Effectiveness
JETTING
No. of Sites
Severity
FLOC MOVEMENT
TURBIDITY
EXPANSION
YIELD

<*



^^ ^^


^ f~~*r ~


_ ^ -"








ADDmONAL-REMARKS:
*% -*
Submitted by:



Date:










   IESWTR Implementation Guidance
Appendix F-17
June 2001
-------
D.   Sample Filter Assessment Report for Individual Filters from the State of Texas
     (Page 3)
FILTER ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR INDIVIDUAL FILTERS
FOR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS THAT ARE USING SURFACE WATER SOURCES OR GROUND WATER SOURCES UNDER
THE INFLUENCE OF SURFACE WATER THAT ARE REQUIRED TO CONDUCT AN INDIVIDUAL FILTER ASSSESSMENT
PLANT NAME
SYSTEM NAME: -. . OR NUMBER

PWS 10 No,:
: ;> FILTER
'•'-"••••-•^. NUMBER:

mmmimx^jm'a^mmssmvSxy'.XM FILTER PROBE

NO. OF SITES
MEDIA
Max. Depth
Mm. Depth
Tvo. Depth
SUPPORT MATERIAL
Max, Elevation
Min. Elevation
Tvo. Elevation









ADDITIONAL REMARKS:
\
^


WISOSWSfSliXlffK?fSXSSiSS:di'SXlii«i^S?M FILTER EXCAVATION 9!&&"t?tA1lf VP* X f^^C^&MKMSSSSiBBB^

*e®«*6Ja*Sife!~f±>iiSifi'
CONDmoN
LAYER 1
INTERFACE 1
LAYER 2
INTERFACE 2
LAYERS
INTERFACES
LAYER 4
INTERFACE 4
MUDBALLS
Max. Size
Min. Sire
Max. Depth
'JK'^jSxf I "•' »'••'••, .'L'- -:,V 9
CONDITION
LAYER 1
INIbkhACbt
LAYER2
INTERFACE 2
LAYERS
INTERFACES
LAYER4
INTERFACE 4
MUDBALLS
MaxLSko
Min. SIzn
Max. Depth
MEDIA CONDITION
Sharpness
Encrustation ; "
Uniformitv -
REFERENCE
Normal












SITE/





",•-•.











SITE 2













: SITE 8







^
*-„




SITES













SITE9













-SITE 4- ~













SITE.IO













SITES "













. SITE 11


•^










SITES













SITE 12













ADDITIONAL REMARKS:









.... .'-
SiiSt &"SS0K-:,^S-V&l^'f-f]:syS'iX'tX't ADDITIONAL STUDIES




PERCENT MUDBALLS
Media Volume
Mudball Volume
% Mudba«s




ADDRIONAL REI/TARKS:



CONCLUSIONS:

CORRECTIVE ACTION
PLAN ATTACHED?



Submitted by: Date:


  June 2001
Appendix F-18
IESWTR Implementation Guidance
-------
D.   Sample Filter Assessment Report for Individual Filters from the State of Texas
     (Page 4)







FILTER ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR INDIVIDUAL FILTERS
THE INFLUENCE OF SURFACE WATER THAT ARE REQUIRED TO CONDUCT AN INDIVIDUAL FILTER ASSSESSMENT
PLANT NAME
SYSTEM NAME: OR NUMBER.
FILTER
PWS ID No.: NUMBER:
'
•^f'f/1 •Vt/y^i'J^'^ ^-"ix* '/jliriitts FILTER SCHEMATIC - tff&i&SjfaiW *&&yWJ?!&i&jlir ? /%9ifii'tl%X&y3fiiS%
-------
-------