816R04008
      V>EPA   The Long Term 1 Enhanced
               Surface Water Treatment
               Rule(LTIESWTR)
               Implementation Guidance
c
                                    SVVA-1

-------
                                                                                              o
                                                                                              o
Office of Water (4606M)
EPA816-R-04-008
www.epa.gov/safewater
August 2004                                                       Printed on Recycled Paper
O

-------
The Long Term 1 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment
Rule(LTIESWTR)
Implementation Guidance

-------
Office of Water (4606M)
EPA816-R-04-008
www.epa.gov/safewater
August 2004                                                 Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
        "          -"•'"
 ^i**8? */*"",. y fj&j %^* '•? / u*J>  J,




•filit»^ifiLlij.'-'!    <  ,  ,    ;  •  V. '

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents	i
List of Figures  	 v
List of Examples  	vi
List of Tables	  vii
Abbreviations	viii
Purpose	ix

Section I Rule Requirements
      1.1 Introduction	 3
           1.1.1 History  	 3
           1.1.2 Development of the LT1ESWTR	 6
           1.1.3 Benefits of the LT1ESWTR	 6
      1.2 Comparing LT1ESWTR, IESWTR and the SWTR  	 7
      1.3 Summary of Action Dates	  17
           1.3.1 Applicability and Compliance Dates 	  17
           1.3.2 Timeline for the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule	  19
      1.4 Requirements of the Rule: Public Water Systems	  22
           1.4.1 Applicability and Compliance Dates 	  22
                1.4.1.1  Who does this rule apply to?	  22
                1.4.1.2  What are the compliance dates?	  22
           1.4.2 Disinfection Profiling and Disinfection Benchmarking Requirements  	  22
                1.4.2.1  Who must develop a disinfection profile?       	  22
                1.4.2.2  What is a disinfection profile?	  22
                1.4.2.3  When might a state determine that disinfection profiling is unnecessary? ..  23
                1.4.2 A  When could a state approve a more representative data set for disinfection
                     profiling?	  23
                1.4.2.5  What is a disinfection benchmark?  	  24
                1.4.2.6  What are considered significant changes to disinfection practices? 	  24
                1.4.2.7  What information must be submitted to the state if a system wishes to make  a
                     significant change to its disinfection practices?  	  24
                1.4.2.8  What are the disinfection profiling and benchmarking recordkeeping
                     requirements?  	  25
                1.4.2.9  What if the disinfection profile and/or benchmark is not developed?	  25
           1.4.3 Requirements for Cryptosporidium Control	  25
                1.4.3.1  What are the requirements for Cryptosporidium control for filtered systems?
                        	  25
                1.4.3.2  What are the requirements for Cryptosporidium control for unfiltered systems?
                        	  25

-------
           1.4.4 Combined Filter Effluent (CFE) Turbidity Requirements	 25       '^^
                1.4.4.1  What are the CFE requirements for systems using conventional and direct            N***''
                      filtration?	 26
                1.4.4.2  What are the CFE requirements for systems using slow sand and diatomaceous
                      earth filtration?	 26
                1.4.4.3  What are the CFE requirements for systems using alternative filtration? ... 26
                1.4.4.4  What is the procedure for measuring combined filter effluent if lime softening
                      is used?  	 27
                1.4.4.5  What happens if more than 5 percent of the measurements taken each month
                      exceeds the designated 95th percentile turbidity limit?	 27
                1.4.4.6  What happens if the maximum CFE limits are exceeded?  	 27
                1.4.4.7  What are the combined filter effluent turbidity reporting requirements? ... 27
                1.4.4.8  What if combined filter effluent turbidity samples are not collected and/or
                      reported?	 28
           1.4.5 Individual Filter Effluent (IFE) Turbidity Requirements	 28
                1.4.5.1  Who must conduct IFE turbidity monitoring under the LT1ESWTR?	 28
                1.4.5.2  Why is individual filter effluent turbidity monitored?  	 28
                1.4.5.3  What are the individual filter monitoring requirements?	 28
                1.4.5.4  What happens if the turbidity monitoring equipment fails?  	 28
                1.4.5.5  What are the IFE turbidity monitoring and reporting requirements?  	 28
                1.4.5.6  What is the procedure for measuring individual filter turbidity effluent if lime           	
                      softening is used?  	 30
                1.4.5.7  What if IFE follow-up activities are not conducted or reported? 	 30        "^w*1
                1.4.5.8  How long must the results of individual filter monitoring be maintained? .  . 30
           1.4.6 Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs	 30
           1.4.7 Public Water System Recordkeeping Requirements  	 30
           1.4.8 Public Notification of Drinking Water Violations	 31
           1.4.9 Consumer Confidence Report Requirements	 31
      1.5 Requirements of the Rule: States or Other Primacy Agents  	 32
           1.5.1 Special Primacy Requirements	 32
           1.5.2 Records Kept by States	 32
           1.5.3 State Reporting Requirements  	 33
      References  	 33

Section II Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
      2.1 Long Term One Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule	 37
           2.1.1 Cryptosporidium	 37
           2.1.2 Disinfection Profiling And Benchmarking	 38
                2.1.2.1 Applicability	 38
                2.1.2.2 Profiling  	 38
                2.1.2.3  Benchmarking and Changes to Disinfection Practices  	 41
           2.1.3 Turbidity Standards - Combined Filter Effluent (CFE)	 42         ^*^
           2.1.4 Individual Filter Provisions  	 43         »««•**-•
           2.1.5 Alternative Filtration Technologies	 46

-------
     2.2 General Program Requirements 	 47
           2.2.1 Primacy	 47
           2.2.2 Violations, SDWIS Reporting, and SNC Definitions	 48
           2.2.3 Data Reporting and Recordkeeping	 49
Key Words by Question Number	 50

Section III State Implementation
     3.1 Overview of Implementation	 53
     3.2 Identify Affected Systems	 54
           3.2.1 New Construction of Finished Water Reservoirs	 54
           3.2.2 Affected Surface Water or GWUDI Systems	 54
     3.3 Identify System-Specific Requirements 	 55
     3.4 Communicate LT1ESWTR Requirements to Affected Systems	 56
           3.4.1 Target Notification Time Frames	 56
           3.4.2 Written Notification for Affected Systems	 56
           3.4.3 Other Communication 	 58
     3.5 Update Data Systems 	 59
     3.6 Assess Optional TTHM and HAA5 Monitoring Data and More Representative Profiling Data
            	 59
     3.7 Identify Practices and Procedures for Approving Alternative Filtration Technologies and
           Establishing Turbidity Limits for Those Systems  	 60
     3.8 Evaluate the Adequacy of Watershed Control Programs for Cryptosporidium for Unfiltered
           Systems	 60
     3.9 Ensure Training Opportunities are Available - How to Perform Filter Self-Assessments and
           Report Results  	 61
     3.10  Obtain and Maintain Expertise to Perform CPEs  	 64
     3.11  Evaluate Monthly Filter Performance Reports	 64
     3.12  Evaluate Reports of Filter Self-Assessments  	 70
     3.13  Evaluate CPE Reports	 71
     3.14  Track System Compliance and Implement Enforcement Action  	 71
     3.15  Review Disinfection Profiles During Sanitary Surveys 	 71
     3.16  Consult With Systems Regarding Changes in Disinfection Practices	 72
     3.17  Other Implementation Concerns - Sanitary Surveys	 72
     3.18  Area-Wide Optimization Programs Offer Proactive Approaches for LT1ESTWR
           Implementation	 72
           3.18.1 Overview of an Area-Wide Optimization Program	 72
           3.18.2 Components of an Area-Wide Optimization Program	 73
           3.18.3 Benefits of Area-Wide Optimization Programs	 74
           3.18.4 Potential use of AWOP in LT1ESWTR Implementation  	 75

Section IV  State Primacy Revision Application
     4.1  State Primacy Program Revision	 81
           4.1.1 The Revision Process	 82

-------
           4.1.2 The Final Review Process  	  82       ^^
     4.2 State Primacy Program Revision Extensions  	  84        -
           4.2.1 The Extension Process	  84
           4.2.2 Criteria that an Extension Request Must Meet	  84
           4.2.3 Conditions of the Extension	  84
     4.3 State Primacy Package 	  89
           4.3.1 The State Primacy Revision Checklist (40 CFR 142.12(c)(l))  	  89
           4.3.2 Text of the State's Regulation 	  89
           4.3.3 Primacy Revision Crosswalk	  89
           4.3.4 State Reporting and Recordkeeping Checklist (40 CFR 142.14 and 142.15)  	  90
           4.3.5 Special Primacy Requirement (40 CFR 142.16)  	  91
           4.3.6 Attorney General's Statement of Enforceability (40 CFR 142.12(c)(2))	  91
                4.3.6.1 Guidance For States on Audit Privilege and/or Immunity Laws	  91
     4.4 Guidance for the Special Primacy Requirements of the LTIESWTR  	  93

Section V SDWIS Reporting and SNC Definitions
     5.1 Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Reporting Under the LTIESWTR ...  105
           5.1.1 Federally Reported Violations	  105
     5.2 LTIESWTR - SNC Definition 	  112

Section VI Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Examples                               /-J™"**
     Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Examples	  115        "*"*****
                                              IV

-------
List of Figures
Figure 1.1:  LT1ESWTR Requirements and Implementation Timeline  	  20
Figure 1.2:  General Requirements of the LT1ESWTR	  21
Figure 1.3: Example Disinfection Profile  	  23
Figure 1.4: Disinfection Profile with Benchmark 	  24
Figure 1.5: CFE and IFE Locations	  26
Figure 1.6: Summary of the LT1ESWTR and SWTR Combined Filter Effluent Turbidity Limits  	  27
Figure 3.1: Example System Notification Letter	  57
Figure 3.2: Example CFE Reporting Form for Conventional or Direct Filtration For Combined Filter
      Effluent	  65
Figure 3.3: Example IFE Reporting Form for Conventional or Direct Filtration For Individual Filter
      Effluent	  67
Figure 3.4: Example CFE Reporting Form for Conventional or Direct Filtration For Combined Filter
      Effluent - Completed 	  69
Figure 4.1:  State Rule Implementation and Revision Timetable for LT1ESWTR	  81
Figure 4.2:  Recommended Review Process for State Request for Approval of Program Revisions  ...  83
Figure 4.3:  Extension Request Checklist  	  85
Figure 4.4:  State Primacy Revision Checklist	  90
Figure 4.5:  Example of Attorney General's Statement	  92

-------
List of Examples
Example 6-1. Example Tier 1 Public Notification for a CFE Maximum Turbidity Exceedance (Delivered
     Weeks Late)	 120
Example 6-2. Example Tier 1 Public Notification for a CFE Maximum Turbidity Exceedance  	 121
Example 6-3. Example Problem Corrected Notification for a CFE Maximum Turbidity Exceedance  . 122
Example 6-4. Example of a Notice in the CCR for a CFE Maximum Turbidity Exceedance	 122
Example 6-5. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for CFE Maximum Exceedance	 125
Example 6-6. Example of a Notice in the CCR for CFE Maximum Turbidity Exceedance	 126
Example 6-7. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for CFE 95th Percentile Turbidity Exceedance in
     Multiple Treatment Plants  	 128
Example 6-8. Example of a Notice in the CCR for CFE 95th Percentile Turbidity Exceedance in Multiple
     Treatment Plants	 129
Example 6-9. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for CFE 95th-Percentile Turbidity Exceedance .... 131
Example 6-10. Example of a Notice in the  CCR for CFE 95th Percentile Turbidity Exceedance	 132
Example 6-11. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for Failure to Consult with Primacy Agency Before
     Making a Significant Change in Disinfection Practices	 134
Example 6-12. Example of a Notice in the  CCR for Failure to Consult with Primacy Agency Before
     Making a Significant Change in Disinfection Practices	 135
Example 6-13. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for Construction of an Uncovered Finished Water
     Storage Facility 	 137
Example 6-14. Example of a Notice in the  CCR for Construction of an Uncovered Finished Water
     Storage Facility 	 138
Example 6-15. Example of a Notice in the  2006 CCR for IFE Turbidity Monitoring and Reporting
     Violations that Took Place in 2005 (Also Satisfying Tier 3  PN Requirements for IFE Turbidity
     Monitoring Violations)	 143
Example 6-16. Example of a Notice in the  2007 CCR for IFE Turbidity Monitoring and Reporting
     Violations That Took Place in 2006	 144
Example 6-17. Example of a Notice in the  CCR for Failure to Monitor CFE Turbidity (also Satisfying
     Tier 3 PN Requirements for CFE Monitoring Violations)	 146
Example 6-18. Example of Optional Separate Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure to Monitor CFE
     Turbidity	 146
Example 6-19. Example of a Notice in the  CCR for Failure to Report that IFE Turbidity Monitoring Has
     Been Conducted	 147
Example 6-20. Example of a Notice in the  CCR for Failure to Maintain IFE Monitoring Records For at
     Least 3 Years  	 148
                                             VI

-------
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Comparison of Provisions of the SWTR, IESWTR and LT1ESWTR	 9
Table 3.1 - Treatment Systems and Information Package Focus Issues  	 55
Table 3.2: Sample Individual Filter Self Assessment Worksheet  	 62
Table 5.1: SDWIS/FED Codes for Federal Reporting Under the LT1ESWTR	  106
Table 5.2: Federal Reporting for LT1ESWTR 	  107
Table 6-1. PN and CCR General Requirements	  115
Table 6-2. PN and CCR Requirements for LT1 Violations	  116
Table 6-3. System B September 2005 CFE Turbidity Monthly Report (Excerpt)	  118
Table 6-4. System C, Treatment Plant #1 January 2006 CFE Turbidity Monthly Report (Excerpt) ...  123
Table 6-5. System C, Treatment Plant #2 January 2006 CFE Turbidity Monthly Report (Excerpt) ...  123
Table 6-6. System D Plant #1 July 2006 CFE Turbidity Monthly Report (Excerpt)	  127
Table 6-7. System D Plant #2 July 2006 CFE Turbidity Monthly Report (Excerpt)	  127
                  *
Table 6-8. System B November 2005 CFE Turbidity Monthly Report (Excerpt)	  130
Table 6-9. System F Filter #7 November 2005 IFE Turbidity Monitoring Form (Excerpt)  	  139
Table 6-10. System F Filter #7 December 2005 IFE Turbidity Monitoring Form (Excerpt)  	  140
Table 6-11. System F Filter #3 October 2005 IFE Turbidity Monitoring Form (Excerpt)  	  140
Table 6-12. System F Filter #3 November 2005 IFE Turbidity Monitoring Form (Excerpt)  	  141
Table 6-13. System F Filter #3 December 2005 IFE Turbidity Monitoring Form (Excerpt)  	  141
Table 6-14. System F Filter #5 November 2005 IFE Turbidity Monitoring Form (Excerpt)  	  142
Table 6-15. System F Filter #5 December 2005 IFE Turbidity Monitoring Form (Excerpt)  	  142
                                            VII

-------
Abbreviations
CCR         Consumer Confidence Rule
CFE         Combined Filter Effluent
CPE         Comprehensive Performance Evaluation
CT          Contact Time
CTA         Comprehensive Technical Assistance
DBPP        Disinfection Byproduct Precursor
DE          Diatomaceous Earth
FBRR        Filter Backwash Recycling Rule
GAC         Granular Activated Carbon
GWUDI      Ground Water Under the Direct Influence
HAA5        Haloacetic Acids
HAV         Hepatitis A Virus
IESWTR     Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
IFE          Individual Filter Effluent
LTIESWTR   Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
M/R         Monitoring/Reporting
MCL         Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG       Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
NTU         Nephelolometric Turbidity Units
SDWA       Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS       State Drinking Water Information System
SNC         Significant Non-Compliance
SWTR       Surface Water Treatment Rule
TT          Treatment Technique
TTHM       Total Trihalomethanes
UV          Ultraviolet
                                           VIII

-------
Purpose	


This document provides guidance to EPA Regions and states exercising primary enforcement
responsibility under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) concerning how EPA interprets the Long
Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR). It also provides guidance on how EPA
intends to exercise its discretion in implementing the statute and regulations. This guidance articulates
national policy on these issues.

The SDWA provisions and EPA regulations described in this document contain legally binding
requirements. This document does not substitute for those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation
itself. It does not impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, states, or the regulated community, and
may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. EPA and state decision-makers
retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from this guidance where
appropriate. Any decisions regarding a particular facility will be made based on the applicable statutes
and regulations. Therefore, interested parties are free to raise questions and objections about the
appropriateness of the application of this guidance to a particular situation, and EPA will consider
whether the recommendations or interpretations in the guidance are appropriate in that situation based on
the law and regulations. EPA may change this guidance in the future.

Please note that, in several sections, the guidance makes suggestions and offers alternatives that go
beyond the minimum requirements indicated. EPA does this to provide information and/or suggestions
that may be helpful to implementation efforts. Such suggestions are prefaced by "may" or "should" and
are to be considered advisory. They are not required elements of the LT1ESWTR.

Section I discusses the LT1ESWTR and presents timetables and timelines of important dates of this rule.
Section II contains references  for further information and guidance. Section III provides information for
states to communicate the requirements of this rule to systems. Section IV covers state primacy revision
requirements, including a detailed time frame for application review and approval. This section also
contains guidance and references to help states adopt the new special primacy requirement included in
this rule. Section V addresses violation determination and associated reporting requirements, including a
violation table to assist states in their compliance activities. Section VI provides examples of language
that can be  used to comply with the requirements of the Public Notification Rule (PN Rule) and
Consumer Confidence Reporting Rule (CCR).

The Appendices of this document also provide  information that will be useful  to states and EPA Regions
throughout the primacy revision application process. Appendix A contains the primacy revision crosswalk
for the rule. Appendix B contains the LT1ESWTR regulatory language. Appendix C contains a fact sheet,
a quick reference guide, and a rule summary for systems. Appendix D contains flowcharts of rule
requirements. Appendix E contains the LT1ESWTR Data Entry Instructions with Examples.
                                               IX

-------

-------
c
    Section I
C   Rule Requirements

-------
community systems using a disinfected and protected ground water) for every system that collects fewer
than five routine total coliform samples per month (typically systems that serve less than 4,100 people).

Surface Water Treatment Rule

Public water systems using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water are
prone to microbial contamination of their source water. Pathogenic microorganisms contaminating source
water are removed during the water treatment plant sedimentation and/or filtration processes. Disinfection
is effective for some but not all pathogens which may be present. EPA issued the SWTR in response to
Congress' mandate requiring disinfection, and filtration where necessary, of systems that use surface
water sources. 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. The SWTR applies a
treatment technique requirement for inactivation, or removal and inactivation, of these organisms.

Specifically, the SWTR rule requires that a surface water system have sufficient treatment to reduce the
source water concentrations of Giardia lamblia by at least 99.9 percent (3-log) and viruses by at least
99.99 percent (4-log). In addition, a disinfection residual must be maintained throughout the distribution
system. For systems that filter, the adequacy of the filtration process is determined by the treatment
technology used and 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 the public health risk for
infection by Giardia lamblia, Legionella or viruses to less than one infection per year per 10,000 people.
However, the SWTR does not account for systems with high pathogen concentrations in source water
that, when treated at the levels required under the rule, still may not meet this health goal. The SWTR  also
does not specifically control for the protozoan Cryptosporidium, as sufficient information about its
removal or disinfection was not available at the time the SWTR was finalized. Over the  past 10 years,
much has been learned about this organism. Most notably, Cryptosporidium is particularly resistant to
disinfection practices commonly employed by public water systems. Therefore, physical removal of
Cryptosporidium is the most effective method of public health protection.

1996 SDWA Amendments

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 (e.g., 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 1996, 401 waterborne disease outbreaks
were reported, with over 750,000 cases of disease (Craun 1998, 1997; Kramer et al. 1996). 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 over 400,000 cases of cryptosporidiosis in Milwaukee (MacKenzie et al. 1994).

The SDWA was further amended in 1996 to improve public health protection. The 1996 Amendments
incorporated 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 amendments provided for use of best available peer-reviewed science in decision making and for risk
reduction and cost analyses in the regulatory decision process.

Following the 1996 SDWA Amendments, the Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage
1 DBPR) and Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) were published in December
August 2004                                     4           Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
1998. These rules expand on the foundation of the TCR, SWTR, and TTHM standards to target health
risks unaddressed by prior regulations.

Stage 1 DBPR

All systems using surface water or GWUDI, and many systems using groundwater rely on a chemical
disinfectant to inactivate pathogens. The public health benefits of common disinfection practices are
significant and well-recognized;  however, disinfection poses risks of its own. While disinfectants are
effective in controlling many harmful microorganisms, they react with organic and inorganic matter
(disinfection byproduct precursors) in the water and form DBFs, some of which pose health risks at
certain levels. Since the discovery of chlorination byproducts in drinking water in 1974, numerous
toxicological studies have been conducted that show some DBFs to be carcinogenic  and/or cause
reproductive or developmental effects in laboratory animals. Additionally, exposure to high levels of
disinfectants over long periods of time may cause health problems, including damage to blood and
kidneys. While many of these studies have been conducted at high contaminant doses, the weight-of-
evidence indicates that DBFs present a potential public health problem that must be  addressed, even at
low levels. One of the most complex questions facing water supply professionals is how to reduce risks
from disinfectants and DBFs while providing adequate protection against microbial contaminants. Much
of the population is exposed to these risks; therefore, a substantial concern exists.

To address this concern, the Stage 1 DBPR updates and supersedes (as of December 2003) the 1979
TTHM standard. The Stage 1 DBPR lowers the MCL for TTHMs  and establishes maximum residual
disinfection level (MRDL) limits for chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine dioxide and new MCLs for
chlorite, bromate, and five haloacetic acids (HAA5). It applies to all community water systems (CWSs)
and nontransient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWSs) that add a chemical disinfectant for either
primary or residual treatment. In addition, the Stage 1 DBPR requires conventional filtration systems to
remove specified percentages of organic materials measured as total organic carbon  (TOC) that may react
with disinfectants to form DBFs.

IESWTR/FBRR/LT1ESWTR

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

The provisions in the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule address the concerns
covered by the IESWTR as they apply to small systems (i.e., systems serving fewer  than 10,000 people)
using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI). Collectively,
the SWTR, IESWTR, and LTIESWTR place stringent treatment requirements on systems using surface
water (or GWUDI) as a source.

The Filter Backwash and Recycling Rule (FBRR) complements the surface water rules by reducing the
potential for microbial pathogens, particularly Cryptosporidium oocysts, to pass through the filters into
the finished water of systems that use conventional and direct filtration. The  FBRR requires affected
systems to report recycle practices to the state, maintain specific records, and return  spent filter backwash,
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance           5                                     August 2004

-------
thickener supernatant, or liquids from dewatering processes through all the processes of a system's
existing conventional or direct filtration system or to an approved alternate location.

By building on the foundation set forth by the original SDWA, subsequent amendments to the Act have
improved the quality of drinking water and increased public health protection. The LT1ESWTR is part of
a series of rules which 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.

1.1.2 Development of the LT1ESWTR

1412(b)(2)(c) of the 1996 SDWA Amendments required EPA to develop rules to balance the risks
between microbial pathogens and disinfection byproducts. In 1997, a Federal Advisory Committees Act
(FACA) process was implemented with the Microbial-Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts (M-DBP)
Advisory Committee. The M-DBP Committee Negotiations resulted in:

•   An Information Collection Rule (ICR) to collect information necessary to reduce many key
    uncertainties prior to subsequent negotiations for the M-DBP rules;

•   A companion Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (proposed in three stages) and the FBRR;
    designed to improve control of microbial pathogens and prevent inadvertent reductions in microbial
    safety as a result of DBF control efforts; and,

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

EPA began outreach efforts to develop the LT1ESWTR in the summer of 1998. In addition, several
formal and informal meetings on the LT1ESWTR were held with stakeholders, trade associations, and
environmental groups. Small entity representatives also contributed valuable input as part of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel process. In early June 1999, EPA
mailed an informal draft of the LT1ESWTR preamble to approximately 100 stakeholders. EPA received
valuable suggestions and stakeholder input from 15 state representatives, trade associations,
environmental groups, and individual stakeholders. The proposed LT1ESWTR was published in the
Federal Register on April 10, 2000 (65 FR 19046). EPA held a public meeting in Washington, DC on
April 14, 2000 to discuss the proposed rule. Additionally, the proposed rule was either presented or
discussed in  nearly 50 meetings across the U.S., including a May 30, 2000 meeting in Washington, DC.
Finally, EPA requested comments by mailing approximately 200 copies of the proposed rule to
stakeholders. These comments were reviewed and evaluated while developing the final rule. Responses to
all of the comments are found in EPA's Public Comment and Response Summary for the Long Term 1
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (EPA Doc #815-R-01026, October 26, 2001).

1.1.3 Benefits of the LT1ESWTR

The LT1ESWTR will improve public health by increasing the level of protection from exposure to
Cryptosporidium and other pathogens in drinking water supplies through filtration improvements at small
water systems.  Based on the risk assessment performed for the Regulatory Impact Analysis, the
LT1ESWTR is expected to reduce the mean annual number of endemic illnesses (constant, low-level
August 2004                                    6           Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
presence of a disease or infection) from Cryptosporidium by 12,000 to 41,000 cases. Based on these
values, the mean estimated annual benefits of reducing the illness range from $9.5 million to $58.3
million per year. This calculation is based on a valuation of $796 to $1,411 per incidence of
cryptosporidiosis prevented. The LT1ESWTR will also reduce the risk of more severe health impacts on
sensitive populations, including the risk of mortality. Additionally, the LT1ESWTR will reduce the
likelihood of outbreaks of giardiasis and its associated costs by providing a larger margin of safety against
such outbreaks in some systems.

1.2  Comparing LT1ESWTR, IESWTR and the SWTR
The LTIESWTR builds upon the framework established by the IESWTR (subpart P); many of the two
rules' provisions are identical. In turn, both rules supplement the requirements of the SWTR (subpart H),
by modifying some provisions. Although LT IESWTR and IESWTR are similar, they target different
population categories and there are some other differences between the two which affect system and state
responsibilities.

State staff dealing with all three of the surface water treatment rules may want to know how the rules
complement each other and the areas that differ. Knowing the differences will enhance the effectiveness
of technical assistance, record review, follow-up, and enforcement issues. Table 1.1 provides an overview
of sections of the three rules which have comparable, but not identical, provisions. Comparisons are also
included as a footnote at the end of the table for the new DBF MCL, disinfectant MRDL and related
monitoring requirement provisions of the Stage 1 DBPR (subpart L).
Final LT IESWTR Implementation Guidance           7                                    August 2004

-------
OVERVIEW OF SWTR, IESWTR, & LT1ESWTR PROVISIONS
APPLICABILITY: All public water systems that use surface water or ground
water under the direct influence of surface water (Subpart H)
Population Served
Type of Filtration
Filtered Systems— Turbidity
Performance Standards
Unfiltered System Requirements
Regulated Pathogens
Disinfection Residual
Requirements
Disinfection Profiling &
Benchmarking
Sanitary Surveys
> 10,000
< 10,000
Conventional
Direct
Slow Sand
Diatomaceous Earth
Alternative (e.g., membranes, cartridges, etc.)
Combined Filter Effluent
Individual Filter Effluent (Conventional &
Direct Filtration Only)
Avoidance Criteria
—Watershed Control Program
99.99% (4-log) removal/inactivation of viruses
99.9% (3-log) removal/inactivation of Giardia
lamblia
99% (2-log) removal of Cryptosporidium
Entrance to distribution system (>0.2 mg/L)
Detectable in the distribution system
Certain systems must profile inactivation levels
and generate benchmark
CWS: Every 3 years
NCWS: Every 5 years
Covered Finished Reservoirs/Water Storage Facilities
Operated by qualified personnel as specified by state
SWTR
1989
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
N/A
•
•
•
•
N/A
•
•
N/A
N/A
N/A
•
IESWTR
1998
•
N/A (except for
sanitary survey
provisions)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Regulated under
SWTR
• (includes
Crypto^
•
•
•
Regulated under
SWTR
Regulated under
SWTR
•
•
•
Regulated under
SWTR _,
LT1ESWTR
2002
N/A
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Regulated
under SWTR
• (includes
Crypto)
•
•
•
Regulated
under SWTR
Regulated
under SWTR
•
Regulated
under
IESWTR
•
Regulated
under SWTR
[   I  Tightens already existing requirements in the 1989 SWTR




|    (  New requirements in addition to the 1989 SWTR
August 2004
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
                           Table 1.1: Comparison of Provisions of the SWTR, IESWTR and LTIESWTR
       Subject
            SWTR
                IESWTR
               LTIESWTR
 General
 Requirements and
 Compliance Dates
Subpart H - Filtration and
Disinfection

Applicable to all public water
systems using surface water or
ground water under the direct
influence of surface water
(subpart H systems).

Systems must comply beginning
December 30, 1991.

[§141.70 and §141.71]
Subpart P - Enhanced Filtration and
Disinfection.

Applicable to SW and GWUDI systems
serving at least 10,000 people and are in
addition to the requirements of subpart H.

Systems must comply beginning January 1,
2002, unless otherwise specified.

[§141.170]
Subpart T - Enhanced Filtration and
Disinfection - Systems Serving Fewer Than
10,000 People.

Applicable to SW and GWUDI systems
serving fewer than 10,000 people and are in
addition to requirements of subpart H.

Systems must comply with most requirements
beginning January 1, 2005* unless otherwise
specified.

[§141.500- 141.502]
 Watershed Control
 Requirements to
 Avoid Filtration
Criteria address Giardia, HPC,
Legionella and viruses.

[§141.71]
Watershed control programs for unfiltered
systems must take any additional steps
necessary for minimizing the potential for
contamination by Cryptosporidium, identify
watershed characteristics and activities, and
monitor the occurrence of activities that may
have an adverse effect on source water quality

[§141.171]
Same requirements as IESWTR

[§§141.520-522]
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                                                                                            August 2004

-------
        Subject
            SWTR
                 IESWTR
               LT1ESWTR
  Combined Filter
  Effluent Turbidity
  Provisions -

  Conventional or
  Direct Filtration
  Treatment
System's filtered water must be
less than or equal to 0.5 NTU in
at least 95 percent of the
measurements taken each month;
at no time must turbidity exceed 5
NTU.

State may set a higher 95th
percentile limit not to exceed 1
NTU in more than 5 percent of
the samples.

[§141.73(a)]

Measurements are recorded at
least every 4 hours. For systems
serving 500 or fewer people the
state may reduce this frequency to
once per day.
Combined filter effluent requirements change
from 0.5 to 0.3 NTU and at no time may
exceed 1 NTU.

No provisions for allowing states to set a
higher 95th percentile limit.

Individual filter turbidity provisions apply.

[§141.173]

No new frequency provisions.
Same requirements as IESWTR

[§141.551]

No new frequency provisions.
  Combined Filter
  Effluent Turbidity
  Provisions -

  Slow Sand Filtration
System's filtered water must be
less than or equal to 1 NTU in at
least 95 percent of the samples
taken each month. State may
allow a higher limit. At no time
must turbidity exceed 5 NTU.

[§141.73(b)]

Measurements are recorded at
least every 4 hours. The state may
reduce this frequency to once per
day.
No new requirements

No individual filter turbidity provisions.

No new frequency provisions.
No new requirements

No individual filter turbidity provisions.

No new frequency provisions.
August 2004
                                               10
                                                Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                                                       O
                                                                                                                   o

-------
        Subject
            SWTR
                 IESWTR
               LT1ESWTR
 Combined Filter
 Effluent Turbidity
 Provisions -

 Diatomaceous Earth
 Filtration
System's filtered water must be
less than or equal to 1 NTU in at
least 95 percent of the samples
taken each month. At no time
must turbidity exceed 5 NTU.

[§141.73(c)]

Measurements are recorded at
least every 4 hours. The state may
reduce this frequency for systems
serving < 500.
No new requirements

No individual filter turbidity provisions.

No new frequency provisions.
No new requirements

No individual filter turbidity provisions.

No new frequency provisions.
 Combined Filter
 Effluent Turbidity
 Provisions -

 Alternative Filtration
 Technologies
Turbidity limits for slow sand
filters apply once the system has
demonstrated to the state the
technology meets the 99.9 percent
Giardia removal and/or
inactivation and 99.99 percent
virus removal and/or inactivation.

[§141.73(a)]

Measurements are recorded at
least every 4 hours. The state may
reduce this frequency to once per
day for systems serving fewer
than 500 persons.
The state determines the combined filter
effluent requirement value that must be met in
95 percent of the measurements taken each
month, and a value that may not be exceeded
at any time.

These values are to be based on a performance
demonstration or other means to show
consistent achievement of 99 percent removal
of Cryptosporidium, in addition to 99.9%
removal and/or inactivation of Giardia and
99.99% removal and/or inactivation of viruses.

No new frequency provisions.

[§141.173(b)]
As for IESWTR, but the rule specifies the 95th
percentile value cannot exceed 1 NTU.

As for IESWTR, but the rule specifies the
state-determined maximum combined filter
effluent value cannot be greater than 5 NTU.

No new frequency provisions.

[§141.551]
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                                11
                                                                             August 2004

-------
       Subject
            SWTR
                 IESWTR
               LT1ESWTR
 Individual Filter
 Effluent (IFE)
 Turbidity Provisions
 Conventional or
 Direct Filtration
 Treatment Only
Not applicable
Systems must continuously monitor individual
filter effluent turbidity and record the values at
least every 15 minutes.

If turbidity monitoring equipment fails, grab
sampling every four hours may be performed,
but for not more than 5 working days.

[§141.174]

System must report that they have conducted
IFE monitoring by the  10th of the next month.

[§141.175(b)]
If the system has two or fewer filters,
continuous monitoring of the combined filter
effluent may be performed in lieu of individual
filter effluent monitoring.

If turbidity monitoring equipment fails,
systems must conduct grab sampling until the
turbidimeter is back online. A system has 14
days to resume continuous monitoring before a
violation is incurred.

[§§141.560-562]

Same as IESWTR.

[§141.570(b)]
  IFE Follow-up
  Action -

  If the turbidity of an
  individual filter1
  exceeds 1.0 NTU in
  2 consecutive
  recordings 15
  minutes apart
Not applicable
The system must report the date(s), filter
number, and turbidity values that exceeded 1.0
NTU by the 10th of the next month.

The system must also either produce a filter
profile for the filter within 7 days of the
exceedance and report that  it has been
produced, or report the obvious reason for the
exceedance if the profile is  not produced.
Reporting as for IESWTR, and the system
must report the cause of the turbidity
exceedance, if known

A filter profile is not required.

[§141.563(a)]
August 2004
                                                12
                                                Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
                                                                                                                                          r
        Subject
            SWTR
                IESWTR
               LT1ESWTR
  IFE Follow-up
  Action -

  If the turbidity of an
  individual filter1
  exceeds 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 off
  line.
Not applicable
The system must report the filter number,
turbidity value and dates(s) in which the
exceedance occurred by the 10th of the next
month. The system must also either produce a
filter profile within 7 days of the exceedance
and report that it has been produced, or report
the obvious reason for the exceedance if the
profile is not produced.

[§141.175(b)(2)]
No requirement
  IFE Follow-up
  Action -

  If the turbidity of an
  individual filter1
  exceeds 1.0 NTU in
  2 consecutive
  recordings 15
  minutes apart for 3
  months in a row
Not applicable
The system must report the filter number,
turbidity measurements and dates(s) on which
the exceedance occurred by the 1 Olh of the next
month.

The system must conduct a self-assessment of
the filter within 14 days of the exceedance and
report that it was conducted.

[§141.175(b)(3)]
As for IESWTR, and the self-assessment must
be on both filters if CFE is used in lieu of
individual filter turbidity monitoring.

[§141.563(b)]
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                               13
                                                                             August 2004

-------
       Subject
            SWTR
                IESWTR
               LT1ESWTR
 IFE Follow-up
 Action -

 If the turbidity of an
 individual filter1
 exceeds 2.0 NTU in
 2 consecutive
 readings 15 minutes
 apart at the same
 filter for two
 consecutive months
Not applicable
The system must report the filter number,
turbidity and dates(s) in which the exceedance
occurred by the 10th of the next month and
arrange to have a CPE  conducted no later than
30 days after the filter exceeded 2.0 NTU for
the second straight month. The CPE must be
completed and the report submitted within 90
days of the exceedance

[§141.175(b)(4)]
Reporting and self-assessment as for IESWTR
but the CPE must be arranged not later than 60
days after the filter exceeded 2.0 NTU for the
second straight month, and must be completed
and the report submitted within 120 days after
the final exceedance-.

[§141.563(c)J
 Disinfection Profile
 Applicability2
Not applicable
Applies to all subpart H systems, including
community, nontransient noncommunity and
transient noncommunity systems, that serve at
least 10,000 people.

[§141.172(b)]
Applies to subpart H community or
nontransient noncommunity water systems that
serve fewer than 10,000 persons; does not
apply to transient noncommunity systems.

[§141.530]
 Determining if a
 Disinfection Profile
 is Unnecessary
Not applicable
If a system's annual average TTHM and
HAAS levels are below 0.064 mg/L and 0.048
mg/L, respectively.

The annual average is calculated as the
arithmetic average of the quarterly averages of
four consecutive quarters of monitoring.

[§141.172(a)]
Same TTHM and HAAS values specified in
IESWTR.

To determine these levels, samples must be
collected after January 1, 1998 during the
month with the warmest water temperature and
at the point of maximum residence time in the
distribution system. The state may approve a
more representative TTHM and HAAS data set
to determine these levels.

[§141.531]
August 2004
                                               14
                                                Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
  o

-------
       Subject
            SWTR
                 IESWTR
               LT1ESWTR
 Developing a
 Disinfection Profile -
 Monitoring
 Frequency and
 Compliance Dates
Not applicable
Daily monitoring, for a period of 12
consecutive months or may use 3 years of
existing operational data.

Systems must begin monitoring no later than
April 1,2000.

[§141.172(b)]
Weekly monitoring, on the same calendar day,
over 12 consecutive months.

Systems serving 500 to 9,999 persons must
begin no later than July 1, 2003; systems
serving fewer than 500 must begin no later
than January 1, 2004.

[§141.532-533]
 Developing a
 Disinfection Profile -
 Calculating the Log
 Inactivation for
 Viruses
If required by the state when a
system uses a disinfectant other
than chlorine.

[§141.72(a)(l)and(b)(l)]
Required for systems using either chloramines
or ozone for primary disinfection.

[§141.172(b)(5)]
Required for systems using either chloramines
or ozone or chlorine dioxide for primary
disinfection.

[§141.535]
 Additional Reporting
 Requirements for
 Single Exceedance
 of the Maximum
 Allowable Turbidity
 Limit
If at any time the turbidity
exceeds 5 NTU, the system must
consult with the primacy agency
as soon as practical but no later
than 24 hours after the
exceedance is known, in
accordance with the public
notification requirements under
§141.203(b)(3)
If at any time the turbidity exceeds the
maximum turbidity level (1 NTU for
conventional or direct filtration systems of
state-set level for alterative filtration systems),
the system must inform the state as soon as
possible, but no later than the end of the next
business day.

[§141.175(c>]

*§141.203(b)(3) of the PN Rule supercedes
this reporting requirement.
Reporting requirement as per §141.203(b)(3)
of the PN Rule applies.
*The compliance date was changed from January 14, 2005 to January 1, 2005 by the minor corrections rule [69 FR 38850].
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                                15
                                                                             August 2004

-------
1. Where reference to the turbidity of an individual filter is made, this also applies to the turbidity of the combined filter effluent for subpart T
conventional or direct filtration systems that have 2 or fewer filters and continuously monitor the CFE from those filters in lieu of individual filter
monitoring.

2. Compliance dates for new DBF MCLs, disinfectant MRDLs, and related monitoring requirements are specified in the Stage 1 DBPR. They are:
    •   Subpart H community and non-transient non-community systems serving 10,000 or more people must comply beginning January 1, 2002.
    •   All other community and non-transient non-community systems must meet the MCLs and MRDLs beginning January 1, 2004.
    •   Subpart H transient non-community systems serving 10,000 or more persons and using chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant or oxidant must
       comply with the chlorine dioxide MRDL beginning January 1, 2002.
    •   Subpart H transient non-community systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons and transient non-community systems using only ground
       water not under the direct influence of surface water and using chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant or oxidant must comply with the chlorine
       dioxide MRDL beginning January 1, 2004.
August 2004                                                      16                             Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
  0

-------
1.3  Summary of Action Dates
1.3.1 Applicability and Compliance Dates

The Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR) was published in the Federal
Register on January 14, 2002 [67 FR 1812]. It 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 fewer than 10,000 people. The LT1ESWTR is the small system counterpart
to the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) which applies to systems serving
10,000 or more people. Most LT IESWTR provisions become effective three years after publication of the
final rule or by January 1, 2005*, except where noted below. Table 1.2 summarizes key compliance dates
required by the LT IESWTR or existing regulations (in bold) as well as suggested action dates for certain
implementation activities (shaded).

*The compliance date was changed from January 14, 2005 to January 1, 2005 by the minor corrections rule [69 FR
38850].
                 Table 1.2: Summary of Action Dates for the LT1ESWTR
Date
January 14, 2002
March 15, 2002
•liiai^l;;^,
June 2002-
October 2002
July 1, 2003
June 2003-
October 2003
^<5$rt^QCp^,C
January 1, 2004
January 14, 2004
LT1ESWTR Action
Rule is published in Federal Register.
If a system begins construction of a finished water reservoir on or after this date the
reservoir must be covered [40 CFR §§141.503(a) and 141.511].

Systems have the option to collect TTHM and HAA5 samples in the month with the warmest
water temperature and at the point of maximum residence time in the distribution system to
determine whether they are qualified to forgo disinfection profiling. (Systems with warmest
water temperature other than late summer/early fall should collect their samples in the
corresponding month.)
No later than this date systems serving between 500 and 9,999 persons must begin
developing a disinfection profile - and notify the state to this effect - unless the system
has adequately demonstrated that their TTHM and HAAS levels are less than 0.064
mg/L and 0.048 mg/L, respectively, or a more representative data set has been
approved by the state [40 CFR §141.530-141.532].
Systems serving fewer than 500 persons have the option to collect TTHM and HAAS
samples in the month with the warmest water temperature and at the point of maximum
residence time in the distribution system to determine whether they are qualified to forgo
disinfection profiling. (Systems with warmest water temperature other than late
summer/early fall should collect their samples in the corresponding month.)
J. ' f ".'".'-. "i" :,'''' '•..'. <.' •>*;'.••" ' 'J?-''.'-' -'S-'f ".',:•' •.'''•r'fj.~: "•' •' .- '' . ."'"•,'.
'.states intfs. «tte0wi^|g
-------
                                                      •*>          '*«"•* "^ ,>"" »n, "'Kf ^".-"f *}?,#"•#•-«  * t   /* f  f>*f#i
                                                             :- , ,••' «'•':"'•(, ,*"",.>'**'/  '•'*•£'  ***.?.'
 January 1,2005*
Systems that are required to filter and use conventional/direct filtration must:

•   Install and properly operate a technology that reliably achieves 99 percent removal
    of Cryptosporidium oocysts [§141.500(a)]; and

•   Meet the combined filter effluent (CFE) turbidity requirements of 40 CFR
    §141.551:
        "  ^0.3 NTU CFE 95 percent of the time; and
        *  At no time exceed 1 NTU
 January 1,2005*
Systems using slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration must:

•   Install and properly operate a technology that reliably achieves 99 percent removal
    of Cryptosporidium oocysts [§141.500(a)]; and

    Continue to meet the CFE turbidity requirement limits in 40 CFR §141.73 of the
    SWTR:
        ••   si NTU CFE 95 percent of the time; and
        >•   At no time exceed 5 NTU
 January 1,2005*
Systems using alternative filtration technologies (other than conventional, direct, slow
sand, or diatomaceous earth filtration) must:

•   Install and properly operate a technology that reliably achieves 99 percent removal
    of Cryptosporidium oocysts [§141.500(a)];

•   Demonstrate the technology consistently achieves  99 percent removal of
    Cryptosporidium oocysts, 99.9 percent removal and/or inactivation of Giardia
    lamblia cysts, and 99.99 percent removal and/or inactivation of viruses [§141.552
    (a)(l)-(3)]; and

•   Meet state-established alternative CFE turbidity requirements based on a
    demonstration by the system as described in §141.552.
 January 1,2005*
Systems using conventional or direct filtration must conduct continuous monitoring of
turbidity (recorded at least every 15 minutes) for each individual filter in the system
[40 CFR §141.560]. Systems with two or fewer filters may conduct continuous
monitoring of CFE turbidity in lieu of individual filter effluent (IFE) turbidity
monitoring.
August 2004
                              18
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
       Date
 January 1,2005*
 January 1,2005*
 January 14,2006
                             LT1ESWTR Action
Systems must comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR
§141.570 associated with the CFE, IFE, and disinfection profile and benchmark
requirements when applicable.
Subpart H systems that do not provide filtration must take any additional steps
necessary to minimize the potential for contamination by Cryptosporidium oocysts in
the source water, identify watershed characteristics and activities, and monitor the
occurrence of activities that may have an adverse effect on source water quality [40
CFR §141.521].
Final primacy revisions applications from states with approved 2-year extension
agreements must be submitted to EPA [40 CFR §142.12(b)(2)].
*The compliance date was changed from January 14, 2005 to January 1, 2005 by the minor corrections rule [69 FR
38850].
     Please note: to completely forgo profiling, systems must collect samples of TTHM and HAAS
     after January 1998 and before they are required to begin profiling. Systems serving between
     500 and 9,999 persons must begin profiling no later than July 1, 2003. Systems serving fewer
     than 500 persons must begin profiling no later than January 1, 2004.
1.3.2 Timeline for the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

Figure 1.1, below, depicts the LT1ESWTR requirements and implementation timeline for states and
systems. The flowchart on the next page (Figure 1.2) shows the requirements of the LT1ESWTR.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                            19
August 2004

-------
                                    Figure 1.1:  LTIESWTR Requirements and Implementation Timeline
                       (Dates are not to scale with the calendar year)
                       State Requirements
                              Final Rule
                             Promulgated
• State Adopts
 Rule

1 Deadline for
 State without
 extension to
 submit Primacy
 Revision
 Application
                      |	1/02  - - 3/02	1/04	7/01/03
                                                                                                                                                            Deadline for
                                                                                                                                                            State with
                                                                                                                                                            extension to
                                                                                                                                                            submit Primacy
                                                                                                                                                            Revision
                                                                                                                                                            Application
                                                                                       . 1/04	7/01/04	1/05	-1/01/05	1/06	I
                       System Requirements
        For systems serving
         500 to 9,999
         persons:
        • Begin monitoring for
         disinfection profile,
         if required
        • Optional
         Monitoring1 results
         are due to State to
         forgo disinfection
         profiling
                                                                                                   For systems serving
                                                                                                    between 500 and
                                                                                                    9,999 persons:

                                                                                                   • Complete
                                                                                                    monitoring for
                                                                                                    disinfection profile,
                                                                                                    no later than this
                                                                                                    date if required
                       Notes:

                       1Optional monitoring consists of one sample
                       for TTHM and one sample for HAAS taken no
                       earlier than 1998 in the month of the warmest
                       water temperature and at the point of
                       maximum residence time.

                       2Diatomaceous earth and slow sand filtration
                       continue to meet 141.73 combined filter
                       effluent turbidity limits.
                      For systems serving fewer than 500
                       persons:
                      • Begin monitoring for disinfection profile,
                       if required
                      • Applicability Monitoring1 results are due
                       to State to forgo disinfection profiling
Unfiltered systems incorporate
Cryptosporidium into Watershed Control Plan

Subpart H systems2 that use filtration other
than slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration
must meet combined filter effluent turbidity
limits

Conventional and direct filtration plants using
more than two filters must conduct continuous
individual filter turbidity monitoring
August 2004
                                       20
            Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance

                                                      {

-------
                         Figure 1.2:  General Requirements  of the LTIESWTR
                                                                                No
                                                                                             System is not subject to
                                                                                            LTIESWTR requirements
                                               Yes
               System is subject to LTIESWTR requirements. All finished water reservoirs, the construction of which began after March 15, 2002,
                 must be covered and systems must meet 2-log Cryptosporidium requirements. The LT1ESWTR added Cryptosporidium in the
                                                       definition of GWUDI as an indicator.
                                                          System must meet new combined
                                                        and individual filter effluent monitoring
                                                             and turbidity requirements.
                                                                          System must continue to meet monitoring and
                                                                           turbidity requirements of the Surface Water
                                                                                      Treatment Rule.
                                                                           System must demonstrate to the state that it consistently
                                                                                     achieves 2-log Cryptosporidium
                                                                               removal in addition to 3-log Giardia and 4-log
                                                                              virus removal/inactivation, and system must meet
                                                                                     State-established turbidity limits.
                                                                               System must continue to meet SWTR avoidance
                                                                            criteria and must implement updated watershed control
                                                                         requirements in the LTIESWTR to address Cryptosporidium.
                              Does the
                    system use conventional or direct
                              filtration?
 Does the system use slow sand
or diatomaceous earth filtration1;
     Does the system use
     alternative filtration?
   Is the system unnltered?
       ——

       No
                           Is the system
                  mumty or non-transient non-communit
                            water system?
                                                        No disinfection profile required.
                                                                                        System must conduct a disinfection profile
                        Has system conducted
                          TTHM and HAA5
                            monitorin
                                                                               Does system want the flexibility to make
                                                                                  a significant change to disinfection
                                                                                    practices now or in the future?
                                                                                                           Disinfection benchmark
                                                                                                              calculation is not
                                                                                                            required if the system
                                                                                                              does not make a
                                                                                                           significant change to its
                                                                                                            disinfection practices.
                                                           System must calculate
                                                          a disinfection benchmark
                                                          and consult with the State
                                                         for approval before making
                                                          a significant change to it's
                                                           disinfection practices.
 State may determine
     disinfection
profile is not necessary.
Final LT1 ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                                21
                                                                         August 2004

-------
1.4  Requirements of the Rule: Public Water Systems
The following rule requirements are from the LT1ESWTR published in the Federal Register on January
14, 2002 [67 FR 1812]. For a copy of the actual rule language, see Appendix B, or visit EPA's website at
www.epa. gov/safewater/mdbp/lt 1 eswtr.html for a copy of the Federal Register notice.

1.4.1 Applicability and Compliance Dates

1.4.1.1 Who does this rule apply to?

The LT1ESWTR applies to any public water system (PWS) that uses surface water or ground water under
the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) as a source, also known as a Subpart H system, and serves
fewer than 10,000 people.

1.4.1.2 What are the compliance dates?

Systems must comply with the turbidity and monitoring requirements no later than January 1, 2005*. In
addition, PWSs are required to develop an evaluation of their existing disinfection practices — referred to
as a disinfection prqfile-unless the state determines that a system's profile is unnecessary (see Section
1.4.2.3). Systems serving between 500 and 9,999 people must begin collecting data for the disinfection
profile no later than July 1, 2003. Systems serving less than 500 people must begin to collect data for the
disinfection profile no later than January 1, 2004. Finally, if a system begins construction of new finished
water reservoirs on or after March  15, 2002, the reservoir must be covered.

The compliance date was changed from January 14, 2005 to January 1, 2005 by the minor corrections rule [69 FR
38850].

1.4.2 Disinfection Profiling and Disinfection Benchmarking Requirements

Disinfection profiling and benchmarking helps to ensure that systems do not jeopardize microbial
protection when making changes in disinfection practices to comply with the Stage 1  Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR).

1.4.2.1 Who must develop a disinfection profile?

Under the LT1ESWTR, surface water or GWUDI (i.e., subpart H) community or non-transient non-
community systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must develop a disinfection profile, unless the state
determines that the system's profile is unnecessary consistent with the §141.531.

1.4.2.2 What is a disinfection profile?

A disinfection profile is a graphic representation of a system's level ofGiardia lamblia or virus
inactivation measured during the course of a year. Figure 1.3 depicts an example profile. For systems
serving fewer than 10,000 people, it is a compilation of weekly log inactivation ofGiardia lamblia (and
viruses for systems using chloramines, ozone, or chlorine dioxide for primary disinfection). The log
inactivation values are calculated from operational data that affect the disinfection process. (Systems
should use the Surface Water Treatment Rule CT Tables.) Each  log inactivation serves as a data point in
the disinfection profile.
August 2004                                     22          Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
                         Figure 1.3: Example Disinfection Profile
                   1.400
                   1.200
                   1.000
                   0.800
                   0.600
                   0.400
                   0.200
                   0.000
Log Inactivation
                                      12   16   20   24   28   32   36  40   44   48  52

                                                  Week Tested
The following data must be collected over the period of one year (52 weeks) on the same calendar day
each week during peak hourly flow:

Q  The disinfectant residual concentration ("C", in mg/L) collected before or at the first customer and
    prior to each additional point of disinfection;

Q  Contact time ("T," in minutes); AND

Q  Data collected at each residual disinfectant concentration sampling point:
    *•  Water temperature (in degrees Celsius) and
    >  pH (for systems using chlorine).

1.4.2.3 When might a state determine that disinfection profiling is unnecessary?

40 CFR §141.531 allows the state to determine that a disinfection profile is unnecessary only if the
system adequately demonstrates that its TTHM level is <0.064 mg/L and HAAS level is <0.048 mg/L by
collecting one TTHM  and one HAAS  sample after January 1, 1998. Both of these samples must be taken
during the month with the warmest water temperature and at the point of maximum residence time in the
distribution system. These levels represent 80 percent of the TTHM and HAAS MCLs systems are
required to meet as part of the Stage 1 DBPR. Systems which have TTHM or HAAS concentrations above
these levels are likely to consider changes to their disinfection practices to  maintain compliance with the
Stage 1 DBPR. These  changes may impact their current level of microbial  protection. Systems which can
demonstrate that their  DBFs are under the levels described above are less likely to make changes to their
disinfection practices and thus, are not required to create a profile.

1.4.2.4 When could a state approve a more representative data set for disinfection profiling?

The state may determine whether a more representative data set for disinfection profiling could be used.
One example of when  a system may request to use a more representative data set is if they have been
collecting the data necessary as described in Section 1.4.2.2, but they collect the data daily rather than
weekly. The system may wish to base their profile on the daily data collected rather than just the weekly
data. States should examine the requests on a case-by-case basis and ensure that the profile that results
from the more representative data set accurately represents the operating conditions of the system and the
level of microbial inactivation achieved.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                  23
August 2004

-------
1.4.2.5 What is a disinfection benchmark?
If a system that was required to profile subsequently wishes to make a significant change to its
disinfection practices, it must establish a disinfection benchmark and consult with the state for approval
prior to implementing such modifications. A disinfection benchmark is calculated by averaging the
Giardia lamblia inactivation (and if necessary, virus inactivation) for each month from the disinfection
profile. The lowest monthly average inactivation becomes the disinfection benchmark. This is the lowest
level of inactivation achieved by the system over the course of the year. Figure 1.4 is an illustration of a
disinfection profile with the benchmark identified.

                     Figure 1.4: Disinfection Profile with Benchmark
                1.400
                1.200
                1.000
                0.800
                0.600
                0.400
                0.200
                0.000
Log Inactivation
        Benchmark
                                8    12   16  20   24   28   32  36   40   44   48   52
                                               Week Tested
The disinfection benchmarking provisions provide a process whereby a PWS and the state, working
together, assure that there will be no significant reduction in microbial protection as a result of significant
disinfection practice changes systems may make to meet the more restrictive maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) for disinfection byproducts established in the Stage 1 DBPR.

1.4.2.6 What are considered significant changes to disinfection practices?

Significant changes to disinfection practices include:

    *•  Changes to the point of disinfection;
    *•  Changes to the disinfectant(s) used in the treatment plant;
    »•  Changes to the disinfection process; or
    *•  Any other modification identified by the state.

For example, changes may occur because of operational or treatment modifications to reduce disinfection
byproducts in order to comply with the Stage 1 DBPR.

1.4.2.7 What information must be submitted to the state if a system wishes to make a significant
change to its disinfection practices?

In addition to the disinfection profile and disinfection benchmark, the system must submit the following
information to the state as part of the consultation and approval process:

       A description of the proposed change;
August 2004
                     24
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
       An analysis of how the proposed change will affect the current levels of disinfection; and
    •   Any additional information requested by the state.

1.4.2.8 What are the disinfection profiling and benchmarking recordkeeping requirements?

PWSs must keep the disinfection profile and disinfection benchmark (including raw data and analysis) on
file indefinitely for the state to review during their sanitary surveys.

1.4.2.9 What if the disinfection profile and/or benchmark is not  developed?

Failure to develop a disinfection profile and/or benchmark, when required, is a treatment technique (TT)
violation and will require Tier 3 notification (See Section 1.4.8 below).

1.4.3 Requirements for Cryptosporidium Control

The LTIESWTR extends the requirements of the Interim Enhanced  Surface Water Treatment Rule
(IESWTR) to systems serving fewer than 10,000 people. In addition to the requirements for
Cryptosporidium under the Rule, a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of zero is established for
the protozoan Cryptosporidium and the definition of ground water under the direct influence of surface
water (GWUDI) [§141.2] now includes Cryptosporidium as an additional  indicator that a ground water
source is under the direct influence of surface water.

1.4.3.1 What are the requirements for Cryptosporidium control for filtered systems?

The LTIESWTR establishes a requirement  for 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium for subpart H systems.
Systems that use conventional or direct filtration are assumed to meet this requirement if they are in
compliance with the strengthened turbidity performance standards for combined filter effluent in the
LTIESWTR (see Section 1.4.4.1). Systems that use slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration are
assumed to meet the 2-log removal requirement if they are in compliance with the existing turbidity
performance standards under the SWTR. Systems that use alternative filtration technologies must comply
with state-determined turbidity performance standards (see Section 1.4.4.3).

1.4.3.2 What are the requirements for Cryptosporidium control for unfiltered systems?

The LTIESWTR also expands the existing watershed control requirements for unflltered small systems to
minimize the  potential for contamination by Cryptosporidium in the  source water. A system's watershed
control plan must address Cryptosporidium  by identifying watershed characteristics and activities, and
monitoring the occurrence of activities which may have an adverse affect on source water quality. The
state must review the adequacy of the watershed control program during annual on-site inspections.
Failure of unflltered systems to minimize the potential for Cryptosporidium contamination in the source
water is a treatment technique (TT) violation and the system will be required to install filtration.

1.4.4 Combined Filter Effluent (CFE) Turbidity Requirements

The LTIESWTR includes a series of requirements related to turbidity. They apply to both combined filter
effluent (CFE) and individual filter effluent (IFE) turbidity. Figure 1.5 illustrates the difference between
CFE and IFE. Individual filter effluent turbidity monitoring requirements are described in Section 1.4.5.
The sample location for IFE monitoring is at a point that represents an individual filter's effluent turbidity
prior to mixing flow with the effluent from other filters. IFE should not include water produced during a
filter-to-waste interval. The CFE sample location is representative of the combined effluent of all filters in
use at any given time. CFE also should not include filter-to-waste  intervals.


Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance           25                                     August 2004

-------
                           Figure 1.5: CFE and IFE Locations


IF


F ilte
E


r 1




IF


F ilt
E
i

3 r 2 F ilte r 3
IF E
CFE
r
The CFE requirements of the LT1ESWTR strengthen current SWTR requirements for systems that use
conventional or direct filtration and may strengthen combined filter effluent for systems using alternative
filtration. Systems that use slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration must continue to meet the CFE
turbidity requirements in 40 CFR §141.73 of the SWTR. Measurements of CFE must be taken on
representative samples of the system's filtered water at least every 4 hours that the system serves water to
the public, unless the state has determined under SWTR that a reduced frequency is sufficient for systems
using slow sand filtration or for systems serving 500 people or fewer using any type of filtration (40 CFR
§141.73-141.74).

1.4.4.1 What are the CFE requirements for systems using conventional and direct filtration?

The turbidity level of a conventional or direct filtration system's combined filtered effluent must be less
than or equal to 0.3 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) in at least 95 percent of the measurements taken
each month. In addition, the turbidity level of a system's combined filtered effluent must at no time
exceed 1 NTU (under the 1989 SWTR, these turbidity requirements were 0.5 NTU and 5 NTU,
respectively).

1.4.4.2 What are the CFE requirements for systems using slow sand and diatomaceous earth
filtration?

The CFE requirements indicated in the SWTR still apply. Systems using slow sand and diatomaceous
earth filtration must have a CFE that is less than or equal to 1 NTU in at least 95 percent of the
measurements taken each month. The CFE must at no time exceed 5 NTU (40 CFR §141.73(b)-(c)).

1.4.4.3 What are the CFE requirements for systems using alternative filtration?

The CFE turbidity requirements for systems that use alternative filtration will be determined by the state
based on demonstration data submitted by the system (but cannot exceed 1 NTU in at least 95 percent of
the measurements taken each month or a 5 NTU maximum turbidity value).

In order for the state to designate appropriate turbidity limits for systems using alternative filtration, the
system must demonstrate to the state, using pilot plant studies or other means, that the alternative
filtration methodology, in combination with disinfection treatment, consistently achieves 2-log removal of
Cryptosporidium in addition to 3-log removal and/or inactivation of Giardia lamblia  cysts, and 4-log
removal and/or inactivation of viruses.
August 2004
26
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
1.4.4.4 What is the procedure for measuring combined filter effluent if lime softening is used?

If a system uses lime softening, representative combined filter effluent turbidity samples may be acidified
prior to analysis using a protocol approved by the state. Additional guidance is provided in Chapter 2 of
the LTIESWTR Turbidity Provisions Technical Guidance Manual (EPA Doc # 816-R-04-007, August
2004).

1.4.4.5 What happens if more than 5 percent of the measurements taken each month exceeds the
designated 95th percentile turbidity limit?

If more than 5 percent of monthly combined filter effluent samples exceed 0.3 NTU for conventional and
direct filtration systems, 1 NTU for slow sand and diatomaceous earth systems, or the state-determined
95th percentile level for alternative filtration, then a treatment technique  (TT) violation is incurred.

1.4.4.6 What happens if the maximum CFE limits are exceeded?

The exceedance of maximum combined filter effluent turbidity limits is a treatment technique (TT)
violation. In addition, the system must notify the state within 24 hours in accordance with the Public
Notification (PN) Rule (40 CFR §141.202(a)). Figure 1.6 provides a summary of the CFE turbidity limits
prescribed by the LTIESWTR and the SWTR.

   Figure 1.6: Summary of the LTIESWTR and SWTR Combined Filter Effluent
                                     Turbidity Limits
Filtration Type
Conventional & Direct
Filtration
Slow Sand & Diatomaceous
Earth
Alternative Technologies
• Membranes
• Cartridges
• Other
CFE
95th percentile turbidity
limit
<0.3 NTU
<1NTU
(same as SWTR)
Established by state
(not to exceed 1 NTU)
CFE
Maximum turbidity
limit
1NTU
5 NTU
(same as SWTR)
Established by state
(not to exceed 5 NTU)
1.4.4.7 What are the combined filter effluent turbidity reporting requirements?

By the 10th of the following month, systems must report for the prior month:

    •   The total number of CFE turbidity measurements taken;

    •   The number and percentage of CFE turbidity measurements which are less than or equal to the
       system's required 95th percentile limit; and

    •   The date and value of any CFE turbidity measurements which exceed the maximum turbidity
       value allowed for the system.
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
27
August 2004

-------
1.4.4.8 What if combined filter effluent turbidity samples are not collected and/or reported?              "~ "^
                                                                                                     >•**
Failure to collect and/or report required combined filter effluent turbidity samples is a monitoring and
reporting (M/R) violation.

1.4.5 Individual Filter Effluent (IFE) Turbidity Requirements

1.4.5.1 Who must conduct IFE turbidity monitoring under the LTIESWTR?

The LTIESWTR IFE turbidity monitoring requirements apply only to surface water and GWUDI systems
using conventional or direct filtration serving less than 10,000 people.

1.4.5.2 Why is individual filter effluent turbidity monitored?

Poor performance of one filter can be masked by the optimal performance of the remaining filters even
when the system is still in compliance with CFE turbidity limits. Therefore, to address poorly performing
filters and provide system operators with information concerning individual filter performance problems,
the LTIESWTR requires that surface water and GWUDI systems serving less than  10,000 people using
conventional or direct filtration conduct continuous turbidity monitoring on the effluent of each
individual filter. Systems consisting of two or fewer filters may conduct continuous monitoring of CFE in
lieu of IFE turbidity monitoring.

1.4.5.3 What are the individual filter monitoring requirements?

Individual filter effluent monitoring must be conducted continuously with results recorded at least every
15 minutes, except that systems with two filters have the option to continuously monitor the combined          '^mt0^
filter effluent instead of monitoring each individual filter. Systems with one filter must conduct
continuous monitoring of the one  filter.

Continuous turbidity monitoring must be conducted using an approved method in 40 CFR §141.74(a). In
addition, calibration of turbidimeters must be conducted using procedures specified by the manufacturer.

1.4.5.4 What happens if the turbidity monitoring equipment fails?

If, for some reason, the continuous turbidity monitoring equipment fails, the system must conduct grab
sampling every four hours until the turbidimeter is back on-line. If continuous monitoring is not resumed
by 14 days after the failure, the system will receive a monitoring and reporting (M/R) violation.

1.4.5.5 What are the IFE turbidity monitoring and reporting requirements?

Systems must report to the state by the 10th of the following month that individual filter turbidity
monitoring was conducted. Failure to report that individual filter monitoring has been conducted is a
monitoring and reporting (M/R) violation.

Systems must also report certain instances of poor filter performance to the state and, based on
performance triggers in 40 CFR § 141.563, must take prescribed actions to identify and correct the
cause(s). The required follow-up and reporting actions are based on the frequency and level of
consecutive  individual filter effluent turbidity exceedances and are discussed below:                             j
August 2004                                    28           Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
    A. What if the same filter exceeds 1.0 NTU in two consecutive recordings 15 minutes apart?

    Q If the turbidity of an individual filter (or the turbidity of CFE for systems with 2 filters that
       monitor CFE in lieu of individual filters) exceeds 1.0 NTU in two consecutive recordings 15
       minutes apart, the system must report to the state by the 10th of the following month:

           The filter number(s);
       •   Corresponding date(s);
       •   Turbidity value(s) which exceeded 1.0 NTU; and
       •   The cause (if known) for the exceedance(s)

    B. What if the same filter exceeds 1.0 NTU in two consecutive recordings 15 minutes apart for
    three months in a row?

    Q If the system exceeds  1.0 NTU in two consecutive recordings 15 minutes apart at the same filter
       (or the turbidity of CFE for systems with 2 filters that monitor CFE in lieu of individual filters)
       for three months in a row, the system must conduct a self-assessment of the filter(s) within 14
       days of the exceedance occurring in the third month unless a CPE as specified in §141.563(c) was
       required. Systems with 2 filters that monitor CFE instead of individual filters must conduct a self-
       assessment on both  filters. The self-assessment must consist of at least the following:

       •   Assessment of filter performance;
       •   Development of a filter profile;
       •   Identification and prioritization of factors limiting filter performance;
       •   Assessment of the applicability of corrections;
       •   Preparation of a filter self-assessment report;
           Date self-assessment was triggered; and
       •   Date self-assessment was completed

    •   In addition, the system must report to the state by the 10th of the following month (or 14 days
       after the self-assessment was triggered only if the self-assessment was triggered during the last
       four days of the month):

           The date the self-assessment was triggered; and
       •   The date the self-assessment was completed

    See the LTIESWTR Turbidity Provisions Technical Guidance Manual (EPA Doc # 816-R-04-007,
    August 2004) for further information on performing a self-assessment.

    C. What if the same filter exceeds 2.0 NTU in two consecutive recordings 15 minutes apart for two
    months in a row?

    Q If the system exceeds 2.0 NTU in two consecutive recordings 15 minutes apart at the same filter
       for two months in a row, the system must arrange to have a comprehensive performance
       evaluation (CPE) conducted by the state or a third party approved by the state. A CPE is also
       triggered if the turbidity of CFE for systems with 2 filters that monitor CFE in lieu of individual
       filters exceeds 2.0 NTU in two consecutive recordings 15 minutes apart.  The CPE is the
       evaluation phase of the Composite Correction Program (CCP)  and is a thorough review and
       analysis of a facility's design capabilities and associated administrative, operational, and
       maintenance practices as they relate to achieving optimum performance from the facility. The
       CPE must be:
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance          29                                     August 2004

-------
       •   Conducted within 60 days following the day of the second exceedance occurring in the
           second month.

       •   Completed and submitted to the state no later than 120 days following the second exceedance
           trigger occurring in the second month.

    Q  In addition, the system must report to the state by the 10th of the following month:

           That a CPE is required; and
       •   The date that the CPE was triggered.

    NOTE: A new CPE is not required if a CPE was previously completed by the state or a third party
    approved by the state within the past 12 months or if the system and state are jointly participating in
    an ongoing Comprehensive Technical Assistance (CTA) project at the system. The CTA is the second
    component of the Composite Correction Program and is implemented with the goal of achieving and
    sustaining optimized performance goals from the existing facility.

    For further information regarding CPEs and CTAs, see the handbook entitled Optimizing Water
    Treatment Plant Performance Using the Composite Correction Program (EPA, 1998).

1.4.5.6 What is the procedure for measuring individual filter turbidity effluent if lime softening is
used?

If a system uses lime softening,  the system can apply to the state for an alternative turbidity exceedance
level for the triggers specified in Section 1.4.5.5. The system must be able to demonstrate to the state that
the higher turbidity levels are due to lime carryover only, and not due to degraded filter performance.

1.4.5.7 What if IFE follow-up activities are not conducted or reported?

Failure to conduct and report follow-up activities triggered by individual filter turbidity exceedances is a
monitoring and reporting (M/R) violation.

1.4.5.8 How long must the results of individual filter monitoring be maintained?

Results of individual filter monitoring must be maintained for at least 3 years. Failure to do so is a
recordkeeping violation.

1.4.6 Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs

Uncovered finished water storage facilities are open to the environment and outside influences and can be
subject to the reintroduction of contaminants which the treatment plant was designed to remove. To be
more protective of public health, factors which may compromise the quality of finished water should be
minimized. Therefore, the LT1ESWTR prohibits small PWSs from building any uncovered finished water
reservoirs on or after March 15, 2002 (60 days after publication). Construction of an uncovered finished
water storage facility on or after this date is a treatment technique (TT) violation.

1.4.7 Public Water System  Recordkeeping Requirements

In addition to the recordkeeping requirements under § 141.75, affected systems must maintain records of
individual filter turbidity monitoring measurements for at least 3 years. Results from disinfection
profiling and benchmarking (including raw data and analysis) must be kept indefinitely.
August 2004                                    30           Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
1.4.8 Public Notification of Drinking Water Violations

A Tier 1 public notification of a treatment technique (TT) violation is required for a single exceedance of
the maximum allowable turbidity limit where the primacy agency determines after consultation that a Tier
1 notice is required or where consultation does not take place within 24 hours after the system learns of
the violation.

Tier 1 public notification may be warranted whenever the state determines that an acute public health risk
is involved. For example, a state may determine that a new modification in coagulation chemistry
triggered a turbidity exceedance well beyond the maximum allowable NTU and, as a result, issued a Tier
1 public notice.

A Tier 2 public notification of a treatment technique (TT) violation is required for a single exceedance of
the maximum allowable turbidity limit, unless the system does not consult the state within 24 hours of the
violation or the primacy agency determines a Tier 1 public notice is required and for all treatment
technique violations other than those resulting from single exceedance of the maximum turbidity level
including exceedance of the 95the percentile CFE turbidity  limits.

A Tier 3 public notification of a monitoring and reporting (M/R) violation is required for failure to
monitor and test, including profiling and benchmarking monitoring requirements.

More information on public notification requirements can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pn.html.
   More information can be obtained from:

       A.   The Long-Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
              67 FR 1812  (January 14, 2002); and
              http ://www.epa. gov/safewater/mdbp/lt 1 eswtr.html


       B.   The EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline, Telephone: 1.800.426.4791
1.4.9 Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

The LT1ESWTR does not specifically modify the Consumer Confidence Reporting Rule (CCR)
requirements. However, consumer confidence reports must contain any violations of National Primary
Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) requirements, which include violations of treatment technique
(TT) requirements (40 CFR §141.153(d)(6) and 40 CFR §141.153(f)). This includes any such violations
of the LT1ESWTR.

More information on consumer confidence report requirements can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ccrl.html.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance          31                                     August 2004

-------
1.5  Requirements of the Rule:  States or Other Primacy Agents
1.5.1 Special Primacy Requirements

In order to receive primacy for the LT1ESWTR, states must adopt regulations no less stringent than this
rule. States must submit revisions to their programs, regulations, or authorities no later than January 14,
2004 (2 years after rule publication), although states can request an extension of up to 2 years (January
14, 2006).

In addition, states are required to show in their primacy application that they have the authority to
implement the following key provisions of the rule by describing:

•   How the state will consult with the system and approve significant changes to disinfection practices;

•   How the state will approve a more representative data set for optional TTHM and HAAS monitoring
   and profiling;

•   How existing rules, adoption of appropriate rules or other authority require systems to participate in a
   Comprehensive Technical Assistance (CTA) activity and the performance improvement phase of the
   Composite Correction Program (CCP), to assure that PWSs implement any follow-up
   recommendations that result from the CCP;

   How the state will approve a method to calculate the logs of inactivation for viruses for a system that
   uses either chloramines, chlorine dioxide, or ozone for primary disinfection; and

•   How the state will determine that a PWS may use an alternative filtration technology based on
   demonstration data and a description of how the state will set turbidity performance requirements for
   the 95th percentile and maximum turbidity levels.

More information on how to address these special primacy conditions can be found in Section 4.4 of this
document.

1.5.2 Records Kept by States

States must keep records of:

   PWS turbidity measurements for not less than one year;

•   Disinfection residual measurements and other parameters necessary to document disinfection
   effectiveness for not less than one year;

•   Decisions made on a system-by-system and case-by-case basis including decisions for PWSs
   calculating log inactivation for viruses, PWSs that choose the option  to conduct TTHM and HAA5
   monitoring, PWSs conducting profiling and approval of an alternative data set for monitoring or
   profiling;

   Records of systems consulting with the state concerning a significant modification to their
   disinfection practice (including the status of the consultation);
August 2004                                     32           Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
    Records of decisions that a system using alternative filtration can consistently achieve a 99.9%
    removal and/or inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts, 99.99% removal and/or inactivation of viruses,
    and 99% removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts, including state-set turbidity limits for each system. A
    copy of the decision must be kept until the decision is reversed or revised and the state must provide a
    copy of the decision to the system; and

•   Records of those systems required to perform filter self-assessments, CPE or CCP.

1.5.3 State Reporting Requirements

There are no additional reporting requirements under the LT1ESWTR, but states are required to report
violations, variances and exemptions, enforcement actions, and general operations of state public water
supply programs related to this rule under section 142.15.

References

Craun G F (1998). Waterborne outbreaks 1995-1996. Memorandum to Valerie Blank, USEPA,
OGWDW, June 20, 1998.

Craun G F (1997). Note to the IESWTR NODA Docket, dated 10/2/97, from Heather Shank-Givens
(EPA).

Kramer M H, B L Herwaldt, G F Craun, R L Calderon and D D Juranek. (1996). Waterborne Disease:
1993 and 1994 (Fig 4). J. AWWA 88(3): 66-80.

MacKenzie W R and N J Hoxie, M E Proctor, M S Gradus, KA Blair, DE Peterson, J J Kazmierczak, DA
Addiss,  K R Fox, J B Rose, and J P Davis (1994). A massive outbreak in Milwaukee of Cryptosporidium
infection transmitted through the public water supply. New England Journal of Medicine 331(3): 161-
167.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance           33                                    August 2004

-------
This page intentionally left blank.

-------
Section II
Frequently Asked Questions
(FAQs)

-------
This page intentionally left blank.

-------
2.1 Long Term One Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

2.1.1 Cryptosporidium
Citation
(40 CFR)
141.500(a)
141.520-522
Part Title
General Requirements
Additional Watershed Control Requirements
for Unfiltered Systems
1.  Q:  Why do filtered systems have a Cryptosporidium removal requirement and unfiltered systems do
        not?
    A:  Systems that have met the SWTR filtration avoidance criteria must now take additional steps to
        minimize the potential for Cryptosporidium oocysts in the source water in their watershed control
        programs. If a system meeting the SWTR avoidance criteria fails to address Cryptosporidium
        under the LT1ESWTR, it will be required to filter within 18 months to meet the removal
        requirements. According to 40 CFR 141.71 of the SWTR, any failure to meet the SWTR
        avoidance criteria requires filtration within 18 months. More stringent requirements may be
        placed on unfiltered systems in future regulations.

2.  Q:  Can a system use ultraviolet (UV) light for Cryptosporidium inactivation and receive credit for it
        under the LT1ESWTR?
    A:  A system may use UV; however, it cannot use UV to meet the requirements of the LT1ESWTR
        since a system must physically remove 99 percent of oocysts, which means using filtration alone
        (unless the system is meeting the filter avoidance criteria).

3.  Q:  Is an oocyst that is not viable considered to be Cryptosporidium or not?
    A:  Since the rule requires systems to measure turbidity, not the viability of oocysts, it is not relevant
        to the enforceable requirements of the rule. Present analytical methods cannot reliably distinguish
        between oocysts that are infective or viable and those that are not.

4.  Q:  What does EPA have in mind for unfiltered systems in terms of Cryptosporidium controls on the
        watershed?
    A:  The same types of prevention measures that have been taken to address Giardia may be used to
        address Cryptosporidium. In terms of Cryptosporidium, each water system must identify
        watershed characteristics and identify and monitor activities that may have an adverse effect on
        the source water quality in order to  minimize the potential for contamination by Cryptosporidium
        oocysts. An onsite assessment of each watershed, currently conducted by the states on an annual
        basis, may determine that additional steps are needed. Each water system should assess potential
        sources of Cryptosporidium in its watershed and identify and carry out measures to control the
        potential adverse impacts on water quality from these sources. Ultimately, monitoring should help
        determine if these measures have been successful in controlling the sources, but monitoring is not
        currently required by the regulations due to limitations of the analytical methods.

5.  Q:  Does the Cryptosporidium MCLG of zero apply to all species or just Cryptosporidium parvum?
    A:  The MCLG was set at the genus level, therefore it applies to all species. It was set this way
        because EPA believes that adequate data are not available to determine that only
        Cryptosporidium parvum infects humans.
FinalLT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance          37                                     August 2004

-------
2.1.2 Disinfection Profiling And Benchmarking
Citation
(40 CFR)
141.530-536
141.540-544
Part Title
Disinfection Profile
Disinfection Benchmark
2.1.2.1 Applicability

6.  Q: If a system served fewer than 10,000 people after the IESWTR became effective but now serves
       more than 10,000, which profiling and benchmarking requirements apply?
    A: According to 141.170(d), Subpart H systems that did not conduct TTHM and HAAS monitoring
       under the IESWTR 141.172 because they served fewer than 10,000 when such monitoring was
       required, but serve more than 10,000 prior to January 1, 2005*, must consult with the state to
       establish a disinfection benchmark and must consult with the state prior to making a significant
       change to its disinfection practice. Although the requirement to develop a disinfection profile is
       not specifically required, the state has the discretion to require a disinfection profile or any
       additional data in order for the system to establish an acceptable disinfection benchmark. The
       Agency believes that systems should be encouraged to conduct disinfection profiling if possible
       since it provides an informative look at disinfection practices.

*The compliance date was changed from January 14, 2005 to January 1, 2005 by the minor corrections rule [69 FR
38850].

7.  Q: If a system served greater than 10,000 when the IESWTR became effective but now serves fewer
       than 10,000, does the system have to comply with the disinfection profiling and benchmarking
       requirements under the LT1ESWTR?
    A: The state has the authority to accept the TTHM and HAA5 data set or disinfection profiling
       conducted under the IESWTR as "more representative" under LTIESWTR. The state should
       consider whether the conditions at the plant under which the TTHM and HAAS data or the profile
       was conducted have changed in determining whether previously collected data are "more
       representative" than the data set required under the LT IESWTR.

8.  Q: Do new systems serving fewer than  10,000 have to do a disinfection profile?
    A: New  systems coming on line after the deadline for disinfection profiling and serving fewer than
        10,000 should be designed to meet all SDWA rules, including Stage 1 DBPR MCLs, so profiling
       should not be necessary, unless required by the state.

2.1.2.2 Profiling

9.  Q:  What is the format of an acceptable filter profile?
    A: EPA does not specify a particular format; therefore, it is up to the  state to determine what should
       be provided in the filter profile. More information is provided in the LTIESWTR Turbidity
       Provisions Technical Guidance Manual (EPA Doc # 816-R-04-007, August 2004).

10. Q:  What is the  consequence of "failure to develop a profile "?
    A:  If a system is required to develop a  disinfection profile under the provisions of 40 CFR 141.530 -
        141.536 and fails to do so, this failure would constitute a treatment technique violation.
August 2004                                    38          Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
11. Q: Can states require systems to use a different method to calculate a disinfection profile?
    A: States always have the option to adopt rules that are equally stringent to or more stringent than
       those of EPA. This option offers the possibility that states might develop alternative procedures
       that EPA could find to be equally or more stringent and protective of public health.

12. Q: May a system use data from many years ago (e.g., 7 or 8 years ago) to develop a disinfection
       profile under the LT1ESWTR?
    A: The rule does not specify which years of data states can approve as a more representative data set
       for disinfection profiling. However, a state should carefully review older data to determine if it is
       still representative of normal operating conditions. Keep in mind that if changes have been made
       to the treatment train, the data may not represent current conditions, and therefore would not
       qualify  as "more representative."

13. Q: If a system does not normally operate during the month of warmest water temperature, when
       should the system collect the optional monitoring data for TTHM and HAAS to determine
       whether the system may forgo the profile?
    A: Seasonal systems should collect samples for the month of warmest water temperature during their
       operation and at the point of maximum residence time and base the determination on these sample
       data.

14. Q: If a system that is profiling collects TTHM and HAAS data in the month of warmest water
       temperature and the results are below 0.064 mg/L and 0.048 mg/L, respectively, can the state
       allow the system to stop profiling?
    A: If the system is able to demonstrate low levels of TTHM and HAAS after beginning the profile,
       the state has the discretion to allow the system to discontinue profiling.

15. Q: Will TTHM and HAAS data generated by samples collected after January 1, 1998, from  a
       non-certified laboratory satisfy LTlESWTR's criteria for determining that a profile is
       unnecessary?
    A: EPA recommends the use of certified labs. Under the Stage 1 DBPR, certified labs must be used
       for TTHM and HAA5 analyses beginning January 1, 2004. However, the LT1ESWTR did not
       specify that a laboratory had to be certified for optional TTHM and HAAS monitoring under the
       disinfection profiling requirements.

16. Q: Should  TTHM and HAAS samples be collected at the same time?
    A: Yes, they should. However, the LT1ESWTR does not specify that TTHM and HAAS samples
       must be taken at the same time. The system has to specify schedules for collecting samples in its
       monitoring plan.

17. Q: Can states limit the time of year that monitoring is required for the disinfection profile, to focus
       on the worst case, in order to reduce the burden on systems?
    A: No. The rule requires systems to develop a 1-year disinfection profile (unless the system does not
       operate year-round; then the profile is developed for the months the seasonal system is
       operational). The full year is necessary to examine the maximum possible disinfection, water use,
       and water quality scenarios. In  addition, the full year of data will provide information to the
       systems on seasonal strategies to achieve compliance.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance          39                                     August 2004

-------
18. Q: How should a system develop a disinfection profile under the LTIESWTR if it experiences
       emergency conditions requiring addition of high levels of disinfectants while gathering data?
    A: As part of the consultation with the state, the system should note any effect on the benchmark
       caused by the emergency. An emergency that is only a few hours or days in duration will likely
       be averaged out, since weekly results are used in developing the profile.  The  system and state
       should put any unusual situation in proper perspective when consulting over the benchmark and
       make decisions accordingly.

19. Q: If a system does not have to submit its profile to the state upon completion, how can the state
       determine if the system is in compliance with this provision?
    A: A state will determine system compliance with this provision during the  system's sanitary survey.

20. Q: Under 40 CFR 141.534(b), a system with more than one point of disinfection must conduct
       monitoring at each disinfection segment to measure pH, temperature, and CT values. Can a
       system use data from a worst case scenario (maximum flow) to satisfy this requirement?
    A: The rule requires that monitoring be performed at each disinfection segment. The Disinfection
       Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual contains more detailed information.

21. Q: Is there any difference in the requirements for calculation o/Giardia lamblia and virus
       inactivation between the LTIESWTR's disinfection profiling requirements and the SWTR's
       requirements?
    A: The Surface Water Treatment Rule requires Subpart H systems to show they  meet a minimum
       level of inactivation for Giardia lamblia and viruses. However, many systems exceed the
       minimum requirements by a large margin. The LTIESWTR, on the other hand, requires systems
       to show the inactivation achievable through the entire treatment plant (from point(s) of
       disinfectant application to the first user). When systems are considering changes to disinfection
       practices, this showing of full inactivation potential is important for  ascertaining the full impact
       of those changes on microbial protection.

22. Q: There is a note in the Guidance Manual for Compliance With the Filtration and Disinfection
       Requirements for PWSs Using Surface Water Sources that the CT values for inactivation of
       viruses by chloramines expressed in Table E-13 are suitable for use only with systems that add
       chlorine prior to ammonia. Is this true and, if so, why?
    A: The above referenced guidance manual was specifically designed to aid systems in complying
       with the SWTR, not the LTIESWTR. As explained in the guidance, the CT values in Table E-13
       were based directly on experimental data developed using preformed chloramines to determine
       inactivation of Hepatitis A Virus  (HAV). HAV is less resistant to preformed chloramines than  are
       some other viruses including rotavirus. Rotavirus is, on the other hand, very sensitive to free
       chlorine and, in field practices where chlorine is added prior to ammonia, it was assumed there
       would be  sufficient contact time with free chlorine to inactivate the rotavirus. When preformed
       chloramines are used or when ammonia is added prior to chlorine, the free chlorine will not be
       available for inactivation of rotavirus. For these reasons, Table E-13 should not be used to
       determine compliance with the inactivation requirements of the SWTR when ammonia is added
       prior to chlorine or when preformed chloramines are used. The guidance manual suggests that
       inactivation studies be performed in these cases to ensure adequate inactivation of viruses.

       The LTIESWTR, however, requires development of a virus disinfection profile for a system
       using chloramines so a disinfection benchmark can be calculated. Changes in disinfection
       practices are then to be measured against the benchmark to ensure that there is no unintended
       reduction in microbial protection  when systems change disinfection  practices to comply with the
August 2004                                     40          Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
       Stage 1 DBPR. For the purpose of developing a disinfection profile, the state must approve
       methods that are acceptable to calculate the logs of inactivation for viruses.

23. Q: Is an electronic template for calculating CT values available?
    A: An electronic template has been developed and is available with other technical assistance
       materials related to these rules on EPA's Website (www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/ltleswtr.html).

2.1.2.3 Benchmarking and Changes to Disinfection Practices

24. Q: Can a state approve a treatment change while the profiling requirement is in place but before
       profiling is complete? What about treatment changes already approved?
    A: Once the profiling requirement has been triggered, no significant changes can be made to the
       system's disinfection practices without consultation with the state. After this consultation, the
       state can allow changes they determine to be appropriate prior to beginning or completing the
       disinfection profile. EPA recognizes that it may not always be practical to postpone necessary
       changes in disinfection practices until completion of the profile.

25. Q: What exactly is meant by consultation and approval with the state for systems making significant
       changes to their disinfection process?
    A: EPA believes that states will consult relatively extensively with systems making significant
       changes to disinfection practices. Most states have existing procedures in place for approval of
       water system modifications. The rule does not require the consultation to be a specific process or
       require specific types of documentation; however, the rule requires that a consultation occur and
       that states describe "how they will consult and approve" with systems in their primacy revision
       application (40 CFR 142.16(p)(2)(iii)).

26. Q: Is switching from gas to liquid (or vice versa) chlorine considered a "significant change "for the
       purposes of setting a benchmark and consulting with the state?
    A: No, switching from gas to liquid chlorine  or liquid to gas chlorine typically would not be
       considered a significant change by a state under the LT1ESWTR. States may require notification
       of such change, or approval prior to making the change, through other  state rules.

27. Q: Will systems be required to calculate another disinfection benchmark after implementation of
       enhanced coagulation under the Stage 1 DBPR begins?
    A: Benchmarking is  a one-time provision under the LT1ESWTR. It does not have to be repeated
       each time processes are changed. However, EPA believes that this process can be helpful if
       carried out for every change in disinfection.

28. Q: If a system is planning to switch to ozone for protozoan control and will, as a result, decrease
       virus inactivation, should the state discourage the system from making this switch?
    A: Not necessarily. The state should carefully examine the treatment operations of the system and
       the source water quality. The ultimate determination should be made on a case-by-case basis. The
       Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual contains more detailed information.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance           41                                     August 2004

-------
2.1.3 Turbidity Standards - Combined Filter Effluent (CFE)
Citation
(40 CFR)
141.74(a)&(c)
141.550-553
Part Title
Analytical and Monitoring Requirements
Combined Filter Effluent
29. Q: In terms of compliance with the combined filter effluent turbidity levels, does 0.3 NTU and 1 NTU
       mean that ranges between 0.300 and 0.349 NTU and 1.00 and 1.49 NTU are acceptable?
    A: Yes, in terms of compliance, 0.349 NTU is rounded to 0.3 NTU due to rounding of significant
       figures.

30. Q: Can a system substitute continuous turbidity monitoring of combined filter effluent grab sample
       monitoring every four hours? If so, which results of the continuous monitoring would the system-
       report?
    A: A system may substitute continuous turbidity monitoring for grab sampling if it  validates the
       continuous measurement for accuracy on a regular basis using a protocol approved by the  state.
       The system is required to record results of combined filter effluent every four hours. Each month,
       the system must report the total number of filtered water turbidity measurements recorded, the
       number and percentage of the recorded measurements taken which are less than  or equal to the
       system's required 95th percentile limit (in most cases 0.3 NTU), and the date and value of
       recorded measurements greater than the maximum turbidity value for the system (in most cases 1
       NTU).

31. Q: A system has individual filter turbidimeters but due to design, is not able to effectively install a
       CFE turbidimeter prior to or immediately following the clearwell. Flow is equalized across all
       active filters. Can the system calculate the CFE turbidity by averaging the individual filter
       turbidities?
    A: Yes, the Guidance Manual for Compliance with the Filtration and Disinfection Requirements for
       Public Water Systems Using Surface Water Sources (March 1991) on page 5-2 indicates that one
       of the possible ways to satisfy the turbidity (CFE) requirement in the SWTR is to calculate
       average measurements from each filter effluent every four hours to determine CFE representative
       of a system's filtered water. Systems may use this method to satisfy the turbidity (CFE)
       requirements of the LT1ESWTR.

32. Q: CFE turbidity readings are recorded at 12:00, 16:00, 20:00 and so forth, but several readings
       (not coinciding with any of these set intervals) are recorded between these times. Are these
       excursions reportable and considered in the monthly compliance determination, or do we  take
       only the readings occurring at the 4th hours? If additional non-required samples are collected
       and analyzed, do they count for the monthly readings and/or if 0.3 NTU is exceeded must they be
       noted both for 95 percent andfor any exceedances of 0.5 NTU or 1.0 NTU?
    A: 40 CFR 141.74(c)(l) only requires CFE monitoring/recordings every 4 hours, which is the same
       frequency as the 1989 Surface Water Treatment Rule. However, the primacy agency can establish
       more stringent requirements. The addition of individual filter monitoring is required for systems
       using conventional and direct filtration addresses the concern of exceedances (spikes) that are
       occurring between those 4-hour periods.
August 2004                                    42           Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
2.1.4 Individual Filter Provisions
Citation
(40 CFR)
141.560-564
Part Title
Individual Filter Turbidity Requirements
33. Q:  The LT1ESWTR requires conventional and direct filtration plants to continuously monitor
        individual filters and record results every 15 minutes. If there is a failure in equipment the system
        must conduct grab samples every four hours, but the system has no longer than 14 days following
        the equipment failure to resume continuous monitoring. Compliance with the individual filter
        requirements is based on consecutive 15-minute measurements. How will a system conducting
        grab sampling  every four hours because of failed equipment determine compliance with the
        individual filter requirements?
    A:  The Rule does  not specify how to determine compliance in the scenario described above. EPA
        recommends using the following strategy to determine compliance with the  individual filter
        requirements if a system is conducting grab sampling every four hours because of failed
        equipment: If a 4-hour grab sample exceeds the trigger level, then the system should collect a
        grab sample  15 minutes after the 4-hour exceedance. If the first 15-minute sample exceeds the
        trigger level  again, then the follow-up action under §141.563 is required.

34. Q:  As a system brings filters on line at different times, do they each need separate timers or can they
        all take readings on the quarter hour (i.e., 3:00, 3:15, 3:30, etc.)?
    A:  Taking all readings on the quarter hour would meet the intent of the rule.

35. Q:  When a system is required to record turbidity data every 15 minutes after the startup of the filter,
        is that actual minutes or the quarters of the hour. In other words, if the filter is returned to
        service at 2:05, should the 15-minute reading be at 2:20 or 2:15? If we say 2:20 (actually 15
        minutes), then can recording devices do this or are they set up to record on the quarters of the
        hour?
    A:  The time of plant startup is considered as 0:00 and no initial reading needs to be taken at that
        time. Readings should be collected at regular 15-minute intervals after that point. So, if the above
        system places a filter into service at 2:05, the first reading should be at 2:20. However, for
        simplicity, if this same system chooses to record its initial reading at 2:15 instead of 2:20, this is
        acceptable because this initial interval did not exceed 15 minutes. All subsequent readings should
        be at regular  15-minute intervals (2:30, 2:45, etc). However, if this same system were to wait until
        2:30 to record its first reading, this would not be acceptable, because the interval between the
        time of plant startup and the initial reading would be 25 minutes, which exceeds the 15-minute
        maximum interval.

36. Q:  Is particle counting an adequate substitute for continuous turbidity monitoring?
    A:  No,  particle counting may not be used as a substitute for continuous turbidity monitoring.

37. Q:  Do the individual filter monitoring requirements apply to a secondary filter (such as GAC) whose
        primary function is other than paniculate removal (i.e. taste and odor control), or only to the
        "primary "filter?
    A:  The intent of the rule is for IFE monitoring to be performed on filters used for particulate
        removal. This is because the purpose of the IFE requirements  is to capture turbidity spikes in
        individual filters that may be masked in the combined filter effluent. If the secondary filter is
        located after  the point of CFE monitoring, then the IFE requirements would not apply. This is
        because the purpose of the IFE requirements is to capture turbidity spikes in individual filters that

Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance           43                                     August 2004

-------
       may be masked in the CFE. In this scenario, since the streams are already combined, measuring
       IFE of the secondary filter would not further distinguish individual filter turbidity spikes.

38. Q: Some package plants and/or filters are constructed so that it is not possible to install the
       continuous turbidimeters on each filter bed and perform this monitoring. How do I resolve this
       issue?
    A: Individual filter monitoring is a requirement of the rule for all Subpart H systems serving fewer
       than 10,000 persons that use conventional or direct filtration. This is to ensure consistency of
       treatment through the plant's filtration process. Configurations that do not allow for such
       plumbing, such as a Greenleaf Filter Plant or certain automatic backwash filters, can be
       considered one filter and can monitor the combined effluent from the unit every 15 minutes to
       determine compliance with the individual filter requirements. Systems that believe they fall in
       this category should consult with the state.  However, it is likely that some of these plants/filters
       are built such that the system can install turbidimeters on individual filters, and therefore would
       be required to conduct monitoring of them.

40. Q: What if a plant exceeds a turbidity trigger for an individual filter while performing filter-to-
       waste? Does this need to be reported? Is it a violation?
    A: The IFE turbidity requirements apply only  to water that will become part of the combined filter
       effluent of the plant. Filter-to-waste water turbidity does not need to be measured or reported and
       should not have violations associated with it.

41. Q: Does each filter need its own turbidimeter or can several filters be connected to one
       turbidimeter?
    A: The rule doesn't preclude the use of a single turbidimeter to measure and record the turbidity of
       multiple filters. A state would have to find  that this would be an appropriate methodology for
       measuring and recording compliance with the individual filter reporting and recordkeeping
       requirements.

42. Q: If the continuous  turbidimeter goes down, when does 4-hour grab sampling start?
    A: The clock starts with the last recorded turbidity data point.

43. Q: Does a turbidimeter set to show continuous running average satisfy the continuous monitoring
       requirement? If so, what duration of the sensor signal averaging should be used?
    A: The intent of the IFE is to provide an "instantaneous" reading every 15 minutes. Turbidimeters
       should be calibrated according to the specifications of the manufacturer, using an approved
       method in 40 CFR 141.74(a) and analytical test procedures contained in Technical Notes on
       Drinking Water Methods, EPA-600/R-94-173, October, 1994.

44. Q: Systems with 3 or more individual filters must monitor effluent turbidity at each individual filter.
       Is there any specific requirement regarding where the meter sampling point must be?
    A: There  is no specific requirement regarding the location of the meter sampling point, but as a
       practical matter, the individual filter sample tap must be installed prior to combined filter effluent
       in order to monitor IFE.

45. Q: The effluent turbidity must be monitored at each individual filter, at least every 15 minutes. If
       on-line monitoring fails, systems are required to conduct grab sampling every 4 hours until the
       equipment is repaired (not to exceed 14 days). For systems that do not have 24 hour coverage, is
       it necessary to have someone there at the plant collecting the grab samples, until the on-line
       equipment is back up and running?
    A: Yes, it is necessary to ensure that grab samples are collected every 4 hours.


August 2004                                     44           Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
46. Q:  When a system exceeds the rule-established individual filter turbidity trigger levels in two
        consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart, certain corrective actions are required to be
        completed within designated time frames. When does the clock start running on those time limits?
    A:  The time for completing the necessary corrective actions begins immediately after the second of
        the two measurements that exceed the "trigger" level.

47. Q:  When backwashing a filter, how soon after the filters are put back on-line should the readings
        start to be recorded again?
    A:  Readings should begin as soon as filters are producing water that will be served to the public.

48. Q:  Do readings need to be taken during the backwashing process?
    A:  No. Readings do not need to be taken during the backwashing process.

49. Q:  How should a system deal with spiked turbidimeter readings for hours (sometimes as many as 12
        hours) after the turbidimeter (not the filter it is monitoring) has been cleaned?
    A:  EPA believes that the duration of these kinds of spiked readings should normally be a matter of
        minutes, not hours. A turbidimeter returning inaccurate readings for more than a few minutes
        should be overhauled or replaced.  In the event that inaccurate spikes last for a longer period of
        time, the system could measure and record turbidity using a bench top turbidimeter by conducting
        grab sampling every 4 hours until the continuous turbidity monitoring equipment returns to
        normal or is repaired (not to exceed 14 days).

50. Q:  If a system is required to have a Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE) conducted by the
        state or a third party, is  the system in  violation if the state or third party does not conduct the
        CPE within 120 days following the individual filter effluent exceedance that triggered the
        requirement (and the delay is clearly the fault of the state or third party, not the system)?
    A:  Yes, if the Comprehensive Performance Evaluation is not completed and the report submitted to
        the state within 120 days, a violation is triggered and must be reported. However, the state can
        exercise its discretion on what enforcement action is taken.

51. Q:  Is there a limit to the number ofCPEs that can be triggered by ongoing compliance problems?
    A:  The rule does not specify a limit to the number of CPEs that are required in response to turbidity
        limits that trigger Section 141.563(c) on an ongoing basis (turbidity levels of > 2.0 NTU in two
        consecutive measurements in each of two consecutive months). However, if a CPE has been
        completed by the state or a third party approved by the state within the 12 prior months or the
        system and state are jointly participating in an ongoing Comprehensive Technical Assistance
        (CTA) project at the system, a new CPE is not required.

52. Q:  What is the difference between a filter self-assessment and a filter assessment?
    A:  A filter assessment is one component of a filter self-assessment (and also of a CPE). A 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. More information can be found in the guidance manual for the
        LT1ESWTR (available from: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/ltleswtr.html).

53. Q:  Under the IESWTR, if there is an IFE exceedance greater than 1.0 NTU for two consecutive
        recordings 15 minutes apart, a filter profile must be produced if the system is not able to identify
        an obvious reason for the abnormal filter performance. Is this a requirement in the LT1ESWTR?
    A:  No, this is not  a requirement in the LTIESWTR. Under LTIESWTR, the system must report the
        exceedance and the cause for the exceedance (if known), but a filter profile is not required.


Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance          45                                    August 2004

-------
       However, states may request that the system perform a filter profile if the cause of the exceedance
       cannot be determined. The Agency believes that filter profiles should be encouraged when there
       is uncertainty about filter performance. The intent of producing a filter profile is to allow the
       system to interpret this profile and identify all potential causes (not just an obvious reason) for the
       elevated turbidity. The system can then take actions to correct these cases and prevent future
       exceedances.

54. Q: If a plant has continuous recording equipment and a filter is started at 1 pm and there is an
       exceedance at 1:13 and again at 1:20, but the readings taken at 1:15 and 1:30 are less than 1.0
       NTU. Do the exceedances between the 15 minute interval readings trigger any follow-up activity?
    A: No. Compliance is based on the 15-minute interval readings. Exceedances at the 15-minute
       interval readings would trigger follow-up actions but exceedances between the 15-minute interval
       readings would not.

2.1.5 Alternative Filtration Technologies
Citation
(40 CFR)
141.552
Part Title
Combined Filter Effluent Requirements
55. Q:  Why are diatomaceous earth and slow sand filtration systems not required to meet the same
        turbidity requirements as conventional systems under the LT1ESWTR?
    A:  Slow sand and DE systems, because of their filtration effectiveness, are assumed to already meet
        the 2-log removal for Cryptosporidium under the existing requirements of the SWTR.

56. Q:  Will a state have to demonstrate that its alternative filtration technologies previously approved
        under the 1989 SWTR satisfy the Cryptosporidium removal requirements of the LT1ESWTR?
    A:  Yes, states will have to demonstrate that their alternative filtration technologies previously
        approved under the SWTR are capable of 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium cysts (e.g.,
        evaluation pore size).

57. Q:  How will a State approve an alternative filtration technology and establish turbidity limits?

    A:  It depends on your state's requirements. States are required by §142.16(j)(iv) to include
        information in their primacy application that explains how they plan to approve alternative
        technologies and establish turbidity performance requirements for such technologies that would
        ensure appropriate inactivation/removal of Giardia lamblia and viruses and removal of
        Cryptosporidium (not to exceed 1 NTU as a 95th percentile or 5 NTU as a maximum level).

58. Q:  Are contact absorption clarifiers and dissolved air flotation considered sedimentation in the
        conventional filtration process as defined in 141.2?
    A:  Sedimentation is defined in 40 CFR 141.2 as a process for removal of solids before filtration by
        gravity or separation. The state has the flexibility to consider absorption clarifiers and dissolved
        air flotation as part of the sedimentation process in the conventional filtration process. However,
        once the process has been categorized, the state should be consistent in implementation for all
        their systems.
August 2004                                     46           Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
2.2  General Program Requirements
2.2.1 Primacy

59. Q: If the state has a blanket letter from the Attorney General that covers all regulations, does it have
       to get a new letter specifically for the LT1ESWTR?
    A: Yes, unless EPA waives the Attorney General statement requirement. States would not be able to
       use a letter from the Attorney General that provided certification of rules not in existence at the
       time the certification letter was written. The certification should also confirm that there are no
       state audit laws preventing enforcement of the rules.

60. Q: When is a state eligible to receive interim primacy for the LT1ESWTR?
    A: A state is  eligible for interim primacy for the LT1ESWTR provided it has submitted a complete
       and final primacy revision application to EPA, AND it has primacy or interim primacy for all
       existing regulations. At a time when multiple regulations are being promulgated, a state qualifies
       for interim primacy for each rule as the rules are adopted by the state as long as the time  period
       allowed for adoption (2 years plus up to a 2-year extension, if applicable) has not expired. For
       example, even though the FBRR was promulgated before the LT1ESWTR, a state can obtain
       interim primacy for the LT1ESWTR before the FBRR, as long as the deadline to adopt the FBRR
       has not passed. However, if the time period allowed for adoption of the FBRR has passed and the
       state has not adopted the FBRR, then the state would not be eligible for interim primacy  for the
       LT1ESWTR.

61. Q: Are states going to have to revisit their GWUDl determinations due to the addition of
       Cryptosporidium to the definition ofGWUDIand the Cryptosporidium removal requirements of
       theLTlESWTR?
    A: No, Cryptosporidium was only added to the definition of GWUDI as an additional example of the
       type of large diameter pathogen that the state would examine in determining whether the system
       is GWUDI. State determinations are based on criteria established by the state and may be based
       on site-specific measurements of water quality and/or other documentation.

62. Q: Can states "bundle" regulations in  their primacy revision package?
    A: Yes, states may combine two or more rules in one primacy revision package.

63. Q: May a state adopt the LT1ESWTR by reference?
    A: Yes, if state law allows this. However, the state will still need to address the special primacy
       requirements that give the state flexibility and discretion in meeting certain requirements.

64. Q: Our state's Attorney  General does not have the authority to approve regulations. Will this be a
       problem for us in terms of obtaining primacy for new rules?
    A: EPA does not require the state's Attorney General to provide approval of regulations adopted for
       purposes of the state  achieving primacy under these rules. The requirement is for a statement by
       the Attorney General, or the primacy agency's attorney if it has independent legal counsel, that
       the laws and regulations adopted by the state were duly adopted and are enforceable.

65. Q: If a state is adopting  Rule Language by reference,  do they still need to include 141.2 (definitions)
       in their citations? In  other words, does adopting the "use " of the term infer that the definitions
       are adopted as well?
    A: The state must adopt the definition or adopt 141.2 by reference.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance          47                                    August 2004

-------
2.2.2 Violations, SDWIS Reporting, and SNC Definitions

66. Q: If a system receives 2 treatment technique violations in 1 month, how are they counted toward
       SNC? How frequently are SNC determinations made? Can a system potentially receive a SNC
       designation every month? Every quarter? Every year?
    A: Both violations are counted toward Significant Non-Compliance (SNC). SNC determinations for
       all rules, including the LT1ESWTR and the Stage 1 DBPR, are made once per quarter,
       compounding over a rolling four-quarter period. SDWIS guidance states that these determinations
       are made on the first day of the month following the end of the quarter that covers the 12-month
       compliance period which ended the previous quarter.

67. Q: Are non-transient non-community water systems that normally serve fewer than 10,000 people
       but seasonally serve more than 10,000 people responsible for complying with the IESWTR or the
       LT1ESWTR?
    A: At a minimum, whenever a system serves at least 10,000 people, the system must comply with all
       regulatory requirements for systems serving at least 10,000 (i.e., IESWTR and Stage 1 DBPR).
       However, a state can adopt more stringent requirements to be more protective and require the
       system to comply with the requirements for systems serving more than 10,000 year round.
       Whether a state adopts more stringent requirements is a matter of state law.

68. Q: If a system fails to get a broken continuous turbidity monitor on an individual filter back up and
       running within 14 days,  what type of violation is that? Do we have a SDWIS reporting code for
       this violation?
    A: It would be a M/R violation (SDWIS Code 38-0300 - Failure to report all individual filter
       monitoring has been conducted) and public notice would be required. See pages 5-7 of the
       Implementation Guidance.

69. Q: If a system can receive an SNC designation for failure to conduct disinfection profiling under the
       LT1ESWTR, how can the system return to compliance if profiling is a one-time provision?
    A: Failure to develop a disinfection profile during the required timeframe is a treatment technique
       violation. A system can  return  to compliance by developing a disinfection profile. Once
       completed, the system must retain the disinfection profile data in an acceptable format for review
       as part of the sanitary surveys and consult with the state before making a significant change to its
       disinfection practice.

70. Q: Can states use the authority in SDWA to grant up to two additional years for systems to
       comply with the turbidity provisions ofLTlESWTR? Does the extension apply to an old
       plant which will be replaced by a new one  (currently under construction) or does the
       system have to incur capital expenditures on the old plant to be eligible for the
       extension?  What happens if the new plant  is not finished and the old plant does not meet
       the turbidity standards?
    A: The SDWA (Section 1412(b)(10)) does allow states to grant an extension up to 2 years to comply
       with MCLs or treatment techniques but only if the state determines that additional time is
       necessary for capital improvements. This extension for the turbidity provisions could apply to the
       entire system to the extent that the state determines that additional time is necessary for capital
       improvements to both the old and new plants. If a systems "capital improvements" consist of
       replacing an old plant with a new plant and retiring the old system, the extension would apply
       only to the old plant. Although not required by SDWA, an extension agreement should be
       negotiated with the system to identify measures the system could take with the old plant to be
       protective of public health while the new plant is being built. Between January 1, 2005* through
       the extension deadline, the system is not in violation of the TT of the LT IESWTR. However, the

August 2004                                    48           Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
        system still has to comply with the turbidity limits established by the SWTR and the system must
        monitor and comply with the CCR (systems must include in the CCR the highest single turbidity
        measurement and the lowest monthly percentage of turbidity samples meeting the turbidity limits.
        Systems should also notify the public that it has received an extension for the TT). After the
        extension deadline has passed, the system is responsible for complying with all aspects of the rule
        and would be in violation if it did not comply.

*The compliance date was changed from January 14, 2005 to January 1, 2005 by the minor corrections rule [69 FR
38850].

2.2.3 Data Reporting  and Recordkeeping

71. Q:  How long must systems keep CFE data on file?
    A:  The LT1ESWTR does not specify system recordkeeping requirements for CFE data (although
        systems would have to retain it long enough to comply with the monthly reporting requirements
        at 40 CFR 141.570). States may consider turbidity measurements as bacteriological indicators,
        similar to heterotrophic plate count. If a state does so, then in accordance with 40 CFR 141.33(a),
        the records of bacteriological analyses would be required to be kept for at least 5 years. States
        have the discretion to require longer recordkeeping periods. Individual filter turbidity monitoring
        results must be kept on file by the system for at least 3 years.

72. Q:  States are required to maintain records of systems consulting with the state concerning
        modifications to disinfection practices — including the status of the consultation. How long must
        the records be kept?
    A:  Section 142.14(a)(7)(i) requires states to maintain records of systems consulting with the state
        concerning modifications to the disinfection practice and status of consultation but does not
        specify a timeframe. Since no timeframe is specified, these records should be kept indefinitely.

73. Q:  Has EPA developed a standard format for the monthly reporting of individual filter monitoring?
    A:  EPA does not have  a standard format for monthly reporting. However, most primacy agencies
        have their own format for reporting. A few examples are also included in the Rule
        Implementation Guidance.

74. Q:  Does the highest individual filter result need to be reported in the CCR at the end of the year?
    A:  No. Systems are not required to report individual filter monitoring data in their CCR.  However,
        systems must report violations that are related to a failure to respond to an individual filter
        exceedance (e.g.,  failure to conduct a self-assessment).

75. Q:  Are the filter self-assessment reports required to be submitted?
    A:  Filter self-assessments are not required to be submitted. However, they must be completed within
        14 days of the exceedance that triggered the requirement, and kept on file for 3 years.

76. Q:  With the individual filter monitoring, what happens if exceedances of turbidity limits trigger
        actions more than twice (i.e. two separate sets of two consecutive readings) in one day? Are all of
        these measurements reported in the monthly report if an obvious reason is available, or do we
       just report once for that day regardless of how many times two consecutive exceedances occur?
    A:  All of the measurements would be reported.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance           49                                    August 2004

-------
Key Words by  Question Number
15-Minute Measurements Q33, 35, 38,
     43, 45, 46, 53, 54
Alternative Filtration Technologies
    Q55-59
Alternative Procedures Q11
Ammonia Q22
Attorney General Q60, 65
Backwashing Q47-48
Bundle Q63
Capital Improvements Q71
CCRQ71,75
Certification Letter Q60
Changes in Disinfection Practice Q6,
      12,21,22,24-28,70
Chloramines Q22
Chlorine Q22, 26
Combined Filter Effluent (CFE) Q29-
      32, 37, 72
Comprehensive Performance
    Evaluation (CPE) Q50-52
Contact Absorption Clarifiers Q59
Continuous Turbidity Monitoring Q30,
      33, 36, 38, 42, 43, 49, 54, 69
Continuous Running Average Q43
Conventional Filtration Q32, 33, 38, 59
Cryptosporidium Ql-5, 55-58, 62
CT Values Q20, 22-23
Deadline Q8, 61,71
Diatomaceous Earth Filtration Q55
Disinfection Benchmark Q18, 22
Disinfection Profile Q6-8, 11-15, 17-
    19, 22, 24, 26-27, 70
Disinfection Profiling and
    Benchmarking Guidance Manual
    Q20, 28
Direct Filtration Q32, 32, 38
Dissolved Air Flotation Q59
Electronic Template Q23
Emergency Conditions Q18
Enhanced Coagulation Q27
Exceedance Q32, 50, 53-54, 75-77
Excursions Q32
FBRRQ61
Filter Assessment Q52
Filter Profile Q9, 52-53
Filter Self-Assessment Q52, 75-76
Filter-To-Waste Q40
GAC Q37
GiardiaQA, 21,57-58
Grab Sample Q30, 33, 45
Greenleaf Filter Plant Q38
Guidance Manual for Compliance with
    the Filtration and Disinfection
    Requirements for Public Water
    Systems Using Surface Water
    Sources Q22, 31
Guidance Manual for Compliance with
    the Long Term 1 Enhances
    Surface Water Treatment Rule:
    Turbidity Provisions Q9
GWUDI Q58, 62
Hepatitis A Virus Q22
IESWTR Q6-7, 53, 68
Individual Filter Effluent Q37, 40, 43-
    44,53
Individual Filter Requirements Q33, 38
Individual Filter Turbidity Q37, 46, 72
Interim Primacy Q61
Laboratory Q15
Log Removal Credit Q2, 58
MCLG Q5
Meter Sampling Point Q44
Monitoring Plan Q16
Natural Filtration Q58
New Systems Q8
Non-Transient Non-Community Water
Systems Q68
Normal Operating Conditions Q12
Optional Monitoring Q13, 15
Ozone Q28
Particle Counting Q36
       pHQ20
       Population Q6-8, 38, 68
       Primacy Q61,64-65, 74
       Primacy Revision Package Q25, 61, 63
       Profiling and Benchmarking
            Requirements Q6, 7, 20, 28
       Profiling Requirement Q15, 21, 24
       Protozoan Control Q28
       Quarter Hour Q34-35
       Recordkeeping Requirements Q41, 72
       Rotavirus Q22
       Rule Language Q66
       Sanitary Survey Q19, 70
       Secondary Filter Q37
       Sedimentation Q59
       Significant Change Q6, 24-26, 70
       Significant Figures Q29
       Slow Sand Filtration Q55
       Spiked Turbidity Readings Q49
       Stage 1 DBPR Q8, 15, 22, 27, 67-68
       SWTRQ1, 21-22, 31,55-56, 71
       Technical Assistance Materials Q23
       Temperature Q13-14, 20
       Treatment Change (see Changes in
            Disinfection Practice)
       Treatment Technique Violation Q10,
            67, 70, 71
       Treatment Train Q12
       TTHM and HAAS Q6-7, 13-17
       TTHM and HAAS samples Q13-17
       Turbidity
            Turbidity Levels Q3, 29, 30, 37,
                51,53,57,71,72
            Turbidity Readings Q31-32, 35-
                36,41-42,44-45,49-69
            Turbidity Trigger Q40, 46, 57, 77
       UVQ2
       Virus Inactivation Q21-22, 28, 57-58
       Warmest Water Temperature Q13-14
       Watershed Q 1,4
       Worst Case Q17, 20
August 2004
                50
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Section III
State Implementation

-------
This page intentionally left blank.

-------
3.1  Overview of Implementation
When conducting implementation activities for LT1ESWTR, states should be mindful of the resource
limitations and related compliance burdens of small systems. Monitoring, reporting, performance, and
follow-up requirements should be clearly defined to assist system understanding of how the rule will
affect them and what they must do to comply. The main implementation activities expected to face all
primacy agencies include the following:
    •   Identify affected systems.
    •   Identify system-specific requirements.
    •   Communicate LT1ESWTR requirements to affected systems.
    •   Update data systems.
    •   Assess optional TTHM and HAAS monitoring data and more representative profiling data.
    •   Identify practices and procedures for approving alternative filtration technologies and
       establishing turbidity limits for those systems.
       Evaluate the adequacy of watershed control programs for Cryptosporidium for unfiltered systems.
    •   Ensure training opportunities are available - how to perform filter self-assessments and report
       results.
    •   Obtain and maintain expertise to perform CPEs.
    •   Evaluate monthly filter performance reports.
    •   Evaluate reports of filter self-assessments.
    •   Evaluate CPE reports.
       Track system compliance and implement enforcement action.
    •   Review disinfection profiles during sanitary surveys.
    •   Consult with systems regarding changes in disinfection practices.
    •   Other implementation concerns - sanitary surveys.
    •   Area-Wide Optimization Programs Offer Proactive Approaches for LT1ESTWR Implementation
Each of these items is discussed in more detail later in this Section. In addition, an overview of the Area
Wide Optimization Program, an implementation tool for both the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR is included.
There are two technical guidance documents prepared for the LTIESWTR which will be useful to state
agencies and water systems and are noted in Section 2. They are:
    LTIESWTR Turbidity Provisions Technical Guidance Manual (EPA Doc # 816-R-04-007, August
       2004), and
    LTIESWTR Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Technical Guidance Manual (EPA Doc #816-
       R-03-004, May 2003)
These documents are written with smaller water system operators and managers as  the intended audience,
but contain information explaining and interpreting implementation requirements for LTIESWTR.
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance          53                                    August 2004

-------
3.2  Identify Affected Systems
3.2.1 New Construction of Finished Water Reservoirs

Under the LT1ESWTR all subpart H systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons must cover all new
finished water reservoirs for which construction began prior to March 15, 2002. The effective date for this
provision in the IESWTR was February 16, 1999. All subpart H public water systems serving fewer than
10,000 people should be notified of this requirement.

Implementation and enforcement of this requirement should be addressed (if it is not already) through
state-specific  engineering design and specification plan review and approval processes. State agencies
responsible for the plan review and approval process, consulting engineers and water system owners,
operators and managers should be informed of the change and its effective date. Care should be taken to
ensure any plans and specifications currently in the design or review process accommodate this provision
as the deadline applies to the date the system began construction, not the design submission date.

3.2.2 Affected Surface Water or GWUDI Systems

The Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) addresses treatment technique and monitoring requirements
for all systems using surface water or GWUDI. The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
affects the subset of those systems which serve 10,000 or more people. The LT1ESWTR fills in the gap
by affecting all remaining surface water or GWUDI systems serving fewer than 10,000 people. Because
the treatment  technique requirements imposed by the SWTR were based on the type of filtration
technology employed, and the IESWTR and LT IESWTR follow the same treatment technology
categories, state databases should contain the appropriate information to identify systems affected by
LT1ESWTR.  Each of these systems should receive information on the rule's requirements.

States may choose to develop information packages that are targeted toward specific system requirements
as much as possible. For example, the following table identifies the different types of treatment systems
and the specific provisions on which the information packages may focus:
August 2004                                    54          Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
           Table 3.1 - Treatment Systems and Information Package Focus Issues
System Type
Unfiltered
Slow Sand/Diatomaceous Earth
Filtration
Conventional/Direct Filtration
Alternative Filtration
Reclassified systems now
serving over 1 0,000 people
System Focus
• Watershed Control Program Addresses Cryptosporidium
• Disinfection Profiling & Benchmarking*
• Combined Filter Effluent Turbidity
• Disinfection Profiling & Benchmarking*
• Combined Filter Effluent Turbidity
• Installation of Individual Filter Effluent Turbidimeters
Individual Filter Effluent Turbidity
• Follow-Up Actions required for Individual filter Effluent Turbidity
Exceedances
Filter Self-assessment Procedures
• CPE Contact Information
• Disinfection Profiling & Benchmarking*
• Inactivation/Removal Demonstration Data
• Combined Filter Effluent Turbidity with state-determined Turbidity Limits
• Disinfection Profiling & Benchmarking*
• Disinfection Profiling under IESWTR
• Compliance with other IESWTR Requirements
* Disinfection profiling and benchmarking requirements apply only to community and non-transient, non-community
water systems.

While materials EPA has prepared to address the requirements of the rule are all-inclusive, efforts to
clearly identify which aspects pertain to each system may be helpful to small system understanding and
compliance. Efforts may be limited to discussion in a cover letter or extend to the development of
technology-specific materials.

3.3  Identify System-Specific Requirements
Some provisions of the LTIESWTR allow state discretion in establishing treatment technique or
monitoring requirements. The special primacy requirements for LT IESWTR address these discretionary
items and are discussed in Section 4.4 of this guidance. Although that section describes how a state might
satisfy the requirements and obtain primacy, states should also inform the systems what their specific
requirements will be. Systems should know their requirements with sufficient lead time to meet the
compliance dates of each aspect of the rule.

The two main provisions for which states should make a timely decision on what they will require of
systems are:

    1.  Review of alternative filtration demonstration data to establish state-determined 95th and
       maximum turbidity limits for alternative filtration technologies (which the system must meet
       beginning January 1, 2005*), and

*The compliance date was changed from January 14, 2005 to January 1, 2005 by the minor corrections rule [69 FR
38850].
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
55
August 2004

-------
    2.  What constitutes a more representative data set for optional TTHM and HAAS monitoring and
       disinfection profiling (which will affect system monitoring as early as July 1, 2003).

States should refer to the section in this document on Special Primacy Requirements. The state's primacy
application for the IESWTR is also a good resource since these issues may also have been addressed in
the implementation of that rule.

3.4  Communicate LT1ESWTR Requirements to Affected Systems
3.4.1 Target Notification Time Frames

Disinfection Profiling Requirements

States should consider notifying CWSs and NTNCWSs of the disinfection profiling requirements as soon
as possible. This would allow systems an opportunity to have their water analyzed for TTHM and HAA5
levels and possibly qualify to forgo the disinfection profiling and benchmarking requirements. This
optional monitoring must occur during the month with the warmest water temperature and at the point of
maximum residence time in the distribution system. Disinfection profiling must begin no later than July 1,
2003 for systems serving 500 to 9,999 people and no later than January 1, 2004, for systems serving
fewer than 500.

Strengthened Turbidity Provisions

States should establish a target implementation timeframe for notifying systems of the strengthened
turbidity requirements may fall within the same period. While the turbidity requirements are not effective
until January 1, 2005*, this lead-time would enable systems to improve treatment performance, purchase
and install equipment and implement any changes necessary to begin continuous monitoring of individual
filter turbidity. In addition, this lead time would allow states the option to conduct on-site visits to ensure
that turbidimeters/data recorders are properly installed and operating prior to the compliance date.

*The compliance date was changed from January 14, 2005 to January 1, 2005 by the minor corrections rule [69 FR
38850].

3.4.2 Written Notification for Affected Systems

Benefits of Written Notification

States should provide public water systems written notice of a final rule. This serves two purposes:  1) the
receiving system obtains a formal notice of upcoming regulatory requirements and timeline for
compliance (in addition to EPA's publication of the rule in the Federal Register), and 2) if the primacy
agency chooses to keep a record of sending the notice, it provides a hard-copy document the primacy
agency may file and use in subsequent compliance tracking  efforts.

Written notification of rule requirements should be accompanied by a letter from the state which directs
the reader to an appropriate contact if questions arise. An example cover letter is provided as Figure 3.1
and is also included in Appendix C. In this example, a single letter is used for the mailing to all affected
systems. As discussed in Section 3.3.2, states may wish to tailor the letter to accommodate those systems
for which the provisions are either limited or unique. An example letter notifying system of the
LTIESWTR disinfection profiling exemption requirements  through TTHM/HAA5 sampling is included
in Appendix C.

August 2004                                    56           Final LT IESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
                         Figure 3.1: Example System Notification Letter
                                               State Letterhead

John Smith, Supt.
Town Water System, PWSID XXXXXXX
Town, ST 12345

RE: Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

Dear Mr. Smith:

On January 14, 2002, the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule was published in the Federal Register.
This letter is being provided to notify you that your public water system may be affected by this rule.

The Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (abbreviated LT1ESWTR) applies to public water systems
that meet both of the following criteria:
        1.      Use surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water, and
        2.      Serve fewer than 10,000 people
You are receiving this letter as our data shows your system uses surface water or ground water under the direct influence
of surface water.

If you are an unfiltered system, you must take additional steps necessary to minimize potential for contamination by
Cryptosporidium. If you are a filtered system using conventional, direct, or an alternative filtration technology, the rule
will impact the performance and monitoring of your filtration plant beginning January 1, 2005*, by revising turbidity
limits for combined filter effluent. In addition, for systems using conventional or direct filtration, individual filter effluent
monitoring will now be required. Systems using alternative filtration technologies are required to demonstrate removal
and inactivation capabilities prior to January 1, 2005* in order for this agency to establish turbidity limits. Whether
filtered or not, the rule requires monitoring and reporting related to microbial inactivation (referred to as a disinfection
profile), for which you may need to take specific action by July 1, 2003 [or January 1, 2004] unless optional TTHM and
HAAS monitoring is conducted and this agency has determined a profile is unnecessary.

A Quick Reference Guide and Fact Sheets for the LT1ESWTR are enclosed. The guide provides more information on
this regulation and the Fact Sheet explains the requirements for disinfection byproduct profiling and benchmarking in
more detail.

Please contact this office at XXX-XXXX if you have any questions about this letter or the LT1ESWTR and its affect on
your system. We appreciate your attention to this request.

Sincerely,


Enclosures: LT1ESWTR Quick Reference Guide, LT1ESWTR General Fact Sheet
        LT1ESWTR Fact Sheet: Turbidity Provisions for Conventional and Direct Filtration Systems
        LT1 ESWTR Fact Sheet: Turbidity Provisions for Slow Sand, Diatom. Earth and Alt. Filtration
        LT1ESWTR Fact Sheet: Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking for LT1ESWTR
        LT1ESWTR Fact Sheet: Disinfection Profiling for the LT1ESWTR

"The compliance date was changed from January 14, 2005 to January 1, 2005 by the minor corrections rule [69 FR 38850].
  Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance            57                                        August 2004

-------
Mailing Enclosures: LTIESWTR Quick Reference Guide/Fact Sheets

Appendix C of this guidance includes a Quick Reference Guide, a general LTIESWTR Fact Sheet, a Fact
Sheet for Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking, a brochure on Comprehensive Performance
Evaluations (CPEs) basics (including information on approving third party providers for CPEs), an
example of the LTIESWTR Disinfection Profiling Exemption Form, and an example System Notification
Letter. The LTIESWTR Quick Reference Guide is also available at
www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/lt 1 eswtr.html. These publications are intended to be distributed to water
systems through mailings, training sessions or other educational forums and may be a beneficial enclosure
with the initial written notification sent to systems. They provide overviews of the LTIESWTR to enable
systems to determine which of the rule's provisions apply to their system. One or more of these
publications in an initial mailing would save state effort for summarizing key requirements.

In addition to summarizing LTIESWTR requirements, these resources describe benefits and general
implications of the rule  but are not a substitute for actual regulatory language. Once affected systems are
identified, actual rule provisions are a more appropriate reference. Final rule language including changes
from the minor corrections rule is provided in Appendix B. Copies of the Quick Reference Guide and
Fact Sheets, as well as example forms and letters, may be copied from Appendix C and are available from
the EPA web site at http:www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/lt 1 eswtr.html.

3.4.3 Other Communication

Slide Presentation

Adult education training emphasizes that people respond differently to written, verbal and visual
educational techniques.  For some audiences, written presentation of the rule alone will not result in
comprehension of system requirements. Slide presentations of the LTIESWTR may be used by state staff
and other technical assistance or training providers to present the background of the rule, rule
requirements and its benefits.

The EPA Drinking Water Academy has developed a training session on the LTIESWTR (available in
PowerPoint format). Copies of the presentation may be used to train other state personnel and technical
assistance resources, water system personnel  and the public. EPA's Drinking Water Academy slides are
available electronically  by accessing the EPA Web Site at
http:www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/ltleswtr.html.

Guidance Documents and Seminars

Materials developed for the LTIESWTR technical guidance documents are useful for conveying rule
requirements and to discuss specific implementation aspects of the regulation. These aspects may include
how to perform and report a filter profile, a filter self-assessment, a disinfection profile or a disinfection
benchmark. Proper completion of data reporting forms could be used as a critical component of system
compliance. The guidance documents could be used as participant materials in LTlESWTR-specific
training events.
August 2004                                    58           Final LTlESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
3.5  Update Data Systems
EPA recognizes state data management systems vary to suit state-specific requirements and needs. It is
recommended, however, that state data systems be updated to enable efficient tracking of affected
systems, compliance status and other information of use in implementing the rule.

Records to be kept by states, as required under §142.14, include: turbidity measurements, disinfectant
residual measurements and other parameters necessary to document disinfection effectiveness, decisions
made on a case-by-case or system-by-system basis, consultations regarding changes to disinfection
practices, alternative filtration technology decisions, systems required to do filter self-assessments or
CPEs, and others. While many of these records may be maintained through hard-copy files, data systems
which easily identify  systems for which these records exist may also be helpful. Data systems able to
identify IFE follow-up action triggers may be particularly useful to track and identify systems having
performance problems.

3.6  Assess Optional TTHM and HAAS Monitoring Data and More Representative
Profiling Data
The LT1ESWTR requires systems to develop a disinfection profile unless the state determines that a
system's profile is unnecessary. The state may determine the profile is unnecessary if all of the following
conditions are met:

    •   the system's TTHM and HAAS levels are below 0.064 mg/L and 0.048 mg/L, respectively,

    •   the samples were collected after January 1, 1998, and

    •   the samples were collected during the month with the warmest water temperature and at the point
       of maximum residence time in the distribution system.

This monitoring is optional and this provision was included in the rule to reduce the burden of monitoring
and producing a disinfection profile on small systems as compared to large systems. This regulatory
language currently does not address the use of a more representative data set for TTHM and HAAS;
however, EPA is currently seeking to correct this inadvertent omission.

To  assess the optional TTHM and HAA5  data, the state should have a means of determining if the
samples met each of the criteria. Laboratory monitoring results can be used to document the analytical
results and sample collection date. However, system-specific information may need to be submitted to
show that the sample was collected during the month of the warmest water temperature and at the point of
maximum residence time in the distribution system.

Water temperature data is required for unfiltered surface water systems as part of their calculation of daily
total inactivation ratios for compliance with the SWTR. These systems would have data readily available
to identify the month of wannest water temperature. Monitoring water temperature at entry points to the
distribution system is also required for systems collecting water quality parameter data for compliance
with the Lead and Copper Rule. However, this data may be collected too infrequently and may not
sufficiently reflect annual changes in temperature. Although not required, systems may record raw water
temperature data as part of their process control and recordkeeping practices for surface water treatment
systems. Obtaining this data or a statement from the system that they have the data and they identified the


Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance          59                                    August 2004

-------
month of warmest water temperature may meet this need. Verification of the month used could be
incorporated into review of records during the system's sanitary survey.

Identification of the point of maximum residence time of water in the distribution system is a requirement
of the Stage 1 DBPR. Also under the Stage 1 DBPR, systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons must
develop and implement a monitoring plan for monitoring locations, including the point of maximum
residence time, no later than 30 days after January 1, 2004. Procedures used to identify the maximum
residence time for Stage 1  DBPR compliance should be used for the LT1ESWTR.

Identifying state practices or procedures for how the state will approve a more representative data set for
optional TTHM and HAAS monitoring is a special primacy requirement of the LT1ESWTR. Guidance
for this special primacy requirement is found in  Section 4.4 of this document.

3.7  Identify Practices and Procedures  for Approving Alternative Filtration
Technologies and Establishing Turbidity Limits for Those Systems
Identifying state practices or procedures for how the state will determine that a public water system may
use an alternative filtration technology and how the state will set turbidity performance requirements for
those systems is a special primacy requirement of the LT1ESWTR. Guidance for this special primacy
requirement is found in Section 4.4 of this document.

3.8  Evaluate the Adequacy of Watershed Control Programs for Cryptosporidium for
Unfiltered Systems
Unfiltered systems must take any additional steps necessary to minimize the potential for contamination
by Cryptosporidium oocysts in the source water. As a minimum, the rule requires a system's watershed
control program to identify watershed characteristics and activities which may have an adverse effect on
source water quality, and monitor the occurrence of activities that may have an adverse affect on source
water quality. These requirements are identical to those included in the IESWTR. Therefore, the same
considerations would likely be included in the watershed control programs for small systems.

In the implementation guidance document for the IESWTR, the types of prevention measures applicable
to Cryptosporidium are discussed. These same measures should be applied to systems subject to the
LT1ESWTR. For IESWTR, EPA considered the types of prevention measures that have been taken to
address Giardia applicable for use to address Cryptosporidium. An onsite assessment of each watershed
may be needed to determine if additional steps are needed. Additional considerations which may be
appropriate for Cryptosporidium include:

       Standard disinfection practices and disinfectant residuals effective for inactivation of Giardia
       may not be effective against Cryptosporidium so minimizing the potential for their occurrence in
       a watershed is the main barrier providing public health protection.

    •   Animal agriculture as a non-point source of Cryptosporidium has been implicated as the source of
       waterborne disease outbreaks. Mitigation measures should be in place to eliminate or minimize
       the impacts of range cattle and other domestic animals on the watershed.

    •   Monitoring methods for Cryptosporidium, as well as for Giardia, are limited in precision and
       accuracy and may result in false-negative results in individual samples. Reliance on monitoring to

August 2004                                    60           Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
        indicate that contamination is below a level of concern for finished drinking water is not
        warranted at this time.

As with the SWTR, any system that fails to meet the watershed control requirements for unfiltered
systems must install filtration within 18 months. Systems have until January 1, 2005* to comply with the
updated watershed control requirements. The adequacy of a system's watershed control program is
reviewed by the state or approved third party during annual on-site inspections required under the SWTR.

*The compliance date was changed from January 14, 2005 to January 1, 2005 by the minor corrections rule [69 FR
38850].

3.9  Ensure Training Opportunities are Available - How to Perform Filter Self-
Assessments and Report  Results
Filter self-assessments are triggered by certain monitoring results of individual filter effluent turbidity for
conventional and direct filtration systems. For systems continuously monitoring the combined filter
effluent of two filters to meet the individual filter effluent monitoring provision, both filters must undergo
a self-assessment. The assessment must be completed and reported to the state as completed within 14
days of the event that triggered the requirement to do a filter self-assessment.

The LTIESWTR Turbidity Provisions Technical Guidance Manual (EPA Doc # 816-R-04-007, August
2004) has a chapter dedicated to filter self-assessments; including analysis of a typical filter profile,
hydraulic loading, backwash practices, examining filter media and other issues related to the filter. A
filter self-assessment worksheet is provided in that document to help ensure all applicable items are
addressed. The worksheet is provided here as Table 3.3.

A training video is also available, The LTIESWTR Filter Self-Assessment, which demonstrates how a
filter is evaluated and how conclusions are derived from the process.

While written and video-based materials are available, states may also need on-site training events where
participants are able to perform the steps themselves. Providing opportunities for systems to learn proper
methods is important for several reasons. They are:

•   To ensure meaningful information is collected which can then be acted-on.
•   To ensure the system complies with the regulatory requirements of a self-assessment.
•   To ensure damage is not done to the filter during an improperly performed assessment.

Training opportunities and readily-available technical assistance providers may both be appropriate steps
to ensuring self assessments are completed properly.
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance           61                                    August 2004

-------
             Table 3.2: Sample Individual Filter Self Assessment Worksheet*
Topic
General Filter
Information
Hydraulic Loading
Conditions
Media Conditions
Description
Type (mono, dual, mixed, pressure,
gravity)
Number of filters
Filter/rate control (constant, declining)
Type of flow control (influent weir,
valves)
Surface wash type (rotary, fixed, none)/
air scour
Configuration (rectangular, circular,
square, horizontal, vertical)
Dimensions (length, width, diameter,
height of side walls)
Max depth of water above media
Surface area per filter (ft2)
Average operating flow (mgd or gpm)
Peak instantaneous operating flow (mgd
or gpm)
Average hydraulic surface loading rate
(gpm/ft2)
Peak hydraulic surface loading rate
(gpm/ft2)
Changes in hydraulic loading rate
(gpm/ft2)
Depth, type, uniformity coefficient**,
and effective size**
Media 1**
Media 2** (if applicable)
Media 3** (if applicable)
Presence of mudballs, debris, excess
chemical, cracking, worn media, media
coating
Information
Actual



















Design


















• -.^vi-'V.yy .;:':,
* '- „ , "^'.'/iv^iw,'.
-* '->-/'>„*»•"- -"-
" % *,;-i< v^-'T", •> v.
* i v* ,' 4'

August 2004
62
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Topic
Support
Media/Under-drain
Conditions
Backwash
Practices
Placing a Filter
Back into Service
Rate-of-Flow
Controllers and
Filter Valves
Other
Considerations
Description
Is the support media evenly placed
(deviation <2 inches measured vertically)
in the filter bed?
Type of underdrains
Evidence of media in the clearwell or
plenum
Evidence of boils during backwash
Backwash initiation (head loss,
turbidity/particle counts, time)
Sequence (surface wash, air scour, flow
ramping, filter-to-waste)
Duration (minutes) of each step
Introduction of wash water (via pump,
head tank, distribution system pressure)
Backwash rate (gpm/ft2) at each step
Bed expansion (percent)
Dose of coagulants or polymers added to
wash water
Backwash termination (time, backwash
turbidity, visual inspection, or other)
Backwash SOP (exists and current)
Delayed start, slow start, polymer
addition, or filter to waste
Leaking valves
Malfunction rate of flow control valves
Equal flow distribution to each filter
Chemical feed problems
Rapid changes in raw water quality
Turbidimeters (calibrated)
Other
1
Information
Actual





















Design


,rf* * a "& ~ «, <' *f° '»











T i v V" vVi= >. " f'°*
,.'4 ,'„ >^"iC5ft'ljii; Wii;
•' ,. •; f.°K::^"-^'-T?5Sl'^-.'3*p
-------
3.10 Obtain and Maintain Expertise to Perform CPEs
The rule requires systems to arrange to have either the state or a third-party approved by the state perform
a Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE) if triggered by certain individual filter effluent
monitoring results for conventional and direct filtration systems. The IESWTR also included this
requirement so state programs may have already met this need.

A handbook is available which describes the CPE process (as part of a Composite Correction Program),
Optimizing Water Treatment Plant Performance using the Composite Correction Program. EPA/625/6-
91/027. In addition, EPA sponsors several training events each year for state and EPA Regional Staff on
performing CPEs. While performance problems may affect systems of any size, the large number of small
systems subject to the LT IESWTR increases the likelihood a CPE will be triggered. A larger resource
pool may therefore be necessary to meet system needs once the individual filter effluent turbidity triggers
are in effect.

Included in Appendix C is a pamphlet entitled Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE) - The
Basics, which can help states in approving third parties to perform CPEs for systems.

3.11  Evaluate Monthly Filter Performance Reports
Because the reporting requirements for combined filter effluent and individual filter effluent turbidity are
the same for both the IESWTR and LT IESWTR, states may choose to use the same data reporting forms
for all systems regardless of whether they are subject to the IESWTR or LT IESWTR. It is expected states
already have reporting forms or policies on reporting formats available for system use.

The LTIESWTR Turbidity Provisions Technical Guidance Manual (EPA Doc # 816-R-04-007, August
2004) includes Example Report Forms, reproduced here as Figures 3.2  and 3.3. States are not required to
use these forms. Figure 3.4 provides an example of interpreting a completed form.

In the following pages are worksheets that can be used to collect data to be submitted to the State.
Systems should check with the State before using these worksheets to make sure they are acceptable.

Figure 3.2 is a monthly report for combined filter effluent in conventional and direct filtration plants.
The worksheet tracks  the number of samples per day, maximum daily combined filter effluent, number of
turbidity measurements, number of turbidity measurements <= 0.3 NTU, and number of turbidity
measurements > 1 NTU.  The worksheet will then total the number of turbidity measurements, the
number of turbidity measurements <= 0.3 NTU, and the number of turbidity measurements > 1 NTU.
The worksheet then finds the percentage of turbidity measurements that meet the specified limits.

Figure 3.3 is a monthly summary report of data for individual filter effluent in conventional and direct
filtration plants. This worksheet tracks the filter #, whether or not 15 minute turbidity values were
recorded, and the values of turbidity measurements where two or more  consecutive 15-minute turbidity
readings were greater than 1.0 NTU. It also tracks the values of turbidity measurements > 2.0 NTU for
two or more consecutive  15- minute readings.
August 2004                                    64           Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Figure 3.2: Example CFE Reporting Form for Conventional or Direct Filtration For
                                  Combined Filter Effluent

                          CONVENTIONAL AND DIRECT FILTRATION PLANTS
                        MONTHLY REPORT FOR COMBINED FILTER EFFLUENT
                                  Due by the 10th of the Following Month
                   Check with your state or Primacy Agency to make sure this form is acceptable
 Month:                                     System/Treatment Plant:
 Year:
 PWSID:
A
Day
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

B
Number of Samples
Required Per Day
* >&SB^NNStev "•*. •
































C1
Maximum Combined
Filter Effluent
I't^f ''{('"VKt •„ 'i ' '































Totals:
D2
No. of Turbidity
Measurements

































E
No. of
Turbidity Measurements
<= 0.3NTU

































F
No. of
Turbidity Measurements
>1NTU

































Number of monthly readings (Total of Column D)=     	
Number of monthly readings <= 0.3 NTU (Total of Column E)  =   	
The percentage of turbidity measurements meeting the specified limits = (Column E/Column D) x 100=
     Record the date and turbidity value for any measurements exceeding 1 NTU (Contact state within 24 hours)
              If none, enter "None".
Prepared by:
Date:
Date



Turbidity Readings > 1 NTU



Was individual filter effluent monitored continuously (at least every 15 minutes) during the month?
Yes                       No

-------
Notes:
1.   To complete Column B, enter the number of required samples for the day based on hours of plant
    operation or as allowed by the state.  Systems that do not operate 24 hours per day will need to check
    with their state on required sampling frequency.
      ) complete Column C, report the highest combined filter effluent turbidity value of those recorded
      the four-hour intervals. Sampling locations which would satisfy combined filter effluent
      r*i-ft-t*c\-rv\ar\4-a -n-i/^lnrlfa*
2.   To
    at
    requirements include:
    a.  A:
         . sample point which represents the combined filter effluent prior to entry into a clearwell;

    b.  The plant effluent immediately prior to entry into a distribution system; or,

    c.  Other sampling locations approved by the state.

3.  To complete Column D, enter the number of turbidity measurements taken each day, not the actual
    turbidity values obtained.
August 2004                                     66          Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
 Figure 3.3: Example IFE Reporting Form for Conventional or Direct Filtration For
                                   Individual Filter Effluent

                          CONVENTIONAL AND DIRECT FILTRATION PLANTS
                    MONTHLY REPORT OF DATA FOR INDIVIDUAL FILTER EFFLUENT
                   Check with your state or Primacy Agency to make sure this form is acceptable.
                     Year:                          System Name:
                     PWSID:                        Filter Number:
A
Date















B
Were 15-minute Turbidity
Values Recorded?















C
Values of Turbidity
Measurements >1.0 NTU for
two or more consecutive 15-
minute readings















D2
Values of Turbidity
Measurements > 2.0 NTU
for two consecutive 15-
minute readings















Did the filter exceed 1.0 NTU in two or more consecutive 15-minute readings this month?       No     Yes - Report to the
state by the 10th of the following month the filter number(s), corresponding date(s), and turbidity value(s) which exceeded 1.0
NTU.
Did this occur in two previous months? ?   No  Yes - Must conduct a filter self-assessment.

Did the filter exceed 2.0 NTU in two or more consecutive 15-minute readings this month? ?
occur in the previous month? ?   No  Yes - Must arrange for a CPE.
No
Yes - Did this

-------
Notes:

This worksheet can be used for multiple months as a recordkeeping tool for the system. The system may
want to modify this sheet to allow daily recording of individual filter effluent turbidity monitoring and the
system could use a new worksheet each month.

A.  Enter the date in this column.

B.  System must report by the 10th of the following month that the individual filter effluent turbidity was
    continuously monitored.

C.  Enter number of incidents where two ore more consecutive 15-minute turbidity readings for an
    individual  filter exceeded 1.0 NTU. The system must report to the state the filter number,
    corresponding date(s), and turbidity values(s) which exceeded 1.0 NTU for two consecutive 15-
    minute measurements each month by the 10th of the following month.

D.  Enter the number of incidents where two or more consecutive 15-minute turbidity readings for an
    individual  filter exceeded 2.0 NTU.
August 2004                                     68          Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Figure 3.4: Example CFE Reporting Form for Conventional or Direct Filtration For
                     Combined Filter Effluent - Completed
                                EXAMPLE 4-1
                                 ND'tDiRECTFILTRATION PLANTS
                MONTHLY RlPOJ^ FOR COMBINED FILTER EFFLUENT
                      Due by the 10th of the Following Month
 Month:Sept
 Year:2005
 IPWSID:
 System/Treatment Plant:Townville
Treatment Type:Conv	
!# of Filters: 4           	
CHECK ONE
   X Community
     Non-Community
A
Day
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

B
Operating
Time
••
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24

C
Influent
Water Treated
m^m
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000

D
Raw
•
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0

E
Treated
•i
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0

F
Raw
•
5
5
7
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

G
Coagulant
Name:
Alum
••
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

H
Coagulant
Name:
mm
































I
Maximum
Combined
Rlter
Effluent
mm
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Totals:
J
No. of
Turbidity
Measur.
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
186
K
No. of
Turbidity
Measur. <=
0.3 NTU
6
6
5
5
6
6
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
182
L
No. of
Turbidity
Measur.
>1 NTU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


-------
When evaluating the monthly reporting forms, data should be reviewed for compliance with the system-
specific treatment technique requirements. Systems are required to report certain CFE and IFE
information to the state by the 10th of the following month. The example forms provided as Figures 3.3
and 3.4 have columns where trigger data is clearly identified. If other forms are used, states should
consider how the data recorded will clearly indicate a trigger or violation.

Other actions that are not required by the rule but that states may wish to implement in the event a trigger
occurs include the following:

•   If individual filter turbidity exceeds 1.0 NTU in 2 consecutive recordings 15 minutes apart...

    While the system must report the cause of the exceedance if known, reporting of corrective
    measures to prevent reoccurrence is not required, but may be requested by the state. If the cause
    is not known, the rule does not specify what must be done. A technical assistance visit may be
    conducted to help identify potential causes, or to assist with development of a filter profile. (Filter
    profiles are required for this trigger for systems subject to the IESWTR.)  A filter profile is a plot
    of individual filter performance, based on continuous turbidity measurements or total particle
    counts verses time for an entire filter run, from startup to backwash inclusively, including while
    another filter is being backwashed. Filter profiles can provide information on mid-run
    interruptions. More information on filter profiles is available in the LTIESWTR Turbidity
    Provisions Technical Guidance Manual (EPA Doc # 816-R-04-007, August 2004).

    If an optional filter profile or turbidity data indicate an ongoing problem...

    Systems need not wait for filter self-assessments to be triggered by the rule before doing one.
    Filter self assessments are detailed evaluations of a filter's performance and items that may affect
    its performance. Suggestions for completing the filter self-assessment and interpreting results is
    also available in the LTIESWTR  Turbidity Provisions Technical Guidance Manual (EPA Doc #
    816-R-04-007, August 2004).

3.12 Evaluate Reports of Filter Self-Assessments
Minimum required elements of a filter self assessment are:

    •   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.


Systems are required by the rule to report to the state the date that the self-assessment was triggered and
the date it was completed. However, as an option, states may want to request a copy of the report, be
involved in performance of the assessment and production of the report or schedule a site visit to review
the report with the system immediately after its completion. Items to evaluate would include whether the
problem is correctable with modified operations practices, targeted operator training with implementation
of the training concepts, or if the problem is design-related and not correctable without capital
expenditures.
August 2004                                     70           Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
3.13  Evaluate CPE Reports
CPE reports convey the findings of the evaluation and the factors that limit performance of the filtration
plant - not just the filters themselves. Staff assigned to evaluate these reports and devise follow-up
requirements should be well versed in the operation and design considerations of surface water treatment
facilities, as well as the CPE process. Additional items with a schedule for compliance may be required of
the system as a result of the CPE. The comprehensive technical assistance (CTA) is a combination of
utilizing CPE results as a basis for follow-up, implementing process control priority setting techniques
and maintaining long-term involvement to systematically train staff and administrators. The state must
determine whether a CTA must be conducted based on results of a CPE which indicate the potential for
improved performance, and a finding by the state that the system is able to receive and implement
technical assistance provided through the CTA. During the CTA phase, the system must identify and
systematically address factors limited performance. Therefore, states may wish to implement a process to
track the progress of a system in implementing follow-up actions. Significant deficiencies which affect
the performance of the plant should be evaluated for their immediate risk to public health.

For more information on CPEs and CTAs and the Composite Correction Program (CCP), see Section 4.4.

3.14 Track System Compliance and Implement Enforcement Action
States may wish to use the federally reportable violations for the LT1ESWTR as the basis for
development of the key elements of a tracking system. See Section 5.1.1 for more information on
federally reportable violations.

3.15 Review Disinfection Profiles During Sanitary Surveys
System's disinfection profiles must be retained by the system in graphic form, such as a spreadsheet, and
must be available for review by the state as part of a sanitary survey. States may choose to have systems
submit the profile for review, but this is not required by the LT1ESWTR.

Unless an alternative data set is approved by the state as discussed previously, the disinfection profile is
based on one year of weekly monitoring (on the same calendar day) of the following:

    •    The temperature of the disinfected water at each residual disinfectant concentration sampling
        point during peak hourly flow,

    •    The pH of the disinfected water (if the system uses chlorine) at each residual disinfectant
        concentration sampling point during peak hourly flow,

    •    The disinfectant contact time, and

    •    The residual disinfectant concentration.

Review of this data should address proper sample location, analytical methods used and the form in which
the data are recorded and retained. The system may or may not have also used the data to calculate a
disinfection benchmark. The review could include a determination of whether benchmark calculations
and determinations were performed correctly.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance          71                                    August 2004

-------
3.16 Consult With Systems Regarding Changes in Disinfection Practices
States must include in their special primacy application for the LT1ESWTR a description of how the state
will consult with the system and approve significant changes to disinfection practices. Guidance for this
special primacy requirement is found in Section 4.4 of this document.

3.17  Other Implementation Concerns - Sanitary Surveys
Although the LT1ESWTR contains no sanitary survey provisions, the IESWTR sanitary survey
provisions (142.16)(b)(3)(i) requires states to perform sanitary surveys for all surface water systems,
including systems serving fewer than 10,000 people. States should consider the resource load associated
with identifying and correcting significant deficiencies as a result of the sanitary surveys. Sanitary
surveys must be conducted no less frequently than every three years for CWSs and every five years for
noncommunity systems.

3.18 Area-Wide Optimization Programs Offer Proactive Approaches for
LT1ESTWR Implementation
EPA and state drinking water programs are responsible for oversight of surface water systems which
represent a variety of source water characteristics, plant capabilities, and finished water quality supplied.
State drinking water program resources are often stretched thin while attempting to provide adequate
oversight of public water systems in a jurisdiction. Therefore, states can benefit from implementation of a
process which ensures that systems with the most need obtain the appropriate state oversight.  An Area-
Wide Optimization Program (AWOP) may be used to prioritize water systems for targeted regulatory
oversight and possible technical assistance.  AWOP may be used to provide a process to identify systems
with the highest public health risk and to implement proactive measures to improve performance of lower
performing systems before they fall out of compliance with the LTIESWTR. Participation in an AWOP
is voluntary, however, states and systems that use AWOPs are realizing tangible benefits.

3.18.1 Overview of an Area-Wide Optimization Program

Implementation of an area-wide optimization program utilizes processes designed to  optimize
performance of existing particle removal and disinfection facilities of surface water treatment plants. The
program facilitates water system regulatory compliance while building an awareness of the benefit of
moving beyond regulatory requirements by optimizing treatment processes and thus increasing public
health protection.  AWOP activities focus on optimization of existing treatment processes utilizing more
effective process control, which will often limit the need for major capital expenditures.

Under AWOP, a state develops its own criteria to prioritize surface water systems relative to indicators of
public health risk (e.g. turbidity removal performance, population served, violations, etc.).  The state then
uses the criteria to rank its surface water systems. This ranking provides a framework for effectively
applying available resources and appropriate tools to  the surface water treatment systems within a defined
area. As an example, a state may choose its ranking criteria to assure it will focus on plants that have the
greatest problems complying with the regulation.  The process also includes tools that would assist the
state to implement and document plant specific performance improvements, which allows for an
assessment of the results of LT IESWTR oversight activities.
August 2004                                    72           Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
3.18.2  Components of an Area-Wide Optimization Program

To establish an AWOP in a state, the drinking water program activities should be organized to support
three interrelated functional areas of activities.  These areas are:

1.  Status
2.  Targeted Performance Improvement
3.  Maintenance

The intent of these activities is to create an ongoing, dynamic state implementation program that can
respond to variations in surface water treatment plant performance requirements in a proactive and
effective manner.

Status Activities

Status activities currently center around establishing turbidity performance goals that the state will pursue
with its filtration plants.  States work on developing their prioritization criteria they will use to rank and
prioritize their systems. Once established, the state then uses turbidity data and other information
obtained about the participating utilities to prioritize the plants based on their relative public health risk.
This framework allows a state to monitor and assess these plants on a regular basis. Another benefit of
the status activities is that it allows state staff to develop or strengthen relationships with the water
utilities while encouraging them to pursue continuous performance improvement.

Targeted Performance Improvement Activities
                                                                    f
The focus of the targeted performance improvement activities is to assess which of the various assistance
tools is most appropriate to enhance the performance of each treatment plant based on their relative
ranking (as determined by the status activities). In development of an AWOP the states develop new
tools as well as assess how their existing activities can be used to  assist plants with achieving the AWOP
performance goals for the long-term.

A variety of tools are developed or utilized to improve performance at surface water plants. These can
range from inspections to direct technical assistance.  Options for an AWOP include, but are not limited
to, enhanced inspections and surveys, comprehensive performance evaluations (CPEs), performance
based training (PBT), and enforcement. States have the flexibility to incorporate the tools they find most
appropriate given their skill level and resource constraints.  Implementing an AWOP can help states
utilize already existing information and organize it in a way to target oversight activities to achieve long-
lasting improved performance on a system-by-system basis.

Other sources of assistance that do not use state personnel can also be used.  Systems may be encouraged
to join national programs such as the Partnership for Safe Water.  States may also choose to work with
third-party technical assistance providers  to make sure that their assistance complements the AWOP
performance goals.

Maintenance Activities

Maintenance activities center around taking lessons learned from  implementation of the status and
targeted performance improvement activities to integrate with or enhance other related  state programs
(e.g., design reviews, permitting, training activities, inspections, sanitary surveys, etc.).  Any training of
staff on new technical tools could also be included in this activity as well as efforts to sustain capability
and quality control of all AWOP activities.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance           73                                     August 2004

-------
3.18.3 Benefits of Area- Wide Optimization Programs

Those regions and states that have implemented AWOPs have found benefits in three categories.

1 .   Benefits to the effectiveness of the state drinking water programs.
2.   Impacts on the performance of individual systems.
3.   Impact on the performance of systems state-wide.

The following are benefits related to the effectiveness of state drinking water programs:

    1 .  State staff involved in AWOP have enhanced their technical capability and that of other persons
       with whom they interact on other drinking water program activities.

    2.  The tracking of system performance allows state and system staff to see the impact of their
       activities resulting in enhanced motivation and enthusiasm for their jobs. This also allows for
       adjustments to the state allocation of resources when performance is not being improved by
       targeted activities.

    3.  When systems understand the state's expectations of their role in optimization and their status
       relative to public health protection, they often initiate changes that result in improved
       performance.

    4.  AWOP activities provide small systems fundamental tools and knowledge that may help them
       comply with the LT1ESWTR.

    5.  The results of the AWOP activities have had a positive impact on other drinking water program
       activities such as operator training, operator certification, and plans review.

    6.   AWOP activities lead to long-term improvements in plant performance by enhancing the system
       operator's ability to apply new technical concepts.

    7.  A framework is developed that can be used to implement future regulatory requirements (e.g.,
       LT2ESWTR, Stage 2 DBPR, etc.).
Those states that fully implement AWOPs are able to demonstrate improved performance and enhanced
public health protection at filtration plants state-wide. Figure 3-5 shows how AWOP activities have
dramatically improved the performance of two water systems in Kentucky.
August 2004                                     74          Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
       Figure 3-5. AWOP Impacts (Improved Plant Performance in Kentucky)
         100
                  AWOP
            •  Presentations
                    1998
                                       1999
                                                         2000
                                                                           2001
                                                Year
    Data obtained from:
    State of Kentucky. Department of Environmental Protection, Area-Wide Optimization Annual Report for 2000.
    State of Kentucky. Department of Environmental Protection, Area-Wide Optimization Annual Report for 2001.
3.18.4 Potential use of AWOP in LTIESWTR Implementation

For systems subject to the LTIESWTR requirements, AWOP can be an effective and efficient
implementation tool to prioritize assistance resources and focus on the higher risk systems.

A variety of LTIESWTR implementation activities can be integrated into the status, targeted performance
improvement, and maintenance activities of an AWOP. Some examples include the following:

    Identify affected systems and their system-specific requirements

    The status activities are designed to accomplish this activity. State specific ranking criteria can be
    included in the prioritization process to identify which systems need the greatest levels of support.
    This approach also helps to better allocate limited state resources for appropriate assistance to specific
    plants.

    Communicate requirements to the affected systems

    In the status activities plants are informed of performance goals, and their performance relative to the
    prioritization criteria on an ongoing basis. Ongoing communication of the public health implications
    of plant performance is also incorporated through formal and informal activities under the status and
    targeted performance improvement activities of an AWOP.
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
75
August 2004

-------
    Evaluate the adequacy of Watershed Control Programs for Cryptosporidium

    The current models for status activities have focused on plant performance. However, an AWOP is
    flexible and states have the option of increasing the importance of this aspect of public health
    protection and including it in the prioritization matrix to identify those plants with problems related to
    watershed control.

    Ensure training opportunities are available for systems to learn how to perform filter self-assessments
    and report results

    Under AWOP all state training could be assessed as a portion of the maintenance activity. The
    effectiveness of the training provided to the plants under AWOP may be assessed by evaluating those
    plants that received typical state training relative to impacts on the plant's performance.
    Modifications to the training to include AWOP defined priorities could be used to improve all types
    of training provided to the plants.

    Maintain a list of approved third-parties for conducting CPEs and/or develop and maintain state staff
    CPE expertise and availability

    CPEs are one tool currently used as part of targeted performance improvement under AWOP. CPEs
    can also be triggered under LT1ESWTR by individual filter effluent turbidity values that exceed
    certain specified levels. One consideration is what the state's role will be in completing CPEs. Many
    states have chosen to conduct CPEs in their states, but use of third-party providers approved by the
    State is also an option. Third-party CPEs, however, may represent a special challenge to states in that
    the state staff should have a certain level of expertise to properly review and approve third-party
    CPEs.

    Evaluate monthly filter performance reports for combined filter effluent and individual filtered water
    turbidity

    The current model used by most states implementing an AWOP is to collect and enter the daily
    maximum turbidity value for combined filter effluent and individual filter effluent.  These data are
    entered into spreadsheets used to evaluate performance and to provide feedback as to the results of
    the evaluation to the water systems. With some minor modification, required reporting elements of
    the LT1ESWTR can also be incorporated into the AWOP monthly reports (or vice versa) so that all
    of turbidity data used to evaluate the system is captured in one place.

    Evaluate reports of filter self-assessments and determine if additional action is necessary

    Implementation of an AWOP includes utilizing data collected through the  application of optimization
    tools, such as filter self-assessments. Filter self-assessments can also be triggered under LT1ESWTR
    by individual filter effluent turbidity values that exceed certain specified levels. The results of such
    activities can be used to determine the appropriate level of state involvement to maximize public
    health protection.

    Evaluate the results of CPEs and determine what, if any, additional action is necessary to meet the
    CFE turbidity limits

    Performance data collected during a CPE may be continually monitored in an AWOP, allowing a
    state to determine on an ongoing basis if the regulatory turbidity limits set by the LT1ESWTR (or
    more stringent performance goals) are being met.  When a CPE is conducted, and post-CPE
    performance is not sufficient to meet the CFE turbidity limits, the State should evaluate the results of
August 2004                                     76           Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
    the CPE and determine what, if any, additional action should be taken to meet the CFE requirements.
    AWOP provides targeted performance tools to assist in these activities.

    Track regulated system compliance progress and implement LT1ESWTR enforcement action as
    needed

    The AWOP status activities directly address the above areas. The AWOP status activities will allow
    this valuable information to be effectively used to make sure that the systems receive their proper
    relative priority with respect to the other systems and that appropriate targeted performance
    improvement activities are used at the priority systems.
For more information on how to implement an Area Wide Optimization Program contact Jon Bender
(513-569-7227), Rick Lieberman (513-569-7604) or Gwen Wise (513-569-7874) at EPA's Technical
Support Center.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance           77                                    August 2004

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

-------
Section IV
State Primacy Revision
Application

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

-------
40 CFR §142 sets out requirements for states to obtain and/or retain primary enforcement responsibility
(primacy) for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program as authorized by §1413 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The 1996 SDWA Amendments update the process for states to obtain
and/or retain primacy. On April 28, 1998, EPA promulgated the Primacy Rule to reflect these statutory
changes (63 FR 23361).

4.1  State Primacy Program Revision
Pursuant to §142.12, Revision of State Programs, complete and final requests for approval of program
revisions to adopt new or revised EPA regulations must be submitted to the Administrator no later than 2
years after promulgation of the new or revised federal regulations (see Figure 4.1). Until those
applications are approved, EPA Regions have responsibility for directly implementing the LT1ESWTR.
The state and EPA can agree to implement the rule together during this period. However, if a state is
eligible for interim primacy, once it submits a complete and final revision package, it will have full
implementation and enforcement authority. A state may be granted an extension of time, up to two years,
to submit its application package. During any extension period, an extension agreement outlining the
state's and EPA's responsibilities is required.

  Figure 4.1: State Rule Implementation and Revision Timetable for LT1ESWTR
EPA/State Action
Rule published by EPA
State and Region establish a process and agree upon a schedule for application
review and approval (optional)
State, at its option, submits draft program revision package including:
• Preliminary Approval Request
• Draft State Regulations and/or Statutes
• Regulation Crosswalk
Regional (and Headquarters if necessary) review of draft
State submits final program revision package including:
Adopted State Regulations
Regulation Crosswalk
40 CFR 142.10 Primacy Update Checklist
40 CFR 142.14 and 142.15 Reporting and Recordkeeping
40 CFR 142.16 Special Primacy Requirements
Attorney General's Enforceability Certification
EPA final review and determination:
• Regional review (program and ORC)
• Headquarters concurrence and waivers (OGWDW and OECA)***
• Public Notice
• Opportunity for hearing
• EPA's Determination
Rule Compliance Date
Time Frame
January 14, 2002
March 2002
(suggested)
July 2002
(Suggested)
Completed within 90 days
of state submittal of Draft
(Suggested)
By January 14,2004*
Completed within 90 days
of state submittal of final
package
45 days Region
45 days Headquarters**
January 1, 2005***
* EPA suggests submitting an application by October 2003, to ensure timely approval. EPA regulations allow until
January 14, 2004 for this submittal. An extension of up to 2 additional years may be requested by the state.
** At least one primacy package per Region.
*** Except where otherwise noted. The compliance date was changed from January 14, 2005 to January 1, 2005 by
the minor corrections rule [69 FR 38850].
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
81
August 2004

-------
4.1.1 The Revision Process

The approval of state program revisions is recommended to be a two-step process comprised of
submission of a draft request (optional) and then submission of a complete and final request for program
approval. Figure 4.2 diagrams these processes and their timing.

Draft Request—At the state's option, it may submit a draft request for EPA review and tentative
determination. The request should contain drafts of all required primacy application materials (with the
exception of a draft Attorney General's Statement). A draft request should be submitted by nine months
after rule promulgation. EPA will make a tentative determination on whether the state program meets the
applicable requirements. The tentative determination should be made within 90 days.

Complete and Final Request—This submission must be in accordance with §142.12(c)(l) and (2) and
include the Attorney General's statement. The state should also include its response to any comments
and/or program deficiencies identified in the tentative determination (if applicable). Regions should make
states aware that submission of only a final request may make it more difficult for the states to address
any necessary changes within the allowable time for state rule adoption.

EPA recommends that states submit their complete and final revision package within 21 months of rule
promulgation. This will ensure that states will have interim primacy as soon as possible and will prevent
states from becoming backlogged with revision applications to adopt future federal requirements.

The state and Region should agree to a plan and timetable for submitting the state primacy revision
application as soon as possible after rule promulgation—ideally within five months of promulgation.

4.1.2 The Final Review Process

Once a state application is complete and final, EPA has a regulatory (and statutory) deadline of 90 days to
review and approve or disapprove of the revised program. The Offices of Ground Water and Drinking
Water (OGWDW) and Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) will conduct detailed reviews of
the first state package from each Region. The Region should submit their comments with the state's
package for Headquarters'  review. When the Region has identified all significant issues, OGWDW and
OECA will waive concurrence on all other state programs in that Region, although HQ will retain the
option to review additional state programs as appropriate. The Office of General Counsel (OGC) has
delegated its review and approval to the Office of Regional Counsel (ORC).

In order to meet the 90-day deadline for packages undergoing Headquarters' review, the review period
will be equally split giving both the Regions and Headquarters 45 days to conduct their respective
reviews. For the first package in each Region, Regions should forward copies of the primacy revision
applications to the Drinking Water Protection  Division Director in OGWDW, who will take the lead on
the review process. OGWDW will provide OECA with a copy for their concurrent review. OECA will
concur on OGWDW approvals.
August 2004                                     82           Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
            Figure 4.2:  Recommended Review Process for State Request for Approval of Program Revisions
                              State Request for
                            Extension §142.12(b)
                                                       EPA Promulgates the
                                                           LT1ESWTR
                                                    Establish Process and Tentative
                                                       Schedule for State Rule
                                                            Approval
                                                     State Submits Draft Primacy
                                                     Revision Application to EPA
                                                     (optional) § 142.12(d)(l)(i)
  EPA Review and Tentative
Determination (suggested within
   90days)§142.12(d)(l)(ii)
                                                     State Submits Complete and
                                                       Final Primacy Revision
                                                        Application to EPA
                                                          §142.12(d)(2)
                                                                                           Timeline
                                                                                             Start
                               Jan 14, 2002
                               March 2002
                                July 2002
                              By Jan. 14,
                              2004
                                                   EPA Review and Determination
                                                    (within 90 days) §142.12(d)(3)
2 Months
6 Months
By 24 Months
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                  83
                              August 2004

-------
4.2  State Primacy Program Revision Extensions
4.2.1 The Extension Process

Under §142.12(b), states may request that the 2-year deadline for submitting the complete and final
packages for EPA approval of program revisions be extended for up to 2 additional years in certain
circumstances. The extension request must be submitted to EPA within 2 years of the date that EPA
published the regulation. The Regional Administrator has been delegated authority to approve extension
applications. Headquarters concurrence on extensions is not required.

Therefore, the state must either adopt regulations pertaining to the LT1ESWTR and submit a complete
and final primacy revision application or request an extension of up to 2 years by January 14, 2004.

4.2.2   Criteria that an Extension Request Must Meet

For an extension to be granted under §142.12(b), the state  must demonstrate that it is requesting the
extension because it cannot meet the original deadline for reasons beyond its control, despite a good faith
effort to do so. A critical part of the extension application is the state's proposed schedule for submission
of its complete and final request for approval of a revised primacy program. The application must also
demonstrate at least one of the following:

    (i)  That the state currently lacks the legislative or regulatory authority to enforce the new or revised
        requirements; or,

    (ii)  That the state currently lacks the program capability adequate to implement the new or revised
        requirements; or,

    (iii)    That the state is requesting the extension to group two or more program revisions in a single
           legislative or regulatory action.

In addition, the state must be implementing the EPA requirements to be adopted in its program revision
within the scope of its current authority and capabilities.

4.2.3 Conditions  of the Extension

Until the State Primacy Revision Application has been submitted, the state  and appropriate EPA Regional
office will share responsibility for implementing the primary program elements as indicated in the
extension agreement. The state and the EPA Regional office should discuss these elements, and address
terms of responsibility in the agreement.

These conditions will be determined during the extension approval process and are decided on a case-by-
case basis. The conditions must be included in an extension agreement between the state and the EPA
Regional office.

Conditions of an extension agreement may include:

    •   Informing PWSs of the new EPA (and upcoming state) requirements and that the Region will be
        overseeing implementation of the requirements until they approve the state program revisions or
        until the state submits a complete and final revision package if the state qualifies for interim
        primacy;
August 2004                                     84          Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
    •   Collecting, storing and managing laboratory results, public notices, and other compliance and
        operation data required by the EPA regulations;

    •   Assisting the Region in the development of the technical aspects of enforcement actions and
        conducting informal follow-up on violations (telephone calls, letters, etc.);

    •   Providing technical assistance to public water systems;

    •   For states whose request for an extension is based on a current lack of program capability
        adequate to implement the new requirements, taking steps agreed to by the Region and the state
        during the extension period to remedy the deficiency;

    •   Providing the Region with all the information required under § 142.15 on state reporting.

Figure 4.3 provides a checklist the Region can use to review state extensions or to create an extension
agreement.

Until states have primacy, EPA is the primacy enforcement authority. However, historically states have
played a role in implementation for various reasons - most importantly, since states have the local
knowledge and expertise and have established relationships with their systems.

The state and EPA should be viewed 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 primacy, including interim primacy, for the rule. In order to accomplish these goals,
education, training, and technical assistance will need to be provided to water suppliers on their
responsibilities under the LT1ESWTR.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance           85                                     August 2004

-------
                        Figure 4.3: Extension Request Checklist
{Regional Administrator}
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA Region {Region}
{Street Address}
{City. State. Zip}

RE: Request/approval for an Extension Agreement
Dear {Regional Administrator}:

    The State of {State} is requesting an extension to the date that final primacy revisions are due to EPA
for the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR) until {insert date - no later
than January 2006}, as allowed by 40 CFR 142.12 and would appreciate your approval. Staff of the
{State Department/Agency} have conferred with your staff and has agreed to the requirements  listed
below for this extension. This extension is being requested because the State o

Q  Is planning to group two or more program revisions into a single legislative or regulatory action.

Q  Currently lacks the legislative or regulatory authority to enforce the new or revised requirements.
Q  Currently lacks adequate program capability to implement the new or revised requirements.

    {State Department/Agency} will be implementing the LT1ESWTR within the scope of its current
authority and capability as outlined in the six areas identified in 142.12(b)(3)(i-vi):

i)  Informing PWSs of the new EPA (and upcoming state) requirements and that EPA will  be
overseeing implementation of the requirements until EPA approves the state revision.

State   EPA
	   	  Provide copies of regulation and guidance to other state agencies, PWSs, technical
              assistance providers, associations, or other interested parties.
	   	  Educate and coordinate with state staff, public water supplies (PWSs), the public, and
              other water associations about the requirements of this regulation
	   	  Notify affected systems of their requirements under the LT1ESWTR.
	   	  Other

ii) Collecting, storing and managing laboratory results, public notices, and other compliance  and
operation data required by the EPA regulations.

State   EPA
	   	  Devise a tracking system for PWS reporting pursuant to the LT1ESWTR.
	   	  Keep states informed of SDWIS reporting requirements during development and
              implementation.
	   	  Report LT1ESWTR violation and enforcement information to SDWIS as required.
	   	  Other
August 2004                                    86          Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
iii) Assisting EPA in the development of the technical aspects of the enforcement actions and
conducting informal follow-up and violations (telephones calls, letters, etc.).

State   EPA
	   	   Issue notices of violation (NOVs) for treatment technique and monitoring/reporting
               violations of the LT1ESWTR
	   	   Provide immediate technical assistance to PWSs with treatment technique and/or
               monitoring/reporting violations to try to bring them into compliance.
	   	   Refer all violations to EPA for enforcement if they have not been resolved within 60 days
               of the period that triggered the violation. Provide information as requested to conduct and
               complete any enforcement action referred to EPA.
	   	   Other
iv) Providing technical assistance to public water systems.

State   EPA
	   	   Conduct training within the state for PWSs on LT1ESWTR rule requirements.
	   	   Provide technical assistance through written and/or verbal correspondence to PWSs.
               Provide on-site technical assistance to PWSs as requested and needed to ensure
               compliance with this regulation.
	   	   Coordinate with other technical assistance providers and organization to provide accurate
               information and aid in a timely manner.
	   	   Other
v) Providing EPA with all information prescribed by the State Reporting Requirements in 142.15.

State  EPA
	  	   Report any violations incurred by PWSs for these regulations each quarter.
	  	   Report any enforcement actions taken against PWSs for these regulations each quarter.
	  	   Report any variances or exemptions granted for PWSs for these regulations each quarter.
	  	   Other
vi) For states whose request for an extension is based on a current lack of program capability to
implement the new or revised requirements agrees to take the following steps to remedy the
capability deficiency.

State  EPA
	  	  Acquire additional resources to implement these regulations (List of specific steps being
              taken attached as {List A}).
	  	  Provide quarterly updates describing the status of acquiring additional resources.
	  	  Other
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance           87                                     August 2004

-------
I affirm that the {State Department/Agency} will implement provisions of the Long Term 1 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR) as outlined above.
{Agency Director or Secretary}                                          Date
{Name of State Agency}
I have consulted with my staff and approve your extension for the aforementioned regulation. I affirm that
EPA Region (Region} will implement provisions of the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule (LT1ESWTR) as outlined above.
Regional Administrator                                    Date
EPA Region {Region}
This Extension Agreement will take effect upon the date of the last signature.
August 2004                                   88          Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
4.3  State Primacy Package
The Primacy Revision Application package should consist of the following sections:
   Q  State Primacy Revision Checklist
   Q  Text of the State' s Regulation
   G  Primacy Revision Crosswalk
   G  State Reporting and Recordkeeping Checklist
   Q  Special Primacy Requirements
   Q  Attorney General's Statement of Enforceability

4.3.1 The State Primacy Revision Checklist (40 CFR 142.12(c)(l))

This  section is a checklist of general primacy requirements, taken from 40 CFR 142.10, as shown in
Figure 4.4. In completing this checklist, the state must identify the program elements that it has revised in
response to new Federal requirements. If an element has been revised the state should indicate a "Yes"
answer in the second column next to the list of program elements and should submit appropriate
documentation. For elements that need not be revised, the state need only list the citation and date of
adoption in the second column. During the application review process, EPA will insert findings and
comments in the third column.

Rule Bundling—States may bundle the primacy revision packages for multiple rules. If states choose to
bundle requirements, the Attorney General's Statement should reference all of the rules included.

4.3.2 Text of the State's Regulation

Each primacy application package should include the text of the state regulation.

4.3.3 Primacy Revision Crosswalk

The Primacy Revision Crosswalk, found in Appendix A, should be completed by states in order to
identify state statutory or regulatory provisions that correspond to each Federal requirement. If the state's
provisions differ from Federal requirements, the state should explain how its requirements are "no less
stringent."
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance          89                                    August 2004

-------
                      Figure 4.4:  State Primacy Revision Checklist
Required Program Elements
§142.10
§142.10(a)
§142.10(b)(l)
§142.10(b)(2)
§142.10(b)(3)
§142.10(b)(4)
§142.10(b)(5)
§142.10(b)(6)(i)
§142.10(b)(6)(ii)
§142.10(b)(6)(iii)
§142.10(b)(6)(iv)
§142.10(b)(6)(v)
§142.10(b)(6)(vi)
§142.10(b)(6)(vii)
§142.10(c)
§142.10(d)
§142.10(e)
§142.10(f)
Primary Enforcement
>• Definition of Public Water System*
Regulations No Less Stringent
Maintain Inventory
Sanitary Survey Program
Laboratory Certification Program
Laboratory Capability
Plan Review Program
Authority to apply regulations
Authority to sue in courts of competent
jurisdiction
Right of Entry
Authority to require records
Authority to require public notification
Authority to assess civil and criminal
penalties
Authority to require Consumer
Confidence Reports (CCRs)
Maintenance of Records
Variance/Exemption Conditions (if
applicable)**
Emergency Plans
Administrative Penalty Authority*
Revision to State
Program


















EPA
Findings/Comments


















* New requirement from the 1996 Amendments. Regulations published in the April 28, 1998 Federal Register.
** New regulations published in the August 14, 1998 Federal Register.

4.3.4 State Reporting and Recordkeeping Checklist (40 CFR 142.14 and 142.15)

The LT1ESWTR does not add any state reporting requirements, but does include six state recordkeeping
requirements.

The state should use the Primacy Revision Crosswalk in Appendix A to demonstrate that the state
recordkeeping requirements are consistent with federal requirements.

The Primacy Revision Corsswalk includes state recordkeeping requirements indicating that the state must
keep:

•   Records of turbidity measurements 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, 141.550-141.553, and 141.560-141.564.
August 2004
90
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
    Records of disinfectant residual measurements and other parameters necessary to document
    disinfection effectiveness in accordance with §§141.72 and 141.74 and the reporting requirements of
    §§141.75, 141.175, and 141.570, for not less than one year. .

•   Records of decisions made on a system-by-system and case-by-case basis under provisions of part
    141, subpart H, subpart P, or subpart T, in writing and kept by the state.

    Records of systems consulting with the state concerning a modification to disinfection practice under
    §§141.170(d),  141.172(c), and 141.542 of this chapter, including the status of the consultation.

•   Records of decisions that a system using alternative filtration technologies, as allowed under
    §§141.173(b) and §141.552 of this chapter, can consistently achieve a 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. 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.

•   Records of systems required to do filter self-assessment, CPE, or CCP under the requirements of
    §§141.175 and 141.563 of this chapter.

4.3.5 Special Primacy Requirement (40 CFR 142.16)

Section 4.4 provides guidance on how states may choose to meet the Special Primacy Requirements.

4.3.6 Attorney General's Statement of Enforceability (40 CFR 142.12(c)(2))

The complete and final primacy revision application must include an Attorney General's Statement
certifying that the state regulations were duly adopted and are enforceable (unless EPA has waived this
requirement by letter to the state). The Attorney General's Statement should also certify that the state
does not have any audit privilege or immunity laws, or if it has such laws,  that these laws do not prevent
the state from meeting the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. If a state has submitted this
certification with a previous revision package, then the state should  indicate the date of submittal and the
Attorney General need only certify that the status of the audit laws has not changed since the prior
submittal. An example of an Attorney General's Statement is presented in  Figure 4.5.

4.3.6.1  Guidance For States on Audit Privilege and/or Immunity Laws

In order for EPA to properly evaluate the state's request for approval, the state Attorney General or
independent legal counsel should certify that the state's environmental audit immunity and/or privilege
and immunity law does not affect its ability to meet enforcement and information gathering requirements
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This certification should be reasonably consistent with the wording of
the state audit laws and should demonstrate how state program approval criteria are satisfied.

EPA will apply the criteria outlined in its "Statement of Principles"  memo issued on 2/14/97 (See
http://epa.gov/oeca/oppa/pdf/auditimun.pdf) in determining whether states with audit laws have retained
adequate enforcement authority for any authorized federal programs. The principles articulated in the
guidance are based on the requirements of federal law, specifically the enforcement and compliance and
state program approval provisions of environmental statutes and their corresponding regulations. The
principles provide that if provisions of state law are ambiguous, it will be important to obtain opinions
from the state Attorney General or independent legal counsel interpreting the law as meeting specific
federal requirements. If the law cannot be so interpreted, changes to state laws may be necessary to obtain
federal program approval. Before submitting a package for approval, states with audit privilege and/or


Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance           91                                     August 2004

-------
immunity laws should initiate communications with appropriate EPA Regional Offices to identify and
discuss the issues raised by the state's audit privilege and/or immunity law.

                  Figure 4.5: Example of Attorney General's Statement
 Model Language

 I hereby certify, pursuant to my authority as (1) and in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act as amended,
 and (2). that in my opinion the laws of the [State / Commonwealth of (3)1 [or tribal ordinances of (4}] to carry out
 the program set forth in the "Program Description" submitted by the (5) have been duly adopted and are
 enforceable. The specific authorities provided are  contained in statutes or regulations that are lawfully adopted at
 the time this Statement is approved and signed, and will be fully effective by the time the program is approved.
 Model Language

 I.  For States with No Audit Privilege and/or Immunity Laws

 Furthermore, I certify that [State / Commonwealth of £3}] has not enacted any environmental audit privilege
 and/or immunity laws.


 II.  For States with Audit Laws that do Not Apply to the State Agency Administering the Safe Drinking
     Water Act

 Furthermore, I certify that the environmental [audit privilege and/or immunity law] of the [State / Commonwealth
 of £3}] does not affect (3) ability to meet enforcement and information gathering requirements under the Safe
 Drinking Water  Act because the [audit privilege and/or immunity law] does not apply to the program set forth in
 the "Program Description." The Safe Drinking Water Act program set forth in the "Program Description" is
 administered by (5); the [audit privilege and/or immunity law] does not affect programs implemented by (5). thus
 the program set forth in the "Program Description" is unaffected by the provisions of [State / Commonwealth of
 (3)1 [audit privilege and/or immunity law].
 III. For States with Audit Privilege and/or Immunity Laws that Worked with EPA to Satisfy
     Requirements for Federally Authorized, Delegated or Approved Environmental Programs

 Furthermore, I certify that the environmental [audit privilege and/or immunity law] of the [State / Commonwealth
 of (3}] does not affect (3) ability to meet enforcement and information gathering requirements under the Safe
 Drinking Water Act because [State / Commonwealth of (3)] has enacted statutory revisions and/or issued a
 clarifying Attorney General's Statement to satisfy requirements for federally authorized, delegated or approved
 environmental programs.

 Seal of Office
             Signature
             Name and Title
             Date

 (1) State Attorney General or attorney for the primacy agency if it has independent legal counsel

 (2) 40 CFR 142.1 l(a)(7)(i) for initial primacy applications or 142.12(c)(l)(iii) for primacy program revision
     applications.

 (3) Name of State or Commonwealth

 (4) Name of Tribe
 (5) Name of Primacy Agency
August 2004                                      92            Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
4.4  Guidance for the Special Primacy Requirements of the LT1ESWTR
This section contains information and guidance states can use when addressing the special primacy
requirements of the LT1ESWTR. The guidance addresses special primacy conditions in the same order
that they occur in the rule.

States should note that, in several sections, the guidance makes suggestions and offers alternatives that go
beyond the minimum requirements indicated by reading the subsections of §142.16. EPA does this to
provide states with information and/or suggestions that may be helpful to states' implementation efforts.
Such suggestions are prefaced by "may" or "should" and are to be considered advisory. They are not
required elements of states' applications for program revision.

§142.16 Special primacy requirements, (p): Requirements for states to adopt  40 CFRpart 141, subpart
T Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection - Systems Serving Fewer than 10,000 People. In addition to the
general primacy requirements enumerated elsewhere in this part, including the  requirements that state
provisions are no less stringent than the federal requirements, an application for approval of a state
program revision that adopts 40 CFRpart 141, subpart T Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection  - Systems
Serving Fewer than  10,000 People,  must contain the information specified in this paragraph:

(1) Enforceable requirements: States must have rules or other authority to require systems to participate
in a Comprehensive Technical Assistance (CTA) activity, the performance improvement phase of the
Composite  Correction Program (CCP). The state must determine whether a  CTA must be conducted
based on results of a CPE which indicate the potential for improved performance, and a finding  by the
state that the system is able to receive and implement technical assistance provided through the CTA. A
CPE is a thorough review and analysis of a system'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. During the CTA phase, the system must
identify and systematically address factors limiting performance. The CTA is a combination of utilizing
CPE results as a basis for follow-up, implementing process control priority-setting techniques and
maintaining long-term involvement  to systematically train staff and administrators.

Guidance

This special primacy requirement can be satisfied by a description of statutes, rules, and other authority
the state can use to require PWSs to participate in a comprehensive technical assistance (CTA). EPA
strongly encourages states not to rely exclusively on imminent and substantial endangerment authority to
require CTAs because of the difficulty of establishing the existence of imminent and substantial
endangerment in such situations. The appropriate section(s) of each source of authority should be cited
and copies of the written documents must be included in the revision application package. The state
should explain how the authorities will be used to require systems  to participate in CTAs and ensure the
resulting recommendations are implemented. States may also wish to address their authority to take
administrative and/or legal actions and assess penalties.

States should note that this special primacy requirement of the Long Term 1  Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule is intended to ensure that states have authority to require systems to participate in
comprehensive technical assistance  (CTAs) in situations warranted by the results of the CPEs when a
state has also determined that the system is able to receive and implement technical assistance provided
through the CTA. Therefore, states may wish to consider other circumstances under which the
requirement for performing a CPE or CTA might be desirable. States should consider development of
prioritization procedures for targeting systems that need CTAs and should determine what performance-
limiting factors (A, B, or C factors) must be corrected. To obtain the authority to ensure that systems
conduct a CTA when necessary, states may want to add a requirement in their regulations that would
require systems to go through with a CTA when the CPE required by the triggers in §141.563 of the rule
shows that a CTA would be beneficial.

Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance          ~3                                    August 2004

-------
References for more detailed guidance

1.   Optimizing Water Treatment Plant Performance Using the Composite Correction Program, USEPA,
    Revised August 1998, EPA/625/6-91/027.

       Available from:
           Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791


2.   Optimizing Water Treatment Plant Performance Using the Composite Correction Program, USEPA,
    February 1991, EPA/625/6-91/027.

       Available from:
           Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791


3.   Summary Report: Optimizing Water Treatment Plant Performance With the Composite Correction
    Program, USEPA, 1990.

       Available from:
           Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791
August 2004                                   94          Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
§ 142.16 Special primacy requirements, (p):  Requirements for states to adopt 40 CFRpart 141, subpart
TEnhanced Filtration and Disinfection - Systems Serving Fewer than 10,000 People. In addition to the
general primacy requirements enumerated elsewhere in this part, including the requirements that state
provisions are no less stringent than the federal requirements, an application for approval of a state
program revision that adopts 40 CFRpart 141, subpart T Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection, must
contain the information specified in this paragraph: (2) State practices or procedures, (i): Section
141.530 of this chapter—How the state will approve a more representative data set for optional TTHM
and HAAS monitoring and profiling.

Guidance

Section 141.531 allows states to approve a more representative data set for disinfection profiling then the
data set required under 141.532-141.536. EPA believes that request for the use of more representative
data sets are best handled by states on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, to meet this special primacy
requirement, states' applications for primacy revision should demonstrate that each request for use of a
more representative data set for profiling will be evaluated on its merits and approved only when:
    1.  A data set exists or will be collected; and,
    2.  The data set is more representative of the system's disinfection profiling than the data set required
       under 141.532-141.536.

Section 141.531 allows states to determine a system's profile is unnecessary if the system has TTHM and
HAAS levels below 0.064 mg/L for TTHM and 0.048 mg/L for HAA5. This monitoring is optional and
this provision was included  in the rule to reduce the burden of monitoring and producing a disinfection
profile on small systems as compared to large systems. Under the optional monitoring provision, systems
are required to collect at least one sample each for TTHM and HAA5 after January 1, 1998, during the
month with the warmest water temperature and at the point of maximum residence time in the distribution
system. States are required to include in their primacy application a description of how the state will
approve a more representative data set for TTHM and HAA5 optional monitoring. States' applications for
primacy revision should demonstrate that each request for use of a more representative data set will be
evaluated on its merits and approved only when:
    1.  A data set exists or will be collected; and,
    2.  The data set is more representative of the system's optional TTHM and HAAS data set required
       under 141.531, should EPA make the anticipated correction to allow use of such data sets.
References for more detailed guidance

1.   IESWTR Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual, USEPA, 1999.

        Available from:
           Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791

2.   Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct Rules Simultaneous Compliance Guidance Manual, USEPA,
    1999.

        Available from:
           Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791

3.   LT1ESWTR Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Technical Guidance Manual, USEPA, 2003
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance           95                                    August 2004

-------
§ 142.16 Special primacy requirements, (p): Requirements for states to adopt 40 CFRpart 141, subpart
TEnhanced Filtration and Disinfection - Systems Serving Fewer than 10,000 People. In addition to the
general primacy requirements enumerated elsewhere in this part, including the requirements that state
provisions are no less stringent than the federal requirements, an application for approval of a state
program revision that adopts 40 CFRpart 141, subpart T Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection, must
contain the information specified in this paragraph: (2) State practices or procedures, (ii): Section
141.535 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, ozone, or chlorine dioxide for primary disinfection.

Guidance

Section 141.535 of the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule requires systems that use
ozone, chloramines, or chlorine dioxide for primary disinfection to calculate the logs of inactivation of
viruses using a method approved by the state. This calculation is required for a disinfection profile in
addition to the calculation of the logs of inactivation for the Giardia lamblia disinfection profile. It is
required because for these disinfectants, EPA expects greater CT may be necessary to achieve the virus
inactivation required by the SWTR than for inactivation of Giardia lamblia. In their primacy revision
applications, states must describe how  they will approve a method to calculate the logs of inactivation for
viruses. States may want to consult the methodology used for the IESWTR as a reference.

EPA suggests that states refer to the LTIESWTR Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Technical
Guidance Manual (EPA Doc # 816-R-03-004, May 2003), and the Guidance Manual for Compliance
With the Filtration and Disinfection Requirements for Public Water Systems Using Surface Water
Sources (SWTR Guidance Manual) for determining how systems should calculate the logs of inactivation
of viruses, and thus meet this special primacy requirement. Suggested methods of doing so are as follows:

For systems using chloramines as a primary disinfectant

Table E-13 of the SWTR Guidance Manual presents CT values for 2-log, 3-log, and 4-log inactivation of
viruses by chloramine at temperatures ranging from <1° C  to 25° C. The table is appropriate for use by
systems that add chlorine prior to ammonia and, therefore,  get some benefit of a short-lived free chlorine
residual.  The basis for the inactivation  values in Table E-13, is discussed in Appendix F (Section F.2.3
Chloramines) of the SWTR Guidance Manual. Systems that add the two chemicals concurrently, or those
adding ammonia first, have little free chlorine and should not use Table  E-13 but may determine viral
inactivation efficiencies by using the protocol found in Appendix G of the manual.

For systems using chlorine dioxide as a primary disinfectant

Table E-9 of the SWTR Guidance Manual presents CT values for 2-log, 3-log, and 4-log inactivation of
viruses by chlorine dioxide at temperatures ranging from 
-------
Other methods
States may approve other methods for calculation of the logs of inactivation for viruses for systems using
ozone or chloramines. The state must identify in it's primacy revision application how it will approve the
methods. The methods should be adequately explained in the primacy revision application.
References for more detailed guidance

1.   Guidance Manual for Compliance With the Filtration and Disinfection Requirements for Public
    Water Systems Using Surface Water Sources, the American Water Works Association, 1991.

       Available from:
           AWWA
           6666 West Quincy Avenue
           Denver, CO 80235
           or http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/guidsws.pdf

2.   Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual, USEPA, 1999.

       Available from:
           Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791

3. IESWTR Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual, USEPA, 1999

       Available from:
           Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791

4.LT1ESWTR Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Technical Guidance Manual, USEPA, 2003

       Available from:
           Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance          97                                   August 2004

-------
§142.16 Special primacy requirements, (p):  Requirements for states to adopt 40 CFRpart 141, subpart
T Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection - Systems Serving Fewer than 10,000 People. In addition to the
general primacy requirements enumerated elsewhere in this part, including the requirements that state
provisions are no less stringent than the federal requirements, an application for approval of a state
program revision that adopts 40 CFRpart 141, subpart T Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection, must
contain the information specified in this paragraph: (2) State practices or procedures. (Hi): Section
141.542 of this chapter—How the state will consult with the system and approve significant changes to
disinfection practices.

Guidance

Systems that are required to develop disinfection profiles, and that later want to make a significant change
to their disinfection practice, must develop a disinfection  benchmark and consult with the state prior to
making such change. As described in §141.541 of the LT1ESWTR, significant changes include:

    •   Changes to the point of disinfection.

    •   Changes to the disinfectant(s) used in the treatment plant.

    •   Changes to the disinfection process; or

    •   Any other modifications identified by the state. (Examples could include addition of source
        water, pretreatment, changes in contact basin geometry and baffling, or in some instances changes
        in pH).

The disinfection profiling and benchmarking requirements are intended to ensure that systems attempting
to reduce  disinfection byproduct production do not make  changes that cause unintended and unacceptable
increases  in microbial risks. In order for the consultation process to be effective, states should identify all
systems that are required to develop a disinfection profile and provide them with guidance in terms of
when, and under what circumstances, consultation is necessary. It should be noted that the LT1ESWTR
requires approval by the state before any significant changes to disinfection practice is made. States may
use their existing approval processes to approve significant changes (e.g., plan review).

In their applications for primacy revision, states must explain how they will consult with systems to
evaluate changes in disinfection practices and should include what criteria will be used to determine
whether approval would be granted. EPA suggests that states, in the consultation process, consider the
following:

    •   Why the change is being proposed.
    •   The positive impacts of the change.
    •   The negative impacts of the change.
    •   The alternative benchmark.
    •   Are there alternatives that achieve the desired goal and, if so, have they been evaluated?

Criteria that could be considered by the state could include:

    •   The microbial quality of the raw water.
    •   The effectiveness of watershed protection efforts.
    •   The efficacy of the treatment process in removing microbiological contaminants.
    •   Chronic and acute risk trade-offs.
    •   Alternative minimum benchmarks based on water quality.
August 2004                                     98          Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Finally, the state should work with the PWS in an effort to reach a conclusion that considers, weighs, and
balances the risks of microbial contaminants and disinfection byproducts. Ultimately, the state should
make a public-health-based decision using all available information and best professional judgement.
References for more detailed guidance

1.  IESWTR Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual, USEPA, 1999.

        Available from:
           Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791

2.  Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct Rules Simultaneous Compliance Guidance Manual, USEPA,
    1999.

        Available from:
           Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791

3.  LT1ESWTR Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Technical Guidance Manual, USEPA, 2003

        Available from:
           Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance           99                                   August 2004

-------
§142.16 Special primacy requirements, (p): Requirements for states to adopt 40 CFRpart 141, subpart
TEnhanced Filtration and Disinfection - Systems Serving Fewer than 10,000 People. In addition to the
general primacy requirements enumerated elsewhere in this part,  including the requirements that state         <^^
provisions are no less stringent than the federal requirements, an  application for approval of a state           N»J ^
program revision that adopts 40 CFRpart 141, subpart T Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection, must
contain the information specified in this paragraph (2) State practices or procedures, (iv): Section
141.552 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, in combination with disinfection
treatment that meets the requirements of §141.72(b) of this chapter, consistently achieves 99.9 percent
removal and/or inactivation o/Giardia lamblia cysts and 99.99 percent removal and/or inactivation of
viruses, and 99 percent removal o/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 o/Giardia lamblia cysts, 99.99 percent removal and/or inactivation of viruses, and 99
percent removal o/Cryptosporidium oocysts.

Guidance

The SWTR, IESWTR, and LT1ESWTR establish performance standards for several long-established
types of surface water treatment technologies, including conventional treatment, direct filtration, slow
sand filtration, and diatomaceous earth filtration. These technologies, when properly designed and
operated, used in conjunction with disinfection and contact time, and applied to appropriate surface
waters, are capable of protecting against the health risks associated with Giardia lamblia, Legionella,
viruses, Cryptosporidium, and other pathogens. Section 141.552 of the LTIESWTR requires PWSs that
use technologies other than those mentioned to demonstrate to the state that the system's filtration in           ^
combination with disinfection treatment consistently achieves the rule's minimum removal and                ^^
inactivation requirements for Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, and viruses. When the state grants
approval for the use of alternative technologies, it must establish a turbidity performance limit the system
must meet at least 95 percent of the time (not to exceed 1 NTU) and a turbidity limit the system may not
exceed at any time (not to exceed 5 NTU). The state must set the turbidity limits at levels that ensure the
removal and/or inactivation requirements are consistently achieved.

States must, in their primacy revision application for LT IESWTR, describe how they will determine that
a PWS may use an alternative filtration technology if the PWS meets the prerequisites for doing so and
how the state will establish the requisite turbidity performance requirements that the system must meet 95
percent of the time and that the system may not exceed at any time. States may want to consult the
methodology used for the IESWTR as a reference.

Most states have a review and approval process that addresses all  significant modifications to PWSs (not
just alternative technologies). In their review of treatment technologies, states generally consider all
relevant components necessary to provide consistently safe drinking water including raw water quality
and its variability, pretreatment needs, design flow rates, disinfection, storage, monitoring, and operation
and maintenance requirements. Because alternative technologies generally do not have long performance
histories to base approval/permitting decisions upon, states may wish to apply an additional margin of
scrutiny in their review process. The technologies  should be evaluated not only on the basis of finished
water quality, but also with consideration of operational complexities, the potential for cross connections,
redundancy, the ability to handle variable raw water qualities, leaching of contaminants, and long term
reliability. Pilot studies are often necessary to adequately demonstrate that an alternative technology is
appropriate for use at a particular site.                                                                     <^™
                                                                                                        N^uef
Guidance has been developed for states to use in determining how to grant approvals for alternative
technologies. This guidance generally does not address the current concern for Cryptosporidium. The

August 2004                                      TOO          Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
protocols that have been developed and used to assess the performance of technologies in terms of
Giardia lamblia removal may, however, be revised for Cryptosporidium removal evaluations. EPA
recommends that states consider the guidance on these issues presented in Section 4.3.7 and Appendix M
of the SWTR Guidance Manual (reference 3) as well as the Western States Workgroup's Consensus
Protocol for Evaluation and Acceptance of Alternate Surface Water Filtration Technologies in Small
System Applications, 1992 (reference 1). The protocol developed by the Western States Workgroup
establishes a procedure and criteria for evaluation of alternative filtration technologies and should be
particularly useful. The following is an outline of the protocol's procedural steps.

    •   System component evaluation for leaching of contaminants.

    •   Demonstration of Giardia (and Cryptosporidium) removal performance.

        -  Microscopic Particulate Analyses (MPA).

        -  Giardia/Cryptosporidium surrogate particle removal evaluations.

        -  Particle size analysis demonstration for Giardia (and Cryptosporidium) removal credit.

        -  Live Giardia/Cryptosporidium challenge studies.

    •   On-site demonstration of performance effectiveness.

        -  Prior testing of an identical system on a similar water.

        -  Conditional acceptance with a performance bond.

        -  Pilot testing with MPAs,  appropriate monitoring, and final engineering report.

The final step in the process is for states to establish turbidity limits that the system must meet 95 percent
of the time and that the system may not exceed at any time. This was not necessary under the SWTR's
requirements because the limits for alternative technologies defaulted to the performance limits
established for slow sand filtration. When establishing the turbidity performance requirements, states
should give consideration to, among other things, cyst removal efficiencies, potential for interference with
disinfection, potential for interference with bacteriological testing, indicators of treatment failure, and the
technology's redundant components.


References for more detailed guidance

1.   Consensus Protocol for Evaluation and Acceptance of Alternate Surface Water Filtration
    Technologies in Small System Applications, Western States Workgroup, April 1992.

        Available from:
           Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791

2.   State Alternative Technology Approval Protocol, ASDWA/EPA.

        Available from:
           Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791
3.   Guidance Manual for Compliance With the Filtration and Disinfection Requirements for Public
    Water Systems Using Surf ace Water Sources, AWWA, 1991.

Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance           Toi                                     August 2004

-------
       Available from:
           AWWA
           6666 West Quincy Avenue
           Denver, CO 80235
           or http://www.eDa.eov/safewater/mdbD/euidsws.Ddf
August 2004                                   102          Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Section V
SDWIS Reporting and SNC
Definitions

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

-------
5.1  Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Reporting Under the
LT1ESWTR
SDWIS/FED (Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal version) is an EPA national database
storing routine information about the nation's drinking water. Designed to replace the system known as
FRDS (Federal Reporting Data System), SDWIS/FED stores the information EPA needs to monitor
approximately 175,000 public water systems.

States supervise the drinking water systems within their jurisdictions to ensure that each public water
system meets state and EPA standards for safe drinking water. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA)
requires states to report drinking water information periodically to EPA. This information is maintained in
SDWIS/FED.

States report the following information to EPA:

•   Basic information on each water system, including: name, ID number, number of people served, type
    of system (year-round or seasonal), and source of water (ground water or surface water);

•   Violation information for each water system: whether it has followed established monitoring and
    reporting (M/R) schedules, complied with mandated treatment techniques (TT), or violated any
    Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs);

•   Enforcement information: what actions states have taken to ensure that drinking water systems return
    to compliance if they are in violation of a drinking water regulation; and

•   Sampling results for unregulated contaminants and for regulated contaminants when the monitoring
    results exceed the MCL.

EPA uses this information to determine if and when it needs to take action against non-compliant
systems, oversee state drinking water programs, track contaminant levels, respond to public inquiries, and
prepare national reports. EPA also uses this information to evaluate the effectiveness of its programs and
regulations, and to determine whether new regulations are needed to further protect public health.

5.1.1 Federally Reported Violations

Under SDWIS/FED reporting, states only report when violations occur.  In the interest of reducing the
reporting burden on states, EPA has limited the number and type of violations to be reported to
SDWIS/FED. However, PWSs must still keep records and report all required information to the state.
Any violation of the rule, whether included in the accompanying table or not, is a basis for a state or
federal enforcement action.

Table 5.1 summarizes the violation and contaminant codes that will be used to report violations of the
LTlESWTRto SDWIS/FED.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance          105                                   August 2004

-------
       Table 5.1: SDWIS/FED Codes for Federal Reporting Under the LT1ESWTR
Violation
Code
37
43
44
47
Inventory
Code

29
38'

09

06
Contaminant
Code
0300
0300
0300
0300
0300

0300
0300

0300

0300
Treatment Technique (TT) Violations
Failure to profile or consult w/state (disinfection changes)
Combined filter effluent exceeds 1 NTU/state-set maximum requirements
More than 5 percent of monthly combined filter effluent samples exceed 0.3
NTU/state-set maximum requirements
Construction of an uncovered finished water storage facility
Failure to meet Cryptosporidium site specific conditions (unfiltered systems)
Monitoring and Reporting (M/R) Violations
Major: Failure to conduct follow-up activities triggered by individual filter
turbidity exceedances.
Major: Failure to collect and report 90 percent of required combined filter
effluent turbidity samples
Major: Failure to report all individual filter monitoring has been conducted
Minor: Any other failure to monitor or report
Recordkeeping Violations
Failure to maintain the results of individual filter monitoring for at least 3 years
Public Notification (PN) Violation
Failure to notify public after a violation
1. Flag used to denote major or minor
Table 5.2 contains the Federally reportable violations for the LT1ESWTR in more detail. These violations
are listed by contaminant or requirement and violation type. The table includes the SDWIS/FED reporting
codes, the regulatory citation, system type affected, a detailed description of the violation, and the initial
compliance date. This table will allow a user to better understand violations listed in SDWIS. For more
information on how to report LT1ESWTR violations to SDWIS, please refer to the Appendix E.
August 2004
106
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
                                                          i
                                      Table 5.2: Federal Reporting for LTIESWTR
Treatment Technique Violation
SDWIS
Reporting
Code
1
37/0300






43/0300










44/0300










Regulated
Contaminant/
Requirement
2
Disinfection and
Consultation





Filtration










Filtration










Citation
3
§141.530,
§141.532,
§141.536,
§141.540, and
§141.542


§141.551(b)










§14 1.551 (a)










Violation
Type
4
TT






TT










TT










System Size and
Type Affected
5
CWS and NTNC
Subpart H systems
serving fewer than
10,000 people



Subpart H systems
serving fewer than
10,000 using
conventional or direct
filtration

Subpart H systems
serving fewer than
10,000 using
alternative filtration
technologies
Subpart H systems
serving fewer than
10,000 using
conventional or direct
filtration

Subpart H systems
serving fewer than
10,000 using
alternative filtration
technologies
Violation
6
Failure to profile or consult with the state
before making a significant change to a
disinfection practice if required to
develop a disinfection profile



Failure to achieve combined filter
effluent turbidity level that at no time
exceeds 1 NTU if PWS uses conventional
or direct filtration

or

exceedance of the state-set maximum
turbidity performance requirements for
systems using alternative filtration
technologies
Failure to achieve combined filter
effluent turbidity level of 0.3 NTU in 95
percent of monthly measurements if PWS
uses conventional or direct filtration

or

failure to meet the state-set turbidity
performance requirements in 95 percent
of monthly measurements for systems
using alternative filtration technologies
Initial
Compliance Date
7
July 1,2003
(systems serving
500-9,999)

January 1 , 2004
(systems serving
fewer than 500)
January 1,2005










January 1,2005*










Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
107
August 2004

-------
Treatment Technique Violation
SDWIS
Reporting
Code
1
47/0300



Inventory
Code/0300







Regulated
Contaminant/
Requirement
2
Finished Water
Reservoirs


Cryptosporidium








Citation
3
§141.510 and
§141.511


§141.520 and
§141.521







Violation
Type
4
TT



TT








System Size and
Type Affected
5
All Subpart H systems
serving fewer than
10,000 people

All unfiltered Subpart
H systems serving
fewer than 10,000
people





Violation
6
Systems are not allowed to begin
construction of any uncovered finished
water reservoir (reservoir, holding tank,
or other storage facility)
Failure to meet Cryptosporidium site
specific condition requirements - system
must install filtration within 1 8 months.
Do not report a violation, but change the
inventory record/code from "unfiltered
avoiding" to "unfiltered required to
filter". Report a 42 code violation if
filtration has not been installed after 1 8
months.
Initial
Compliance Date
7
March 15, 2002



January 1,2005*








August 2004



  I
108
O
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Monitoring and Reporting Violations
SDWIS
Reporting
Code
1
29/0300




29/0300





29/0300








Regulated
Contaminant/
Requirement
2
Filtration -
Response to
Individual Filter
Trigger

Filtration -
Response to
Individual Filter
Trigger


Filtration -
Response to
Individual Filter
Trigger





Citation
3
§141.563(a)




§141.563(b)





§141.563(c)








Violation
Type
4
M/R
Major



M/R
Major




M/R
Major







System Size and Type
Affected
5
Subpart H systems
serving fewer than
10,000 using
conventional or direct
filtration
Subpart H systems
serving fewer than
10,000 using
conventional or direct
filtration

Subpart H systems
serving fewer than
10,000 using
conventional or direct
filtration




Violation
6
Failure to report to the state by the 10th of
the month following a turbidity
exceedance (> 1 .0 NTU in 2 consecutive
recordings taken 1 5 minutes apart)

Failure to conduct and/or report to the
state a self-assessment of an individual
filter within 1 4 days of a turbidity
exceedance (> 1 .0 NTU in 2 consecutive
recordings taken 1 5 minutes apart in each
of 3 consecutive months)
Failure to have a comprehensive
performance evaluation conducted by the
state or a third party no later than 60 days
after a turbidity exceedance (> 2.0 NTU
in 2 consecutive recordings taken 1 5
minutes apart in 2 consecutive months)
and have the evaluation completed and
submitted to the state no later than 120
days following the exceedance
Initial Compliance
Date
7
January 1,2005*




January 1,2005*





January 1,2005*








Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
109
August 2004

-------
Monitoring and Reporting Violations
SDWIS
Reporting
Code
1
38/0300















38/0300




Regulated
Contaminant/
Requirement
2
Filtration/
combined filter
effluent













Filtration




Citation
3
§141.570(a)















§141.570(b)




Violation
Type
4
M/R
Major
Failure to
collect
and report
at least 90
percent of
required
samples.
M/R
1V1/ JX
Minor
Any other
failure to
monitor or
report.
M/R
Major



System Size and Type
Affected
5
Subpart H systems
serving fewer than
10,000 using
conventional, direct, or
alternative filtration











Subpart H systems
serving fewer than
10,000 using
conventional or direct
filtration
Violation
6
Failure to sample combined filter effluent
for turbidity at required frequency using
required collection and analytical
methods and report the following within
1 0 days after the end of each month the
PWS serves water to the public:
1. total number of samples taken, 2. the
number and percentage of samples less
than or equal to the limits specified in
§141.73, or §141.1551, and §141.173;
and, 3 . date and value of any
measurements over 1 NTU for
conventional or direct filtration or which
exceed the maximum level set by the state
not to exceed 5.0 NTU for alternative
filtration technologies
Failure to report that the system has
conducted all individual filter monitoring
to the state within 1 0 days after the end of
each month

Initial Compliance
Date
7
January 1,2005*















January 1,2005*




August 2004
110
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                                                                                                              O

-------
   f
Recordkeeping Violations
SDWIS
Reporting
Code
1
09/0300

Regulated
Contaminant/
Requirement
2
Filtration

Citation
3
§141.571(a)

Violation
Type
4
Record-
keeping

System Size and
Type Affected
5
Subpart H systems
serving fewer than
10,000 using
conventional or direct
filtration
Violation
6
Failure to maintain the results of
individual filter monitoring for at least 3
years, documenting that the system has
collected and recorded individual filter
results every 1 5 minutes
Initial
Compliance Date
7
January 1,2005*

Public Notification Violations
SDWIS
Reporting
Code
1
06/0300





Regulated
Contaminant/
Requirement
2
Filtration and
Disinfection




Citation
3
§14 1.202 and 203





Violation
Type
4
PN





System Size and
Type Affected
5
All Subpart H
serving fewer than
10,000 people



Violation
6
Failure to notify public and use approved
public notification language when there is
a violation of the treatment technique
and/or monitoring requirements for
filtration and disinfection in Subpart H or
Subpart T
Initial
Compliance Date
7
January 1,2005*





*The compliance date was changed from January 14, 2005 to January 1, 2005 by the minor corrections rule [69 FR 38850].
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
111
August 2004

-------
5.2  LT1ESWTR - SNC Definition
Draft SNC Definitions for the LT1ESWTR

Significant non-compliers (SNCs) are community, non-transient non-community and transient non-
community water systems that have more serious, frequent, or persistent violations. The criteria used by
EPA designate a system as a SNC vary by contaminant or treatment technique requirement. The
following are SNC definitions for the LT1ESWTR.

NOTE: SNC definitions for the Surface Water Treatment Rule continue to remain in effect.

UNFILTERED AVOIDING FILTRATION

•   Systems which fail avoidance criteria must filter. See June 27, 1990 Surface Water Treatment Rule
    Implementation Manual. Systems become  an SNC if filtration is not installed within 18 months of
    any failure of the avoidance criteria.

•   A system that has three (3) or more Major  M/R violations in any 12 consecutive months.

•   A system that has a combination of five (5) or more Major M/R violations and Minor M/R violations
    in any 12 consecutive months.

FILTERED

•   A system that has four (4) or more TT violations in any 12 consecutive months.

•   A system that has a combination of six (6) or more TT violations and Major M/R violations in any  12
    consecutive months.

•   A system that has a combination often (10) or more TT violations, Major M/R violations, and Minor
    M/R violations in any 12 consecutive months.

DISINFECTION PROFILING flf required)

•   Failure to consult with the state before making a significant disinfection change if required to develop
    a disinfection profile.

UNCOVERED RESERVOIRS

•   Beginning construction of any uncovered finished water reservoir on or after March 15, 2002.
August 2004                                   112          Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Section VI
Public Notification and
Consumer Confidence Report
Examples

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
This section provides examples of violations that systems may incur under the Long Term 1 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR). These examples address the public notification (PN) and
Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) requirements for systems that incur these kinds of violations.
Included in the examples are sample public notices and sample excerpts from CCR reports that would
meet these public notification and CCR requirements. The examples in this section are adapted from
examples 4-13 in Appendix E LT1ESWTR Data Entry Instructions with Examples. For more information
on Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) reporting, refer to Appendix E and the examples
contained therein.

Different levels of PN are required for different types of violations. The most severe violations, those
presenting a significant chance of a hazard to human health, require immediate "Tier 1" PN. Less urgent
violations require "Tier 2" or "Tier 3" PN, or none at all in the case of administrative violations. But
every violation, regardless of whether it requires PN, must be reported in the annual CCR. Each time a
systems delivers PN or a CCR to its customers, it must certify to the state that it has complied with the PN
and CCR requirements. Table 6-1 provides an overview of PN and CCR requirements.

                      Table 6-1. PN and CCR General Requirements
     Type of
   Notification
     By When?
         By What Means?
   Deadline to Certify
      Compliance
 CCR
July 1 of the year
following the calendar
year in which the
violation occurred
Mail or direct delivery to billing units,
and additional methods to notify those
not reached by the first method
Within 3 months
 Tier 1 PN
Within 24 hours of
learning of the
violation; also initiate
consultation with
Primacy Agency
within 24 hours
Radio, TV, hand delivery, posting, or
other method specified by Primacy
Agency, along with additional methods
if needed to reach persons served.
Primacy Agency may establish
additional requirements during
consultation.
Within 10 days
 Tier 2 PN
Within 30 days of
learning of the
violation; repeat
notice every three
months for unresolved
violations
For community water systems (CWSs),
mail or direct delivery; for non-
community water systems (NCWSs),
mail, direct delivery, or posting. Also,
additional methods to notify those not
reached by the first method. Primacy
Agency may permit alternate methods.
Within 10 days
 Tier 3 PN
Within 12 months of
learning of the
violation; repeated
annually for
unresolved violations
For CWSs, mail or direct delivery; for
NCWSs, mail, direct delivery, or
posting. Also, additional methods to
notify those not reached by the first
method. Primacy Agency may permit
alternate methods. Notices for
individual violations can be combined
into an annual notice (including the
CCR, if public notification
requirements can still be met).
Within 10 days
Note: These requirements are the minimum required by EPA. Your Primacy Agency may have established stricter
standards. Consult guidance material on the CCR and PN Rules for further information and additional requirements.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                              115
                                                 August 2004

-------
LT1ESWTR includes a variety of requirements, spanning every Tier level. Some violations require
specific language to be included in PN or the CCR. Table 6-2 summarizes the types of violations that can
occur under LT1ESWTR.

              Table 6-2. PN and CCR Requirements for LT1 Violations
Violation
Exceedance of maximum CFE
turbidity limit






Exceedance of 95th-percentile
turbidity limit in more than 5% of
monthly CFE turbidity samples
Failure to adequately minimize
Cryptosporidium risk in a
watershed control program
Failure to cover a new finished
water storage facility
Failure to develop a required
disinfection profile, to calculate a
required disinfection benchmark,
or to consult with the state when
making significant changes to
disinfection practices
Failure to collect CFE turbidity
monitoring results as required
Type
Treatment
Technique
(TT)






TT
TT
TT
TT
Monitoring
Public
Notification
Tier 1 or Tier 2,
according to the
judgement of the
state after
consultation
(automatically
elevated to Tier 1
if the state is not
notified of the
violation within
24 hours)
Tier 2
Tier 2
Tier 2
Tier 2
Tier 3
Inclusion
in CCR
Required






Required
Required
Required
Required
Required
Required Language
Turbidity Health
Effects' (PN, CCR)






Turbidity Health
Effects1 (PN, CCR)
Giardia lamblia,
Viruses, HPC bacteria,
Legionella, &
Cryptosporidium
Health Effects2 (PN,
CCR)
Giardia lamblia,
Viruses, HPC bacteria,
Legionella, &
Cryptosporidium
Health Effects2 (PN,
CCR)
Giardia lamblia,
Viruses, HPC bacteria,
Legionella, &
Cryptosporidium
Health Effects2 (PN,
CCR)
Monitoring & Testing3
(PN)
August 2004
116
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Violation
Failure to collect IFE turbidity
monitoring results as required. (If
an IFE turbidimeter fails, the
system has 14 days to get it back
online, and grab samples must be
collected every four hours until
the turbidimeter is back on-line.
A violation occurs if a four-hour
grab sample is not taken, or if the
turbidimeter is not back online
within 14 days.)
Failure to conduct follow-up
actions triggered by regular IFE
monitoring
Failure to report CFE turbidity
monitoring results to the Primacy
Agency as required
Failure to report IFE turbidity
monitoring results to the Primacy
Agency as required
Failure to report follow-up
actions triggered by IFE
monitoring
Failure to maintain IFE
monitoring results for three years
Failure to keep disinfection
benchmark or profile on file
indefinitely
Type
Monitoring




Monitoring

Reporting
Reporting
Reporting

Record-
keeping
Record-
keeping
Public
Notification
Tier 3




Tier 3

Not required
Not required
Not required

Not required
Not required
Inclusion
inCCR
Required




Required

Required
Required
Required

Required
Required
Required Language
Monitoring & Testing3
(PN)




Monitoring & Testing3
(PN)

~
—
-

-
—
Note: Other standard language may also apply. These requirements are the minimum requirements by EPA. Your
Primacy Agency may have established stricter standards, and has the authority to modify some requirements in
particular instances. Consult guidance material on the PN, CCR, and LT1ESWTR for further information.
1. "Turbidity has no health effects. However, turbidity can interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for
microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate the presence of disease-causing organisms. These organisms include
bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated
headaches."
2. "Inadequately treated water may contain disease-causing organisms. These organisms include bacteria, viruses,
and parasites which can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated headaches."
3. "We are required to monitor your drinking water for specific contaminants on a regular basis.  Results of regular
monitoring are an indicator of whether or not your drinking water meets health standards. During [compliance
period], we "did not monitor or test" or "did not complete all monitoring or testing" for [contaminant(s)], and
therefore cannot be sure of the quality of your drinking water during that time."
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
117
August 2004

-------
Example 1: Exceedance of Maximum CFE Turbidity Limit (State-Set Alternative Filtration
Technology Limit)

System Description - System B

System B is a community water system utilizing membrane microfiltration (i.e., an alternative filtration
technology) to treat water from Lake P. The system uses chlorine as a primary and secondary disinfectant.
Pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 141.551 and 40 CFR 141.552(a) for systems using alternative
filtration, System B conducted a pilot study that showed that when the CFE turbidity is maintained below
0.5 NTU in 95% of all measurements taken at 4-hour intervals and below 1 NTU at all times, the plant
was capable of removing 99% of Cryptosporidium oocysts, and removing or inactivating 99.9% of
Giardia lamblia cysts and 99.99% of viruses. Subsequently, the Primacy Agency established these
turbidity limits-0.5 NTU or below in at least 95% of monthly CFE samples, and 1 NTU or below in every
sample-as the treatment technique turbidity performance standards for System B.

Situation

The System B operator measures the CFE turbidity every four hours that the plant is in operation. Those
measurements are recorded on a form provided by the Primacy Agency and each month's completed form
is submitted to the Primacy Agency prior to the 10th of the following month. The report provides the
Primacy Agency with the total number of filtered water turbidity measurements taken during the month,
the number and percentage  of CFE measurements that were less than or equal to 0.5 NTU, and the date
and value of any CFE turbidity measurement that exceeded 1 NTU.

On the September 12, 2005, a membrane failure caused one of the four-hour CFE turbidity measurements
to be read and recorded at 1.6 NTU. This value is rounded to 2 NTU. The state was not contacted within
24 hours after the system became aware of the violation. The following information was included on the
system's monthly report submitted on October 7, 2005:


   Table 6-3. System B September 2005 CFE Turbidity Monthly Report (Excerpt)
Total Filter Measurements
180
# s 0.5 NTU
179
% * 0.5 NTU
99%
Date > 1 NTU
9-12-05
Value of >1 NTU
2 NTU
Upon receiving this information, the state contacted the system immediately and discovered that the
system had overlooked the violation and that no public notification had taken place.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

Exceedance of the maximum turbidity value of 1 NTU is a treatment technique violation that requires
either Tier 1 or Tier 2 public notification, according to the judgement of the Primacy Agency when
consulted within 24 hours of the violation. Because the system did not consult with the state within 24
hours of the violation, public notification is automatically elevated to Tier 1. This notification is expected
to occur within 24 hours of elevation to Tier 1 status (i.e., within 48 hours of the treatment technique
violation). System B failed to notice and take action on the violation until reminded by the state on
October 7. Tier 1 notice is still required for the treatment technique violation, and System B must provide
this notice on October 8.

Note that in this example, although a Tier 1 violation has occurred requiring immediate public notice, the
actual maximum turbidity exceedance occurred one month prior to distribution of the notice. In this case,
the Primacy Agency may determine that typical Tier 1 language recommending boiling water prior to
consumption is not appropriate since the turbidity problem has been resolved. Example 6-1 shows an

August 2004                                   118         Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
example of a public notice distributed on a Tier 1 schedule (i.e., within 24 hours of discovery of the
violation in October) but with language more typical of Tier 2 notices (because the public health risk has
passed). Next, Example 6-2 shows a more typical example of a Tier 1 public notice for a turbidity
violation (delivered on time), and Example 6-3 shows an example follow-up notice indicating to the
public that the problem has been corrected. Note that delivery of a follow-up notice is not required by
EPA, but may be required by a Primacy Agency.

All treatment technique violations must be reported in the CCR. An example of a report of this violation
in the CCR is shown in Example 6-4.
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance          119                                    August 2004

-------
  Example 6-1. Example Tier 1 Public Notification for a CFE Maximum Turbidity
                              Exceedance (Delivered Weeks Late)
               IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                             System B Experienced High Turbidity Levels

                                            October 8, 2005

 We routinely monitor your water for turbidity (cloudiness). This tells us whether we are effectively filtering the
 water supply. A water sample taken September 12, 2005 showed turbidity levels of 2 turbidity units. This is
 above the allowed limit of 1 turbidity unit.

 Turbidity has no health effects. However, turbidity can interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for
 microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate the presence of disease-causing organisms. These organisms include
 bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated
 headaches.

 Normally we would contact the public immediately when a turbidity violation of this sort occurs, to warn of
 possible health risks. However, due to an administrative failure, in this case we unfortunately failed to. We
 became aware of the violation when the state reviewed our records and pointed it out to us.

 We are not aware of any health impacts on the community connected with the incident. Since the turbidity
 returned to normal levels weeks ago, the water is currently safe to drink.

 What should I do?

 You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. If a situation arises where the water is no
 longer safe to drink, you will be notified immediately. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or
 Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).

 Individuals with severely compromised immune systems, infants, and the elderly may be more susceptible to
 waterborne disease in general, and they or their caretakers should seek advice about drinking water from their
 health care providers. General guidelines on ways to lessen the risk of infection by microbes are available from
 EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline at  1 (800) 426-4791.

 The symptoms above are not caused only by organisms in drinking water. If you experience any of the symptoms
 described above and they persist, you may want to seek medical advice.

 What happened? What is being done?

 The high turbidity that was recorded on September  12, 2005 was caused by a failed filter membrane. We shut off
 flow to that filter module within minutes of the event. However, some water passed through the filter plant
 without adequate treatment. The failed  filter was repaired by September 15, 2005.

 We are working with the state to insure that if such an incident ever occurs again, the public will be notified
 immediately.
 For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System B, at 555-1234 or write to 2600 Winding
 Rd., Townsville, GA  12345. General guidelines on ways to lessen the risk of infection by microbes are available
 from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1 (800) 426-4791.

 Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not have
 received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses).  You
 can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

 This notice is being sent to you by System B.

                                              State Water System ID#GA1234584. Date distributed: 9/13/05
August 2004                                       120           Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
  Example 6-2. Example Tier 1 Public Notification for a CFE Maximum Turbidity
                                            Exceedance
                                 DRINKING WATER WARNING

                                 System B has High Turbidity Levels

                                         September 13, 2005

                               BOIL YOUR WATER BEFORE USING

 We routinely monitor your water for turbidity (cloudiness). This tells us whether we are effectively filtering the
 water supply. A water sample taken September 12, 2005 showed turbidity levels of 2 turbidity units. This is
 above the allowed limit of 1 turbidity unit.
 Turbidity has no health effects. However, turbidity can interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for
 microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate the presence of disease-causing organisms. These organisms include
 bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated
 headaches.

 What should I do?
 •   DO NOT DRINK THE WATER WITHOUT BOILING IT FIRST. Boiled or bottled water should be used
     for drinking, making ice, washing dishes, brushing teeth, and food preparation until further notice. Tap water
     should be allowed to boil for one full minute.
 •   People with severely compromised immune systems, infants, and some elderly may be at increased risk of
     waterborne disease. These people and their caretakers should seek advice about drinking water from their
     health care providers.
     The  symptoms above are not caused only by organisms in drinking water. If you experience any of these
     symptoms and they persist, you may want to seek medical advice.
 What happened? What is being done?
 The high turbidity that was recorded on September 12, 2005 was caused by a failed filter membrane. We shut off
 flow to that filter module within minutes of the event. However, some water passed through the filter plant
 without adequate treatment. Turbidity levels from our other filter units remain below the limit of 1 turbidity unit.
 We expect to have the failed filter repaired by September 15, 2005.
 We are currently flushing the distribution system to discard all of the lower quality water. We will inform you
 when you no longer need to boil your water.

 For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System B, at 555-1234 or write to 2600 Winding
 Rd., Townsville, GA 12345.  Updates will be regularly provided on Channel 22 and KMMM (97.3 FM). General
 guidelines on ways to lessen the risk of infection by microbes are available from the EPA Safe Drinking Water
 Hotline at 1(800) 426-4791.
 Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not have
 received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You
 can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.
 This notice is being sent to you by System B.

                                              State Water System ID#GA1234584. Date distributed: 9/13/05
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance           121                                      August 2004

-------
     Example 6-3. Example Problem Corrected Notification for a CFE Maximum
                                     Turbidity Exceedance
                         DRINKING WATER PROBLEM CORRECTED

 Customers of System B were notified on September 13, 2005 of a problem with our drinking water and were
 advised to boil all water before drinking it. We are pleased to report that the problem has been corrected and that
 it is no longer necessary to boil water before drinking it. We apologize for any inconvenience and thank you for
 your patience.

 The failed membrane filter that caused the turbidity problem has been replaced and is functioning properly. We
 have flushed the distribution system pipes to remove all of the poor-quality water.

 As always, you may contact John Johnson, manager of System B, at 555-1234 or write to 2600 Winding Rd.,
 Townsville, GA 12345 with any comments or questions.

 Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not have
 received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You
 can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.
 This notice is being sent to you by System B.

                                             State Water System ID#GA1234584. Date distributed: 9/14/05
    Example 6-4. Example of a Notice in the CCR for a CFE Maximum Turbidity
                                           Exceedance
                                        Water Quality Data
Contaminant



Turbidity



MCL/MRDL/TT
TT violation if

percentage of
samples < 0.5 NTU
during any month is
<95%
TT violation if
any sample > 1
NTU
MCLG



N/A



Value


97%


2 NTU

Date

March
(month of
lowest
percentage)

9/12/05

Violation


No


Yes

Source



soil runoff



                                             Violation

     We routinely monitor your water for turbidity (cloudiness). This tells us whether we are effectively filtering
     the water supply. A water sample taken September 12, 2005 showed turbidity levels of 2 turbidity units. This
     was above the allowable limit of 1 turbidity unit. Because of this high level of turbidity, there was an
     increased chance that the water may have contained disease-causing organisms.
     Turbidity has no health effects. However, turbidity can interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for
     microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate the presence of disease-causing organisms. These organisms
     include bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and
     associated headaches.
     The high turbidity that was recorded on September 12, 2005 was caused by a failed filter membrane. We shut
     off flow to that filter  module within minutes of the event. This problem was corrected by September 14,
     2005. Turbidity levels in the water now meet the standards.
August 2004
122
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Example 2: Exceedance of Maximum CFE Turbidity Limit (1 NTU) at Multiple Treatment Plants

System Description - System C

System C is a community water system with two treatment plants. Both treatment plants use surface water
sources and use chlorine as a predisinfectant and primary disinfectant. The treatment technique standard
in 40 CFR 141.55 l(b) for direct and conventional filtration systems require that CFE turbidity
measurements be taken at 4-hour intervals at each plant, and that the turbidity must be maintained at or
below 0.3 NTU in 95% of each plant's monthly measurements, and at or below 1 NTU at all times.

Situation

The System C operator measures the CFE turbidity every four hours that the plants are in operation.
Those measurements are recorded on a form provided by the Primacy Agency and each month's
completed form is submitted to the Primacy Agency by the 10th of the following month. The report
provides the Primacy Agency with the total number of combined filter effluent turbidity measurements
taken each month, the number and percentage of CFE measurements that are less than or equal to 0.3
NTU, and the date and value of any CFE turbidity measurement that exceeds 1 NTU. The following
information was included on the system's monthly report submitted on February 6, 2006:


   Table 6-4. System C, Treatment Plant #1 January 2006 CFE Turbidity Monthly
                                    Report (Excerpt)
Total Filter Measurements
180
# <; 0.3 NTU
173
% <; 0.3 NTU
96%
Date > 1 NTU
1-5-06
Value of >1 NTU
3 NTU
On January 5, 2006, one of the four-hour CFE turbidity measurements was read and recorded at 3.2 NTU
in treatment plant #1. This value is rounded to 3 NTU.

   Table 6-5. System C, Treatment Plant #2 January 2006 CFE Turbidity Monthly
                                    Report (Excerpt)
Total Filter Measurements
180
# <; 0.3 NTU
176
% * 0.3 NTU
98%
Date > 1 NTU
1-17-06
Value of >1 NTU
2 NTU
On January 17, 2006, one of the four-hour CFE turbidity measurements at Treatment Plant #2 was read
and recorded at 1.9 NTU. This value is rounded to 2 NTU.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

On January 5, 2006, one of the four-hour CFE turbidity measurements at treatment plant #1 exceeded the
maximum turbidity limit of 1 NTU, and on January 17, 2006, one of the four-hour CFE turbidity
measurements at treatment plant #2 exceeded the maximum turbidity limit of 1 NTU. These exceedances
are both treatment technique violations and the system must consult the state within 24 hours for this type
of violation to determine if a Tier 1 or Tier 2 public notification situation exists. Failure to consult the
Primacy Agency automatically results in a Tier 1 public notification requirement for this type of TT
violation.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
123
August 2004

-------
System C consulted the Primacy Agency within 24 hours of both exceedances and the Primacy Agency
determined that the system must provide Tier 2 public notification for these violations. The system must
provide public notification within 30 days of learning of the violation. Notification must be provided by
mail or other direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach
affected individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method
used. For any unresolved violation following an initial Tier 2 notice, notice must be repeated every three
months for as long as the violation persists. The system was aware of the violations on January 5, 2006
and January 17, respectively. Repeat notification was not required in this instance since the compliance
period for this violation is one month. However, if the system exceeds this standard in the next month,
public  notice will again be required.

Since both Tier 2 violations occurred within a 30-day period, the system provided public notification for
both violations at the same time, shortly after the second exceedance occurred. An example of a public
notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for these violations is shown in Example 6-5.

All treatment technique violations must be reported in the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR).  An
example  of a report of this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-6.
August 2004                                     124          Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
   Example 6-5. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for CFE Maximum Exceedance
               IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                      System C Did Not Meet Treatment Technique Requirements

  Our water system recently violated a turbidity limit. Although this incident was not an emergency, as our
  customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we  did to correct this situation.

  We routinely monitor your water for turbidity (cloudiness). This tells us whether we are effectively filtering the
  water supply. Normal turbidity levels at our plants are less than 0.3 turbidity units. A water sample taken January
  5, 2006, at Plant #1 showed levels of 3 turbidity units. Another water sample taken January 17, 2006, at Plant #2
  showed levels of 2 turbidity units. These were above the regulatory limit of 1 turbidity unit.

  Turbidity has no health effects. However, turbidity can interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for
  microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate the presence of disease-causing organisms. These organisms include
  bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can  cause symptoms such as  nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated
  headaches. We do not anticipate that these isolated exceedances will pose a significant risk to the health of our
  customers.

  What should I do?
  You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. If a situation arises where the water is no
  longer safe to drink, you will be notified immediately. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or
  Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).

  Individuals with severely compromised immune systems, infants,  and the elderly may be more susceptible to
  waterborne disease in general, and they or their caretakers should  seek advice about drinking water from their
  health care providers. General guidelines on ways to lessen the risk of infection by microbes are available from
  EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1  (800) 426-4791. If you have specific health concerns, consult your
  doctor.

  What happened? What is being done?

  A heavy snowstorm caused runoff with high levels of turbidity to  enter our water sources, which overloaded the
  filters at our plants. We added chemicals that reduce turbidity and we monitored chlorine levels and adjusted
  them as needed to compensate for the filtration problems. This situation has now been resolved.

  For more information, please contact John Johnson,  manager of System C, at 555-1234 or write to 2600 Winding
  Rd., Townsville, SA 12345.
  Please share this information with all the other people who drink  this water, especially those who may not have
  received this notice directly (for example, people in  apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You
  can do this by posting  this notice in a public place or distributing  copies by hand or mail.
  This notice is being sent to you by System C.
                                                         State Water System ID#GA 1234681. Sent: 1/20/06
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance           125                                       August 2004

-------
     Example 6-6. Example of a Notice in the CCR for CFE Maximum Turbidity
                                           Exceedance
                             Water Quality Data at Treatment Plant #1
Contaminant
Turbidity
MCL/MRDL/TT
TT violation if
percentage of
samples <0.3 NTU
during any month is
<95%
TT violation if any
sample >1 NTU
MCLG
N/A
Value
96%
3 NTU
Date
January
(month of
lowest
percentage)
1/05/06
Violation
No
Yes
Source
soil runoff
                             Water Quality Data at Treatment Plant #2
Contaminant
Turbidity
MCL/MRDL/TT
TT violation if
percentage of
samples <0.3 NTU
during any month is
<95%
TT violation if any
sample >1 NTU
MCLG
N/A
Value
98%
2 NTU
Date
January
(month of
lowest
percentage)
1/17/06
Violation
No
Yes
Source
soil runoff
                              Violations at Treatment Plants #1 and #2

     We routinely monitor your water for turbidity (cloudiness). This tells us whether we are effectively filtering
     the water supply. Normal turbidity levels at our plants are less than 0.3 turbidity units. Water samples taken
     on January 5, 2006 at Water Treatment Plant #1 showed levels of 3 turbidity units and samples taken on
     January 17, 2006 at Water Treatment Plant #2 showed levels of 2 turbidity units. These were above the
     regulatory limit of 1 turbidity unit.
     Turbidity has no health effects. However, turbidity can interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for
     microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate the presence of disease-causing organisms. These organisms
     include bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and
     associated headaches. We are not aware of any increased incidence of waterborne disease in the community
     connected with these isolated exceedances.
     A heavy snowstorm caused runoff with high levels of turbidity to enter our water sources, which overloaded
     the filters at our plants and caused the high turbidity measurements. We added chemicals that reduce
     turbidity and we monitored  chlorine levels and adjusted them as needed to compensate for the filtration
     problems. This situation was resolved within two hours of the beginning of each incident and has not
     occurred since.
August 2004
126
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Example 3: Exceedance of 95th Percentile Turbidity Limit in Over 5% of CFE Samples (0.3 NTU)

System Description - System D

System D is a community water system that serves 9,000 people and utilizes two conventional filtration
water treatment plants, each with four filter beds.

Situation

During the month of July, 2006, the operator measures CFE turbidity every four hours at each plant while
they are in operation and records  the results on a form provided by the Primacy Agency. His report,
submitted to the Primacy Agency on August 9, 2006, includes the following information:



  Table 6-6. System D Plant #1 July 2006 CFE Turbidity Monthly Report (Excerpt)
Total Filter Measurements
186
# <; 0.3 NTU
167
% <, 0.3 NTU
90%
Date > 1 NTU
-
Value of >1 NTU
-
  Table 6-7. System D Plant #2 July 2006 CFE Turbidity Monthly Report (Excerpt)
Total Filter Measurements
186
# * 0.3 NTU
169
% <; 0.3 NTU
91%
Date > 1 NTU
-
Value of >1 NTU
-
The report shows that during the month of July, 2006, Plants #1 and #2 both failed to achieve CFE
turbidity of 0.3 NTU or less in 95% or more of the 4-hour samples.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System D met the 0.3 NTU limit in 90% and 91% of the monthly turbidity measurements at Plant #1 and
Plant #2, respectively. Both plants are required to meet the 0.3 NTU limit in 95% of monthly turbidity
measurements. This is a treatment technique violation and requires Tier 2 public notification. The system
must provide public notification within 30 days of learning of the violation. Notification must be provided
by mail or other direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach
affected individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method
used. Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill and other service connections to which
water is delivered. For any unresolved violation following an initial Tier 2 notice, notice must be repeated
every three months for as long as the violation persists. The system was aware of the violation on August
9, 2006. Repeat notification was not required in this instance since the compliance period for this
violation is one month. However, if the system exceeds this standard in the next month, public notice will
again be required.

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6-7.

All treatment technique violations  must be reported in the CCR. An example of a report of this violation
in the CCR is shown in Example 6-8.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
127
August 2004

-------
 Example 6-7. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for CFE 95th Percentile Turbidity
                          Exceedance in Multiple Treatment Plants
               IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                      System D Did Not Meet Treatment Technique Requirements

 Our water system recently violated a turbidity limit. Although this incident was not an emergency, as our
 customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we did to correct this situation.

 We routinely monitor your water for turbidity (cloudiness). This tells us whether we are effectively filtering the
 water supply. Water samples for July, 2006 showed that 90 percent of the monthly turbidity measurements at
 Treatment Plant #1 were less than or equal to 0.3 turbidity units. Water samples for July, 2006 at Treatment Plant
 #2 showed that 91 percent of the monthly turbidity measurements were less than or equal to 0.3 turbidity units.
 The regulatory standard is that at least 95 percent of monthly turbidity measurements must meet the 0.3 turbidity
 unit limit. Therefore, violations occurred in both plants. The turbidity levels were relatively low, but their
 persistence was a concern. Normal turbidity levels at our plant are 0.1 units.

 Turbidity has no health effects. However, turbidity can interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for
 microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate the presence of disease-causing organisms. These organisms include
 bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can cause symptoms such as nausea,  cramps, diarrhea, and associated
 headaches.

 What should I do?

 You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. If a situation arises where the water is no
 longer safe to drink, you  will be notified  immediately. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or
 Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).

 Individuals with severely compromised immune systems, infants, and elderly may be more susceptible to
 waterborne disease in general, and they or their caretakers should seek advice about drinking water from their
 health care providers. General guidelines on ways to lessen the risk of infection by microbes are available from
 EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1  (800) 426-4791. If you have specific health concerns, consult your
 doctor.

 What is being done?

 We inspected and cleaned the filters and  the turbidity levels in both of our treatment plants have steadied at
 normal levels of 0.1 turbidity units. This  situation is now resolved.
 For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System D, at 555-1234 or write to 2600 Winding
 Rd., Townsville, SA 12345.
 Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those  who may not have
 received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You
 can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.
 This notice is being sent  to you by System D.
                                                         State Water System ID#GA1234585. Sent: 8/22/06
August 2004                                       128           Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
   Example 6-8. Example of a Notice in the CCR for CFE 95th Percentile Turbidity
                         Exceedance in Multiple Treatment Plants
                             Water Quality Data at Treatment Plant #1
Contaminant

Turbidity
MCL/MRDL/TT
TT violation if
percentage of
samples <0.3 NTU
during any month is
<95%
TT violation if any
sample >1 NTU
MCLG

N/A
Value

90%
-
Date

July, 2006
-
Violation

Yes
No
Source

soil runoff
                             Water Quality Data at Treatment Plant #2
Contaminant

Turbidity
MCL/MRDL/TT
TT violation if the
percentage of
samples <0.3 NTU
is <95%
TT violation if any
sample >1 NTU
MCLG

N/A
Value

91%
--
Date

July, 2006
--
Violation

Yes
No
Source

soil runoff
                             Violations at Treatment Plants #1 and #2

     We routinely monitor your water for turbidity (cloudiness). This tells us whether we are effectively filtering
     the water supply. Water samples for July, 2006 showed that 90 percent of turbidity measurements at
     Treatment Plant #1 and 91 percent of turbidity measurements at Treatment Plant #2 were less than or equal to
     0.3 turbidity units. The standard is that at least 95 percent of turbidity measurements each month must be less
     than or equal to 0.3 turbidity units. Therefore, violations occurred in both plants. The turbidity levels were
     relatively low, but their persistence was a concern. Normal turbidity levels at our plants are 0.1 units.
     Turbidity has no health effects. However, turbidity can interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for
     microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate the presence of disease-causing organisms. These organisms
     include bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and
     associated headaches.
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
129
August 2004

-------
Example 4: Exceedance of 95th Percentile Turbidity Limit in Over 5% of CFE Samples (State-Set
Alternative Filtration Technology Limit)

Situation

The operator of System B (described in Example #1) measures the CFE turbidity every four hours that the
plant is in operation. Those measurements are recorded on a form provided by the Primacy Agency and
each month's completed form is submitted to the Primacy Agency by the 10th of the following month. The
report provides the Primacy Agency with the total number of filtered water turbidity measurements taken
each month, the number and percentage of CFE measurements taken each month that are less than or
equal to 0.5 NTU (the performance standard set by the Primacy Agency for this alternative filtration
technology for this system), and the date and value of any CFE turbidity measurement that exceeds 1
NTU. The November 2005  report submitted by System B to the Primacy Agency on December 10, 2005
showed that only 92% of the CFE turbidity measurements taken every four hours in November were less
than or equal to 0.5 NTU. The following information was included in the system's November 2005 report
to the Primacy Agency.


   Table 6-8. System B November 2005 CFE Turbidity Monthly Report (Excerpt)
Total Filter Measurements
180
# ± 0.5 NTU
166
% <; 0.5 NTU
92%
Date > 1 NTU
--
Value of >1 NTU
-
Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System B met the Primacy Agency-set standard of 0.5 NTU in 92% of monthly CFE readings. The
system is required to meet the 0.5 NTU standard in 95% of the monthly CFE readings. This is a treatment
technique violation and requires Tier 2 public notification. The system must provide public notification
within 30 days of learning of the violation. Notification must be provided by mail or other direct delivery
method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected individuals that would
not have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used. Notice must be provided to
each customer receiving a bill and other service connections to which water is delivered. For any
unresolved violation following an initial Tier 2 notice, the notice must be repeated every three months for
as long as the violation persists. The system was aware of the violation on December 10, 2005 and
therefore must issue notification by January 9, 2006. Repeat notification was not required in this instance
since the compliance period for this violation is one month. However, if the system exceeds this  standard
in the next month, public notice will again be required.

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6-9.

All treatment technique violations must be reported in the CCR. An example of a report of this violation
in the CCR is shown in Example 6-10.
August 2004                                   130         Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
 Example 6-9. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for CFE 95th-Percentile Turbidity
                                             Exceedance
               IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                      System B Did Not Meet Treatment Technique Requirements

  Our water system recently violated a turbidity limit. Although this incident was not an emergency, as our
  customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we did to correct the situation.
  We routinely monitor your water for turbidity (cloudiness). This tells us whether we are effectively filtering the
  water supply. We are required to keep turbidity to a level where no more than 5 percent of samples in a month
  exceed 0.5 turbidity units. In November, 8 percent of samples had turbidity at levels exceeding 0.5 turbidity units.
  The turbidity levels were not very high, but their persistence was a concern. Normal turbidity levels at our plant
  are less than 0.3 units.
  Turbidity has no health effects. However, turbidity can interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for
  microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate the presence of disease-causing organisms. These organisms include
  bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated
  headaches.
  What should I do?
  You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. If a situation arises where the water is no
  longer safe to drink, you will be notified immediately. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or
  Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).
  Individuals with severely compromised immune systems, infants, and the elderly may be more susceptible to
  waterborne disease, and they or their caretakers should seek advice about drinking water from their health care
  providers. General guidelines on ways to lessen the risk of infection by microbes are available from EPA's Safe
  Drinking Water Hotline at 1 (800) 426-4791. If you have specific health concerns, consult your doctor.

  What happened? What is being done?
  We inspected and cleaned the filters and the turbidity levels in the treatment plant have steadied at normal levels
  of less than 0.3 turbidity units. This situation is now resolved.
  For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System B, at 555-1234 or write to 2600 Winding
  Rd., Townsville, SA 12345.
  Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not have
  received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You
  can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.
  This notice is being sent to you by System B.
                                                       State Water System ID# GA1234584. Sent: 12/20/05
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance           131                                       August 2004

-------
  Example 6-10. Example of a Notice in the CCR for CFE 95th Percentile Turbidity
                                            Exceedance
                                         Water Quality Data
Contaminant

Turbidity
MCL/MRDL/TT
TT violation if
percentage of
samples <0.5 NTU
during any month is
<95%
TT violation if any
sample >1 NTU
MCLG

N/A
Value

92%
--
Date

November,
2005
-
Violation

Yes
No
Source

soil runoff
                                              Violation

     We routinely monitor your water for turbidity (cloudiness). This tells us whether we are effectively filtering
     the water supply. We are required to keep turbidity to a level where no more than 5 percent of samples in a
     month exceed 0.5 turbidity units. In November, 8 percent of samples had turbidity at levels exceeding 0.5
     turbidity units. The turbidity levels were not very high, but their persistence was a concern. Normal turbidity
     levels at our plant are less than 0.3 units.
     Turbidity has no health effects. However, turbidity can interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for
     microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate the presence of disease-causing organisms. These organisms
     include bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and
     associated headaches.

     We inspected and cleaned the filters within days of learning of the violation and the turbidity levels in the
     treatment plant have steadied at normal levels of less than 0.3 turbidity units. This situation was resolved on
     December 15,2005.
August 2004
132
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Example 5: Making Significant Changes to Disinfection Practices Without State Approval

System Description - System A

System A is a community water system serving 9,100 people that has a conventional treatment plant
treating a single surface water source. The system adds chlorine ahead of the flocculators and again to the
combined filter effluent (CFE). Monitoring conducted under 40 CFR141.531 showed that System A had
disinfection byproduct levels that required preparation of a disinfection profile. Therefore, System A
calculated the log inactivation for Giardia lamblia on a weekly basis at peak hourly flow for one full year
as described in 40 CFR141.532 and 40 CFR141.533. System A retained the disinfection profile data in a
spreadsheet format that was approved by the Primacy Agency.

Situation

System A's operator collects the required samples for TTHM and HAA5 under the Stage 1 Disinfectants
and Disinfection Byproducts Rule for the first two quarters of calendar year 2004. The operator believes
these data show the system will likely incur MCL violations for TTHM and/or HAAS at the end of the
first full year of monitoring. Therefore, after checking to see that he can meet the CT requirements of the
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) with chlorination of the combined filter effluent alone, he
discontinues the addition of chlorine ahead of the flocculators and begins operation with chlorine only
added to the CFE. The Primacy Agency becomes aware of this change to disinfection practice when
conducting a sanitary survey on March 1, 2006. During the sanitary survey, the Primacy Agency notes
that the operator made changes to the disinfection practice on about August 1, 2004. The Primacy Agency
ultimately approves the changes made by the PWS on July 15, 2006.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System A failed to  submit to the Primacy Agency a description of the proposed change to disinfection
practices, the disinfection profile and benchmark, and an analysis of how the proposed change would
affect the levels of disinfection. This is a treatment technique violation that requires Tier 2 public
notification. Tier 2  public notification must be provided within 30 days of learning of the violation. Since
System A is a CWS, notification must be provided by mail or other direct delivery method (such as hand
delivery), and plus  other reasonable method to reach affected individuals that would not have received the
information by the primary method. Tier 2 notice must be repeated every three months for unresolved
violations. In this example, the system was aware of the violation on March 1, 2006. The system must
provide public notification no later than March 31, 2006. Repeat public notification, due by June 30,
2006, is required in this instance since the violation was not resolved until July 15, 2006.

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6-11.

All treatment technique violations must also be included in the CCR. An explanation of how the system
returned to  compliance could also be included. An example of a report of this violation that could be used
in this system's CCR is shown in Example 6-12.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance          133                                    August 2004

-------
    Example 6-11. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for Failure to Consult with
    Primacy Agency Before Making a Significant Change in Disinfection Practices
              IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
               System A Failed to Contact the State about a Disinfection Process Change


 Our water system recently failed to contact the state prior to modifying our disinfection practices. Although this
 incident was not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we did to
 correct this situation.

 On August 1, 2004 we made changes to our disinfection practices without first consulting the state. We were
 required to submit to the state a description of the proposed change to our disinfection practices, specific
 disinfection records, and an analysis of how the proposed change would affect the levels of disinfection in our
 system.

 Inadequately treated water may contain disease-causing organisms. These organisms include bacteria, viruses,
 and parasites which can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated headaches.

 Although we failed to consult with the state, subsequent monitoring indicates that the new disinfection practices
 are adequate, and that public health is not at risk.

 What should I do?

 This is not an emergency. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. If a situation arises
 where the water is not safe to drink, you will be notified immediately. We will announce any emergencies on
 Channel 22 or Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).

 What happened? What is being done?

 Since becoming aware of the violation, we have submitted all of the required information to the state and are
 seeking approval for the changes to our disinfection practices. We hope to have approval from the state for these
 changes by the end of July, 2006.

 For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System A, at 555-1234 or write to 2600 Winding
 Rd., Townsville, GA 12345.
 Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not have
 received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You
 can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.
 This notice is being sent to you by System A.
                                                       State Water System ID# GA1234582. Sent: 3/29/06
August 2004                                      134           Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
 Example 6-12. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Consult with Primacy
         Agency Before Making a Significant Change in Disinfection Practices
                                        Water Quality Data
Contaminant
Giardia lamblia,
Viruses, Heterotrophic
plate count bacteria,
Legionella,
Cryptosporidium
MCL/MRDL/TT
TT
Value
N/A
Date
8/1/04
Violation
Yes*
Source
Sewage treatment
plants, septic systems,
agricultural livestock
operations, and
wildlife.
  *System A incurred a treatment technique violation for making changes to disinfection practices without first
  consulting the state. More information about this violation is provided in the violation section.

                                              Violation

  •   On August 1, 2004, we made changes to our disinfection practices without first consulting with the state. We
     were required to submit to the state a description of the proposed change to our disinfection practices,
     specific disinfection records, and an analysis of how the proposed change would affect the levels of
     disinfection in our system. When we became aware of the violation in March of 2006, we submitted the
     required documentation to the state, and the state approved the.changes on July 15, 2006.
     Inadequately treated water may contain disease-causing organisms. These organisms include bacteria,
     viruses,  and parasites which can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated
     headaches.

     Although we initially failed to consult with the state when changing our disinfection practices, subsequent
     monitoring shows that the new disinfection practices are adequately protective of public health. We are not
     aware of any adverse health impacts to our customers as a result of the modification.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
135
August 2004

-------
Example 6: Starting Construction of an Uncovered Water Storage Facility On or After March 15,
2002

System Description - System E

System E is an unfiltered community water system that meets the filtration avoidance criteria and uses
water from Y2 Lake. System E chlorinates the unfiltered water to provide adequate CT prior to water
entering the distribution system. The system provides water to 1,000 persons.

Situation

On May 15, 2002 System E had a construction company begin construction of an uncovered finished
water storage reservoir. The storage facility was constructed and put on-line on October 31, 2002. During
a sanitary survey conducted by the Primacy Agency on March 24, 2003, the completed reservoir was
discovered and a cease and desist order was issued. Under LT1ESWTR, all new finished water reservoirs
must be covered. System E's uncovered reservoir was physically disconnected from the water system on
January 15,2004.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System E began construction of an uncovered finished water storage facility on or after March 15, 2002.
This is a treatment technique violation and requires Tier 2 public notification. The system must provide
public notification within 30 days of learning of the violation. Notification must be provided by mail or
other direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), and any other reasonable method to reach affected
individuals that would not have received the information by mail or the direct delivery method used.
Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a bill and other service connections to which water is
delivered. For any unresolved violation following an initial Tier 2  notice, notice must be repeated every
three months for as long as the violation persists. The system was aware of the violation on March 24,
2003. Repeat notification is required in this instance since the violation was not resolved until January 15,
2004.

An example of a public notice that fulfills the public notification requirements for this violation is shown
in Example 6-13.

All treatment technique violations must be reported in the CCR. An example of a report of this violation
in the CCR is shown in Example 6-14.
August 2004                                    136          Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Example 6-13. Example Tier 2 Public Notification for Construction of an Uncovered
                                Finished Water Storage Facility
               IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                      System E Did Not Meet Treatment Technique Requirements

 Our water system recently violated a standard that requires all new finished water reservoirs to be covered.
 Although this incident was not an emergency, as our customers, you have a right to know what happened and
 what we did to correct this situation.
 We began construction of an uncovered finished water storage reservoir on May 15, 2002. Regulations require
 that all new finished water storage reservoirs, if construction begins on or after March 15, 2002, must be covered.

 An uncovered reservoir used to store treated water is susceptible to contamination from birds and other animals.
 Inadequately treated water may contain disease-causing organisms. These organisms include bacteria, viruses,
 and parasites which can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated headaches.

 What should I do?
 You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. If a situation arises where the water is no
 longer safe to drink, you will be notified immediately. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22  or
 Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).
 Individuals with severely compromised immune systems, infants, and the elderly may be more susceptible to
 waterborne disease in general, and they or their caretakers should seek advice about drinking water from their
 health care providers. General guidelines on ways to lessen the risk of infection by microbes are available from
 EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1 (800) 426-4791. If you have specific health concerns, consult your
 doctor.

 What is being done?
 We are developing plans to disconnect the uncovered finished water storage reservoir from the system. We expect
 to have the reservoir disconnected from the system by the end of January 2004.

 For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System E, at 555-1234 or write to 2600 Winding
 Rd., Townsville, SA 12345.

 Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not have
 received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses).  You
 can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

 This notice is being sent to you by System E.

                                                        State Water System ID#GA1234586. Sent: 4/18/03
FinalLT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance           137                                       August 2004

-------
  Example 6-14. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Construction of an Uncovered
                               Finished Water Storage Facility
                                        Water Quality Data
Contaminant
Giardia lamblia,
Viruses,
Heterotrophic
plate count
bacteria,
Legionella,
Cryptosporidium
MCL/MRDL/TT
TT






MCLG
0






Value







Date
5/15/02






Violation
Yes*






Source
Sewage treatment
plants, septic
systems,
agricultural
livestock
operations, and
wildlife.
 * System A incurred a treatment technique violation for beginning construction of an uncovered finished water
 storage reservoir on or after March 15, 2002. More information about this violation is provided in the violation
 section.


                                             Violation

 •   We began construction of an uncovered finished water storage reservoir on May 15, 2002. Regulations
     require that all finished water storage reservoirs for which construction begins on or after March 15, 2002
     must be covered.
     An uncovered reservoir used to store treated water is susceptible to contamination from animals, such as
     birds. Inadequately treated water may contain disease-causing organisms. These organisms include bacteria,
     viruses, and parasites which can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated
     headaches.
     This  situation was resolved when we disconnected the reservoir from the system on January 15, 2004.
August 2004
138
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Example 7: Failure to Conduct IFE Monitoring Follow-Up Activities

System Description - System F

System F is a community system that treats a single surface water source with a direct filtration plant that
has eight individual filters capable of producing 6.91 MOD over a 24-hour period. The system serves
9,000 persons. Pursuant to the treatment technique requirements of the LT1ESWTR, System F must
measure the turbidity of the CFE every four hours of operation and record those measurements on a form
approved by the Primacy Agency. Additionally, System F must have continuous monitoring turbidimeters
placed on the effluent of each individual filter and must measure the turbidity continuously while each
filter is producing water that goes to the clearwell. These individual filter turbidity readings must be
recorded every 15 minutes during the time each filter is in operation and records of the 15-minute
measurements must be retained by the system for at least three years. Systems must report that they have
conducted each month's individual filter monitoring by the 10th day of the following month. Systems
must also report to the state by the 10th of the following month any IFE sampling results that exceeded 1.0
NTU in 2 consecutive recordings taken 15 minutes apart.

At the time of the Primacy Agency's sanitary survey, conducted on February 26, 2006, the inspector
printed out the individual filter monitoring data and learned the following  information, presented in the
following three example scenarios.

In the following examples #7A, #7B, and #7C, relevant data is excerpted from turbidity monitoring forms
and presented numerically. Shaded cells represent data that has been recorded but does not trigger follow-
up activities under the LT1ESWTR.

Example #7A Situation

A system that has an individual filter that exceeds the turbidity value of 1.0 NTU in two consecutive
recordings 15 minutes apart is required to report those results to the state by the 10th of the following
month. Filter number 7 had exceeded 1.0 NTU in two consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart
on November 11, 2005 and again on December 6, 2005. No report of these exceedances was provided to
the Primacy Agency.


   Table 6-9. System F Filter #7 November 2005 IFE Turbidity Monitoring Form
                                          (Excerpt)
  Date
                Time
                     12:00 pm
12:15 pm
12:30 pm
12:45 pm
1:00 pm
1:15 pm
  11/11
 1.2 NTU
1.1 NTU
  11/12
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
             139
                                        August 2004

-------
   Table 6-10. System F Filter #7 December 2005 IFE Turbidity Monitoring Form
                                        (Excerpt)
  Date
     Time
                               12:15 pm
12:30 pm
12:45pm   1:00 pm
1:15 pm
   12/6
                                        .4..i*^Af .'-f'L
                    1.3NTU
                    1.1 NTU
  12/7
Example #7B Situation

A system that exceeds the turbidity value of 1.0 NTU in two consecutive recordings 15 minutes apart at
the same filter for three months in a row must conduct a self-assessment of the filter within 14 days of the
trigger (i.e., the double exceedance in the third month), and report to the Primacy Agency by the 10th of
the following month that the self-assessment was triggered and that it was performed. (Though if the self-
assessment was triggered in the last four days of the month, it need not be reported until it has been
performed, i.e., as late as 14 days after the trigger.) Filter number 3 exceeded 1.0 NTU in two consecutive
measurements taken 15 minutes apart on October 31, 2005, November 1, 2005, and December 2, 2005 (3
consecutive months). System F failed to conduct a self-assessment of filter number 3 within 14 days of
the trigger (i.e., by December 16) and made no report to the Primacy Agency.
    Table 6-11. System F Filter #3 October 2005 IFE Turbidity Monitoring Form
                                        (Excerpt)
August 2004
  140
    Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
   Table 6-12. System F Filter #3 November 2005 IFF Turbidity Monitoring Form
                                        (Excerpt)
   Table 6-13. System F Filter #3 December 2005 IFF Turbidity Monitoring Form
                                        (Excerpt)
  Date
                         Time
                     12:00 pm
          12:15 pm
          12:30 pm
12:45pm

                                                                                  "W;^';-'
                                                                                   !£.t^fclLJL*A-
   12/2
1.2NTU
1.4NTU
   12/3
Example #7C Situation

A system that exceeds a turbidity value of 2.0 NTU in two consecutive recordings 15 minutes apart in the
same filter for two months in a row must arrange to have a comprehensive performance evaluation (CPE)
conducted by the state or by a third party approved by the state. Arrangements for the CPE must be made
within 60 days after the trigger (the second consecutive reading above 2.0 NTU in the second straight
month), and the CPE must be performed and a report submitted to the state within 120 days after the
trigger. Filter number 5 exceeded 2.0 NTU in two consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart on
both November 1, 2005 and December 18, 2005 (two consecutive months), triggering the requirement for
a CPE. The CPE was required to be conducted within 60 days, or no later than February 16, 2006. System
F had not, at the time of the sanitary survey (February 26, 2006), made arrangements for the Primacy
Agency or a third party approved by the Primacy Agency to conduct a CPE.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                      141
                                                August 2004

-------
   Table 6-14. System F Filter #5 November 2005 IFE Turbidity Monitoring Form
                                         (Excerpt)
   Table 6-15. System F Filter #5 December 2005 IFE Turbidity Monitoring Form
                                         (Excerpt)
  Date
                          Time
                     12:00pm
          12:15 pm
          12:30 pm
12:45 pm
1:00 pm
1:15 pm


  12/18
2.2 NTU
2.4 NTU
  12/19
Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System F has incurred violations for failure to report information to the state, and failure to conduct IFE
monitoring follow-up activities. The monitoring violations require Tier 3 public notification, and both the
monitoring and reporting violations require CCR notification. The reporting violations are as follows:

       The system failed to report to the state by November 10 that Filter #3 exceeded 1.0 NTU in two
       consecutive 15-minute readings in the previous month.

    •   The system failed to report to the state by December 10 that Filters #3, #5, and #7 exceeded 1.0
       NTU in two consecutive 15-minute readings in the previous month.

       The system failed to report to the state by January 10 that Filters #3, #5, and #7 exceeded 1.0
       NTU in two consecutive 15-minute readings in the previous month, and failed to report that the
       Filter #3 results of December 2 triggered a filter self-assessment and that the filter #5 results of
       December 18 triggered a CPE.

The monitoring and testing violations are as follows:

    •   The system failed to perform a required filter self-assessment on Filter #3 by December 16. The
       filter self-assessment was triggered by the Filter #3 results on December 2, and should have been
       performed within 14 days.
August 2004
                        142
                         Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
    •   The system failed to arrange for a CPE to be performed by February 16. The CPE was triggered
       by the Filter #5 results on December 18, and should have been scheduled within 60 days.

As a result of the sanitary survey, the state conducted a CPE at System F on March 12, 2006. As part of
the CPE, a filter self-assessment was done on Filter #3. The CPE report was completed by April 6, 2006,
and this date is within the 120 days allowed for  completion and submittal of the CPE report.

The system must provide Tier 3 public notification for the monitoring violations within one year of
learning of the violations, i.e., by February 26, 2007. Notification must be provided by mail or other
direct delivery method (such as hand delivery), plus any other reasonable method to reach affected
individuals that would not have received the information by the first method. Notice must be provided to
each customer receiving a bill and other service connections to which water is delivered. Since System F
is a community water system, it issues an annual CCR. System F can use the CCR sent on July  1, 2006, to
inform the public of the Tier 3 violations, since  it falls within the February 26, 2007 deadline. If System F
uses the CCR for Tier 3 PN reporting, it must be sure to meet all relevant PN requirements.

In addition, both the monitoring violations and the reporting violations must be described in the CCR.
Those violations that occurred in 2005, including the reporting violations of November  and December,
and the self-assessment monitoring violation of December, must be described in the CCR released in
2006. The reporting violations of January, 2006 and the CPE-scheduling monitoring violation of
February, 2006 must be described in the CCR released in 2007.

Note that while a single CCR notice in 2006 is sufficient to satisfy both the PN and CCR requirements for
the self-assessment monitoring violation, the CPE-scheduling monitoring violation must be reported in
the 2007 CCR notice to satisfy CCR requirements, regardless of whether it is reported in the 2006 CCR
notice to satisfy PN requirements.

An example of the violation notice in the CCR released on July 1, 2006 is shown in Example 6-15. An
example of the violation notice in the CCR released on July 1, 2007 is shown in Example 6-16.

  Example 6-15. Example of a Notice in the 2006 CCR for IFE Turbidity Monitoring
     and Reporting Violations that Took Place in 2005 (Also Satisfying Tier 3 PN
                Requirements for IFE Turbidity Monitoring Violations)
                                           Violations

     In November and December of 2005, we failed to report to the state that turbidity measurements from several
     filters exceeded 1.0 NTU in consecutive samples taken 15 minutes apart in October and November. In
     addition, we failed to take follow-up actions triggered by high turbidity levels: namely, we failed to perform
     a filter self-assessment required in December, and we failed to schedule a Comprehensive Performance
     Evaluation (CPE) in February of this year. We are required to monitor your drinking water for specific
     contaminants on a regular basis. Results of regular monitoring are an indicator of whether or not your
     drinking water meets health standards. During the past year, we did not complete all monitoring and testing
     for turbidity, and therefore can not be sure of the quality of your drinking water during that period. We did
     not become aware of the violations until February 26, 2006, during a visit from the state. We submitted all
     required monitoring information to the state on March 6, 2006. With the assistance of the state, we
     accomplished both the filter self-assessment and the CPE the week of March  12. As a result of these
     activities, we were able to identify the factors that led to the poor performance of our filters. We resolved the
     high turbidity issues and have had no further problems with our filters.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance           143                                     August 2004

-------
 Example 6-16. Example of a Notice in the 2007 CCR for IFE Turbidity Monitoring
                    and Reporting Violations That Took Place in 2006
                                           Violations

     In January of 2006, we failed to report to the state that turbidity measurements from several filters exceeded
     1.0 NTU in consecutive samples taken 15 minutes apart in the previous month. In addition, we failed to take
     follow-up actions triggered by high turbidity levels: namely, we failed to schedule a Comprehensive
     Performance Evaluation (CPE) in February. We are required to monitor your drinking water for specific
     contaminants on a regular basis. Results of regular monitoring are an indicator of whether or not your
     drinking water meets health standards. During the past year, we did not complete all monitoring and testing
     for turbidity, and therefore can not be sure of the quality of your drinking water during that period. We did
     not become aware of the violations until February 26, 2006, during a visit from the state. We submitted all
     required monitoring information to the state on March 6, 2006. With the assistance of the state, the CPE was
     performed the week of March 12, 2006.  As a result of these activities, we were able  to identify the factors
     that led to the poor performance of our filters. We resolved the high turbidity issues  and have had no  further
     problems with our filters.
Example 8: Failure to Collect CFE Turbidity Data

System Description - System G

System G is a community water system that treats a single surface water source with a direct filtration
plant that has four individual filters. Pursuant to the treatment technique requirements of the SWTR and
LT1ESWTR, System G must measure the turbidity of the CFE every four hours of operation and record
those measurements on a form approved by the Primacy Agency. Additionally, System G must have
continuous monitoring turbidimeters placed on the effluent of each individual filter and must measure the
turbidity continuously while each filter is producing water that goes to the clearwell. These individual
filter effluent (IFE) turbidity readings must be recorded every 15 minutes during the time each filter is in
operation, and records of the 15-minute measurements must be retained by the system for at least three
years. Systems must report that they have conducted each month's IFE monitoring by the 10th of the
following month. If the IFE turbidity ever exceeds 1.0 NTU in  2 consecutive recordings taken 15 minutes
apart, systems must also report this and the reason for the exceedance, if known, to the state by the 10th of
the following month.

Situation

System G's operator takes samples of the CFE every four hours and measures turbidity. The results of
these turbidity measurements are recorded on a daily CFE form approved by the Primacy Agency and the
operator submits the completed forms to the Primacy Agency prior to the 10th day of the following month.
However, on April 15, 2006, System E's operator went on extended medical leave for 90 days. During
this period of time, the backup operators failed to collect a number of CFE samples.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System G has incurred multiple monitoring violations for failure to collect required combined filter
effluent turbidity data. The system must provide Tier 3 public notice for the violation within one year of
learning of the violations. Notification must be provided by mail or other direct delivery method (such as
hand delivery), and plus other reasonable method to reach affected individuals that would not have
received the information by the primary method. Notice must be provided to each customer receiving a
bill and other service connections to which water is delivered.

Normally, the state would have contacted the system in May and June and July upon seeing that the
system had failed to collect all required samples in April and May and June. In this particular example,

August 2004                                    ~144Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
the state accidentally overlooked the data. The system only became aware of the violations when the
regular operator returned and reviewed the records on July 16, 2006. The system therefore must provide
Tier 3 PN before July 16, 2007. Since System G is a community water system, it issues an annual CCR.
System G can use the CCR sent on July 1, 2007 to inform the public of the Tier 3 violations, as long as it
meets all relevant PN requirements.

In addition, System G has to satisfy CCR requirements. All violations that occurred in calendar year
2006, including the monitoring violations described above, must be reported in the CCR released on July
1, 2007. In this case, the same CCR notice can be used to satisfy both the PN and CCR requirements.

An example of a violation notice in the 2007 CCR that will satisfy both the PN and the CCR requirements
is shown in Example 6-17. If System G wants to issue PN earlier, it can. A sample separate PN notice for
these violations is shown in Example 6-18.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance           145                                    August 2004

-------
      Example 6-17. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Monitor CFE
 Turbidity (also Satisfying Tier 3 PN Requirements for CFE Monitoring Violations)
                                             Violation

     We are required to monitor your drinking water for specific contaminants on a regular basis. Results of
     regular monitoring are an indicator of whether or not your drinking water meets health standards. During
     April, May, June, and July of 2006, we did not complete all monitoring and testing for turbidity, and
     therefore can not be sure of the quality of your drinking water during that time.
     On July 16, 2006 we reviewed our monitoring policies and all required samples have been collected since
     then. This situation is now resolved. All of the turbidity measurements that were collected met the standards
     required for our system.
 Example 6-18. Example of Optional Separate Tier 3 Public Notification for Failure
                                  to Monitor CFE Turbidity
                  IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER
                             Monitoring Requirements Not Met for System G

 Our water system recently failed to monitor turbidity as required. Although this incident was not an emergency,
 as our customers, you have a right to know what happened and what we did to correct this situation.

 We are required to monitor your drinking water for specific contaminants on a regular basis. Results of regular
 monitoring are an indicator of whether or not our drinking water meets health standards. During April, May,
 June, and July of 2006, we did not complete all monitoring or testing for turbidity and therefore cannot be sure of
 the quality of our drinking water during that time.

 Turbidity (cloudiness) does not have any health effects, but turbidity levels indicate whether we are effectively
 filtering the water supply. Although we failed to collect a number of required turbidity samples while we were
 understaffed between April and July, the samples that were collected indicated that the water was of good quality.
 What should I do?
 There is nothing you need to do. You do not need to boil your water or take other corrective actions. You may
 continue to drink the water. If a situation arises where the water is no longer safe to drink, you will be notified
 immediately. We will announce any emergencies on Channel 22 or Radio Station KMMM (97.3 FM).

 What was done?
 On July 16, 2006 we returned  to having a full staff of operators and all required samples have been collected
 since then. We have reviewed  our monitoring policies to ensure that the situation does not arise again.
 For more information, please contact John Johnson, manager of System G, at 555-1234 or write to 2600 Winding
 Rd., Townsville, SA 12345.
 Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not have
 received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments,  nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You
 can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

 This notice is being sent to you by System G.
                                                       State Water System ID# GA1234589. Sent: 8/12/06

August 2004
146
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Example 9: Failure to Report IFE Turbidity Monitoring

Situation

During the 90-day period that System G's (described in Example #9) operator is on extended medical
leave, the backup operators also fail to report to the state each month that individual filter effluent has
been monitored on a continuous basis and that the results of such monitoring have been measured and
recorded at 15 minute intervals for each filter. When the regular operator returned in July, he noticed the
error and sent the required information to the state.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System G is required to notify the state by the  10th of each month that IFE data have been collected as
required during the previous month. By  failing to notify the state of IFE monitoring in April by May 10,
in May by June 10, and in June by July  10, System G has incurred three reporting violations. No public
notice is required for reporting violations, but the system must describe the violation in the CCR to satisfy
CCR requirements.

An example of a report of this violation  in the CCR is shown in Example 6-19.
    Example 6-19. Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Report that IFE
                       Turbidity Monitoring Has Been Conducted
                                            Violation

     We routinely monitor your water for turbidity (cloudiness). This tells us whether we are effectively filtering
     the water supply. Although we performed required monitoring of individual filters, our system failed to
     submit required reports to the state for the months of April, May, and June. The monthly reports indicate that
     we conducted continuous turbidity monitoring at each of our filters and that the results of this monitoring
     were recorded at  15 minute intervals.
     On July 30, 2006 we submitted the required reports to the state. The situation is now resolved.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance          147                                    August 2004

-------
Example 10: Failure to Maintain IFE Monitoring Records For At Least 3 Years

System Description - System H

System H is a community water system that treats a single surface water source with a direct filtration
plant that has four individual filters. Pursuant to the treatment technique requirements of the LTIESWTR,
System H must have continuous monitoring turbidimeters placed on the effluent of each individual filter
and must measure the turbidity continuously while each filter is producing water that goes to the
clearwell. These individual filter turbidity readings must be recorded every 15 minutes during the time
each filter is in operation and records of the 15-minute measurements must be retained by the system for
at least three years.

Situation

A representative from the Primacy Agency travels to System H on January 5, 2006 to conduct a sanitary
survey. During the sanitary survey, she asks to see the individual filter monitoring results and learns that
they are purged from System H's SCADA system at the end of each quarter and no other records of such
measurements are retained.

Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements

System H has incurred a recordkeeping violation for failure to retain  the results of individual filter
monitoring on file for at least 3 years from the date of sample collection. No special public notification is
required for a recordkeeping violation, but the violation must be  reported in the annual CCR. The CCR
notice must be repeated for as long as the system is in violation of recordkeeping requirements. If the
system begins keeping IFE monitoring data on file starting with the first quarter of 2006, it will be in
compliance with recordkeeping requirements (having three years' worth of data) on January 1, 2009.
Therefore, the CCR notice must be repeated in every CCR from 2005 (covering calendar year 2004) to
2009 (covering calendar year 2008).

An example of a notice about this violation in the CCR is shown in Example 6-20.

      Example 6-20.  Example of a Notice in the CCR for Failure to Maintain  IFE
                        Monitoring Records For at Least 3 Years
                                            Violation

     We routinely monitor your water for turbidity (cloudiness). This tells us whether we are effectively filtering
     the water supply. Our system is required to retain the results of turbidity monitoring from each individual
     filter for a period of at least 3 years after the date of sample collection. In the past we kept such records for
     only 3 months.
     We have set up a database to retain all individual filter turbidity monitoring data for at least three years. We
     expect to have three years' worth of data and be in compliance with recordkeeping requirements by January
     of 2009.
August 2004                                     148          Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Appendix A
Primacy Revision Crosswalk

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

-------
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL
CITATION
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)
DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)
SUBPART A — GENERAL
§ 141.2 DEFINITIONS
Comprehensive performance evaluation
Disinfection profile
Ground water under the direct influence of surface water
§ 141.2
§ 141.2
§ 141.2






SUBPART H — FILTRATION AND DISINFECTION
§ 141.70 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Additional requirements for systems serving fewer than 10,000
people. In addition to complying with requirements in this
subpart, systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must also
comply with the requirements in subpart T of this part.
§141.70(e)


§ 141.73 FILTRATION
Beginning January 1, 2005, systems serving fewer than 10,000
people must meet the turbidity requirements in §§141.550 through
141.553.
§ 141.73(a)(4)


Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page A - 3
August 2004

-------
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Other filtration technologies. A public water system mav 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 1, 2002, systems serving at
least 10,000 people must meet the requirements for other filtration
technologies in §141.173(b). Beginning January 1, 2005, systems
serving fewer than 10,000 people must meet the requirements for
other filtration technologies in §141.550 through 141.553.
FEDERAL
CITATION
§141. 73 (d)
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)

DIFFERENT FROM
FED, REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)

SUBPART O — CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORTS
§ 141.153 CONTENT OF THE REPORTS
When it is reported pursuant to §141.73 or §141.173 or §141.551:
the highest single measurement and the lowest monthly
percentage of samples meeting the turbidity limits specified in
§141.73 or §141.173, or §141.551 for the filtration technology
being used. The report should include an explanation of the
reasons for measuring turbidity;
§ 141. 153 (d) (4)
(v) (C)


August 2004
Page A - 4
   O
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                                                                                                               o

-------
  f
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL
CITATION
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)
DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)
SUBPART P— ENHANCED FILTRATION AND DISINFECTION - SYSTEMS SERVING 1 0,000 OR MORE PEOPLE |
§141.170 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Subpart H systems that did not conduct optional monitoring under
§ 1 4 1 . 1 72 because they served fewer than 1 0,000 persons when
such monitoring was required, but serve more than 10,000 persons
prior to January 1 , 2005 must comply with §§141.1 70, 141.171,
141.173, 141.174, and 141.175. These systems must also consult
with the State to establish a disinfection benchmark. A system
that decides to make a significant change to its disinfection
practice, as described in §141.172(c)(l)(i) through (iv) must
consult with the State prior to making such change.
§141. 170 (d)


SUBPART Q - PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF DRINKING WATER VIOLATIONS
§ 141 .202 TIER 1 PUBLIC NOTICE- FORM, MANNER, AND FREQUENCY OF NOTICE
Table 1- Violation Categories and other Situations Requiring a
Tier 1 Public Notice
Violation of the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) or Long
Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT IESWTR)
treatment technique requirement resulting from a single
exceedance of the maximum allowable turbidity limit (as
identified in Appendix A), where the primacy agency determines
after consultation that a Tier 1 notice is required or where
consultation does not take place within 24 hours after the system
learns of the violation;
§ 14 1.202 (a)
§ 141.202(a)(6)




Final LT IESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page A - 5
August 2004

-------
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL
CITATION
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)
DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)
§ 141.203 TIER 2 PUBLIC NOTICE- FORM, MANNER, AND FREQUENCY OF NOTICE
Violation of the SWTR, IESWTR or LT1ESWTR treatment
technique requirement resulting from a single exceedance of the
maximum allowable turbidity limit.
§ 141.203
(b)(3)(ii)


APPENDIX A TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141 - NPDWR VIOLATIONS AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING PUBLIC NOTICE
5. Turbidity (for TT violations resulting from a single exceedance
of maximum allowable turbidity level)
MCL/MRDL/TT violations
Tier of Public Notice Required Citation
2,1 141.71(a)(2)and(c)(2)(i);
141.73(a)(2),(b)(2),(c)(2),
and(d); 141.173(a)(2)and
(b); 141.551(b)
Monitoring and testing procedure violations
Tier of Public Notice Required Citation
3 141.74(a)(l), (b)(2),and
(c)(l); 141.174;
141.560(a)-(c); 141.561
7. Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule violations,
other than violations resulting from single exceedance of max.
turbidity level (TT)
MCL/MRDL/TT violations
Tier of Public Notice Required Citation
2 141.170-141.173
141.500-141.553
Monitoring and testing procedure violations
Tier of Public Notice Required Citation
3 141.172,141.174,141.530-
141.544,141.560-141.564
Appendix A
I.A.5
Appendix A
I.A.7




August 2004
  c)
Page A - 6





   O
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
             SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
    FEDERAL
    CITATION
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)
 DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
    (EXPLAIN ON
 SEPARATE SHEET)
 9. Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
 violations.

          MCL/MRDL/TT violations
 Tier of Public Notice Required    Citation
                 2              141.500-141.553
 Monitoring and testing procedure violations
 Tier of Public Notice Required    Citation
                 3              141.530-141.544
                                141.560-141.564
Appendix A
I.A.9
  10. Benchmarking and disinfection profiling

          MCL/MRDL/TT violations
  Tier of Public Notice Required     Citation
                 N/A             N/A
  Monitoring and testing procedure violations
  Tier of Public Notice Required     Citation
                 3               141.172, 141.530-141.544
Appendix A
I.G.10
 6. Systems with treatment technique violations involving a single
 exceedance of a maximum turbidity limit under the Surface Water
 Treatment Rule (SWTR), the Interim Enhanced Surface Water
 Treatment Rule (IESWTR), or the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface
 Water Treatment Rule (LT IESWTR) are required to consult with
 the primacy agency within 24 hours after learning of the violation.
 Based on this consultation, the primacy agency may subsequently
 decide to elevate the violation to Tier 1.  If a system is unable to
 make contact with the primacy agency in the 24-hour period, the
 violation is automatically elevated to Tier 1.
Appendix A
Endnote 6
Final LT IESWTR Implementation Guidance
    Page A - 7
                                               August 2004

-------
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL
CITATION
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)
DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)
APPENDIX B TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141 - STANDARD HEALTH EFFECTS LANGUAGE FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Contaminant:
2c. Turbidity (IESWTR TT and LT1ESWTR TT)
MCLG (mg/L): None
MCL (mg/L): TT
Standard Health Effects Language for PN:
Turbidity has no health effects. However, turbidity can interfere
with disinfection and provide a medium for microbial growth.
Turbidity may indicate the presence of disease-causing organisms.
These organisms include bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can
cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated
headaches.
B. Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), Long Term 1
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT IESWTR), and the
Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR) violations:
Contaminant:
3. Giardia lamblia (SWTR/IESWTR/LT IESWTR)
4. Viruses (SWTR/IESWTR/LT IESWTR)
5. Heterotrophic plate count (HPC)
bacteria (SWTR/IESWTR/LT IESWTR)
6. Legionella (SWTR/IESWTR/LT IESWTR)
7. Cryptosporidium (IESWTR/FBRR/LT IESWTR)
MCLG (mg/L): Zero
MCL (mg/L): TT
Standard Health Effects Language for PN:
Inadequately treated water may contain disease-causing
organisms. These organisms include bacteria, viruses, and
parasites which can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps,
diarrhea, and associated headaches.
Appendix B
A.2c
Appendix B
B.3-B.7




August 2004
Page A - 8
Final LT IESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
  r
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
There are various regulations that set turbidity standards for
different types of systems, including 40 CFR 141.13, and the 1989
Surface Water Treatment Rule, the 1998 Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule and the 2002 Long Term 1
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. The MCL for the
monthly turbidity average is 1 NTU; the MCL for the 2-day
average is 5 NTU for systems that are required to filter but have
not yet installed filtration (40 CFR 141.13).
There are various regulations that set turbidity standards for
different types of systems, including 40 CFR 141.13, and the 1989
Surface Water Treatment Rule, the 1 998 Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule and the 2001 Long Term 1
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. Systems subject to the
Surface Water Treatment Rule (both filtered and unfiltered) may
not exceed 5 NTU. In addition, in filtered systems, 95 percent of
samples each month must not exceed 0.5 NTU in systems using
conventional or direct filtration and must not exceed 1 NTU in
systems using slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration or other
filtration technologies approved by the primacy agency.
FEDERAL
CITATION
Appendix B -
Endnote 4
Appendix B -
Endnote 6
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)


DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)


Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page A - 9
August 2004

-------
             SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
    FEDERAL
    CITATION
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)
 DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
    (EXPLAIN ON
 SEPARATE SHEET)
 There are various regulations that set turbidity standards for
 different types of systems, including 40 CFR 141.13, the 1989
 Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), the 1998 Interim
 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and the 2002
 Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
 (LTlESWTR). For systems subject to the IESWTR (systems
 serving at least 10,000 people, using surface water or ground
 water under the direct influence of surface water), that use
 conventional filtration or direct filtration, after January 1, 2002,
 the turbidity level  of a system's combined filter effluent may not
 exceed 0.3 NTU in at least 95 percent of monthly measurements,
 and the turbidity level of a system's combined filter effluent must
 not exceed 1 NTU at any time. Systems subject to the IESWTR
 using technologies other than conventional, direct, slow sand, or
 diatomaceous earth filtration must meet turbidity limits set by the
 primacy agency. For systems subject to the LT lESWTR (systems
 serving fewer than 10,000 people, using surface water or ground
 water under the direct influence of surface water) that use
 conventional filtration or direct filtration, after January 1, 2005,
 the turbidity level  of a system's combined filter effluent may not
 exceed 0.3 NTU in at least 95 percent of monthly measurements,
 and the turbidity level of a system's combined filter effluent must
 not exceed 1 NTU at any time. Systems subject to the
 LT lESWTR using technologies other than conventional, direct,
 slow sand, or diatomaceous earth filtration must meet turbidity
 limits set by the primacy agency.
Appendix B •
Endnote 8
  SWTR, IESWTR, and LT lESWTR treatment technique violations
  that involve turbidity exceedances may use the health effects
  language for turbidity instead.
Appendix B
Endnote 10
August 2004
   Page A- 10
                    Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                                                                                                                        O

-------
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL
CITATION
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)
DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)
SUBPART T — ENHANCED FILTRATION AND DISINFECTION - SYSTEMS SERVING FEWER THAN 10,000 PEOPLE
§141.500 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The requirements of this subpart constitute national primary
drinking water regulations. These regulations establish
requirements for filtration and disinfection that are in addition to
criteria under which filtration and disinfection are required under
subpart H of this part. 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,
Cryptosporidium and turbidity. The treatment technique
requirements consist of installing and properly operating water
treatment processes which reliably achieve:
At least 99 percent (2 log) removal of Cryptosporidium 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 Cryptosporidium control under
the watershed control plan for unfiltered systems; and
Compliance with the profiling and benchmark requirements in
§§141.530 through 141.544.
§ 141.500
§ 141. 500 (a)
§ 141. 500 (b)






§141.501 WHO Is SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBPART T?
You are subject to these requirements if your system:
Is a public water system;
Uses surface water or GWUDI as a source; and
Serves fewer than 1 0,000 persons.
§ 141.501
§ 141.501 (a)
§ 141.501 (b)
§ 141.501 (c)








Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page A - 11
August 2004

-------
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL
CITATION
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)
DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)
§141.502 WHEN MUST MY SYSTEM COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS?
You must comply with these requirements beginning January 1 ,
2005 except where otherwise noted.
§ 141.502


§141.503 WHAT DOES SUBPART T REQUIRE?
There are seven requirements of this subpart, and you must
comply with all requirements that are applicable to your system.
These requirements are:
You must cover any finished water reservoir that you began to
construct on or after March 15, 2002 as described in §§141. 510
and 141.511;
If your system is an unfiltered system, you must comply with the
updated watershed control requirements described in §§141.520-
141.522;
If your system is a community or non-transient non-community
water system you must develop a disinfection profile as described
in §§141.530-141. 536;
If your system is considering making a significant change to its
disinfection practices, you must develop a disinfection benchmark
and consult with the State for approval of the change as described
in §§141.540-141.544;
If your system is a filtered system, you must comply with the
combined filter effluent requirements as described in §§141.550-
141.553;
If your system is a filtered system that uses conventional or direct
filtration, you must comply with the individual filter turbidity
requirements as described in §§141.560-141.564; and
You must comply with the applicable reporting and recordkeeping
requirements as described in §§141.570-141.571.
§ 141.503
§ 141. 503 (a)
§ 141. 503 (b)
§ 141.503 (c)
§ 141.503 (d)
§ 141.503 (e)
§ 141.503 (f)
§ 141.503 (g)
















August 2004
      )
Page A- 12
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                                                 O

-------
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL
CITATION
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)
DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)
§141.510 Is MY SYSTEM SUBJECT TO THE NEW FINISHED WATER RESERVOIR REQUIREMENTS?
All subpart H systems which serve fewer than 10,000 are subject
to this requirement.
§ 141.510


§141.511 WHAT is REQUIRED OF NEW FINISHED WATER RESERVOIRS?
If your system begins construction of a finished water reservoir on
or after March 15, 2002 the reservoir must be covered. Finished
water reservoirs for which your system began construction prior to
March 15, 2002 are not subject to this requirement.
§ 141.511


§14 1 .520 Is MY SYSTEM SUBJECT TO THE UPDATED WATERSHED CONTROL REQUIREMENTS?
If you are a subpart H system serving fewer than 10,000 persons
which does not provide filtration, you must continue to comply
with all of the filtration avoidance criteria in §141.71, as well as
the additional watershed control requirements in §141.521.
§ 141.520


§141.521 WHAT UPDATED WATERSHED CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MUST MY UNFILTERED SYSTEM IMPLEMENT To CONTINUE To
AVOID FILTRATION?
Your system must take any additional steps necessary to minimize
the potential for contamination by Cryptosporidium oocysts in the
source water. Your system's watershed control program must, for
Cryptosporidium:
Identify watershed characteristics and activities which may have
an adverse effect on source water quality; and
Monitor the occurrence of activities which may have an adverse
effect on source water quality.
§ 141.521
§ 141.521 (a)
§ 141.521 (b)






Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page A- 13
August 2004

-------
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL
CITATION
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)
DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)
§141.522 How DOES THE STATE DETERMINE WHETHER MY SYSTEM'S WATERSHED CONTROL REQUIREMENTS ARE
ADEQUATE?
During an onsite inspection conducted under the provisions of
§141.71(b)(3), the State must determine whether your watershed
control program is adequate to limit potential contamination by
Cryptosporidium oocysts. The adequacy of the program must be
based on the comprehensiveness of the watershed review; the
effectiveness of your program to monitor and control detrimental
activities occurring in the watershed; and the extent to which your
system has maximized land ownership and/or controlled land use
within the watershed.
§ 141.522


§141.530 WHAT is A DISINFECTION PROFILE AND WHO MUST DEVELOP ONE?
A disinfection profile is a graphical representation of your
system's level of Giardia lamblia or virus inactivation measured
during the course of a year. If you are a subpart H community or
non-transient non-community water system which serves fewer
than 10,000 persons, your system must develop a disinfection
profile unless your State determines that your system's profile is
unnecessary. Your State may approve the use of a more
representative data set for disinfection profiling than the data set
required under §§141.532-141.536.
§ 141.530


§141.531 WHAT CRITERIA MUST A STATE USE TO DETERMINE THAT A PROFILE is UNNECESSARY?
States may only determine that a system's profile is unnecessary if
a system's TTHM and HAAS levels are below 0.064 mg/L and
0.048 mg/L, respectively. To determine these levels, TTHM and
HAAS samples must be collected after January 1, 1998, during the
month with the warmest water temperature, and at the point of
maximum residence time in your distribution system. Your State
may approve a more representative TTHM and HAAS data set to
determine these levels.
§ 141.531


August 2004
  o
Page A - 14
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
   o

-------
  r
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL
CITATION
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)
DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)
§141.532 How DOES MY SYSTEM DEVELOP A DISINFECTION PROFILE AND WHEN MUST IT BEGIN?
A disinfection profile consists of three steps:
First, your system must collect data for several parameters from
the plant as discussed in §141.533 over the course of 12 months.
If your system serves between 500 and 9,999 persons you must
begin to collect data no later than July 1, 2003. If your system
serves fewer than 500 persons you must begin to collect data no
later than January 1, 2004.
Second, your system must use this data to calculate weekly log
inactivation as discussed in §§141.534 and 141.535; and
Third, your system must use these weekly log inactivations to
develop a disinfection profile as specified in §141.536.
§ 141.532
§141. 532 (a)
§ 141.532 (b)
§ 141.532 (c)








§141.533 WHAT DATA MUST MY SYSTEM COLLECT TO CALCULATE A DISINFECTION PROFILE?
Your system must monitor the following parameters to determine
the total log inactivation using the analytical methods in §141.74
(a), once per week on the same calendar day, over 12 consecutive
months:
The temperature of the disinfected water at each residual
disinfectant concentration sampling point during peak hourly
flow;
If your system uses chlorine, the pH of the disinfected water at
each residual disinfectant concentration sampling point during
peak hourly flow;
The disinfectant contact time(s) ("T") during peak hourly flow;
and
The residual disinfectant concentration(s) ("C") of the water
before or at the first customer and prior to each additional point of
disinfection during peak hourly flow.
§ 141.533
§141. 533 (a)
§ 141.533 (b)
§ 141.533 (c)
§ 141. 533 (d)










Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page A- 15
August 2004

-------
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL
CITATION
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)
DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)
§141.534 How DOES MY SYSTEM USE THIS DATA TO CALCULATE AN INACTIVATION RATIO?
Use the tables in Sec. 141.74(b)(3)(v) to determine the appropriate
CT99.9 value. Calculate the total inactivation ratio as follows, and
multiply the value by 3.0 to determine log inactivation of Giardia
lamblia:
If your system uses only one point of disinfectant application, you
must determine one inactivation ratio (CTcalc/CT99 9) before or at
the first customer during peak hourly flow, or
If your system uses only one point of disinfectant application, you
must determine successive CTcalc/CT999 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, your system must calculate the
total inactivation ratio by determining (CTca|C/CT99 9) for each
sequence and then adding the (CTcalc/CT99 9) values together to
determine (£CTcalc/CT999).
If your system uses more than one point of disinfectant application
before the first customer, you must determine the CTcalc/CT99 9
value of each disinfection segment immediately prior to the next
point of disinfectant application, or for the final segment, before
or at the first customer, during peak hourly flow using the
procedure specified in §141.534(a)(2).
§ 141.534
§141.534 (a) (1)
§141. 534 (a) (2)
§ 141. 534 (b)








§141.535 WHAT IF MY SYSTEM USES CHLORAMINES, OZONE, OR CHLORINE DIOXIDE FOR PRIMARY DISINFECTION?
If your system uses chloramines, ozone, or chlorine dioxide for
primary disinfection, you must also calculate the logs of
inactivation for viruses and develop an additional disinfection
profile for viruses using methods approved by the State.
§ 141.535


August 2004
Page A- 16
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
 r
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL
CITATION
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)
DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)
§141.536 MY SYSTEM HAS DEVELOPED AN INACTIVATION RATIO; WHAT MUST WE Do Now?
Each log inactivation serves as a data point in your disinfection
profile. Your system will have obtained 52 measurements (one
for every week of the year). This will allow your system and the
State the opportunity to evaluate how microbial inactivation
varied over the course of the year by looking at all 52
measurements (your Disinfection Profile). Your system must
retain the Disinfection Profile data in graphic form, such as a
spreadsheet, which must be available for review by the State as
part of a sanitary survey. Your system must use this data to
calculate a benchmark if you are considering changes to
disinfection practices.
§ 141.536


§141.540 WHO HAS TO DEVELOP A DISINFECTION BENCHMARK?
If you are a subpart H system required to develop a disinfection
profile under §§141.530 through 141.536, your system must
develop a Disinfection Benchmark if you decide to make a
significant change to your disinfection practice. Your system
must consult with the State for approval before you can implement
a significant disinfection practice change.
§ 141.540


§141.541 WHAT ARE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO DISINFECTION PRACTICE?
Significant changes to disinfection practice include:
Changes to the point of disinfection;
Changes to the disinfectant(s) used in the treatment plant;
Changes to the disinfection process; or
Any other modification identified by the State.
§ 141.541
§ 141.541 (a)
§ 141.541 (b)
§ 141.541 (c)
§ 141.541 (d)










Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page A- 17
August 2004

-------
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL
CITATION
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)
DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)
§141.542 WHAT MUST MY SYSTEM Do IF WE ARE CONSIDERING A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO DISINFECTION PRACTICES?
If your system is considering a significant change to its
disinfection practice, your system must calculate a disinfection
benchmark(s) as described in §§141.543 and 141.544 and provide
the benchmark(s) to your State. Your system may only make a
significant disinfection practice change after consulting with the
State for approval. Your system must submit the following
information to the State as part of the consultation and approval
process:
A description of the proposed change;
The disinfection profile for Giardia lamblia (and, if necessary,
viruses) and disinfection benchmark;
An analysis of how the proposed change will affect the current
levels of disinfection; and
Any additional information requested by the State.
§ 141.542
§ 141. 542 (a)
§ 141. 542 (b)
§ 141. 542 (c)
§ 141.542 (d)










§141.543 How is THE DISINFECTION BENCHMARK CALCULATED?
If your system is making a significant change to its disinfection
practice, it must calculate a disinfection benchmark using the
following procedure:
Step 1 : Using the data your system collected to develop the
Disinfection Profile, determine the average Giardia lamblia
inactivation for each calendar month by dividing the sum of all
Giardia lamblia inactivations for that month by the number of
values calculated for that month.
Step 2: Determine the lowest monthly average value out of the
twelve values. This value becomes the disinfection benchmark.
§ 141.543


August 2004
 O
Page A- 18
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL
CITATION
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)
DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)
§141.544 WHAT IF MY SYSTEM USES CHLORAMINES, OZONE, OR CHLORINE DIOXIDE FOR PRIMARY DISINFECTION?
If your system uses chloramines, ozone or chlorine dioxide for
primary disinfection your system must calculate the disinfection
benchmark from the data your system collected for viruses to
develop the disinfection profile in addition to the Giardia lamblia
disinfection benchmark calculated under §141.543. This viral
benchmark must be calculated in the same manner used to
calculate the Giardia lamblia disinfection benchmark in §141.543.
§ 141.544


§141.550 Is MY SYSTEM REQUIRED TO MEET SUBPART T COMBINED FILTER EFFLUENT TURBIDITY LIMITS?
All subpart H systems which serve populations fewer than 10,000,
are required to filter, and utilize filtration other than slow sand
filtration or diatomaceous earth filtration must meet the combined
filter effluent turbidity requirements of §§141.551-141.553. If
your system uses slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration you
are not required to meet the combined filter effluent turbidity
limits of subpart T, but you must continue to meet the combined
filter effluent turbidity limits in §141.73.
§ 141.550


§ 141.551 WHAT STRENGTHENED COMBINED FILTER EFFLUENT TURBIDITY LIMITS MUST MY SYSTEM MEET?
Your system must meet two strengthened combined filter effluent
turbidity limits.
The first combined filter effluent turbidity limit is a "95th
percentile" turbidity limit that your system must meet in at least
95 percent of the turbidity measurements taken each month.
Measurements must continue to be taken as described in
§141.74(a) and (c). Monthly reporting must be completed
according to §141.570. The required limits for specific filtration
technologies follow:
If your system consists of conventional filtration or direct
filtration, your 95th percentile turbidity value is 0.3 NTU.
§ 141.551
§ 141.551 (a)
§ 141.551 (a) (1)






Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page A- 19
August 2004

-------
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
If your system consists of all other "alternative" filtration, your
95th percentile turbidity value is a value determined by the State
(not to exceed 1 NTU) based on the demonstration described in
§141.552
The second combined filter effluent turbidity limit is a
"maximum" turbidity limit which your system may at no time
exceed during the month. Measurements must continue to be
taken as described in §141.74(a) and (c). Monthly reporting must
be completed according to §141.570. The required limits for
specific filtration technologies follow:
If your system consists of conventional filtration or direct
filtration, your maximum turbidity value is 1 NTU.
If your system consists of all other "alternative filtration," your
maximum turbidity value is a value determined by the State (not
to exceed 5 NTU) based on the demonstration as described in
§141.552
FEDERAL
CITATION
§141.551 (a) (2)
§ 141.551(b)
§ 141.551 (b)(l)
§141.551(b)(2)
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)




DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)




§141.552 MY SYSTEM CONSISTS OF "ALTERNATIVE FILTRATION" AND Is REQUIRED TO CONDUCT A DEMONSTRATION - WHAT Is
REQUIRED OF MY SYSTEM AND How DOES THE STATE ESTABLISH MY TURBIDITY LIMITS?
If your system consists of alternative filtration (filtration other
than slow sand filtration, diatomaceous earth filtration,
conventional filtration, or direct filtration) you are required to
conduct a demonstration (see tables in §141.551), your system
must demonstrate to the State, using pilot plant studies or other
means, that your system's filtration, in combination with
disinfection treatment, consistently achieves:
99 percent removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts;
99.9 percent removal and/or inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts;
and
99.99 percent removal and/or inactivation of viruses.
[Reserved]
§ 141. 552 (a)
§141.552 (a) (1)
§141. 552 (a) (2)
§141. 552 (a) (3)
§ 141. 552 (b)










August 2004
Page A - 20




   O
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                                                                                                              O

-------
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL
CITATION
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)
DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)
§141.553 MY SYSTEM PRACTICES LIME SOFTENING - Is THERE ANY SPECIAL PROVISION REGARDING MY COMBINED FILTER
EFFLUENT?
If your system practices lime softening, you may acidify
representative combined filter effluent turbidity samples prior to
analysis using a protocol approved by the State.
§ 141.553


§141.560 Is MY SYSTEM SUBJECT TO INDIVIDUAL FILTER TURBIDITY REQUIREMENTS?
If your system is a subpart H system serving fewer than 10,000
people and utilizing conventional filtration or direct filtration, you
must conduct continuous monitoring of turbidity for each
individual filter at your system. The following requirements apply
to continuous turbidity monitoring:
Monitoring must be conducted using an approved method in
§141.74(a);
Calibration of turbidimeters must be conducted using procedures
specified by the manufacturer;
Results of turbidity monitoring must be recorded at least every 1 5
minutes;
Monthly reporting must be completed according to § 141 .570; and
Records must be maintained according to § 141.571.
§ 141.560
§ 141. 560 (a)
§ 141.560(b)
§ 141. 560 (c)
§ 141.560 (d)
§ 141.560 (e)












§ 141 .561 WHAT HAPPENS IF MY SYSTEM'S TURBIDITY MONITORING EQUIPMENT FAILS?
If there is a failure in the continuous turbidity monitoring
equipment, your system must conduct grab sampling every four
hours in lieu of continuous monitoring until the turbidimeter is
back on-line. Your system has 14 days to resume continuous
monitoring before a violation is incurred.
§ 141.561


Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page A-21
August 2004

-------
            SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
                                               FEDERAL
                                               CITATION
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)
 DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
    (EXPLAIN ON
 SEPARATE SHEET)
 §141.562      MY SYSTEM ONLY HAS Two OR FEWER FILTERS - Is THERE ANY SPECIAL PROVISION REGARDING INDIVIDUAL FILTER
                TURBIDITY MONITORING?
 Yes, if your system only consists of two or fewer filters, you may
 conduct continuous monitoring of combined filter effluent
 turbidity in lieu of individual filter effluent turbidity monitoring.
 Continuous monitoring must meet the same requirements set forth
 in §141.560(a) through (d) and §141.561.
                                           §141.562
 §141.563
WHAT FOLLOW-UP ACTION is MY SYSTEM REQUIRED TO TAKE BASED ON CONTINUOUS TURBIDITY MONITORING?
 Follow-up action is required as follows:
                                           § 141.563
 If the turbidity of an individual filter (or the turbidity of combined
 filter effluent (CFE) for systems with 2 filters that monitor CFE in
 lieu of individual filters) exceeds 1.0 NTU in two consecutive
 recordings 15 minutes apart, your system must report to the State
 by the 10th of the following month and include the filter
 number(s), corresponding date(s), turbidity value(s) which
 exceeded 1.0 NTU, and the cause (if known) for the
 exceedance(s).	
                                           § 141.563 (a)
 If a system was required to report to the State for three months in
 a row and turbidity exceeded 1.0 NTU in two consecutive
 recordings 15 minutes apart at the same filter (or CFE for systems
 with 2 filters that monitor CFE in lieu of individual filters), your
 system must conduct a self-assessment of the filter(s) within 14
 days of the day the filter exceeded 1.0 NTU in two consecutive
 measurements for the third straight month unless a CPE as
 specified in § 141.563(c) was required. Systems with 2 filters that
 monitor CFE in lieu of individual filters must conduct a self
 assessment on both filters. 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.
                                           § 141.563 (b)
August 2004
  o
                                              Page A - 22
                   Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                                 O
                                                   o

-------
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
If a system was required to report to the State for two months in a
row and turbidity exceeded 2.0 NTU in 2 consecutive recordings
1 5 minutes apart at the same filter (or CFE for systems with 2
filters that monitor CFE in lieu of individual filters), your system
must arrange to have a comprehensive performance evaluation
(CPE) conducted by the State or a third party approved by the
State not later than 60 days following the day the filter exceeded
2.0 NTU in two consecutive measurements for the second straight
month. If a CPE has been completed by the State or a third party
approved by the State within the 12 prior months or the system
and State are jointly participating in an ongoing Comprehensive
Technical Assistance (CTA) project at the system, a new CPE is
not required. If conducted, a CPE must be completed and
submitted to the State no later than 1 20 days following the day the
filter exceeded 2.0 NTU in two consecutive measurements for the
second straight month.
FEDERAL
CITATION
§ 141. 563 (c)
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)

DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)

§ 141.564 MY SYSTEM PRACTICES LIME SOFTENING. Is THERE ANY SPECIAL PROVISION REGARDING MY INDIVIDUAL
FILTER TURBIDITY MONITORING?
If your system utilizes lime softening, you may apply to the State
for alternative turbidity exceedance levels for the levels specified
in §141 .563. You must be able to demonstrate to the State that
higher turbidity levels are due to lime carryover only, and not due
to degraded filter performance.
§ 141.564
*

§ 141.570 WHAT DOES SUBPART T REQUIRE THAT MY SYSTEM REPORT TO THE STATE?
The following table describes the items which must be reported
and the frequency of reporting. Your system is required to report
the information described in the following table, if it is subject to
the specific requirement shown in the first column:
If your system is subject to combined filter effluent requirements,
§§ 141.550-141.553, your system must report:
The total number of filtered water turbidity measurements taken
during the month by the 1 0th of the following month
§ 141.570
§ 141.570 (a)
§141.570 (a) (1)






Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page A - 23
August 2004

-------
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
The number and percentage of filtered water turbidity
measurements taken during the month which are less than or equal
to your system's required 95th percentile limit by the 10th of the
following month
The date and value of any turbidity measurements taken during
the month which exceed the maximum turbidity value for your
filtration system by the 1 0th of the following month
If your system is subject to individual filter turbidity requirements,
§§ 141.560-141.564, your system must report:
That your system conducted individual filter turbidity monitoring
during the month, by the 1 0th of the following month
The filter number(s), corresponding date(s), and the turbidity
value(s) which exceeded 1 .0 NTU during the month, and the cause
(if known) for the exceedance(s), but only if 2 consecutive
measurements exceeded 1.0 NTU by the 10th of the following
month.
If a self-assessment is required, the date that it was triggered and
the date that it was completed, by the 10th of the following month
(or 14 days after the self-assessment was triggered only if the self-
assessment was triggered during the last four days of the month)
If a CPE is required, that the CPE is required and the date that it
was triggered, by the 10th of the following month
Copy of completed CPE report, within 120 days after the CPE was
triggered
If your system is subject to disinfection profiling, §§141.530-
141.536, your system must report the following information:
Results of optional monitoring which show TTHM levels < 0.064
mg/L and HAA5 levels < 0.048 mg/L (Only if your system wishes
to forgo profiling), or that your system has begun disinfection
profiling by:
For systems serving 500-9,999 July 1, 2003
For systems serving fewer than 500 January 1, 2004
FEDERAL
CITATION
§141. 570 (a) (2)
§141.570 (a) (3)
§ 141. 570 (b)
§ 141.570 (b)(l)
§ 141.570 (b) (2)
§ 141. 570 (b) (3)
§ 141.570 (b) (4)
§ 141.570 (b) (5)
§ 141.570(c)
§ 141.570 (c)(l)
§ 141.570 (c)(l)
0)
§ 141.570 (c)(l)
(ii)
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)












DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)












August 2004
Page A - 24
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
If your system is subject to disinfection benchmarking
requirements, §§141.540-141.544, your system must report the
following information:
A description of the proposed change in disinfection, your
system's disinfection profile for Giardia lamblia (and, if
necessary, viruses) and disinfection benchmark, and an analysis of
how the proposed change will affect the current levels of
disinfection, anytime your system is considering a significant
change to its disinfection practice.
FEDERAL
CITATION
§ 141. 570 (d)
§ 141.570 (d)(l)
STATE CITATION (DOCUMENT TITLE,
PAGE NUMBER, SECTION/PARAGRAPH)


DIFFERENT FROM
FED. REQUIREMENT?
(EXPLAIN ON
SEPARATE SHEET)


§ 141.571 WHAT RECORDS DOES SUBPART T REQUIRE MY SYSTEM TO KEEP?
Your system must keep several types of records based on the
requirements of subpart T, in addition to recordkeeping
requirements under § 141.75. A description of the necessary
records, the length of time these records must be kept, and for
which requirement the records pertain follows. Your system is
required to maintain the records described, if it is subject to the
specific requirement.
If your system is subject to individual filter turbidity requirements,
§§ 141.560-141 .564, your system must keep results of individual
filter monitoring for at least 3 years.
If your system is subject to disinfection profiling, §§141.530-
141 .536, your system must keep results of profile (including raw
data and analysis) indefinitely.
If your system is subject to disinfection benchmarking,
§§141.540-141.544, your system must keep the benchmark
(including raw data and analysis) indefinitely.
§ 141.571
§ 141.571 (a)
§ 141.571 (b)
§ 141.571 (c)








Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page A - 25
August 2004

-------
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL
CITATION
EXPLANATION OF STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
PART 142-NATioNAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTATION
§ 142.14 RECORDS KEPT BY STATES
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, 141.550-141.553 and
141.560-141.564 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.
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, 141.175, and 141.570, of this
chapter must be kept for not less than one year.
Records of decisions made on a system-by-system and
case-by-case basis under provisions of part 141, subpart H,
subpart P, or subpart T of this chapter, must be made in writing
and kept by the State.
Any decisions made pursuant to the provisions of part 141,
subpart P or subpart T of this chapter.
Records of systems consulting with the State concerning a
modification to disinfection practice under §§141.170(d),
141.172(c), and 141.542 of this chapter, including the status of the
consultation.
§142. 14 (a) (3)
§ 142. 14 (a) (4) (i)
§142. 14 (a) (4)
(ii)
§ 142.14 (a) (7)
§ 142. 14 (a) (7) (i)





August 2004
 o
Page A - 26
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
             SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
                                                 FEDERAL
                                                 CITATION
EXPLANATION OF STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
 Records of decisions that a system using alternative filtration
 technologies, as allowed under §§141.173(b) and §141.552 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.
                                             §142.14 (a) (7)
                                             (ii)
 Records of systems required to do filter self-assessment, CPE, or
 CCP under the requirements of §141.175 and §141.563 of this
 chapter.
                                             §142.14 (a) (7)
                                             (iii)
  § 142.16
SPECIAL PRIMACY REQUIREMENTS
 Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFR part 141, Subpart T -
 Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection - Systems Serving Fewer
 than 10,000 People. 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 T -
 Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection - Systems Serving Fewer
 than 10,000 People, must contain the information specified in this
 paragraph:
                                               142.16 (p)
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                                Page A - 27
                                            August 2004

-------
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Enforceable requirements. States must have rules or other
authority to require systems to participate in a Comprehensive
Technical Assistance (CTA) activity, the performance
improvement phase of the Composite Correction Program (CCP).
The State must determine whether a CTA must be conducted
based on results of a CPE which indicate the potential for
improved performance, and a finding by the State that the system
is able to receive and implement technical assistance provided
through the CTA. A CPE is a thorough review and analysis of a
system'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. During the CTA phase,
the system must identify and systematically address factors
limiting performance. The CTA is a combination of utilizing CPE
results as a basis for follow-up, implementing process control
priority-setting techniques and maintaining long-term involvement
to systematically train staff and administrators.
State practices or procedures.
Section 141.530-141.536 - How the State will approve a more
representative data set for optional TTHM and HAAS monitoring
and profiling.
Section 141.535 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, ozone, or chlorine dioxide for
primary disinfection.
Section 141.542 of this chapter- How the State will consult with
the system and approve significant changes to disinfection
practices.
FEDERAL
CITATION
§ 142.16 (p)(l)
§142.16(p)(2)
§142.16(p)(2)(i)
§ 142.16 (p) (2)
(ii)
§ 142. 16 (p) (2)
(iii)
EXPLANATION OF STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES





August 2004
Page A - 28
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                                                 o

-------
                                                                                                                                          f
             SUMMARY OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
    FEDERAL
    CITATION
EXPLANATION OF STATE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
  Section 141.552 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, in
  combination with disinfection treatment that meets the
  requirements of §141.72(b) of this chapter, consistently achieves
  99.9 percent removal and/or inactivation ofGiardia 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
  Cryptosporidium oocysts.
§ 142.16 (p) (2)
(iv)
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
   Page A - 29
                                             August 2004

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

-------
Appendix B
LTIESWTR Regulatory
Language
This appendix contains the rule language for the LTIESWTR incorporating the minor technical
corrections. Changes to the original rule language are shown as highlighted text. Also included is a
complete copy of the LTIESWTR, including preamble as published on January 14, 2002, and a complete
copy of the minor technical corrections, including preamble as published on June 29, 2004.

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

-------
For the reasons set forth 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 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321,
1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and(e), 1361; Executive Order 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. In Sec. 9.1 the table is amended by adding under the indicated heading:

a. By adding entries 141.530-141.536, 141.540-141.544, 141.550-141.553, 141.560-141.564 and
141.570-141.571 in numerical order.

b. By removing the entry  142.14(a)-(d)(7) and adding in its place a new entry Sec. 142.14(b)-
c. By adding a new entry for 142.14(a) in numerical order.

d. By adding new entries for 142.16(g) and 142.16(j) in numerical order.

The additions read as follows:

Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
                                  OMB control
          40 CFR citation                 No.
         *****
       National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
         *****
141.530-141.536	     2040-0229
141.540-141.544	     2040-0229
141.550-141.553	     2040-0229
141.560-141.564	     2040-0229
141.570-141.57	     2040-0229
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance      Page B - 3                             August 2004

-------
  National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
142.14(a) [[[     2040-0229
                                             2040-0090
142.14(b)-(d)(7) ........................................     2040-0090
142.16(g)	     2040-0229
142.16(j)	     2040-0229
*****

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,
and300j-ll.

4. Section 141.2 is amended by revising the definitions of "Comprehensive performance
evaluation" (CPE), "Ground water under the direct influence of surface water" and
"Disinfection profile" to read as follows:

Sec. 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 can be implemented without significant
capital improvements. For purpose of compliance with subparts P and T of this part, 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 Giardia lamblia inactivation through the treatment plant.
The procedure for developing a disinfection profile is contained in Sec. 141.172 (Disinfection
profiling and benchmarking) in subpart P and Sees. 141.530-141.536 (Disinfection profile) in
subpart T of this part.
*****

Ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) means any water beneath
the  surface of the ground with significant occurrence of insects or other macroorganisms, algae,
or large-diameter pathogens such as Giardia lamblia or Cryptosporidium, or significant and

-------
relatively rapid shifts in water characteristics such as turbidity, temperature, conductivity, or pH
which closely correlate to climatological or surface water conditions. Direct influence must be
determined for individual sources in accordance with criteria established by the State. The State
determination of direct influence may be based on site-specific measurements of water quality
and/or documentation of well construction characteristics and geology with field evaluation.
5. Section 141.70 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec. 141.70 General requirements.


(e) Additional requirements for systems serving fewer than 10,000 people. In addition to
complying with requirements in this subpart, systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must
also comply with the requirements in subpart T of this part.

6. Section 141.73 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(4) and revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec. 141.73 Filtration.


(a) * * *

(4) Beginning January 1, 2005, systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must meet the
turbidity requirements in Sees. 141.550 through 141.553.


(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 Sec. 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 1, 2002, systems serving at least 10,000
people must meet the requirements for other filtration technologies in Sec. 141.173(b).
Beginning January 14, 2005, systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must meet the
requirements for other filtration technologies in Sec. 141.550 through 141.553.
7. Section 141.153 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (d)(4)(v)(C) to read as
follows:

Sec. 141.153 Content of the reports.
sj! %  % sj; sj;
(d)
   * * *
   * #
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance      Page B - 5                               August 2004

-------
(v)*
     * *
(C) When it is reported pursuant to Sec. 141.73 or Sec. 141.173 or Sec. 141.551: the highest
single measurement and the lowest monthly percentage of samples meeting the turbidity limits
specified in Sec. 141.73 or Sec. 141.173, or Sec. 141.551 for the filtration technology being


8. The heading to Subpart P is revised to read as follows:

Subpart P—Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection—Systems Serving 10,000 or More People
* * * * *

9. Section 141.170 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec. 141.170  General requirements.
*****

(d)  Subpart H systems that did not conduct optional monitoring under Sec. 141.172 because they
served fewer than 10,000 persons when such monitoring was required, but serve more than
10,000 persons prior to January 1, 2005 must comply with Sees. 141.170, 141.171,  141.173,
141.174, and 141.175. These systems must also consult with the State to establish a disinfection
benchmark. A system that decides to make a significant change to its disinfection practice, as
described in Sec. 141.172(c)(l)(i) through (iv) must consult with the State prior to making such
change.

10.  Section 141.202 is amended in Table 1  by revising entry 6 to read as follows:

Sec. 141.202  Tier 1 Public Notice—Form, manner, and frequency of notice.
*****
(a)
   * * *
  Table 1 to Sec. 141.202.—Violation Categories and Other Situations Requiring a Tier 1 Public
                                        Notice
(6) Violation of the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (IESWTR) or Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(LT1ESWTR) treatment technique requirement resulting from a single exceedance of the
maximum allowable turbidity limit (as identified in Appendix A), where the primacy agency
determines after consultation that a Tier 1 notice is required or where consultation does not take
place within 24 hours after the system learns of the violation;
*****
1 1 .  Section 141 .203 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3)(ii) to read as follows:
August 2004                              Page B - 6       Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Sec. 141.203 Tier 2 Public Notice—Form, manner, and frequency of notice.
*****

(b) *  * *

(3) *  * *

(ii) Violation of the SWTR, IESWTR or LTIESWTR treatment technique requirement resulting
from a single exceedance of the maximum allowable turbidity limit.
*****

12. Appendix A to subpart Q is amended:

a. Under LA. by revising entry 5.

b. Under LA. by revising entry 7.

c. Adding a new entry 9.

d. Under I.G. by revising entry 10.

e. Revising endnote 6.

The additions and revisions read as follows:

	Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part 141.-NPDWR Violations and Other Situations Requiring Public Notice \1\	
                                         MCL/MRDL/TT violations \2\
                                  Monitoring & testing procedure
                                           violations
 Contaminant
Tier of
public
notice
required
Citation
Tier of
public
notice
required
Citation
 I. Violations of National Primary Drinking
 Water Regulations (NPDWR):\3\
 A. Microbiological Contaminants
 5. Turbidity (for TT violations resulting
 from a single exceedance of maximum
 allowable turbidity level).
\6\2,1
           141.73(a)(2),
           141.73(b)(2),
           141.73(c)(2), 141.73(d),
           141.173(a)(2),
           141.173(b), 141.551(b)
                                 141.74(b)(2),
                                 141.74(c)(l), 141.174,
                                 141.560(a)-(c),
                                 141.561.
*****
7. Interim Enhanced Surface Water \7\ 2
Treatment Rule violations, other than
violations resulting from single exceedance
of max. turbidity level (TT).
*
141.170-141.173,
141.500-141.553
*
3 141.172,141.174,
141.530-141.544,
141.560-141.564.

Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
        Page B- 7
                                        August 2004

-------
  9. Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water      2           141.500-141.553	      3            141.530-141.544,
  Treatment Rule violations                                                                    141.560-141.564.
  G. Disinfection Byproducts (DBFs),
  Byproduct Precursors, Disinfectant
  Residuals. Where disinfection is used in the
  treatment of drinking water, disinfectants
  combine with organic and inorganic matter
  present in water to form chemicals called
  disinfection byproducts (DBFs). EPA sets
  standards for controlling the levels of
  disinfectants and DBFs in drinking water,
  including trihalomethanes (THMs) and
  haloacetic acids (HAAs).\9\
  10. Bench marking and disinfection          N/A         N/A                     3            141.172141.530-
  profiling                                                                                   141.544.
Appendix A-Endnotes:
\1\ Violations and other situations not listed in this table (e.g., reporting violations and failure to prepare Consumer Confidence
Reports), do not require notice, unless otherwise determined by the primacy agency.  Primacy agencies may, at their option, also
require a more stringent public notice tier (e.g., Tier 1 instead of Tier 2 or Tier 2 instead of Tier 3) for specific violations and
situations listed in this Appendix, as  authorized under Sec.  141.202(a) and Sec. 141.203(a).
\2\ MCL—Maximum contaminant level, MRDL—Maximum residual disinfectant level, TT—Treatment technique
\3\ The term Violations of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) is used here to include  violations of MCL,
MRDL, treatment technique, monitoring, and testing procedure requirements.
*          *          *          *          *          *  *
\6\ Systems with treatment technique violations involving a single exceedance of a maximum turbidity limit under the Surface
Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), or the Long Term  1 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR) are required to consult with the primacy agency  within 24 hours after learning of
the violation. Based on this consultation, the primacy agency may subsequently decide to elevate the violation to Tier 1. If a
system is unable to make contact with the primacy agency in the 24-hour period, the violation is automatically elevated to Tier
1.
\7\ Most of the requirements of the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (63  FR 69477) (Sees. 141.170- 141.171,
141.173—141.174) become effective January 1, 2002 for the Subpart H systems (surface water systems and ground water
systems under the direct influence of surface water) serving at least 10,000 persons. However, Sec.  141.172 has some
requirements that become effective as early as April 16, 1999. The Surface  Water Treatment Rule remains in effect for systems
serving at least 10,000 persons even after 2002; the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule adds additional
requirements and does not in many cases supercede the SWTR.
*          *          *          *          *          * *
\9\ Subpart H community and non-transient non-community systems serving 10,000 must comply with new DBF MCLs,
disinfectant MRDLs, and related monitoring requirements beginning January 1, 2002. All other community and non-transient
non-community systems must meet the MCLs and MRDLs beginning January 1, 2004. Subpart H transient non-community
systems serving 10,000 or more persons and using chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant or oxidant must comply with the chlorine
dioxide MRDL begining January 1, 2002. Subpart H transient non-community systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons and
using only ground water not under the  direct influence of surface water and using chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant or oxidant
must comply with the chlorine dioxide MRDL beginning January 1, 2004.

Appendix B—[Amended]


13. Appendix B to subpart Q is amended by:


a. Revising entry  A.2c.
August 2004                                       Page B - 8         Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
b. Revising heading B.

c. Revising entries B.3., B.4, B.5, B.6., and B.7.

d. Revising endnotes 4, 6 and 10.

e. Revising endnote 8.

The revisions read as  follows:

    	   Appendix B  to Subpart Q of Part 141.-Standard Health Effects Language for Public Notification
Contaminant
                                            Standard health effects
MCLG \1\, mg/L	MCL \2\ mg/L	language for public notification
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWR):

A. Microbiological Contaminants
*          *         *

  2c. Turbidity (IESWTR TT and
   LT1ESWTR TT) \8\.
None..
TT
Turbidity has no health
effects. However, turbidity can
interfere with disinfection and
provide a medium for microbial
growth. Turbidity may indicate the
presence of disease-causing
organisms. These organisms include
bacteria, viruses, and parasites that
can cause symptoms such as nausea,
cramps, diarrhea and associated
headaches.
B. Surface Water Treatment Rule
(SWTR), Interim Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR),
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR)
and the Filter Backwash Recycling
Rule (FBRR) violations:
  3. Giardia lamblia	         Zero..
  (SWTR/IESWTR/LT1ESWTR)	
                      TT\10\
4. Viruses
(SWTR/IESWTR/LT1ESWTR)
5. Heterotrophic plate count (HPC) bacteria \9\
(SWTR/IESWTR/LT1ESWTR)
6. Legionella
(SWTR/IESWTR/LT1ESWTR)
7. Cryptosporidium
(IESWTR/FBRR/LT1ESWTR)	
                      Inadequately treated water
                      may contain disease-causing
                      organisms. These organisms include
                      bacteria, viruses, and parasites
                      which can cause symptoms such as
                      nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and
                      associated headaches.
\1\ MCLG-Maximum contaminant level goal.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                Page B- 9
                                         August 2004

-------
\2\ MCL-Maximum contaminant level.
\4\ There are various regulations that set turbidity standards for different types of systems, including 40 CFR 141.13, and the
1989 Surface Water Treatment Rule, the 1998 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and the 2002 Long Term 1
Enhanced Surfece Water Treatment Rule. The MCL for the monthly turbidity average is 1 NTU; the MCL for the 2-day average
is 5 NTU for systems-that are required to filter but have not yet installed filtration (40 CFR 141.13).
\6\ There are various regulations that set turbidity standards for different types of systems, including 40 CFR 141.13, and the
1989 Surface Water Treatment Rule, the 1998 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and the 2001 Long Term 1
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. Systems subject to the Surface Water Treatment Rule (both filtered and unfiltered)
may not exceed 5 NTU. In addition, in filtered systems, 95 percent of samples each month must not exceed 0.5 NTU in systems
using conventional or direct filtration and must not exceed 1 NTU in systems using slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration or
other filtration technologies approved by the primacy agency.
\8\ There are various regulations that set turbidity standards for different types of systems, including 40 CFR 141.13, the 1989
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), the 1998 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and the 2002
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR). For systems subject to the IESWTR (systems serving at
least 10,000 people, using surface water dt ground water under the direct influence of surface water), that use conventional
filtration or direct filtration, after January 1,2002, the turbidity level of a system's combined filter effluent may not exceed 0.3
NTU in at least 95 percent of monthly measurements, and the turbidity level of a system's combined filter effluent must not
exceed 1 NTU at any time. Systems subject to ihe IESWTR using technologies other than conventional, direct, slow sand, or
diatomaceous earth filtration must meet turbidity limits set by the primacy agency. For systems subject to the LT1ESWTR
(systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water) that
use conventional filtration or direct filtration, after January 1,2005, the turbidity level of a system's combined filter effluent may
not exceed 0.3 NTU in at least 95 percent of monthly measurements, and the turbidity level of a system's combined filter effluent
must not exceed 1 NTU at any time. Systems subject to the LTIESWTR using technologies other than conventional, direct, slow
sand, or diatomaceous earth filtration must meet turbidity limits set by the primacy agency.
\9\ The bacteria detected by heterotrophic plate count (HPC)  are not necessarily harmful. HPC is simply an alternative method
of determining disinfectant residual levels. The number of such bacteria is an indicator of whether there is enough disinfectant in
the distribution system.
\10\ SWTR, IESWTR, and LT1ESWTR treatment technique violations that involve turbidity exceedances may use the health
effects language for turbidity instead.


14. Part 141  is amended  by adding a new subpart T to read as follows:


Subpart T-Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection-Systems  Serving Fewer Than 10,000
People


General Requirements
141.500  General requirements
141.501  Who is subject to the requirements of subpart T?
141.502  When must my system comply with  these requirements?
141.503  What does  subpart T require?
Finished Water Reservoirs
141.510  Is my system subject to the new finished water reservoir requirements?
141.511  What is required of new  finished water reservoirs?
Additional Watershed Control Requirements  for Unfiltered Systems
141.520  Is my system subject to the updated watershed control requirements?
141.521  What updated watershed control requirements must my unfiltered system implement to
continue to avoid filtration?
141.522  How does the State determine  whether my system's watershed control requirements are
adequate?
Disinfection Profile
141.530  What is a Disinfection Profile  and who must develop one?
141.531  What criteria must a State use  to determine that a profile is unnecessary?
141.532  How does my system  develop  a Disinfection Profile and when must it begin?
141.533  What data must my system collect to calculate a Disinfection Profile?
141.534  How does my system  use this data to calculate an inactivation ratio?


August 2004                                  Page B - 10       Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
141.535 What if my system uses chloramines, ozone, or chlorine dioxide for primary
disinfection?
141.536 My system has developed an inactivation ratio; what must we do now?
Disinfection Benchmark
141.540 Who has to develop a Disinfection Benchmark?
141.541 What are significant changes to disinfection practice?
141.542 What must my system do if we are considering a significant change to disinfection
practices?
141.543 How is the Disinfection Benchmark calculated?
141.544 What if my system uses chloramines, ozone, or chlorine dioxide for primary
disinfection?
Combined Filter Effluent Requirements
141.550 Is my system required to meet subpart T combined filter effluent turbidity limits?
141.551 What strengthened combined filter effluent turbidity limits must my system meet?
141.552 My system consists of "alternative filtration" and is required to conduct a
demonstration. What is required of my system and how does the State establish my turbidity
limits?
141.553 My system practices lime softening—is there any special provision regarding my
combined filter effluent?
Individual Filter Turbidity Requirements
141.560 Is my system subject to individual filter turbidity requirements?
141.561 What happens if my system's turbidity monitoring equipment fails?
141.562 My system only has two or fewer filters—is there any special provision regarding
individual filter turbidity monitoring?
141.563 What follow-up action is my system required to take based on continuous turbidity
monitoring?
141.564 My system practices lime softening—is there any special provision regarding my
individual filter turbidity monitoring?
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
141.570 What does subpart T require that my system report to the State?
141.571 What records does subpart T require my system to keep?
Subpart T—Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection—Systems Serving Fewer Than 10,000
People

General Requirements

Sec. 141.500 General requirements.

The requirements of this subpart constitute national primary drinking water regulations. These
regulations establish requirements for filtration and disinfection that are in addition to criteria
under which filtration and disinfection are required under subpart H of this part. 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, Cryptosporidium and turbidity. The treatment technique requirements
consist of installing and properly operating water treatment processes which reliably achieve:

(a) At least 99 percent (2 log) removal of Cryptosporidium between a point where the raw water
is not subject to recontamination by surface water runoff and a point downstream before or at the

Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance      Page B - 11                             August 2004

-------
first customer for filtered systems, or Cryptosporidium control under the watershed control plan
for unfiltered systems; and

(b) Compliance with the profiling and benchmark requirements in Sees. 141.530 through
141.544.

Sec. 141.501 Who is subject to the requirements of subpart T?

You are subject to these requirements if your system:

(a) Is a public water system;

(b) Uses surface water or GWUDI as a source; and

(c) Serves fewer than 10,000 persons.

Sec. 141.502 When must my system comply with these requirements?

You must comply with these requirements in this subpart beginning January 1, 2005, except
where otherwise noted.

Sec. 141.503 What does subpart T  require?

There are seven requirements of this subpart, and you must comply with all requirements that are
applicable to your system. These requirements are:

(a) You must cover any finished water reservoir that you began to construct on or after March
15, 2002 as described in Sees. 141.510 and 141.511;

(b) If your system is an unfiltered system, you must comply with the updated watershed control
requirements described in Sees. 141.520-141.522;

(c) If your system is a community or non-transient non-community water systems you must
develop a disinfection profile as described in Sees. 141.530-141.536;

(d) If your system is considering making a significant change to its disinfection practices, you
must develop a disinfection benchmark  and consult with the State for approval of the change as
described in Sees. 141.540-141.544;

(e) If your system is a filtered system, you must comply with the combined filter effluent
requirements as described in Sees. 141.550-141.553;

(f) If your system is a filtered system that uses conventional or direct filtration, you must comply
with the individual filter turbidity requirements as described in  Sees. 141.560-141.564; and

(g) You must comply with the applicable reporting and recordkeeping requirements as described
in Sees. 141.570  and 141.571.

Finished Water  Reservoirs
August 2004                             Page B - 12       Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Sec. 141.510  Is my system subject to the new finished water reservoir requirements?

All subpart H systems which serve fewer than 10,000 are subject to this requirement.

Sec. 141.511  What is required of new finished water reservoirs?

If your system begins construction of a finished water reservoir on or after March 15, 2002 the
reservoir must be covered. Finished water reservoirs for which your system began construction
prior to March 15, 2002 are not subject to this requirement.

Additional Watershed Control Requirements for Unfiltered Systems

Sec. 141.520  Is my system subject to the updated watershed control requirements?

If you are a subpart H system serving fewer than 10,000 persons which does not provide
filtration, you must continue to comply with all of the filtration avoidance criteria in Sec. 141.71,
as well as the additional watershed control requirements in Sec. 141.521.

Sec. 141.521  What updated watershed control requirements must my unfiltered system
implement to continue to avoid filtration?

Your system must take any additional steps necessary to minimize the potential for
contamination by Cryptosporidium oocysts in the source water. Your system's watershed control
program must, for Cryptosporidium:

(a) Identify watershed characteristics and activities which may have an adverse effect on  source
water quality; and

(b) Monitor the occurrence of activities which may have an adverse effect on source water
quality.

Sec. 141.522  How does the State determine whether my system's watershed control
requirements are adequate?

During an onsite inspection conducted under the provisions of Sec. 141.71(b)(3), the State must
determine whether your watershed control program is adequate to limit potential contamination
by Cryptosporidium oocysts. The  adequacy of the program must be based on the
comprehensiveness of the watershed review; the effectiveness of your program to monitor and
control detrimental activities occurring in the watershed; and the extent to which your system has
maximized land ownership and/or controlled land use within the watershed.

Disinfection Profile

Sec. 141.530  What is a Disinfection Profile and who must develop one?

A disinfection profile is a graphical representation of your system's level ofGiardia lamblia or
virus inactivation measured during the course of a year. If you are a subpart H community or
non-transient non-community water systems which serves fewer than 10,000 persons, your
system must develop a disinfection profile unless your State determines that your system's
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance       Page B - 13                              August 2004

-------
profile is unnecessary. Your State may approve the use of a more representative data set for
disinfection profiling than the data set required under Sees. 141.532-141.536.

Sec. 141.531  What criteria must a State use to determine that a profile is unnecessary?

States may only determine that a system's profile is unnecessary if a system's TTHM and HAAS
levels are below 0.064 mg/L and 0.048 mg/L, respectively. To determine these levels, TTHM
and HAAS samples must be collected after January 1, 1998, during the month with the warmest
water temperature, and at the point of maximum residence time in your distribution system. Your
State may approve a more representative TTHM and HAAS data set to determine these levels.

Sec. 141.532  How does my system develop a Disinfection Profile and when must it begin?

A disinfection profile consists of three steps:

(a) First, your system must collect data for several parameters from the plant as discussed in Sec.
141.533 over the course of 12 months. If your system serves between 500 and 9,999 persons you
must begin to collect data no later than July 1, 2003. If your system serves fewer than 500
persons you must begin to collect data no later than January 1, 2004.

(b) Second, your system must use this data to calculate weekly log inactivation as discussed in
Sees. 141.534 and  141.535; and

(c) Third, your system must use these  weekly log inactivations to develop a disinfection profile
as specified in Sec. 141.536.

Sec. 141.533  What data must my system collect to calculate a Disinfection Profile?

Your system must monitor the following parameters to determine the total log inactivation using
the analytical methods in Sec. 141.74  (a), once per week on the same calendar day, over 12
consecutive months:

(a) The temperature of the disinfected water at each residual disinfectant concentration sampling
point during peak hourly flow;

(b) If your system uses chlorine, the pH of the disinfected water at each residual disinfectant
concentration sampling point during peak hourly flow;

(c) The disinfectant contact time(s)  ("T") during peak hourly flow; and

(d) The residual disinfectant concentration(s) ("C") of the water before or at the first customer
and prior to each additional point of disinfection during  peak hourly flow.

Sec. 141.534  How does my system use this data to calculate an inactivation ratio?

Use the tables in Sec.  141.74(b)(3)(v) to determine the appropriate CT99.9 value. Calculate the
total inactivation ratio as follows, and multiply the value by 3.0 to determine log inactivation of
Giardia lamblia:

August 2004                             Page B - 14      Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
  If your system * * *	Your system must determine * * *	

(a) Uses only one point of     (1) One inactivation ratio (CTcalc/CT99.9) before or at the first
disinfectant application.       customer during peak hourly flow
                             or
                             (2) 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, your 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 (3SCTcalc/CT99.9).

(b) Uses more than one point   The (CTcalc/CT99.9) value of each disinfection segment
of disinfectant application     immediately prior to the next point of disinfectant application, or
before the first customer.      for the final segment, before  or at the first customer, during peak
                             hourly flow using the procedure specified in paragraph  (a)(2) of
	this section.	

Sec. 141.535 What if my system uses chloramines, ozone, or chlorine dioxide for primary
disinfection?

If your system uses chloramines, ozone, or chlorine dioxide for primary disinfection, you must
also calculate the logs of inactivation for viruses and develop an additional disinfection profile
for viruses using methods approved by the State.

Sec. 141.536 My system has developed an inactivation ratio; what must we do now?

Each log inactivation serves as a data point in your disinfection profile. Your system will have
obtained 52 measurements (one for every week of the year). This will allow your system and the
State the opportunity to evaluate how microbial inactivation varied over the course of the year by
looking at all 52 measurements (your Disinfection Profile). Your system must retain the
Disinfection Profile data in graphic form, such as a spreadsheet, which must be available for
review by the State as part of a sanitary survey. Your system must use this data to calculate a
benchmark if you are considering changes to disinfection practices.

Disinfection Benchmark

Sec. 141.540 Who has to develop a Disinfection Benchmark?

If you are a subpart H system required to develop a disinfection profile under Sec. Sec.  141.530
through 141.536, your system must develop a Disinfection Benchmark if you decide to  make a
significant change to your disinfection practice. Your system must consult with the State for
approval before you can implement a significant disinfection practice change.

Sec. 141.541  What are significant changes to disinfection practice?

Significant changes to disinfection practice include:

Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance       Page B - 15                              August 2004

-------
(a) Changes to the point of disinfection;

(b) Changes to the disinfectant(s) used in the treatment plant;

(c) Changes to the disinfection process; or

(d) Any other modification identified by the State.

Sec. 141.542 What must my system do if we are considering a significant change to
disinfection practices?

If your system is considering a significant change to its disinfection practice, your system must
calculate a disinfection benchmark(s) as described in Sees. 141.543 and 141.544 and provide the
benchmark(s) to your State. Your system may only make a significant disinfection practice
change after consulting with the State for approval. Your system must submit the following
information to the State as part of the consultation and approval process:

(a) A description of the proposed change;

(b) The disinfection profile for Giardia lamblia (and, if necessary, viruses) and disinfection
benchmark;

(c) An analysis of how the proposed change will affect the current levels of disinfection; and

(d) Any additional information requested by the State.

Sec. 141.543 How is the Disinfection Benchmark calculated?

If your system is making a significant change to its disinfection practice, it must calculate a
disinfection benchmark using the procedure specified in the following table.


      To calculate a disinfection benchmark your system must perform the following steps
Step 1: Using the data your system collected to develop the Disinfection Profile, determine the
average Giardia lamblia inactivation for each calendar month by dividing the sum of all Giardia
lamblia inactivations for that month by the number of values calculated for that month.
Step 2: Determine the lowest monthly average value out of the twelve values. This value
becomes the disinfection benchmark.	

Sec. 141.544 What if my system uses chloramines, ozone, or chlorine dioxide for primary
disinfection?

If your system uses chloramines, ozone or chlorine dioxide for primary disinfection your system
must calculate the disinfection benchmark from the  data your system collected for viruses to
develop the disinfection profile in addition to the Giardia lamblia disinfection benchmark
August 2004                              Page B - 16      Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
calculated under Sec. 141.543. This viral benchmark must be calculated in the same manner used
to calculate the Giardia lamblia disinfection benchmark in Sec. 141.543.

Combined Filter Effluent Requirements

Sec. 141.550 Is my system required to meet subpart T combined filter effluent turbidity
limits?

All subpart H systems which serve populations fewer than 10,000, are required to filter, and
utilize filtration other than slow sand filtration or diatomaceous earth filtration must meet the
combined filter effluent turbidity requirements of Sees. 141.551-141.553 . If your system uses
slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration you are not required to meet the combined filter
effluent turbidity limits of subpart T, but you must continue to meet the combined filter effluent
turbidity limits in Sec. 141.73.

Sec. 141.551 What strengthened combined filter effluent turbidity limits must my system
meet?

Your system must meet two strengthened combined filter effluent turbidity limits.

(a) The first combined filter effluent turbidity limit is a "95th percentile" turbidity limit that your
system must meet in at least 95 percent of the turbidity measurements taken each month.
Measurements must continue to be taken as described in Sec. 141.74(a) and (c). Monthly
reporting must be completed according to Sec. 141.570. The following table describes the
required limits for specific filtration technologies.
 If your system consists of* * *
     Your 95th percentile
      turbidity value is * * *
(1) Conventional Filtration or Direct
Filtration.
(2) All other "Alternative"
     0.3 NTU.

     A value determined by the State (nonot to
      exceed 1 NTU) based on the demonstration
     described in Sec. 141.552.
(b) The second combined filter effluent turbidity limit is a "maximum" turbidity limit which
your system may at no time exceed during the month. Measurements must continue to be taken
as described in Sec. 141.74(a) and (c). Monthly reporting must be completed according to Sec.
141.570. The following table describes the required limits for specific filtration technologies.
If your system consists of * * *
     Your maximum turbidity
     value is * * *
(1) Conventional Filtration or Direct
Filtration.
(2) All other "Alternative" "Alternative
      1NTU.

      A value determined by the State (not to exceed
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
PageB- 17
August 2004

-------
Filtration"...                                   5 NTU) based on the demonstration as
	described in Sec.  141.552.	

Sec. 141.552 My system consists of "alternative filtration" and is required to conduct a
demonstration—what is required of my system and how does the State establish my
turbidity limits?

(a) If your system consists of alternative filtration(filtration other than slow sand filtration,
diatomaceous earth filtration, conventional filtration, or direct filtration) you are required to
conduct a demonstration (see tables in Sec. 141.551). Your system must demonstrate to the
State, using pilot plant studies or other means, that your system's filtration, in combination with
disinfection treatment, consistently achieves:

(1) 99 percent removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts;

(2) 99.9 percent removal and/or inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts; and

(3) 99.99 percent removal and/or inactivation of viruses.

(b) [Reserved]

Sec. 141.553 My system practices lime softening—is there any special provision regarding
my combined filter effluent?

If your system practices lime softening, you may acidify representative combined filter effluent
turbidity samples prior to analysis using a protocol approved by the  State.

Individual Filter Turbidity Requirements

Sec. 141.560 Is my system subject to individual filter turbidity requirements?

If your system is a subpart H system serving fewer than 10,000 people and utilizing conventional
filtration or direct filtration, you must conduct continuous monitoring of turbidity for each
individual filter at your system. The following requirements apply to continuous turbidity
monitoring:

(a) Monitoring must be conducted using an approved method in Sec. 141.74(a);

(b) Calibration of turbidimeters must be conducted using procedures specified by the
manufacturer;

(c) Results of turbidity monitoring must be recorded at least every 15 minutes;

(d) Monthly reporting must be completed according to Sec. 141.570; and

(e) Records must be maintained according to Sec.  141.571.

Sec. 141.561 What happens if my system's turbidity monitoring equipment fails?

August 2004                              PageB- 18       Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
If there is a failure in the continuous turbidity monitoring equipment, your system must conduct
grab sampling every four hours in lieu of continuous monitoring until the turbidimeter is back
on-line. Your system has 14 days to resume continuous monitoring before a violation is incurred.

Sec. 141.562 My system only has two or fewer filters—is there any special provision
regarding individual filter turbidity monitoring?

Yes, if your system only consists of two or fewer filters, you may conduct continuous monitoring
of combined filter effluent turbidity in lieu of individual filter effluent turbidity monitoring.
Continuous monitoring must meet the same requirements set forth in Sec. 141.560(a) through (d)
and Sec.  141.561.

Sec. 141.563 What follow-up action is my system required to take based on continuous
turbidity monitoring?

Follow-up action is required according to the following tables:
     If
       * * *
                   Your system must
                                                                        * * *
(a) The turbidity of an individual
of filter (or the turbidity of
combined filter effluent (CFE)
for systems with 2 filters that monitor
CFE in lieu of individual   filters)
exceeds 1.0 NTU in two consecutive
recordings 15 minutes apart.	
Report to the State by the 10th the following month and
include the filter number(s), corresponding date(s),
 turbidity value(s) which exceeded 1.0 NTU, and the
 cause (if known) for the exceedance(s).
If a system was required to report
 to the State * * *	
                  Your system must
(b) For three months in a row and
turbidity exceeded 1.0 NTU in two
consecutive recordings 15 minutes
apart at the same filter (or CFE for
systems with 2 filters that monitor
CFE in lieu of individual filters).
Conduct a self-assessment of the filter(s) within 14 days
of the day the filter exceeded 1.0 NTU in two
consecutive measurements for the third straight month
unless a CPE as specified in paragraph (c) of this section
was required. Systems with 2 filters that monitor CFE in
lieu of individual filters must conduct a self assessment
on both filters. 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. If a self-assessment is required, the date that it
      l^^CrCu 
-------
(c) For two months in a row and
turbidity exceeded 2.0 BWNTU
in 2 consecutive recordings 15
minutes apart at the same filter
(or CFE for systems with 2
filters that monitor CFE in
lieu of individual filters).
      Arrange to have a comprehensive performance
      evaluation (CPE) conducted by the State or a third
      party approved by the State not later than 60 days
      following the day the filter exceeded 2.0 NTU in
      two consecutive measurements for the second straight
      month. If a CPE has been completed by the State or
      a third party approved by the State within the 12 prior
      months  or the system and State are jointly participating
      in an ongoing Comprehensive Technical Assistance
      (CTA) project at the system, a new CPE is not required.
      If conducted, a CPE must be completed and submitted to
      the State no later than 120 days following the day the
      filter exceeded 2.0 NTU in two consecutive
      measurements for the second straight month.
Sec. 141.564  My system practices lime softening—is there any special provision regarding
my individual filter turbidity monitoring?

If your system utilizes lime softening, you may apply to the State for alternative turbidity
exceedance levels for the levels specified in the table in Sec.  141.563. You must be able to
demonstrate to the State that higher turbidity levels are due to lime carryover only, and not due
to degraded filter performance.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

Sec. 141.570  What does subpart T require that my system report to the State?

This subpart T requires your system to report several items to the State. The following table
describes the items which must be reported and the frequency of reporting. Your system is
required to report the  information described in the following table, if it is subject to the specific
requirement shown in the first column.
Corresponding requirement     Description of information to report
                                         Frequency
(a) Combined Filter Effluent
Requirements.
(Sees.  141.550-141.553)	
(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 your system's required
95th percentile limit.
        By the 10th of
        the following
         month.
                                                              By the 10th of
                                                              the following
                                                              month.
August 2004
         Page B - 20
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
(b) Individual Turbidity
 Requirements.
(Sees.  141.560-141.564)	
(3) The date and value
of any turbidity
measurements taken
during the month which exceed the
maximum turbidity value for your
filtration system.

(1) That your system
conducted individual
filter turbidity
monitoring during the month.

(2) The filter
number(s),
corresponding
date(s), and the turbidity value(s)
which exceeded 1.0 NTU during
the month, and the cause (if
known) for the exceedance(s), but
only if 2consecutive measurements
exceeded 1.0 NTU.
                                                              By the 10th of
                                                              the following
                                                              month.
By the 10th of
the following
month.
                                                              By the 10th of
                                                              the following
                                                              month.
(c) Disinfection Profiling....
(Sees.  141.530-141.536)	
                              (3) If a self-
                              assessment is
                              required, the date
                              that it was triggered
                              and the date that it
                              was completed.
                              (4) If a CPE is
                              required, that the
                              CPE is required and
                              the date that it was triggered.

                              (5) Copy of completed
                              CPE report.
(1) Results of
optional monitoring
which show TTHM
levels 0.064 mg/1 and
HAA5 levels 0.048 mg/
1 (Only if your
system wishes to
forgo profiling) or
                                By the 10th of
                                the following
                                month (or 14
                                days after the
                                self-assessment
                                was triggered only if the
                                self-assessment was
                                triggered during the last
                                four days of the month)

                                By the 10th of
                                the following
                                month.
Within 120 days
after the CPE was
triggered.

(i) For systems
serving 500-
9,999 by July 1,2003;

(ii) For systems
serving fewer
than 500 by
January 1,2004.
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
         Page B-21
               August 2004

-------
                              that your system has begun
                              disinfection profiling.

(d) Disinfection Benchmarking.  (1) A description of
(Sees.  141.540-141.544) ......    the proposed change
                              in disinfection, your
                              system's disinfection
                              profile for Giardia
                              lamblia (and, if
                              necessary, viruses)
                              and disinfection benchmark,
                              and an analysis of how the
                              proposed change will affect the
                              current levels of disinfection.
                                                               Anytime your
                                                               system is
                                                               considering a
                                                               significant
                                                               change to its
                                                               disinfection
                                                               practice.
Sec. 141.571  What records does subpart T require my system to keep?

Your system must keep several types of records based on the requirements of subpart T, in
addition to recordkeeping requirements under Sec. 141.75. The following table describes the
necessary records, the length of time these records must be kept, and for which requirement the
records pertain. Your system is required to maintain records described in this table, if it is
subject to the specific requirement shown in the first column.
  Corresponding requirement
(a) Individual Filter Turbidity
Requirements.
(Sees.  141.560-141.564)
(b) Disinfection Profiling
(Sees.  141.530-141.536)
                                    Description of necessary     Duration of time records
                                       records _ must be kept
                                    Results of individual filter   At least 3 years.
                                    monitoring.
                                    Results of Profile
                                    (including raw data and
                                    analysis).
                                                                Indefinitely.
(c) Disinfection Benchmarking
(Sees.  141.540-141.544)
                                    Benchmark (including raw   Indefinitely.
                                    data and analysis).
PART 142-NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION

15. 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, 300J-9,
and300j-ll.

16. Section 142.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4)(i), (a)(4)(ii) introductory
text, and (a)(7) to read as follows:
August 2004
                                       Page B - 22
                                                      Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Sec. 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
Sees. 141.71, 141.73, 141.173 and 141.175, 141.550-141.553 and 141.560-141.564 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 Sec.  141.13 of this chapter.

(4)(i) Records of disinfectant residual measurements and other  parameters necessary to
document disinfection effectiveness in accordance with Sees. 141.72 and 141.74 of this chapter
and the reporting requirements of Sees. 141.75, 141.175, and 141.570, 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, subpart P, or subpart T of this chapter, must be made in writing and kept by
the State.
* * * * *

(7) Any decisions made pursuant to the provisions of part 141,  subpart P  or subpart T of this
chapter.

(i) Records of systems consulting with the State concerning a modification to disinfection
practice under Sees. 141.170(d), 141.172(c), and 141.542 of this chapter, including the status of
the consultation.

(ii) Records of decisions that a system using alternative filtration technologies, as allowed under
Sees. 141.173(b) and Sec. 141.552 of this chapter, can consistently achieve a 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. 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 Sees. 141.175 and 141.563 of this chapter.
*****
17. Section 142.16 is amended by revising paragraph (g) introductory text and adding paragraph
(j) to read as follows:

Sec. 142.16  Special primacy requirements.
*****

(g) Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFR part 141, Subpart P Enhanced Filtration and
Disinfection—Systems Serving 10,000 or More People. In addition to the general primacy
requirements enumerated elsewhere in this part, including the requirement that State provisions
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance       Page B - 23                              August 2004

-------
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
Systems Serving 10,000 or More People, must contain the information specified in this
paragraph:
(m) [Reserved]

(n) [Reserved]

( o) [Reserved]

(jp) Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFR part 141, Subpart T Enhanced Filtration and
Disinfection-Systems Serving Fewer than 10,000 People. 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 T Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection--
Systems Serving Fewer than 10,000 People, must contain the information specified in this
paragraph:

(1) Enforceable requirements. States must have rules or other authority to require systems to
participate in a Comprehensive Technical Assistance (CTA) activity, the performance
improvement phase of the Composite Correction Program (CCP). The State must determine
whether a CTA must be conducted based on results of a CPE which indicate the potential for
improved performance, and a finding by the State that the system is able to receive and
implement technical assistance provided through the CTA. A CPE is a thorough review and
analysis of a system'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. During the CTA phase, the system must identify and
systematically address factors limiting performance. The CTA is a combination of utilizing CPE
results as a basis for follow-up, implementing process control priority-setting techniques and
maintaining long-term involvement to systematically train staff and administrators.

(2) State practices or procedures.

(i) Section 141.530-141.536— How the State will approve a more representative data set for
optional TTHM and HAAS monitoring and profiling.

(ii) Section 141.536 141.535 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, ozone, or chlorine
dioxide for primary disinfection.

(iii) Section 141.542 of this chapter—How the State will consult with the system and approve
significant changes to disinfection practices.

(iv) Section 141.552 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
August 2004                              Page B - 24      Final LT1ESWTR Implementation  Guidance

-------
technology, in combination with disinfection treatment that meets the requirements of Sec.
141.72(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 Cryptosporidium oocysts.

[FR Doc. 02-409 Filed 1-11-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance      Page B - 25                              August 2004

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

-------
       Complete Copy of the LTIESWTR
             Including Preamble as
         Published on January 14, 2002
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance                        August 2004

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

-------
Monday,

January 14, 2002
Part H



Environmental

Protection Agency

40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Long Term 1 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule; Final Rule

-------
1812
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 9/Monday, January 14, 2002/Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9,141, and 142

[WH-FRL-7124-2]

RIN 2040-AD18

National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Long Term 1 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, EPA is
finalizing the Long Term 1 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule
(LT1ESWTR). The purposes of the
LT1ESWTR are to improve control of
microbial pathogens, specifically the
protozoan Cryptosporidium, in drinking
water and address risk trade-offs with
disinfection byproducts. The rule will
require systems to meet strengthened
filtration requirements as well as to
calculate levels of microbial inactivation
to ensure that microbial protection is
not jeopardized if systems make changes
to comply with disinfection
requirements of the Stage 1 Disinfection
and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
(DBPR). The LTlESWTR applies to
public water systems that use surface
water or ground water under the direct
influence of surface water and serve
fewer than 10,000 persons. The
LTlESWTR builds upon the framework
established for systems serving a
population of 10,000 or more in the
Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (IESWTR).' This rule
was proposed in combination with the
Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR)
in April 2000.
DATES: This regulation is effective
February  13, 2002. As discussed in the
supplementary information section and
consistent with sections 1412(b)(10) and
1445 of SDWA, regulated entities must
comply with this rule starting March 15,
2002. For judicial review purposes, this
final rule is promulgated as of 1 p.m.
eastern time on January 14, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Public comments, the
comment/response document,
applicable Federal Register notices,
other major supporting documents, and
a copy of the index to the public docket
for this rulemaking (W-99-10, Final
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule) are available for review
at EPA's Drinking Water Docket: 401 M
Street, SW., Rm. EB57, Washington, DC
20460 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. For access to
                        docket materials or to schedule an
                        appointment please call (202) 260-3027.
                        FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
                        technical inquiries contact Tom Grubbs
                        at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
                        MC4607, Washington, DC 20460, (202)
                        564-5262. For general information
                        contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline,
                        telephone (800) 426-4791. The Safe
                        Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday
                        through Friday, excluding Federal
                        holidays, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
                        Eastern Time.
                        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                        Regulated Entities
                          Entities potentially regulated by the
                        LTlESWTR are public water systems
                        (PWSs) that use surface water or ground
                        water under the direct influence of
                        surface water (GWUDI) and serve fewer
                        than 10,000 persons. Regulated
                        categories and entities include:
Category
Industry 	
State, Local, Tribal or
Federal Govern-
ments.
Examples of regu-
lated entities
PWSs that use sur-
face water or
GWUDI.
PWSs that use sur-
face water or
GWUDI.
                          This table is not intended to be
                        exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
                        for readers regarding entities likely to be
                        regulated by the LTlESWTR. This table
                        lists the types of entities that EPA is
                        now aware could potentially be
                        regulated by this rule. Other types of
                        entities not listed in this table could
                        also be regulated. To determine whether
                        your facility is regulated by this action,
                        you should carefully examine the
                        definition of PWS in § 141.2 of title 40
                        of the Code of Federal Regulations and
                        applicability criteria in § 141.501 of
                        today's final rule. If you have questions
                        regarding the  applicability of the
                        LTlESWTR to a particular entity,
                        consult the person listed in the
                        preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
                        CONTACT section.

                        List of Abbreviations Used in This
                        Document:
                        AWWA  American Water Works
                            Association
                        AWWSCo  American Water Works
                            Service Company
                        °C  Degrees Celsius
                        CCP  Composite Correction Program
                        CCR  Consumer Confidence Report
                        CDC  Centers for Disease  Control
                        CFR  Code of Federal Regulations
                        CFSII  Continuing Survey of Food
                            Intakes by Individuals
                        COI  Cost of Illness
CPE  Comprehensive Performance
    Evaluation
CTA  Comprehensive Technical
    Assistance
DAF  Dissolved Air Flotation
DBF  Disinfection Byproducts
DBPR  Disinfectants and Disinfection
    Byproduct Rule
EPA  Environmental Protection Agency
ESWTR  Enhanced Surface Water
    Treatment Rule
FACA Federal Advisory Committee
    Act
FBRR  Filter Backwash Recycle Rule
FR  Federal Register
gpm  Gallons per Minute
GWUDI  Ground Water Under Direct
    Influence of Surface Water
HAA5 Haloacetic Acids
    (Monochloroacetic, Dichloroacetic,
    Trichloroacetic, Monobromoacetic
    and Dibromoacetic Acids)
HRRCA  Health Risk Reduction and
    Cost Analysis
ICR  Information Collection Request
IESWTR  Interim Enhanced Surface
    Water Treatment Rule
LTlESWTR  Long Term 1 Enhanced
    Surface Water Treatment Rule
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level
    Goal
M-DBP  Microbial and Disinfectants/
    Disinfection Byproducts
NOW AC  National Drinking Water
    Advisory Council
NPDWR  National Primary Drinking
    Water Regulation
NODA Notice of Data Availability
NTTAA  National Technology Transfer
    and Advancement Act
NTU  Nephelometric Turbidity Units
O&M   Operation and Maintenance
OMB   Office of Management and
    Budget
PBMS Performance-based
    Measurement System
PRA  Paperwork Reduction Act
PWS  Public Water System
PWSS Public Water Supply
    Supervision
RFA  Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA  Regulatory Impact Analysis
SAB  Science Advisory Board
SBA  Small Business Administration
SBAR Small Business Advocacy
    Review
SBREFA  Small Business Regulatory
    Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
SDWA  Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS  Safe Drinking Water
    Information System
SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule
TTHM  Total Trihalomethanes
UMRA  Unfunded Mandates Reform
    Act
WTP  Willingness to Pay
Table of Contents
I. Summary
>»•••*'

-------
               Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 9/Monday, January 14, 2002/Rules  and Regulations
                                                                         1813
  A. Why is EPA Promulgating the
    LT1ESWTR?
  B. What is Cryptosporidium?
  C. What are the Health Concerns
    Associated with Cryptosporidium?
  D. Does this Regulation Apply to My Water
    System?
  E. How is the EPA Regulating
    Cryptosporidium in the LT1ESWTR?
  F. What Other Requirements are Included
    in this Rule?
  G. How Will this Regulation Protect Public
    Health?
II. Background
  A. What is the Statutory Authority for the
    LTlESWTR?
  B. What is the Regulatory History for the
    LTlESWTR?
  C. How were Stakeholders Involved in
    Developing the LTlESWTR?
  D. What did the April 10, 2000 Proposal
    Contain?
III. Discussion of the Final Rule
  A. What Level of Cryptosporidium
    Removal does the LTlESWTR Require?
  B. What Combined Filter Effluent
    Requirements does the LTlESWTR
    Contain?
  C. What Individual Filter Monitoring
    Requirements does the LTlESWTR
    Contain?
  D. What Disinfection Profiling and
    Benchmarking Requirements does the
    LTlESWTR Contain?
  E. How does the Definition of Ground
    Water Under the Direct Influence of
    Surface Water Change?
  F. What Additional Requirements does the
    LTlESWTR Contain for Unfiltered
    Systems?
  G. What does the LTlESWTR Require for
    Finished Water Reservoirs?
  H. What is the Compliance Schedule for
    the LTlESWTR?
  I. What Public Notification and Consumer
    Confidence Report Requirements are
    Contained in the LTlESWTR?
IV. State Implementation
  A. What Special State Primacy
    Requirements does the LTlESWTR
    Contain?
  B. What State Recordkeeping Requirements
    does the LTlESWTR Contain?
  C. What State Reporting Requirements does
    the LTlESWTR Contain?
  D. How Must a State Obtain Interim
    Primacy for the LTlESWTR?
V. Economic Analysis (Health Risk
    Reduction and Cost Analysis)
  A. What are the Costs of the LTlESWTR?
  B. What are the Household Costs of the
    LTlESWTR?
  C. What are the Benefits of the
    LTlESWTR?
  D. What are the Incremental Costs and
    Benefits?
  E. Are there Benefits From the Reduction
    of Co-Occurring Contaminants?
  F. Is there Increased Risk From Other
    Contaminants?
  G. What are the Uncertainties in the Risk,
    Benefit, and Cost Estimates for the
    LTlESWTR?
  H. What is the Benefit/Cost Determination
    for the LTlESWTR?
VI. Other Requirements
  A. Regulatory Flexibility Act [RFA], as
    amended by the Small Business
    Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
    1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
  B. Paperwork Reduction Act
  C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
  D. National Technology Transfer and
    Advancement Act
  E. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
    Planning and Review
  F. Executive Order 12898: Environmental
    Justice
  G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
    Children from Environmental Health
    Risks and Safety Risks
  H. Consultations with the Science
    Advisory Board, National Drinking
    Water Advisory Council, and the
    Secretary of Health and Human Services
  I. Executive Order 13132: Executive Orders
    on Federalism
  J. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and
    Coordination With Indian Tribal
    Governments
  K. Likely Effect of Compliance with the
    LTlESWTR on the Technical, Financial,
    and Managerial Capacity of Public Water
    Systems
  L. Plain Language
  M. Congressional Review Act
  N. Executive Order 13211: Actions
    Concerning Regulations That
    Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
    Distribution, or Use
VII. References

I. Summary

A. Why Is EPA Promulgating the
LTlESWTR?
  The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
requires EPA to set enforceable
standards to protect public health from
contaminants that may occur in
drinking water. As explained in more
detail in the April 10, 2000 proposal for
today's rule (65 FR 19046), EPA has
determined that the presence of
microbiological contaminants is a
substantial health concern. If finished
water supplies contain microbiological
contaminants, disease  outbreaks may
result. Disease symptoms may include
diarrhea, cramps, nausea, jaundice,
headaches, and fatigue. EPA has set
enforceable drinking water treatment
techniques to reduce the risk of
waterborne disease outbreaks.
Treatment technologies such as
filtration and disinfection can remove or
inactivate microbiological
contaminants.
  Physical removal is critical to the
control of Cryptosporidium because it is
highly resistant to standard disinfection
practices. Cryptosporidiosis, the
infection caused by Cryptosporidium,
may manifest itself as a severe infection
that can last several weeks and may
cause the death of individuals with
compromised immune systems. In 1993,
Cryptosporidium caused over  400,000
people in Milwaukee, WI to experience
intestinal illness. More than 4,000 were
hospitalized and at least 50 deaths were
attributed to the cryptosporidiosis
outbreak. There have also been
cryptosporidiosis outbreaks in Nevada,
Oregon, and Georgia over the past
several years.
  In 1990, the EPA Science Advisory
Board (SAB) 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
(USEPA/SAB, 1990). The LTlESWTR
addresses this challenge by improving
the control of a wide range of microbial
pathogens in public drinking water
systems and, specifically addressing
Cryptosporidium for the first time in
systems serving fewer than 10,000
people.
B. What Is Cryptosporidium?
  Cryptosporidium is a protozoan
parasite found in humans, other
mammals, birds, fish, and reptiles. It is
common in the environment and widely
found in surface water supplies (Rose,
1998; LeChevallier and Norton, 1995;
Atherholt ef al, 1998; EPA, 2000a). In
the infected animal, the parasite
multiplies in the gastrointestinal tract.
The animal then excretes oocysts of the
parasite in its feces. These oocysts are
tiny spore-like organisms 4 to 6 microns
in diameter (too small to be seen
without a microscope), which carry
within them the infective sporozoites.
The oocysts of Cryptosporidium are very
resistant to adverse factors in the
environment and can survive dormant
for months in cool, dark conditions such
as moist  soil, or for up to a year in clean
water. When ingested by another animal
they can transmit the cryptosporidiosis
disease and start a new cycle of
infection. Cryptosporidiosis is primarily
a waterborne disease, but has also been
transmitted by consumption of
contaminated food, unhygienic diaper
changing practices (and other person-to-
person contact), and contact with young
farm animals.
  Cryptosporidium oocysts are not
easily killed by commonly-used
disinfectants. They are relatively
unaffected by chlorine and chloramines
in the concentrations that are used for
drinking water treatment. Oocyst
infectivity appears to persist under
normal temperatures, although oocysts
may lose infectivity if sufficiently
cooled or heated (USEPA, 2000a).
Research indicates that oocysts may
remain viable even after freezing  (Payer
and Nerad, 1996).

-------
1814
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 9/Monday, January 14, 2002/Rules  and Regulations
C. PWjot >lre the Health Concerns
Associated With Cryptosporidium?

  When someone is infected with
Cryptosporidium, they may contract
cryptosporidiosis, a disease which can
cause diarrhea, stomach cramps, nausea,
loss of appetite, and a mild fever.
Cryptosporidium has  become
recognized as one of the most common
causes of waterborne  disease (drinking
and recreational) in humans in the
United States. The parasite is found in
every region of the United  States and
throughout the world (www.cdc.gov/
ncidod/dpd/parasites/cryptosporidiosis/
factsht_cryptosporidiosis.htm). The
symptoms of cryptosporidiosis begin an
average of seven days after infection.
Persons with a normal, healthy immune
system can expect their illness to last for
two weeks or less, with constant or
intermittent diarrhea. However, even
after symptoms cease, an individual can
still pass Cryptosporidium in the stool
for up to two months, and may be a
source of infection for others.
  Cryptosporidiosis is not  treatable with
antibiotics, so prevention of infection is
critical. People with weakened immune
systems (those with HIV/AIDS, on
cancer chemotherapy, or who have
received organ transplants) will have
cryptosporidiosis for  a longer period of
time, and it could become  life-
threatening. Young children, pregnant
women, or the elderly infected with
cryptosporidiosis can quickly become
severely dehydrated.
  Twelve waterborne cryptosporidiosis
outbreaks have occurred at drinking
water systems since 1984 (Craun, 1998;
USEPA, 2000a). The largest of the
known outbreaks occurred in
Milwaukee and was responsible for over
400,000 illnesses and at least 50 deaths
(Hoxie, et al., 1997; MacKenzie et al.,
1994); other known outbreaks have
occurred in smaller communities and
have involved many fewer people. An
incident such as a rainstorm that flushes
many oocysts into the source water or
causes a sanitary sewer overflow
combined with a water treatment plant
upset could allow a large pulse of
oocysts to move past  the multiple
barriers of a water treatment plant.

D. Does This Regulation Apply to My
Water System?

  Today's final regulation applies to all
small (serving less than 10,000 people)
public water systems (PWSs) that use
surface water or ground water under the
direct influence of surface water
(GWUDI).
                         E. Howls the EPA Regulating
                         Cryptosporidium in the LT1ESWTR?
                           In the IESWTR (63 FR 69478), EPA
                         established a maximum contaminant
                         level goal (MCLG) of zero for
                         Cryptosporidium. When establishing an
                         MCLG, EPA must also establish either a
                         corresponding Maximum Contaminant
                         Level (MCL) or a treatment technique. In
                         the IESWTR and in today's LTlESWTR,
                         the Agency chose to establish a
                         treatment technique that relies on
                         strengthening water treatment processes
                         already in place. For filtered systems
                         this means achieving at least 2-log (99
                         percent) removal of Cryptosporidium by
                         meeting strengthened combined filter
                         effluent turbidity limits as established
                         by today's rule. For unfiltered systems
                         it means maintaining and improving
                         Cryptosporidium control under existing
                         watershed control plans.
                         F. What Other Requirements Are
                         Included in This Rule?
                           Today's final regulation includes
                         several requirements.
                         —All surface water and GWUDI systems
                           serving fewer than 10,000 people
                           must meet the requirements for
                           achieving a 2-log removal or control
                           of Cryptosporidium;
                         —Conventional and direct filtration
                           systems must comply with  specific
                           combined filter effluent turbidity
                           requirements while alternative
                           filtration systems (systems using
                           filtration other than conventional
                           filtration, direct filtration, slow sand
                           filtration, or diatomaceous earth
                           filtration), must demonstrate the
                           ability to achieve 2-log removal of
                           Cryptosporidium and comply with
                           specific State-established combined
                           filter effluent turbidity requirements;
                         —Conventional and direct filtration
                           systems must continuously monitor
                           the turbidity of individual filters and
                           perform follow-up activities if this
                           monitoring indicates a potential
                           problem;
                         —Systems must develop a disinfection
                           profile unless they can demonstrate
                           that their TTHM and HAAS
                           disinfection byproduct (DBP) levels
                           are less than 0.064 mg/L and 0.048
                           mg/L respectively;
                         —Systems considering a significant
                           change to their disinfection practice
                           must develop a disinfection
                           inactivation benchmark of their
                           existing level of microbial protection
                           and consult with the State for
                           approval prior to implementing the
                           disinfection change;
                         —Finished water reservoirs for which
                           construction begins after the effective
  date of today's rule must be covered;
  and
—Unfiltered systems must comply with
  updated watershed control
  requirements that add
  Cryptosporidium as a pathogen of
  concern.
G. How Will This Regulation Protect
Public Health?
  Today's rule for the first time
establishes  Cryptosporidium control
requirements for small systems by
requiring a  minimum 2-log removal for
Cryptosporidium. The rule also
strengthens filter performance
requirements to ensure 2-log
Cryptosporidium removal, establishes
individual filter monitoring to minimize
contaminant pass-through and support
improved performance, includes
Cryptosporidium in the definition of
GWUDI, and explicitly considers
unfiltered system watershed control
provisions. Today's rule also reflects a
commitment to the importance of
maintaining existing levels of microbial
protection in public water systems as
plants take  steps to comply with newly
applicable DBP standards. Systems
considering significant changes to their
disinfection practices must first  evaluate
current levels of Giardia inactivation
(and virus inactivation if applicable)
and consult with their State Primacy
Agency for approval before
implementing those changes to assure
that current microbial protection is not
significantly reduced. Thus, compliance
with the provisions of today's rule will
improve public health protection by
reducing the risk of exposure to
Cryptosporidium in small systems
serving fewer than 10,000 people even
as those systems begin to take steps to
comply with related DBP standards.
II. Background
A. What Is  the Statutory Authority for
the LTlESWTR?
  The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA
or the Act), as amended in 1986,
requires EPA to publish a maximum
contaminant level goal (MCLG) for each
contaminant which in the judgement of
the EPA Administrator, may have an
adverse effect on the health of persons,
occurs in public water systems with a
frequency and at a level of public health
concern, and whose regulation would
represent a meaningful public health
risk reduction (Section 1412(b)(l)(A)).
MCLGs are non-enforceable health goals
to be set at  a level at which no known
or anticipated adverse effect on the
health of persons occur and which
allows an adequate margin of safety
(Section 1412(b)(4)). The Act was again

-------
              Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 9/Monday, January  14,  2002/Rules and Regulations
                                                                      1815
 amended in August 1996 (Public Law
 104-83), resulting in the renumbering
 and augmentation of certain sections
 with additional statutory language. New
 sections were added establishing new
 drinking water requirements.
  The 1986 Amendments to SDWA
 requires EPA to publish an enforceable
 National Primary Drinking Water
 Regulation (NPDWR) that specifies
 either a maximum contaminant level
 (MCL) or treatment technique (Sections
 1401(1) and 1412(7)(a)) at the same time
 it publishes an MCLG. EPA is
 authorized to promulgate a NPDWR that
 requires the use of a treatment
 technique in lieu of establishing an
 MCL, if the Agency finds that it is not
 economically or technologically feasible
 to ascertain the level of the
 contaminant. Today's rule relies upon
 the treatment technique of improved
 filter performance based on
 strengthened turbidity limits to control
 for Cryptosporidium because an
 analytical method suitable for finished
 water compliance purposes is currently
 not economically or technologically
 feasible. In accordance with a schedule
 established by Section 1412(b)(2)(C) of
 SDWA as added by the 1996
 Amendments to SDWA, EPA is required
 to promulgate today's rule by November
 2000.

 B. What Is the Regulatory History for the
 LT1ESWTR?
  In 1989, EPA promulgated the Surface
 Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) (54 FR
 27486, June 29, 1989 (USEPA, 1989))
 that set  MCLGs of zero for Giardia
 lamblia, viruses, and Legionella and
 promulgated regulatory requirements for
 all PWSs using surface water or GWUDI.
 The SWTR includes treatment
 technique requirements for filtered and
 unfiltered systems that are intended to
 protect against the adverse health effects
 of exposure to Giardia lamblia, viruses,
 and Legionella, as well as many other
 pathogenic organisms. Briefly, those
 requirements include (1) requirements
 for maintenance of a disinfectant
 residual in the distribution system; (2)
 removal and/or inactivation of 3-log
 (99.9 percent) for Giardia and 4-log
 (99.99 percent) for viruses;  (3) combined
 filter effluent turbidity performance
 standard of 5 nephelometric turbidity
 units (NTU) as a maximum and 0.5 NTU
 at the 95th percentile monthly, based on
 4-hour monitoring for treatment plants
using  conventional treatment or direct
 filtration (with separate standards for
 other filtration technologies); and (4)
watershed protection and other
requirements for unfiltered systems.
 Systems seeking to avoid filtration were
required to meet avoidance criteria and
 obtain avoidance determinations from
 States by December 30, 1991, otherwise
 filtration must have been provided by
 June 29,1993. For systems properly
 avoiding filtration, later failures to meet
 avoidance criteria triggered a
 requirement that filtration be provided
 within 18 months.
  The intention of the SWTR was to
 provide appropriate multiple barriers of
 treatment to control pathogen
 occurrence in finished drinking water.
 Cryptosporidium, however, was not
 addressed under the SWTR, because
 EPA lacked sufficient health,
 occurrence, and water treatment control
 data regarding this organism at the time
 of the rule's development. The IESWTR
 and today's final rule address these gaps
 in microbial protection.
  In 1992, EPA initiated a negotiated
 rulemaking (Reg-Neg) to develop a
 disinfectants and disinfection
 byproducts rule. The Reg-Neg
 Committee consisting of a variety of
 stakeholder groups met from November
 1992 through June 1993. As part of this
 effort, the Committee concluded that the
 SWTR needed to be revised to address
 the health risk of high densities of
 pathogens in poorer quality source
 waters than the SWTR addressed as well
 as the health risks of Cryptosporidium.
 The Committee recommended the
 development of three sets of rules: a
 two-staged Disinfectants/Disinfection
 Byproducts Rule (DBPR), an "interim"
 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
 (IESWTR), a "long term" Enhanced
 Surface Water Treatment Rule
 (LT1ESWTR), and an Information
 Collection Rule. The IESWTR was only
 to apply to those systems serving 10,000
 or more persons. The Committee agreed
 that the "long term" Enhanced Surface
 Water Treatment Rule would be needed
 for systems serving fewer than 10,000
 persons.
  Congress legislatively affirmed this
 Microbial/Disinfection Byproduct (M-
 DBP) strategy as part of the 1996 SDWA
 Amendments. As part of those new
 Amendments, Congress also established
 a new schedule for EPA promulgation of
 these rules  (which is the basis for the
 November 2000 schedule for today's
 rule). EPA established the M-DBP
 Advisory Committee under the Federal
 Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in
 1997 to seek advice on how to proceed
towards these deadlines in  light of new
 information available since the 1993
negotiated rulemaking discussions. The
 Committee met five times in March
through July 1997 to discuss issues
related to the IESWTR and the Stage 1
DBPR. The Committee reached
agreement in July of 1997 and its
recommendations are embodied in an
Agreement in Principle document dated
July 15, 1997, which is also found in
two Notices of Data Availability (NODA)
(USEPA1997a,b). The major issues
addressed in the Agreement in Principle
were discussed in the NODA for the
IESWTR (62 FR 59486, November 3,
1997) and Stage 1 DBPR (62 FR 59388,
Novembers, 1997).
  On December 16,1998, EPA
promulgated the IESWTR (63 FR 69478),
which applies to surface water and
GWUDI systems serving 10,000 or more
persons. The purposes of the IESWTR
are to improve control of microbial
pathogens (specifically
Cryptosporidium) and to address risk
trade-offs with DBFs. Key provisions
established in the IESWTR include: (1)
An MCLG of zero for Cryptosporidium;
(2) a 2-log Cryptosporidium removal
requirements for systems that filter; (3)
strengthened combined filter effluent
turbidity performance standards and
individual filter turbidity provisions; (4)
disinfection benchmarking provisions to
assure continued levels of microbial
protection while facilities take the
necessary steps to comply with new
DBP standards; (5) inclusion of
Cryptosporidium in the definition of
GWUDI, as another pathogen that would
indicate the presence of GWUDI, and in
the watershed control requirements for
unfiltered public water systems; (6)
requirements for covers on new finished
water reservoirs; and (7) sanitary
surveys for all surface water and
GWUDI systems regardless of size.
  Today's rule is based in large part
upon the data, research, and technical
analysis that supported the major
components included in the 1998
IESWTR. To that degree, it reflects the
national interim microbial protection
control strategy ratified by a wide range
of experts and stakeholders as part of
the 1997 M/DBP Agreement in
Principle. However, as was discussed in
the April 10, 2000 proposal, today's rule
also is  based on new small system
information that became available since
1998 and, equally important, it also
reflects a major commitment to
significantly reduce small system
compliance burdens wherever possible,
while maintaining public health
protection.

C, How Were Stakeholders Involved in
the Development of the LT1ESWTR?
  EPA began outreach  efforts to develop
the LT1ESWTR in the summer of 1998
with two public meetings: one in
Denver, Colorado and the other in
Dallas, Texas (USEPA, 1999a,b).
Building on these two public meetings,
EPA has also held a number of
additional meetings with stakeholders,

-------
1816
Federal  Register/Vol. 67, No.  9/Monday, January 14,  2002/Rules and Regulations
trade associations, environmental
groups, and representatives of State and
local elected officials. Of particular
importance for this rule, given its focus
on small systems, EPA received
valuable input from small entity
representatives as part of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel.  The panel
was initiated in April of 1998 and
officially convened in August of 1998.
Many of the panel's recommendations
are reflected in today's rule.
  EPA provided numerous
opportunities for stakeholder and public
involvement. In early June 1999, EPA
mailed an informal draft of the
LT1ESWTR preamble to the
approximately 100 stakeholders who
attended either of the public stakeholder
meetings. Members of trade associations
and the SBREFA panel also received the
draft preamble. EPA received valuable
suggestions and stakeholder input from
15 State representatives, trade
associations, environmental interest
groups, and individual stakeholders.
EPA proposed the LTlESWTR on April
10, 2000. During the comment period,
the Agency held a public meeting in
Washington B.C. on April 14, 2000.
Additionally, the proposed rule was
presented to industry,  State
representatives, and the public in nearly
50 meetings across the US, including a
May 30, 2000 meeting in Washington,
D.C. with ten representatives of elected
State and local officials (USEPA
2000g,h). Finally, EPA mailed
approximately 200 copies of the
proposed rule to stakeholders.

D. What Did the April 10, 2000 Proposal
Contain?
  The proposed rulemaking package,
which is the basis for today's final rule,
was  entitled The Long Term 1 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment and Filter
Backwash Proposed Rule (USEPA,
2000b).
  The proposed rule included two
distinct sets of provisions: LTlESWTR
provisions and Filter Backwash
Recycling Rule (FBRR) provisions. The
Agency promulgated the final FBRR  in
a Federal  Register announcement on
June 8, 2001 (66 FR 31086), separate
from today's final rule. The LTlESWTR
proposed rule provisions applied to
surface and GWUDI systems serving
fewer than 10,000 persons and included
the following provisions:
—2-log removal of Cryptosporidium;
—Compliance with specific combined
  filter effluent turbidity requirements;
—Continuous turbidity monitoring for
  individual filters with follow-up
  activities if monitoring results
  indicated a potential problem;
                         —Development of a disinfection profile
                           unless optional monitoring at a
                           particular plant demonstrated TTHM
                           and HAAS levels less than 0.064 mg/
                           L and 0.048 mg/L respectively;
                         —Development of a Giardia inactivation
                           disinfection benchmark and
                           consultation with the State for
                           approval before making a significant
                           change in disinfection practices;
                         —Mandatory covers for all newly
                           constructed finished water reservoirs;
                           and
                         —Unfiltered system compliance with
                           updated watershed control
                           requirements that add
                           Cryptosporidium as a pathogen of
                           concern.

                         III. Discussion of the Final Rule
                         A. What Level of Cryptosporidium
                         Removal Does the LTlESWTR Require?

                         1. What Does Today's Rule Require?
                           Today's final rule establishes a
                         treatment technique requirement for 2-
                         log removal of Cryptosporidium for
                         surface water and GWUDI systems
                         serving fewer than 10,000 persons. This
                         requirement applies between a point
                         where the raw water is not subject to
                         contamination by surface water runoff
                         and a point downstream before or at the
                         first customer.

                         2. How Was This Requirement
                         Developed?
                           As discussed previously in today's
                         rule,  Cryptosporidium is a
                         microbiological contaminant that has
                         caused several outbreaks of
                         cryptosporidiosis and poses serious
                         health risks. For these reasons, the
                         Agency set forth to develop
                         requirements to minimize risks
                         associated with Cryptosporidium in
                         drinking water. In the IESWTR, EPA
                         established a MCLG of zero for
                         Cryptosporidium. EPA decided to
                         establish 2-log removal of
                         Cryptosporidium as the accompanying
                         treatment technique for this MCLG. This
                         requirement is based on a number of
                         treatment effectiveness studies that
                         demonstrate the ability of well-operated
                         conventional and direct filtration plants
                         to achieve at least a 2-log removal of
                         Cryptosporidium (Patania et al., 1995;
                         Nieminski and Ongerth, 1995;  Ongerth
                         and Pecoraro, 1995; LeChevallier and
                         Norton, 1992; LeChevallier etal., 1991;
                         Foundation for Water Research, 1994;
                         Kelly et al., 1995; and West et al., 1994).
                         The information and data in these eight
                         studies provide convincing evidence
                         that conventional and direct filtration
                         plants that employ coagulation,
                         flocculation, sedimentation (in
                         conventional filtration only), and
filtration steps, have the ability to
achieve a minimum of 2-log removal of
Cryptosporidium when meeting specific
turbidity limits. EPA has also provided
data in the proposal for today's final
rule that indicate the ability of slow
sand filtration, diatomaceous earth
filtration, and alternative filtration
(membrane filtration, cartridge
filtration, etc.) to achieve at least 2-log
removal of Cryptosporidium (Jacangelo
et al., 1995; Drozd & Schartzbrod, 1997;
Hirata & Hashimoto, 1998; Goodrich et
al., 1995; Collins et al., 1996; Lykins et
al., 1994; Adham et al., 1998; Shuler &
Ghosh, 1991; Timms etal., 1995; Shuler
et al., 1990; and Ongerth & Hutton,
1997). The Agency believes that the
technological feasibility for 2-log
removal is demonstrated for both large
and small systems and therefore today's
rule extends the 2-log Cryptosporidium
removal requirement established for
large and medium systems in the 1998
IESTWR to small systems serving fewer
than 10,000 persons.

3. What Major Comments Were
Received?
  The majority of the commenters on
the proposed rule agreed with the
appropriateness of establishing a 2-log
removal requirement for
Cryptosporidium. A few commenters
noted that small systems should not be
required to meet the same
Cryptosporidium log removal
requirements as large systems. EPA
disagrees. The technological feasibility
of 2-log removal is well demonstrated
(as shown in the studies discussed in
the proposal for today's final rule) and
the Agency believes that persons served
by all sized systems should be afforded
comparable levels of public health
protection (i.e., the small systems
subject to the LTlESWTR should have
the same MCLG, and the 2-log
Cryptosporidium removal treatment
technique as large systems subject to the
IESWTR).

B. What Combined Filter Effluent
Requirements Does the LTlESWTR
Contain?

1. What Does Today's Rule Require?
  Today's final rule requires
strengthened combined filter effluent
performance for conventional filtration,
direct filtration, and alternative
filtration systems (systems using
filtration technologies other than
conventional filtration, direct filtration,
diatomaceous earth filtration, or slow
sand filtration) as the treatment
technique for achieving a 2-log removal
of Cryptosporidium. For conventional
and direct filtration systems, the

-------
              Federal Register/Vol.  67,  No. 9/Monday,  January 14, 2002/Rules and Regulations
                                                                      1817
turbidity level of representative samples
of a system's combined filter effluent
water must be less than or equal to 0.3
NTU in at least 95 percent of the
measurements taken each month. The
turbidity level of representative samples
of a system's filtered water must at no
time exceed 1 NTU. Under today's rule,
conventional and direct filtration plants
meeting these filter performance
requirements are presumed to achieve at
least a 2-log removal of
Cryptosporidium. Slow sand and
diatomaceous earth filtration plants are
presumed to achieve at least 2-log
removal of Cryptosporidium if they
continue to meet the existing filter
performance requirements established
in the SWTR. Systems using alternative
filtration (i.e., membrane filtration,
cartridge filtration, etc.) must
demonstrate to the State that their
system achieves  2-log removal of
Cryptosporidium. The State will then
establish appropriate turbidity limits to
reflect this performance. At the end of
each month, systems must report the
total number of combined filter effluent
turbidity measurements taken each
month, as well as the number and
percentage of turbidity measurements
that exceeded their 95th percentile
turbidity limit and the number of
measurements that exceeded their
maximum turbidity limit. Combined
filter effluent turbidity measurements
must be kept for  at least three years.

2. How Was This Requirement
Developed?
  In establishing the 2-log removal as a
treatment technique for
Cryptosporidium, the Agency relied on
the aforementioned studies to
demonstrate the  technological feasibility
of establishing the 2-log removal. These
studies demonstrated that specific
treatment would achieve 2-log removal
of Cryptosporidium when operated to
achieve specific turbidity performance
limits. For conventional and direct
filtration systems, studies demonstrated
that achieving a turbidity of 0.3 NTU 95
percent of the time and never exceeding
1 NTU would ensure at least 2-log
removal of Cryptosporidium.  For slow
sand and diatomaceous earth filtration
systems, the studies demonstrated that
meeting existing  SWTR turbidity limits
would ensure at least 2-log removal of
Cryptosporidium. Alternative filtration
systems were shown to achieve at least
2-log removal of  Cryptosporidium at  a
variety of turbidities based on the type
of filtration and other site-specific
characteristics. The requirements of
today's final rule reflect the
recommendations of the 1997 M-DBP
Committee.
  As part of the LTlESWTR
development process, EPA analyzed
performance data from 211 small
systems in 15 different States. That data
indicated that a substantial number of
small systems are presently meeting the
tighter performance standards of today's
rule. For example, 50 percent of the 211
systems are currently meeting 0.3 NTU
12 months out of the year. In addition,
93 percent of the 211 systems never
exceeded the 1 NTU maximum 12
months out of the year. Therefore, EPA
believes that the strengthened filter
performance standards established for
small systems in today's final rule are
feasible and achievable.

3. What Major Comments Were
Received?
  The majority of the commenters on
the proposal agreed with the
appropriateness of the combined filter
effluent requirements. Many
commenters raised concerns with the
proposal's reliance on turbidity as an
indicator for demonstrating that
membrane filtration meets the same
Cryptosporidium removal requirements
as conventional and direct filtration
systems. Commenters indicated that
although turbidity is the most prevalent
form of water quality monitoring,
establishing a 0.3 NTU 95th percentile
limit and 1 NTU maximum limit would
not be as appropriate an  indicator of the
performance of membranes than other
parameters such as flux or membrane
integrity. They noted that using
turbidity was appropriate if site specific
turbidity limits were utilized. At most
facilities these limits would typically be
much lower than 0.3 NTU.
Additionally, commenters asserted that
since the typical operational turbidities
of membranes (< 0.05 NTU) were so
much lower than those of conventional
filtration, it would be inappropriate to
require membranes to meet turbidity
limits that were significantly higher
than standard operating practices. In
response, EPA notes that in the
proposed rule, EPA allowed membrane
systems to meet either conventional
filtration or alternative filtration
combined filter effluent requirements.
After further evaluating existing studies
and information provided by
commenters, EPA agrees that other
appropriate indicators may be used to
determine the treatment  efficiency of
membrane filtration, and that given the
different operational turbidities of
conventional filtration and membrane
filtration, different turbidity limits are
appropriate. Therefore, today's final rule
treats membrane filtration as an
available alternative filtration
technology, instead of requiring
membranes to meet the same turbidity
limits as conventional and direct
filtration.

C. What Individual Filter Monitoring
Requirements Does the LTlESWTR
Contain?

1. What Does Today's Rule Require?
  Today's final rule establishes a
requirement that all systems using
surface water or GWUDI, serving fewer
than 10,000 persons, and utilizing
conventional or direct filtration must
continuously monitor the individual
filter turbidity for each filter used at the
system. For purposes of this rule,
continuous monitoring means at least
every 15 minutes. Systems must keep
the results  of this monitoring for at least
three years. Each month systems must
report to the State that they have
conducted  individual filter turbidity
monitoring, and are required to indicate
the dates, filter number, and turbidities
of any measurements that exceeded 1.0
NTU. Today's rule provides that
systems with two or fewer filters may
monitor combined filter effluent
turbidity continuously, in lieu of
individual  filter turbidity monitoring.
Based on this monitoring, if a system
exceeds 1.0 NTU in two consecutive
measurements the system must include
the filter number, date, time and reason
for the exceedance at the end of the
month in its monthly filter performance
report to the State.  If this occurs three
months in a row for the same filter, a
system is required to conduct a self-
assessment of the filter. If a self-
assessment is required, it must take
place within 14 days of the day the filter
exceeded 1.0 NTU in two consecutive
measurements for the third straight
month. The system must report to the
State that the self-assessment was
completed. A self-assessment must
include 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 self-assessment
  report.
  If a system exceeds 2.0 NTU (in two
consecutive measurements 15 minutes
apart) for two months in a row, the
system must contact the State to arrange
for the State or an approved third party
to conduct  a Comprehensive
Performance Evaluation (CPE) not later
than 60 days following the day the filter
exceeded 2.0 NTU in two consecutive
measurements for the second straight
month. The CPE must be completed and

-------
1818
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 9/Monday, January 14, 2002/Rules  and Regulations
submitted to the State no later than 120
days following the day the filter
exceeded 2.0 NTU in two consecutive
measurements for the second straight
month.

2. How Was This Requirement
Developed?

  Performance of individual filters
within a plant is of paramount
importance in preventing pathogen
breakthrough. Two important concepts
regarding individual filters underlie
today's individual filter monitoring
requirement. First, as discussed in more
detail in the April 10, 2000 proposal,
poor performance (and potential
pathogen breakthrough) of one filter can
be masked by optimal performance of
the remaining filters, without exceeding
combined filter effluent turbidity
performance standards. Second, recent
filter performance research
demonstrates that individual filters are
susceptible to turbidity spikes of short
duration that may not be captured by
four-hour  combined filter effluent
measurements. Several studies
(Amirthatajah, 1988;  Bucklin et al,
1988; Cleasby 1990; Hall and Croll 1996;
and McTigue et al, 1998) have
confirmed the frequency and magnitude
of individual filter turbidity spikes. To
address these spikes and the potential
for masking, and provide system
operators with information and
advanced  warning with regards to
individual filter performance problems
before they lead to treatment technique
violations, the Agency proposed
individual filter turbidity monitoring.
EPA proposed one option and requested
comment  on two alternative approaches.
The alternatives consisted of an
approach  identical to the IESWTR that
entailed significantly more burden, and
an approach that included 95th
percentile and maximum triggers
instead of a trigger based on two
consecutive measurements. The
proposed  option has been revised in
three minor ways. In today's rule:

—Systems with two or fewer filters may
  monitor combined filter effluent
  turbidity continuously, in lieu of
  individual filter turbidity (the
  proposal required all filters be
  monitored);
—Systems must schedule CPEs within
  60 days and complete them within
  120 days (the proposal required 30
  and 90 days);
—A system has 14 days following a
  turbidimeter malfunction to resume
  continuous individual filter
  monitoring before a violation occurs
   (the proposal required 5 days).
                         3. What Major Comments Were
                         Received?
                           The majority of the commenters on
                         the proposal agreed with the
                         appropriateness of the individual filter
                         monitoring requirements. The Agency
                         requested comment on a variety of
                         issues to which commenters responded.
                         Most commenters supported the
                         modification that States be provided the
                         opportunity to allow systems with two
                         or fewer filters to monitor combined
                         filter effluent turbidity continuously, in
                         lieu of individual filter turbidity
                         indicating that poor performance of one
                         filter could not simply be masked by
                         optimal performance of an additional
                         filter. The Agency has included this
                         modification in today's final rule
                         because it reduces the burden on small
                         systems while still providing
                         continuous monitoring that can be used
                         to indicate whether filters are
                         performing poorly.
                           Several commenters supported a
                         modification to lengthen CPE schedules
                         by 30 days. The Agency has included
                         this modification in today's final rule in
                         order to provide States added flexibility
                         in performing these activities. The extra
                         30 days will provide States the
                         opportunity to marshal unique
                         resources (specifically, employees
                         trained in conducting CPEs) and
                         prioritize the conduct of CPEs, when
                         several systems trigger them during the
                         same time period.
                           Several commenters indicated that
                         allowing only five working days for an
                         on-line turbidimeter to be off-line before
                         a violation resulted would be
                         inappropriate for small systems.
                         Commenters indicated that smaller
                         systems often do not have back-up units
                         onsite and would be required to contact
                         manufacturers and await shipping and
                         installation which could easily exceed
                         the five days. EPA agrees and has
                         modified the requirement to allow
                         systems serving fewer than 10,000
                         persons, 14 days to resume online
                         monitoring prior to incurring a
                         violation.
                           Several commenters noted that
                         systems serving fewer than 10,000
                         persons should be subject to less
                         frequent monitoring of individual filter
                         effluent. EPA believes that continuous
                         individual filter monitoring is feasible
                         and assures improved performance of
                         filtration systems. As explained in the
                         proposal, continuous filter monitoring is
                         necessary to identify short duration
                         turbidity spikes which are likely to be
                         missed with less frequent monitoring.
                         This is true for systems of all sizes. Less
                         frequent monitoring would not identify
                         many turbidity spikes and accordingly
would not provide a comparable level of
public health protection as that of
continuous monitoring required for
large systems under the IESWTR. In
fact, the actual frequency of individual
filter monitoring has little effect on
burden as much of the costs associated
with monitoring  are derived from the
purchase of the necessary equipment
and would be incurred regardless of the
frequency. Reduced monitoring would
represent reduced public health
protection and the Agency firmly
believes that the  consumers of these
small systems should be afforded a
comparable level of public health
protection as larger systems.

D. What Disinfection Profiling and
Benchmarking Requirements Does the
LT1ESWTR Contain?

1. What Does Today's Rule Require?
  Today's final rule requires community
and non-transient non-community
systems that use  surface water or
GWUDI and serve fewer than  10,000
persons to develop a disinfection profile
based on a 52 week period. Systems
serving between  500 and 9,999 must
begin profiling and notify the State to
this effect by July 1, 2003. Systems
serving fewer than 500 must begin
profiling and notify the State to this
effect by January 1, 2004. To conduct
the profile, systems must:
—Monitor disinfectant residual
  concentration, water temperature in
  degrees Celsius, pH, and contact time
  during peak hourly flow once a week
  (on the same calendar day) during all
  months that the system is operational;
—Calculate Giardia lamblia inactivation
  for each of the 52 weeks; and
—Plot graphically, the 52 weekly
  inactivations.
  Results of the profile must be kept
indefinitely. EPA is developing
guidance materials that provide detailed
information on this procedure. A State
may determine that a system's profile is
unnecessary where a system submits
TTHM and HAA5 data that:
—Is taken during the month of warmest
  water temperature (beginning no
  earlier than 1998);
—Is taken at the  point of maximum
  residence time; and
—Reports levels of TTHM and HAAS of
  less than 0.064 mg/L and 0.048 mg/L
  respectively.
  Today's final rule also requires any
system which developed a profile and
which decides to make a significant
change to their disinfection practice to
determine their disinfection benchmark
(the average microbial inactivation
during the month with the lowest

-------
              Federal  Register/Vol. 67, No. 9/Monday, January 14, 2002/Rules and Regulations
                                                                      1819
inactivation), consult with the State for
approval, and provide the following
information during consultation:
—Description of the proposed change;
—Disinfection profile (and data used to
  develop profile); and
—Analysis of how the proposed change
  will affect the current levels of
  disinfection.
Results of the disinfection benchmark
(including the raw data and analysis)
must be kept indefinitely.

2. How Was This Requirement
Developed?
  The disinfection benchmarking
requirements provide the necessary link
between simultaneous compliance with
microbial protection requirements of the
IESWTR and LTlESWTR and
disinfection byproduct requirements of
the DBPR. The requirements were
established pursuant to the authority of
Section 1445 of SDWA to ensure that
systems would not jeopardize microbial
protection when making changes in
disinfection practices to comply with
the DBPR.
  During the 1997 M/DBP FACA
deliberations, all participants agreed to
the fundamental premise that new
standards  for control of DBFs must not
lead to significant reductions in existing
levels of microbial protection. This
premise is reflected in the 1997 M-DBP
Advisory Committee Agreement in
Principle document. The Advisory
Committee reached agreement on the
use of a microbial profiling and
benchmarking process, whereby a
system and State, working together,
could assure that there would not be a
significant increase in microbial risk as
a result of modifying disinfection
practices to meet MCLs for TTHM and
HAAS. The final IESWTR established
the disinfection benchmark procedure
to require large systems (serving 10,000
or more persons) that might be
considering a significant change to their
disinfection practice (defined as systems
with TTHM or HAAS concentrations at
or above 80 percent of the respective
MCLs (e.g., 0.064 mg/L TTHM or 0.048
mg/L HAAS)) to evaluate the impact on
microbial risk. Under the IESWTR, large
systems whose TTHM and/or HAAS
average levels exceeded the
aforementioned values were required to
develop a disinfection profile of
microbial inactivation over the course of
a year by calculating the daily level of
Giardia inactivation. Those large
systems required to develop a
disinfection profile that also plan to
make a significant change to
disinfection practices were required to
develop a "benchmark" of existing
levels of Giardia microbial protection
and to consult with the State prior to
implementing the change.
  In developing the disinfection
benchmarking requirements of the
LTlESWTR, EPA used the IESWTR
requirements as a starting point and,
using significant input from
stakeholders, modified the requirements
to significantly  reduce burden yet
maintain a comparable level of public
health protection. The April 10, 2000
proposal included several alternatives
for establishing the microbial profiling
and benchmarking process.
  Of the four TTHM and HAAS
monitoring alternatives, the first was
identical to the  IESWTR, and included
four quarters of monitoring at four
points in the distribution system. The
second alternative matched DBF
compliance monitoring, requiring
systems serving fewer than 500 to
monitor once per year, and systems
serving 500 or greater to monitor
quarterly. A third alternative required
only one sample taken at the point of
maximum residence time for all
systems. The fourth alternative (which
was proposed) made TTHM and HAA5
monitoring optional. This alternative
was chosen over the others, because it
significantly reduces burden  and the
concern about "early implementation,"
that is, the need for systems to comply
with requirements of a rule before
primacy states have adopted  new
conforming regulations, while still
retaining the ability for  systems and
States to utilize monitoring data to
demonstrate low TTHM and HAAS
levels, and therefore avoid profiling.
Since this monitoring is no longer
required to determine the applicability
of systems to conduct profiles, the final
LTlESWTR refers to this monitoring as
"optional monitoring."  The associated
TTHM and HAAS samples that must be
conducted under this optional
monitoring, are described in section
141.531. Of the  four profiling
alternatives, the first was identical to
the IESWTR, requiring daily profiling
for a year. The second alternative did
not require profiling. The third
alternative, which was proposed,
required weekly profiling for a year. The
fourth alternative required daily
profiling during a single month. The
Agency proposed weekly profiling over
the course of a full year because it
significantly reduces burden  associated
with conducting profiling (as compared
to the first alternative), but still provides
information on the seasonal variation
associated with microbial inactivation,
and develops an accurate microbial
benchmark as systems moved to comply
with the Stage 1 DBPR. The second and
fourth profiling alternatives would not
provide such information. The Agency
has revised the proposed option in one
minor way. In today's rule:
—Systems serving between  500 and
  9,999 persons must begin weekly
  profiling no later than July 1, 2003,
  and systems serving fewer than 500
  persons must begin weekly profiling
  no later than January 1, 2004 (the
  proposal required all systems to begin
  profiling no later than January 7,
  2003).

3. What Major Comments Were
Received?
  The Agency received significant
comment on the disinfection
benchmarking provisions of the
proposed rule. Commenters both
supported and opposed the  proposed
"optional" TTHM and HAAS
monitoring. Several commenters argued
that EPA should not require systems or
states to undertake activities, even
optional monitoring, before  three years
from the date a rule is promulgated
because it would result in early
implementation of the rule.  While the
Agency agrees that to the extent
possible, implementation should be
minimized in the  first three  years after
the promulgation  of a national primary
drinking water regulation, as required
by Section 1412(b)(10) of SDWA, the
Agency continues to believe that
allowing systems  to conduct optional
monitoring prior to three years after
promulgation is appropriate and
authorized under  section 1445 of
SDWA.
  Several commenters raised "early
implementation"  concerns with
profiling as well, and suggested
profiling should take place only after
using the first round of DBP monitoring
in 2004 as optional monitoring for
profiling activities. The Agency does
agree, that to the extent possible, early
implementation should be minimized in
the first two years after the
promulgation of the rule. However, the
Agency believes that developing a
microbial profile and benchmark prior
to compliance monitoring under the
Stage 1 DBPR is key to ensuring that
systems do not jeopardize existing
microbial protection when making
changes to their disinfection practices to
comply with the Stage 1 DBPR.
Consequently, today's final rule requires
systems serving fewer than 500 persons
to begin profiling  in January 2004, while
systems serving greater than 500 to
9,999 persons are  required to begin
profiling in July 2003.
  Other commenters believed that the
proposed requirement represented
burden reduction  for small systems and

-------
1820
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 9/Monday, January 14, 2002/Rules and Regulations
States while still achieving the goals of
optional monitoring and profiling as
developed by the 1997 FACA and EPA.
Additionally, commenters noted that
EPA should provide States and systems
the ability to use more representative
data if available (i.e., allowing systems
to average over several quarters of data
similar to the IESWTR requirements).
EPA agrees that systems and States
should be allowed the opportunity to
use more representative samples, and
today's final rule affords States the
opportunity to allow more
representative data for optional
monitoring and profiling.

E, How Does the Definition of Ground
Water Under the Direct Influence of
Surface Water Change?

1. What Does Today's Rule Require?

  Today's final rule modifies the
definition of ground water under the
direct influence of surface water
(GWUDI) to include Cryptosporidium,
as another pathogen that would indicate
the presence of GWUDI, for all PWSs.

2. How Was This Requirement
Developed?

  Although ground water is typically
protected from microbial contaminants
that are characteristic of surface water
supplies, some ground water systems
are susceptible to microbial
contamination from surface water.
Ground water that exhibits physical
water quality indicators that closely
correlate with nearby surface water and
which contain surface water indicator
organisms is "under the influence," of
that surface water. In order to protect
customers of such systems  from
illnesses resulting from exposure to
Giardia and other microbial pathogens,
the Agency addressed this issue during
development of the 1989 SWTR. The
final SWTR requires that systems with
source water found to be GWUDI are
subject to the filtration and disinfection
requirements of Section 141 subpart H.
  During development of today's final
rule, the Agency proposed  to modify the
definition of GWUDI to include
Cryptosporidium, as another pathogen
that would indicate the presence of
GWUDI. This is consistent with the
approach taken by the Agency in the
IESWTR and is further supported by
recently available data indicating
Cryptosporidium occurrence in 21
public water system wells (Hancock et
al, 1998). As a result, EPA believes it
appropriate and necessary  to include
Cryptosporidium in the definition of
GWUDI for systems serving fewer than
10,000 persons in today's rule.
                         3. What Major Comments Were
                         Received?

                           Commenters agreed with the
                         appropriateness of modifying the
                         definition of GWUDI to include
                         Cryptosporidium for all PWSs. Today's
                         final rule reflects the GWUDI definition
                         as proposed.

                         F. What Additional Requirements Does
                         the LTlESWTR Contain for Unfiltered
                         Systems?

                         \. What Does Today's Rule Require?

                           Today's rule modifies the
                         requirements for surface water or
                         GWUDI systems serving fewer than
                         10,000 persons that do not provide
                         filtration by including Cryptosporidium
                         in the watershed control provisions
                         everywhere Giardia lamblia is
                         mentioned.

                         2. How Was This Requirement
                         Developed?

                           Watershed control requirements were
                         initially established in 1989 as part of
                         the SWTR. The SWTR contains specific
                         conditions that a system must meet in
                         order to avoid filtration. These
                         conditions include good source water
                         quality disinfection requirements,
                         periodic on-site inspections, the absence
                         of waterborne disease outbreaks,
                         compliance with the Total Coliform
                         Rule, and a watershed control program.
                         The SWTR requires that the watershed
                         control program must be maintained
                         specifically to minimize the potential
                         for contamination by Giardia lamblia
                         cysts and viruses in the source water.
                           During development of today's rule,
                         the Agency proposed that
                         Cryptosporidium should also be
                         included as a focus in watershed
                         program for unfiltered systems. For the
                         same public health reasons explained in
                         detail as part of the April 10, 2000
                         proposal and outlined earlier regarding
                         the risks associated with exposure to
                         Cryptosporidium, the Agency believes it
                         is important that watershed control
                         requirements for unfiltered systems be
                         revised to include Cryptosporidium.
                         This is particularly important since
                         such systems do not have  the additional
                         treatment barrier provided by filtration
                         to protect against possible pass-through
                         of Cryptosporidium into the distribution
                         system.

                         3. What Major Comments  Were
                         Received?

                           Commenters agreed with the
                         appropriateness of including
                         Cryptosporidium in the watershed
                         control program requirements for
                         unfiltered systems. No substantive
changes were made to this provision
between proposal and today's final rule.

G. What Does the LTlESWTR Require
for Finished Water Reservoirs

1. What Does Today's Rule Require?
  Today's final rule requires that all
finished water reservoirs, holding tanks,
or storage water facilities for finished
water at systems serving fewer than
10,000 persons, for which construction
begins after March 15, 2002 must be
covered.

2. How Was This Requirement
Developed?
  Open finished water reservoirs,
holding tanks, and storage tanks are
utilized by PWSs throughout the
country. Because these reservoirs are
open to the environment and outside
influences, they can be subject to the
reintroduction of contaminants that the
treatment plant was designed to remove.
Existing EPA guidelines recommend
that all finished water reservoirs and
storage tanks be covered (USEPA, 1991).
Additionally, many States currently
require that finished water storage be
covered, and the American Water Works
Association (AWWA) has issued a
policy statement strongly supporting the
covering of reservoirs that store potable
water (AWWA, 1983). In the July 29,
1994 IESWTR proposal (59 FR 38832),
the Agency requested comment on
whether to issue regulations requiring
systems to  cover finished water storage.
Most commenters supported either
Federal or State requirements, with
some suggesting requirements should
only apply to newly constructed
reservoirs.  In the final IESWTR, the
Agency required systems using surface
water and GWUDI and serving 10,000
persons or  more to cover any newly
constructed finished water reservoirs,
holding tanks, or storage tanks. Through
discussions with stakeholders and
evaluations of available information, the
Agency is unaware of any newly
constructed uncovered finished water
reservoirs at small systems since
discussions with stakeholders regarding
the LTlESWTR began in 1998. The
Agency is furthermore unaware of any
future plans of small systems to
construct uncovered finished water
reservoirs.  In fact the drinking water
industry (regulators, consultants, and
industry groups) have discouraged the
construction of new uncovered
reservoirs for many years. Furthermore,
creating a prohibition on newly
constructed uncovered finished water
reservoirs would not affect current
unfinished water reservoirs or even any
system, which, despite the industry

-------
              Federal Register/Vol. 67, No.  9/Monday, January 14, 2002/Rules and Regulations
                                                                            1821
standard of constructing only covered
finished water reservoirs, may have
already commenced construction on an
uncovered finished water reservoir
unbeknownst to the Agency or
stakeholders which provided input on
the rule. Therefore, in accordance with
Section 1412(b)(10) of SDWA, the
Agency has determined it is practicable
to require as part of today's rule that
systems serving fewer than 10,000
people provide covers for all finished
water reservoirs, holding tanks, or
     storage reservoirs constructed after
     March 15, 2002.
     3. What Major Comments Were
     Received?
       Commenters agreed with the
     appropriateness of requiring that newly
     constructed finished water storage be
     covered. Several States noted that they
     currently require that all finished water
     reservoirs be covered. No substantive
     changes were made to this provision
     between proposal and today's final rule.
          H. What Is the Compliance Schedule for
          the LT1ESWTR?

          1. When Must My System Comply With
          Each of the Requirements of the Rule?

            Each of the components of the final
          LT1ESWTR has a specific compliance
          date. The following table lists each
          requirement, along with the appropriate
          Federal Register citation and the
          compliance date:
         Rule requirements
            FR citation
                 Compliance date
Cover new finished water reservoirs 	
Comply with updated watershed control
  requirements (unfiltered PWSs).
Begin Developing Disinfection Profile	
Complete the Disinfection Profile
§141.511  	
§§141.520, 141.521 & 141.522

§§141.530-141.536 	
Combined Filter Effluent Turbidity Limits

Individual Filter Turbidity Monitoring 	
§§141.530-141.536
§§141.550,   141.551,   141.552,   &
  141.553.
§§141.560, 141.561, 141.562, 141.563,
  141.564.
March 15, 2002.
January 14, 2005.

July 1, 2003 for systems serving between 500 and 9,999
  persons and January 1, 2004 for systems serving fewer
  than 500 persons.
July 1, 2004 for systems serving between 500 and 9,999
  persons and January 1, 2005 for systems serving fewer
  than 500 persons.
January 11, 2005.

January 11, 2005.
2. What Major Comments Were
Received?

  Many commenters noted that they
would not support requirements that
would take place prior to two years after
the promulgation of today's final rule.
Several others recommended requiring
that no portions of the rule should take
effect until three years after the date of
promulgation. The Agency does agree
that to the extent possible,
implementation should be minimized in
the first two years after the
promulgation of the rule. However,
today's final rule requires systems
serving fewer than 500 persons to begin
profiling in January 2004, while systems
serving greater than 500 to 9,999
persons are required to begin profiling
in July 2003. This would allow time for
States to work with systems, yet still
provide profiling data prior to
compliance sampling under the Stage 1
DBPR.

I. What Public Notification and
Consumer Confidence Report
Requirements Are Contained in the
LT1ESWTR?

  Today's final rule modifies the Public
Notification (PN) requirements found in
Appendix A and B of subpart Q of Part
141 to  include public notification
requirements for systems subject to the
LT1ESWTR that are consistent with
those for systems subject to the
IESWTR.
       Today's rule does not specifically
     modify the Consumer Confidence
     Report (CCR) Requirements found in
     subpart O of Part 141. However,
     consumer confidence reports must
     contain any violations of treatment
     techniques or requirements of NPDWRs
     as specified in § 141.153(d)(6) and
     § 141.153(f). This includes any such
     violations of the LT1ESWTR.
       Updated CCR and PN appendices can
     be found on the Agency's Web site at
     h Up ://www/epa .gov/safewater/
     tables.html.
     IV. State Implementation
     A. What Special State Primacy
     Requirements does the LTlESWTR
     Contain?

       In addition to adopting drinking water
     regulations at least as stringent as the
     Federal regulations of the LTlESWTR,
     EPA requires that States adopt certain
     additional provisions related to this
     regulation to have their program
     revision application approved by EPA.
     This information advises the regulated
     community of State requirements and
     assists EPA in its oversight of State
     programs.
       Under the  final LTlESWTR, there are
     several special primacy requirements
     that a State's application must include:
     —Description of how the State will
       consult with the system and approve
       modifications to disinfection
       practices;
          —Description of how the State will
            approve a more representative data set
            for optional monitoring and profiling
            under §§ 141.530-141.536.
          —Description of how existing rules,
            adoption of appropriate rules or other
            authority under § 142.16(i)(l) require
            systems to participate in a
            Comprehensive Technical Assistance
            (CTA) activity, and the performance
            improvement phase of the Composite
            Correction Program (CCP);
          —Description of how the State will
            approve a method to calculate the logs
            of inactivation for viruses for a system
            that uses either chloramines, chlorine
            dioxide, or ozone for primary
            disinfection; and
          —For alternative filtration technologies
            (filtration other than conventional
            filtration treatment, direct filtration,
            slow sand filtration or diatomaceous
            earth filtration), a description of how
            the State will determine under
            § 142.16(i)(2)(iv), that a PWS may use
            a filtration technology if the PWS
            demonstrates to the State, using pilot
            plant studies or other means,  that the
            alternative filtration technology, in
            combination with the disinfection
            treatment that meets the requirements
            of subpart T of this title, consistently
            achieves 3-log (99.9 percent) removal
            and/or inactivation of Giardia lamblia
            cysts and 4-log (99.99 percent)
            removal and/or inactivation of
            viruses, and 2-log (99 percent)
            removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts;
            and a description of how, for the

-------
1822
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 9/Monday, January 14, 2002/Rules and Regulations
  system that makes this demonstration,
  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.

B. What State Recordkeeping
Requirements Does the LTlESWTR
Contain?
  Today's rule includes changes to the
existing recordkeeping provisions to
implement the requirements in today's
final rule. States must maintain records
of the following:
  (1) Records of turbidity
measurements;
  (2) Records of disinfectant residual
measurements and other parameters
necessary to document disinfection
effectiveness;
  (3) Decisions made on a system-by-
system basis and case-by-case basis
under provisions of section 141, subpart
H or subpart P or subpart T;
  (4) Records of systems consulting
with the State concerning a significant
modification to their disinfection
practice (including the status of the
consultation);
  (5) Records of decisions that a system
using alternative filtration technologies
can consistently achieve a 2-log (99
percent) removal of Cryptosporidium
oocysts, as well as the required levels of
removal and/or inactivation of Giardia
and viruses for systems using alternative
filtration technologies, including State-
set enforceable turbidity limits  for each
system. A copy of the decision must be
kept until the decision is reversed  or
revised and the State must provide a
copy of the decision to the system, and;
  (6) Records of those systems required
to perform filter self-assessments, CPE
or CCP.
C. What State Reporting Requirements
Does the LTlESWTR Contain?
  Currently States must report
information to EPA under section
142.15 regarding violations, variances
and exemptions, enforcement actions
and general operations of State public
water supply programs. There are no
additional requirements under  this rule,
but States are required to report
violations, variances and exemptions,
and enforcement actions related to this
rule.

D. How Must a State Obtain Interim
Primacy for the LTlESWTR?
  To maintain primacy for the Public
Water Supply Supervision (PWSS)
program and to be eligible for interim
primacy enforcement authority for
future regulations, States must  adopt
today's final rule. A State must submit
                         a request for approval of program
                         revisions that adopt the revised MCL or
                         treatment technique and implement
                         regulations within two years of
                         promulgation, unless EPA approves an
                         extension per § 142.12(b). Interim
                         primacy enforcement authority allows
                         States to implement and enforce
                         drinking water regulations once State
                         regulations are effective and the State
                         has submitted a complete and final
                         primacy revision application. To obtain
                         interim primacy, a State must have
                         primacy with respect to each existing
                         NPDWR. Under interim primacy
                         enforcement authority, States are
                         effectively considered to have primacy
                         during the period that EPA is reviewing
                         their primacy revision application.

                         V. Economic Analysis (Health Risk
                         Reduction and Cost Analysis)
                           This section summarizes the Health
                         Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis
                         (HRRCA) in support of the LTlESWTR
                         as required by section!412(b)(3)(C) of
                         the 1996 SDWA. In addition, under
                         Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
                         Planning and Review, EPA must
                         estimate the costs and benefits of the
                         LTlESWTR. EPA has prepared an
                         economic analysis to comply with the
                         requirements of this order and the
                         SDWA Health Risk Reduction and Cost
                         Analysis (USEPA, 2001a). The final
                         economic analysis has been published
                         on the Agency's Web site, and can be
                         found at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/
                         Itleswtr. The analysis can also be found
                         in the docket for this rulemaking.
                           EPA has estimated the total
                         annualized cost for implementing the
                         LTlESWTR and analyzed the total
                         benefits that result from the rule. Total
                         annual costs for the rule are $39.5
                         million, in 1999 dollars, using three
                         percent discount rate [$44.8  million
                         using a seven percent discount rate].
                         The cost estimate includes capital costs
                         for treatment changes and start-up and
                         annual labor costs for monitoring and
                         reporting activities. More detailed
                         information, including the basis for
                         these estimates and alternate cost
                         estimates using different cost of capital
                         assumptions are described in the
                         LTlESWTR economic analysis (USEPA,
                         2001a). Combining the value of illness
                         and mortalities avoided, the estimate of
                         the total quantified annual benefits of
                         the LTlESWTR range from $18.9
                         million to $90.9 million. However, this
                         range does not incorporate many of the
                         sources of uncertainty related to
                         quantifying benefits, including many
                         benefits the Agency was unable to
                         evaluate. Accordingly, incorporating
                         additional uncertainties would
                         necessarily increase the size of the
range. For example, the number of
avoided cases of cryptosporidiosis
might be higher or lower than the
number reflected in this range. More
detailed information, including the
basis for these estimates, are described
in the LTlESWTR economic analysis
(USEPA, 2001a).

A. What Are the Costs of the
LTlESWTR?
  In estimating the costs of today's final
rule, the Agency considered impacts on
PWSs and on States (including
territories  and EPA implementation in
non-primacy States). The LTlESWTR
will result in increased costs to public
water systems for implementing the
components of today's final rule. States
will also incur implementation costs.
EPA estimates that the annualized cost
of today's final rule will be $39.5
million using a three percent discount
rate ($44.8 million using a seven percent
discount rate).
  Approximately 84 percent ($33.1
million using a 3 percent discount rate
and $38.2  million using a 7 percent
discount rate) of the rule's total annual
costs are imposed on drinking water
utilities. States incur the remaining 16
percent ($6.4 million using 3 percent
and $6.6 million using 7 percent) of the
LTlESWTR's total annual cost. The
turbidity provisions, which include
treatment changes, monitoring, and
reporting,  account for the largest portion
of the total rule costs ($37.7 million
using 3 percent and $42.7 million using
7 percent). Systems will incur most of
the turbidity provision costs and this is
discussed  in more detail in the next
section. The national estimate of annual
system costs is based on estimates of
system-level costs for the rule and
estimates of the number of systems
expected to incur each type of cost.
Total capital costs for the LTlESWTR
(non-annualized)  is $173.6 million.
  Turbidity Provision Costs—The
turbidity provisions are estimated to
cost both public drinking water systems
and States approximately $37.7 million
annually using a three percent discount
rate ($42.7 million using 7 percent).
However, the majority of these costs
will be borne by the systems and are the
result of treatment changes to meet the
0.3 NTU turbidity standard as well as
the cost for some systems to purchase
turbidimeters in order to meet the
monitoring requirements of this rule.
The Agency estimates that 2,207
systems will modify their water
treatment  in response to this rule
provision  while 2,327 conventional and
direct filtration systems will need to
install turbidimeters. In addition to the
capital costs associated with this rule

-------
              Federal Register/Vol. 67, No.  9/Monday, January 14, 2002/Rules and  Regulations
                                                                       1823
provision there will also be increases in
operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs. These combined capital and O&M
costs have an estimated cost to systems
of $27.1 million annually using a 3
percent discount rate ($31.8 million
using a 7 percent discount rate). The
O&M expenditures account for 59
percent of the $27.1 million using a 3
percent discount rate ($31.8 million
using a 7 percent discount rate) while
the remaining 41 percent represents
annualized capital costs. In addition to
the turbidity treatment costs, turbidity
monitoring costs apply to all small
surface water or GWUDI systems using
conventional or direct filtration
methods. There are an estimated 5,817
systems that fall under this criterion.
The annualized individual filter
turbidity monitoring cost to PWSs is
approximately $4.5 million using a 3
percent discount rate ($4.7 million
using 7 percent). In addition to the
turbidity treatment and monitoring
costs, individual filter turbidity
exceedance reporting is estimated to
cost systems $0.6 million annually
(using either a 3 percent or 7 percent
discount rate).
  The Agency estimated that the total
State cost for the turbidity provision
(monitoring and exceptions) is $6.1
million annually (using either a 3
percent or 7 percent discount rate), with
start-up and monitoring comprising of
81 percent of these annual costs ($4.9
million annually using either  a 3
percent or 7 percent discount rate). The
remaining $1.2 million (using either a 3
percent or 7 percent discount rate) in
annual costs includes the costs for
States to review the individual filter
turbidity exceedance reports and
individual filter self-assessment costs.
  Disinfection Benchmarking Costs—
The disinfection benchmarking
provision involves three components:
benchmarking, profiling, and optional
monitoring. The start-up costs for this
provision are estimated to cost systems
$2.9 million ($0.2 million annualized
using a three percent discount rate and
$0.3 million using a seven percent
discount rate). Disinfection
benchmarking and profiling are
estimated to cost systems approximately
$0.4 million annually using a  3 percent
discount rate ($0.5  million using 7
percent). TTHM and HAAS monitoring
is optional and estimated to cost $0.3
million annually using a 3 percent
discount rate ($0.4  million using a 7
percent discount rate). State disinfection
benchmarking annualized costs are
estimated to be $0.4 million using a 3
percent discount rate ($0.5 million
using a 7 percent discount rate). This
estimate includes start-up, compliance
tracking/recordkeeping, and
consultation costs.
  Covered Finished Water Reservoir
Provision Costs—The LTlESWTR
requires that small systems cover all
newly constructed finished water
reservoirs, holding tanks, or other
storage facilities for finished water.
Total annual costs, including
annualized capital costs and one year of
O&M costs are expected to be $0.8
million (using either a 3 percent or 7
percent discount rate) for this provision.
This estimate is calculated from a
projected construction rate of new
reservoirs and unit cost assumptions for
covering new finished water reservoirs.
Also, the Agency believes that this is an
overestimate since there may be
additional States that currently require
finished water requirement.
  Although EPA has estimated the cost
of all the rule's components on drinking
water systems and States, there are  some
costs that the Agency did not quantify.
These non-quantifiable costs result from
uncertainties surrounding rule
assumptions and from modeling
assumptions. For example, EPA did not
estimate a cost for systems to acquire
land if they needed to build a treatment
facility or significantly expand their
current facility because the need for and
cost of land is highly system specific.
Additionally, if the cost for land was
prohibitive, an alternative compliance
option may be available (such as
connecting to another source). Once
again, the Agency has not quantified
costs for this scenario due to the high
degree of site specificity. However,
based on evaluations of Comprehensive
Performance Evaluations (CPEs), EPA
believes that most systems possess more
than adequate property to construct new
facilities.
  In addition, other LTlESWTR
provisions may affect some systems but
the Agency was not able to quantify
these costs. These non-quantified costs
include those for systems that incur
incremental costs increases as a result of
including Cryptosporidium in the
definition of GWUDI and also by
including Cryptosporidium in the
watershed control requirements for
unfiltered systems. The Agency lacked
data on the number of systems
potentially affected by these two
provisions and was therefore, unable to
estimate their costs. By including
Cryptosporidium in the definition, more
ground water systems may be
determined to be under the direct
influence of surface water resulting in
additional cost because these systems
must comply with the 1989 Surface
Water Treatment Rule and today's rule.
EPA also did not estimate the costs  for
unfiltered systems to control
Cryptosporidium in their watersheds.
These systems already control for other
pathogens from similar sources as
Cryptosporidium so it is likely that this
provision will have a relatively minor
impact.

B. What Are the Household Costs of the
LTlESWTR?
  The mean annual cost per household
is $6.24 and the cost per household is
less than $15 for 90 percent of 6.3
million households potentially affected
by today's final rule. Of the remaining
households, nine percent will
experience a range of annual costs from
$15 to $120 ($10/month), while only
one percent of households are estimated
to experience annual costs exceeding
$120.
  As indicated in the economic analysis
supporting today's final rule,  per-
household costs exceed $240/year for
approximately 5,600 households out of
the 6.3 million households potentially
impacted by the LTlESWTR.  However,
this analysis likely overestimates costs
for most of these households,  allowing
that systems might choose to incur costs
with up to 28 separate treatment
changes when in fact it is likely to be
more cost-effective to install a new
treatment system. (This can be thought
of as building an automobile piece by
piece from an auto parts store compared
to buying one at a dealership.) The
aforementioned 5,600 households are
associated with the end of the cost
distribution where systems undertake
an unrealistically large number of
treatment changes.

C. What Are the Benefits of the
LTlESWTR?
  The primary benefits of today's final
rule come from reductions in  the risks
of microbial illness from drinking water.
In particular, LTlESWTR focuses on
reducing the risk associated with
disinfection resistant pathogens, such as
Cryptosporidium. Exposure to other
pathogenic protozoa, such as  Giardia, or
other waterborne bacteria, viral
pathogens, and other emerging
pathogens are likely to be reduced by
the provisions of this rule as well, but
are not quantified.  In addition,
LTlESWTR produces non-quantifiable
benefits associated with the risk
reductions that result from the
uncovered reservoir provision,
including Cryptosporidium in GWUDI
definition, and including
Cryptosporidium in watershed
requirements for unfiltered systems.
Non-quantifiable benefits also include
reducing the risks to sensitive
subpopulations and the likelihood of

-------
1824
Federal  Register/Vol. 67, No.  9/Monday, January  14,  2002/Rules and Regulations
incurring costs associated with
outbreaks.

1, Quantifiable Health Benefits
  The quantified benefits from this rule
are based solely on the reductions in the
risk of cryptosporidiosis that result from
the turbidity provision. As a result of
data limitation, this analysis only
addresses endemic illness and not
illness that results from epidemic
disease outbreaks. Cryptosporidiosis is
an infection caused by Cryptosporidium
which is an acute, self-limiting illness
lasting 7 to 14 days, with symptoms that
include  diarrhea, abdominal cramping,
nausea,  vomiting and fever (Juranek,
1995). The monetized value of an
avoided case of cryptosporidiosis is
estimated to range from $796 to $1,411
per case based on a cost-of-illness
methodology (Harrington et al., 1985;
USEPA  2001a). The high end of the
range includes losses for medical costs,
work time, productivity, and leisure
time. However, the low end of the range
only values medical costs and  work
time. The medical costs may be
overestimated as they are assumed to be
the same as medical costs for a case  of
Giardiasis which has  a significantly
longer duration. However, the  Agency
believes it is appropriate not to prorate
medical costs for the shorter duration of
Cryptosporidiosis because (1) available
data suggests that the median length of
hospital stays is essentially the same for
Cryptosporidiosis compared to
Giardiasis; (2) the Harrington et al.
study was conducted in the mid-1980's,
and consequently, the higher direct
medical costs associated with treating
individuals with HIV/AIDS, who are
more severely impacted by
Cryptosporidiosis,  was not included;
and (3) Cryptosporidiosis has no known
medical treatment and available data
indicates that the range of the length of
hospital stays for immunocompromised
individuals is larger for cases of
Cryptosporidiosis compared to
Giardiasis. The Agency also recognizes
however, that many individuals with
Cryptosporidiosis do not seek  medical
treatment  and thus have little or no
associated medical cost, and that the
percentage of such cases may be higher
for Cryptosporidiosis than Giardiasis
given its shorter duration.
  The benefits of the  turbidity
provisions of LTlESWTR come from
improvements in filtration performance
at water systems. The benefits analysis
accounts for some of the variability  and
uncertainty in the analysis by  estimating
benefits under two different current
treatment and three improved removal
assumptions. In addition, EPA used
Monte Carlo simulations to derive a
                         distribution of estimates to address
                         uncertainty.
                          In order to quantify the benefits of
                         this rule, the Agency estimated changes
                         in the incidence of cryptosporidiosis
                         that would result from the rule. The
                         analysis included estimating the
                         baseline (pre-LTlESWTR) level of
                         exposure and risk from
                         Cryptosporidium in drinking water and
                         the reductions in such exposure and
                         risk resulting from the turbidity
                         provisions of the LTlESWTR. Baseline
                         levels of Cryptosporidium in finished
                         water were estimated by assuming
                         national source water occurrence
                         distribution (based on data by
                         LeChevallier and Norton, 1995) and a
                         national distribution of
                         Cryptosporidium removal by treatment.
                          In the LTlESWTR economic analysis,
                         the following two assumptions were
                         made regarding the current
                         Cryptosporidium oocyst removal
                         performance to estimate finished water
                         Cryptosporidium concentrations. First,
                         based on treatment removal efficiency
                         data presented in the proposal, EPA
                         assumed a national distribution of
                         physical removal efficiencies with a
                         mean of 2.0 logs and a standard
                         deviation of 0.63 logs. Because the
                         finished water concentrations of oocysts
                         represent the baseline against which
                         improved removal from the LTlESWTR
                         is compared, variations in the log
                         removal assumption could have
                         considerable impact on the risk
                         assessment. Second, to evaluate the
                         impact of the removal assumptions on
                         the baseline and resulting
                         improvements, an alternative mean log
                         removal/inactivation assumption of 2.5
                         logs and a standard deviation of 0.63
                         logs were also used to calculate finished
                         water concentrations of
                         Cryptosporidium.
                           For each of the two baseline
                         assumptions, EPA assumed that a
                         certain number of plants would show
                         low,  mid, or high improved removal as
                         a result of the turbidity provisions. The
                         amount of improved removal depends
                         upon factors such as water matrix
                         conditions, filtered water turbidity
                         effluent levels, and coagulant treatment
                         conditions. The low, mid, and high
                         improved removals were derived from
                         Patania et al., (1995). This study
                         demonstrated that an incremental
                         decrease in turbidity from 0.3 NTU to
                         0.1 NTU (or a 0.2 NTU reduction
                         overall) resulted in increased oocyst
                         removals of up to one-log. The Agency
                         used this data to construct low, mid,
                         and high removal assumptions that
                         would capture uncertainty associated
                         with improved removal. The Agency
                         also utilized different low, mid, and
high removal assumptions for distinct
categories of current turbidity
performance (<.2NTU, 0.2-0.3 NTU,
0.3-0.4 NTU, and > 0.4 NTU). For
instance, systems currently operating at
greater than 0.4 NTU would need to
target 0.2 NTU to ensure compliance
with the 0.3 NTU limit and EPA
accordingly assumed a low improved
removal of 0.5-log,  a mid improved
removal of 0.75-log and a high improved
removal of 0.9-log.  However, systems
currently operating between 0.2 NTU
and 0.3 NTU were only expected to
minimally improve turbidity
performance and would therefore only
expect improved log removals of 0.15,
0.25, and 0.3 (low,  mid, and high). As
a result, the economic analysis
considers various baseline and with-rule
scenarios to develop a range of endemic
health damages avoided. Additional
information is found in the Benefits
chapter of the Economic Analysis
supporting today's  final rule.
  The finished water Cryptosporidium
distributions that would result  from
additional log removal with the
turbidity provisions were derived
assuming that additional log removal
was dependent on current removal, i.e.,
that systems currently operating at the
highest filtered water turbidity levels
would show the largest improvements
or high improved removal assumption.
For example, plants now failing to meet
a 0.4 NTU limit would show greater
removal improvements than plants now
meeting a 0.3 NTU limit.
  In addition to assuming the more
conservative baseline and removal
assumptions, the lower-end of the
LTlESWTR's benefit estimate does not
include valuations  for leisure time,
productivity losses (returning to work
but still experiencing symptoms), and
other loss categories that the authors
discuss but do not  quantify (e.g., "high
valued" leisure). The authors
(Harrington et al.] were highly confident
in the estimates for direct medical
expenditures and work losses which
comprise the lower benefit estimate; and
less confident in the values for leisure
time losses and productivity losses
which are included in the upper benefit
estimate  only. The  decreased level of
confidence was based on the data and
methods used to estimate only these
losses. The authors also conclude that:
"*  * * nonetheless, the loss categories
in this group-[productivity, leisure
time, etc.] are unquestionably present
and therefore, raise losses above those
reported in [the lower-end benefit
estimate]". The Agency believes that
these categories have positive value as
stated in Harrington et al. consequently
the lower-end estimate for the

-------
              Federal Register/Vol.  67,  No. 9/Monday, January  14,  2002/Rules  and Regulations
                                                                       1825
LTlESWTR understates the true value
of these loss categories.
  The Agency further notes that the
medical expense component of the
valuation may be overstated because it
is not prorated for the shorter duration
of Cryptosporidiosis relative to
Giardiasis (mean duration of 11.5 v. 41.6
days). The Agency believes this is
appropriate however, because (1)
available data suggests that the median
length of hospital stays is essentially the
same for Cryptosporidiosis compared to
Giardiasis; (2) the Harrington et al.
study was conducted in the mid-1980's,
and consequently, the higher direct
medical costs associated with treating
individuals with HIV/AIDS, who are
more severely impacted by
Cryptosporidiosis, was  not included;
and (3) Cryptosporidiosis has no known
medical treatment and available data
indicates that the range of the length of
hospital stays for immunocompromised
individuals is larger for cases of
Cryptosporidiosis compared to
Giardiasis. The Agency also recognizes
however, that many individuals with
Cryptosporidiosis do not seek medical
treatment and thus have little or no
associated medical cost, and that the
percentage of such cases may be higher
for Cryptosporidiosis than Giardiasis
given its shorter duration.
  Table V.I indicates estimated annual
quantified benefits associated with
implementing the LTlESWTR.  The
benefits analysis examines only the
endemic health damages avoided based
on the LTlESWTR for each of the
turbidity provision scenarios discussed
previously. For each of these scenarios,
EPA calculated the mean of the
distribution of the number of illnesses
avoided. The 10th and 90th percentiles
imply that there is a 10  percent chance
that the estimated value could be lower
than the 10th percentile and there is a
10 percent chance that the estimated
value could be higher than the 90th
percentile. The modeling assumptions
used to obtain the distribution of illness
and mortality avoided for each baseline
and the removal scenarios considers
both variability and uncertainty.
Specifically, the Agency used a 2-
dimensional Monte Carlo simulation to
include both uncertainty and variability
inputs. The components that EPA
considered uncertain include the
probability of illness given an infection,
the variability of Cryptosporidium to
cause either an infection or illness, and
the infectivity dose-response factor. The
variability components include:
Cryptosporidium occurrence in the
finished water, individual daily
drinking water consumption, and the
number of days per year of exposure.
  In the 2-dimensional simulation
structure,  a set of values for the
uncertainty parameters is chosen from
their respective distributions. This set of
values is then "frozen" and a specified
number of iterations are run where
different values are chosen for the
variability factors. This process is
repeated for some specified number of
sets of uncertainty parameters. For this
analysis, 250 sets of uncertainty
parameters were used, with 1,000
variability iterations performed on each
of the 250 uncertainty sets.
  This modeling exercise provides the
Agency with 250 sets of statistics for
individual annual risk of illness (e.g.,
mean, standard deviation) that each
reflect different possible combinations
of uncertainty factors. The 250 estimates
for each set of statistics (i.e., mean,
confidence intervals) were then used to
compute an overall population average
annual risk of illness.
  Next, the Agency estimates cases of
illness and mortality from the average
annual risk of illness estimates. In order
to do this, the average annual
probability of illness is multiplied by
the number of exposed individuals. In a
separate Monte Carlo simulation for this
calculation, the average annual
probability of illness is treated as an
uncertainty variable. As a result, the
Agency has mean estimates with
confidence intervals for various baseline
and post LTlESWTR assumptions
regarding Cryptosporidium removal
from source water. The 90th percentile
confidence bounds on the expected
values largely reflect the following
uncertainty variables: the probability of
illness given infection, the variability of
Cryptosporidium to cause either an
infection or illness, and the infectivity
dose-response factor.
  The Agency has done its best to
represent a reasonable range of
quantifiable uncertainty using standard
modeling techniques. However, the
Agency recognizes that additional
sources of uncertainty exist which could
not be quantified. To the extent that
these are significant, the true range of
uncertainty may be greater than that
reflected in the  quantified analysis.
  EPA has evaluated drinking water
consumption data from USDA's 1994-
1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes
by Individuals (CSFII) Study. EPA's
analysis of the CSFII Study using the
"all sources, consumer only"
information resulted in a daily water
ingestion lognormally distributed with a
mean of 1.2 liters  per person per day
(USEPA, 2000J). Results of alternative
model calculations based on USDA
consumption data for "community
water supplies,  all respondents" (mean
of 0.93 liters per person per day) are
presented in the appendix to the
economic  analysis as a lower bound
estimate.
      TABLE V.1.—QUANTIFIED BENEFITS FROM ILLNESSES AND MORTALITIES AVOIDED ANNUALLY FROM TURBIDITY
                                                    PROVISIONS
                                                     [$Millions]*
                               Daily drinking water ingestion and baseline Cryptosporidium log-removal assumptions, $Millions, 1999
Quantified benefits

Mean Benefit from Avoided Ill-
nesses 	
10th Percentile
90th Percentile 	
Mean Benefits from Avoided Mor-
talities 	
10th Percentile
90th Percentile

Total Mean Quantified Bene-
fits 	

Low
$23 9-$42.4
1 1 4-20 3
50.1-88.8
237
11.3
496

47.6-66.1
2.0 log
Mild
$31 .6-$56 0
1 5 2-27 0
58.8-104.2
31 3
150
58 2

62.9-87.3

High
$32.9-$58 3
14 1-249
56.5-100.2
325
13 9
559

65.4-90.9

Low
$95-$168
22-39
26.6-47.2
94
22
263

18.9-26.2
2.5 log
Mid
$1 1 2-$1 9 8
28-50
27.6-48.9
11 1
28
273

22.2-30.9

High
$127-$226
42-75
33.6-59.5
126
42
332

25.4-35.2
  * Totals may not equal due to rounding.

-------
1826
Federal  Register/Vol. 67, No. 9/Monday, January 14, 2002/Rules and  Regulations
  According to the economic analysis
performed for the LTlESWTR published
today, the rule is estimated to reduce
the mean annual number of illnesses
caused by Cryptosporidium in water
systems with improved filtration
performance by 12,000 to 41,000 cases
per year depending upon which of the
six baseline and improved
Cryptosporidium removal assumptions
was used, and  assuming the 1.2 liter
drinking water consumption
distribution. Based on these values, the
mean estimated annual benefits of
reducing the illnesses ranges from $9.5
million to $58.3 million per year. The
economic analysis also indicated that
the rule could  result in a mean
reduction of 1  to 5 fatalities each year,
                         depending upon the varied baseline and
                         improved removal assumptions. Using a
                         mean value of $6.3 million per
                         statistical life saved, reducing these
                         fatalities could produce benefits in the
                         range of $9.4 million to $32.5 million.
                         Combining the value of illness and
                         mortalities avoided, the estimate of the
                         total quantified annual benefits of the
                         LTlESWTR range from $18.9 million to
                         $90.9 million. However, this range does
                         not incorporate many of the sources of
                         uncertainty related to quantifying
                         benefits, including many benefits the
                         Agency was unable to evaluate.
                         Accordingly, incorporating additional
                         uncertainties would necessarily increase
                         the size of the range.
                           New occurrence data and infectivity
                         data is currently being evaluated by the
Agency in the context of the Long Term
2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment    /*"**
Rule (LT2ESWTR). The analysis is
currently ongoing and peer review has     *"'	
not been completed. EPA conducted a
sensitivity analysis in the economic
analysis supporting today's final rule to
predict the effect that new data may
have on the benefits presented earlier.
Table V.2 provides a  summary of this
sensitivity analysis and depicts the
cumulative change to the benefits range
that each of the four new changes (new
occurrence data, new infectivity data,
new morbidity data, and new viability
data) could have on benefits. The
economic analysis includes a more
detailed analysis using this data.
  TABLE V.2.—SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS To PREDICT EFFECTS OF NEW DATA AND INFORMATION
                                              ON RANGE OF BENEFITS

Change
Benefits Range

Current EA
No Changes
$18 9-$90 9

New occurence data
Occurrence changes
from 4.7 oocyst/L
to 1 .06 oocyst/L.
$5 4-$25 2

New infectivity data
Rate of infection from
.0042410 .02317.
$173-$744

New morbidity data
Morbidity changes
from 0.39 to 0.5.
$22 5-$88 0

New viability data
Viability changes from
1 6.4 percent to
55.2 percent.
$51 2-$195 8

2. Non-Quantified Health and Non-
Health Related Benefits

  The quantified benefits from filter
performance improvements do not fully
capture all the benefits of the turbidity
provision. Even the upper bound
estimates, which are based on a cost-of-
illness (COI) methodology (expanded to
incorporate lost leisure time and lost
productivity while working), may not
fully capture the willingness-to-pay to
avoid a case of Cryptosporidiosis. In
addition, the Harrington, et al. study
was conducted in the mid-1980's in a
rural community and may not be fully
representative of the current national
population including individuals with
HIV/AIDS and chemotherapy patients
that are more severely impacted by
Cryptosporidiosis.  If this population
was more accurately represented, it may
be that the average per-case valuation
would be higher than the range
presented in this analysis. Further, the
turbidity provisions are also expected to
decrease the risk of waterborne disease
outbreaks. However, the quantified
benefits reflect only the reduction in
endemic Cryptosporidiosis and not any
outbreak-related illness or mortalities.
  Other disinfection resistant pathogens
may also be removed more efficiently
due to implementation of the
LTlESWTR. Exposure to other
pathogenic protozoa, such as Giardia, or
other waterborne bacterial or viral
                         pathogens are likely to be reduced by
                         the provisions of this rule as well.
                           In addition to preventing illnesses,
                         this rule is expected to have other non-
                         health related benefits. During an
                         outbreak, local governments and water
                         systems must issue warnings and alerts
                         and may need to provide an alternative
                         source of water. Systems also face
                         negative publicity and possibly legal
                         costs. Businesses have to supply their
                         customers and employees with
                         alternative sources of water and some,
                         especially restaurants,  may even have to
                         temporarily close. Households also have
                         to boil their water, purchase water, or
                         obtain water from  another source. A
                         study of a Giardia  outbreak in Luzerne
                         County, Pennsylvania showed that these
                         non-health related outbreak costs can be
                         quite significant (Harrington et al.,
                         1985). This outbreak resulted in an
                         estimated loss to individuals of $31
                         million to $92 million. Additional
                         losses were also calculated for
                         restaurants and bars ($2 million to $7
                         million), government agencies ($0.4
                         million) and the water supply utility ($3
                         million).
                           The remaining rule provisions
                         (disinfection benchmarking, covered
                         finished water reservoirs, inclusion of
                         Cryptosporidium in the GWUDI
                         definition, and inclusion of
                         Cryptosporidium in watershed control
                         requirements for unfiltered systems)
                         provide additional benefits. However,
EPA is only able to discuss the benefits
of these rule provisions qualitatively
because of data limitations. The
disinfection benchmark provision will
ensure that adequate microbial
protection is in place if a system must
make changes to its disinfection
practices as a result of the Stage 1 DBF
rule. Covering finished water reservoirs
will protect the finished water from
becoming re-contaminated from such
things as animal or bird droppings,
surface water runoff, and algae. If
Cryptosporidium is found in ground
water supplies, they will be required to
change treatment practice to prevent
illness. Finally, by requiring
Cryptosporidium control in watersheds
of unfiltered systems, this will minimize
the potential for illness and may also
lower the overall costs of drinking water
treatment.

D. What Are the Incremental Costs and
Benefits?
  EPA evaluated the incremental or
marginal costs of today's final rule
turbidity provision by analyzing various
turbidity limits, 0.3 NTU, 0.2 NTU, and
0.1 NTU. For each turbidity limit, EPA
developed assumptions about which
process changes systems might
implement to meet the turbidity level
and how many  systems would adopt
each change. The comparison of total
compliance cost estimates shows that
costs are expected to increase

-------
              Federal Register/Vol. 67, No.  9/Monday, January 14,  2002/Rules  and Regulations
                                                                      1827
significantly across other turbidity
limits considered by the Agency. The
total cost of a 0.2 NTU limit is 346
percent higher than the final rule limit
of 0.3 NTU, and a 0.1 NTU limit would
be 1,192 percent higher.

E. Are There Benefits From the
Reduction of Co-Occurring
Contaminants?
  If a system chooses to install
treatment, it may choose a technology
that would also address other drinking
water contaminants. For example, some
membrane technologies installed to
remove bacteria or viruses can reduce or
eliminate many other drinking water
contaminants including arsenic.
  The technologies used to reduce
individual filter turbidities have the
potential to reduce concentrations of
other pollutants as well. Reductions in
turbidity that result from today's
proposed rule are aimed at reducing
Cryptosporidium by physical removal.
However, health risks from Giardia
lamblia and emerging disinfection
resistant pathogens,  such as
microsporidia, Toxoplasma, and
Cyclospora, are also likely to be reduced
as a result of improvements in turbidity
removal.  The frequency and extent that
LT1ESWTR would reduce risk from
other contaminants has not been
quantitatively evaluated because of the
Agency's lack of data on the removal
efficiencies of various technologies for
emerging pathogens and the lack of co-
occurrence data for microbial pathogens
and other contaminants from drinking
water systems.
F. Is There Increased Risk From Other
Contaminants?
  It is unlikely that LTlESWTR will
result in any increased risk from other
contaminants. Improvements in plant
turbidity performance will not result in
any increases in risk. In fact the
disinfection benchmarking component
of today's final LTlESWTR will provide
information to systems so they can
minimize the increased risk from
microbial contaminants as they take
steps to address risks associated  with
DBFs under the Stage 1 DBPR.

G. What Are the Uncertainties in the
Risk, Benefit and Cost Estimates for the
LTlESWTR?
  EPA has included in the economic
analysis, a detailed discussion of the
possible sources of uncertainty in risk,
benefit and cost estimates. Some sources
of possible uncertainty associated with
calculation of risk and benefits include
occurrence of Cryptosporidium oocysts
in source waters and finished waters,
reduction of Cryptosporidium oocysts
due to improved treatment, viability and
infectivity of Cryptosporidium oocysts,
characterization of risk, and willingness
to reduce risk and avoid costs.
Uncertainty associated with costs
includes assumptions with respect to
treatment a system might choose to
employ to comply with the rule,
assumptions about costs of labor,
maintenance, and capital, and the
number of systems expected to
undertake certain activities. The Agency
believes that the risks, benefits, and
costs have been accurately portrayed.
Discussions and analyses of risks,
benefits, and costs in the economic
analysis indicate where uncertainty may
be introduced and to the extent
possible, the effect uncertainty may
have on analysis  (USEPA, 2001a).

H. What Is the Benefit/Cost
Determination for the LTlESWTR?

  The Agency has determined that the
benefits of the LTlESWTR justify the
costs. As shown in Table V.3, the
quantified net benefits of this rule based
on the Agency's estimate range from
$20.6 million to $51.4 million using the
3 percent discount rate ($25.9 million to
$46.1 million at the 7 percent discount
rate). Additionally, EPA believes that
quantified net benefits would be larger
if both unquantified benefits and costs
were able to be monetized.
               TABLE V.3.—ANNUALIZED NET BENEFITS OF THE LT1ESWTR, MILLIONS, 1999 DOLLARS

Estimate of Benefits 	

Benefit range
$1 8.9-$90 9

Costs using a 3
percent dis-
count rate
$39 5

Costs using a 7
percent dis-
count rate
$448

Net benefits (3
percent)
$-20 6-$51 4

Net benefits (7
percent)
$ 25 9 $46 1

VI. Other Requirements

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as
Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601  et seq.

  The RFA generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements
under the Administrative Procedure Act
or any other  statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
  The RFA provides default definitions
for each type of small entity. It also
authorizes an agency to use alternative
definitions for each category of small
entity, "which are appropriate to the
activities of the agency" after proposing
the alternative definition(s) in the
Federal Register and taking comment. 5
U.S.C. 601(3)-(5). In addition to the
above, to establish an alternative small
business definition, agencies must
consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for
Advocacy.
  For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today's rule on small entities, EPA
considered small entities to be PWSs
serving fewer than 10,000 persons. This
is the cut-off level specified by Congress
in the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA
for small system  flexibility provisions.
In accordance with the RFA
requirements, EPA proposed using this
alternative definition in the Federal
Register (63 FR 7620, February 13,
1998), requested  comment, consulted
with the Small Business Administration
(SBA), and expressed its intention to
use the alternative definition for all
future drinking water regulations in the
Consumer Confidence Reports
regulation (63 FR 44511, August 19,
1998). As stated in that final rule, the
alternative definition would be applied
to this regulation as well.
  After considering the economic
impacts of today's final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
  In accordance with section 603 of the
RFA, EPA convened a Small Business
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to
obtain advice and recommendations
from representatives of small entities
that would potentially be regulated by
the rule in accordance with section
609(b) of the RFA. A detailed discussion
of the Panel's advice and
recommendations is found in the Panel
Report found in the docket for today's
final rule (USEPA, 1998k). The Panel
recommendations emphasized the need
to provide small systems flexibility. The
Agency has structured today's  final

-------
1828
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No.  9/Monday, January 14, 2002/Rules  and Regulations
LTlESWTR with an emphasis on
providing flexibility and reducing
burden for small systems. For example,
the Agency originally contemplated
requiring four quarters of TTHM and
HAAS monitoring and disinfection
profiling based on daily measurements.
Today's final rule requires profiling
based on weekly measurements and
allows systems the option of using one
quarter of TTHM and HAAS monitoring
to opt-out of profiling. Today's rule also
provides systems with two or fewer
filters the flexibility to monitor
combined filter effluent in lieu of
individual filter turbidity monitoring,
effectively allowing these systems to
reduce their recordkeeping burden. A
complete summary of the Panel's
recommendations is presented in the
proposal (65 FR 19046, 19127-19130).
  While EPA could have certified the
proposed rule based on the proposed
rule requirements, the Agency originally
developed an IRFA (see 65 FR 19046,
19126-19127) and convened an SBAR
Panel because several of the additional
alternatives EPA was requesting
comment on would have resulted in
substantial  costs for small systems
thereby  preventing the Agency from
certifying. While EPA included these
additional alternatives in the proposal
and estimated costs in the economic
analysis for the proposal, the Agency re-
evaluated the economic effects on small
entities  after publication of the April 10,
2000 LTlESWTR proposal using the
rule requirements of today's final rule
and was able to certify that today's final
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
  EPA's analysis showed that of the
approximately 11,000 small entities
potentially affected by the LTlESWTR,
over 5,000 are expected to incur average
annualized costs of less than $70 dollars
(0.003 percent of average annual
revenue) while slightly more than 3,000
are expected to incur average
annualized costs of less than $850
dollars (0.03 percent of average annual
revenue). Of the remaining systems,
approximately 500 systems are expected
to incur average annualized costs of
approximately $2,500 dollars (0.1
percent of average annual revenue),
approximately 2,000 systems are
expected to incur average annualized
costs of approximately $13,000 dollars
(0.6 percent of average annual revenue).
Less than 100 systems are expected to
incur average annualized costs of
approximately $15,700 dollars (0.7
percent of average annual revenue). The
Agency has included a detailed
description of this analysis in the
Regulatory Flexibility Screening
                         Analysis prepared for the rule (USEPA,
                         2000e).

                         B. Paperwork Reduction Act
                          The Office of Management and Budget
                         (OMB) has approved the information
                         collection requirements contained in
                         this rule under the provisions of the
                         Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
                         3501 et seq, and has assigned OMB
                         control number 2040-0229. The
                         information collected as a result of this
                         rule will allow the States and EPA to
                         determine appropriate requirements for
                         specific systems, in some cases, and to
                         evaluate compliance with the rule. For
                         the first three years after February 13,
                         2002, the major information
                         requirements are related to disinfection
                         profiling activities. The information
                         collection requirements in §§141.530-
                         141.536, 141.540-141.544, 141.550-
                         141.553, 141.560-141.564, and 141.570-
                         141.571, for systems, and §§ 142.14 and
                         142.16, for States, are mandatory. The
                         information collected is not
                         confidential. The final estimate of
                         aggregate annual average burden hours
                         for LTlESWTR is 330,329. Annual
                         average aggregate cost estimate is
                         $1,583,538 for capital (expenditures for
                         monitoring equipment), and $1,919,563
                         for operation and maintenance
                         including lab costs (which is a purchase
                         of service). The burden hours per
                         response is 21.8. The frequency of
                         response (average responses per
                         respondent) is 2.8 annually. The
                         estimated number of likely respondents
                         is 5,404 (the product of burden hours
                         per response, frequency, and
                         respondents does not total the annual
                         average burden hours due to rounding).
                           Burden means the total time, effort, or
                         financial resources expended by persons
                         to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
                         or provide information to or for a
                         Federal agency. This includes the time
                         needed to review instructions; develop,
                         acquire, install, and utilize technology
                         and systems for the purposes of
                         collecting, validating, and verifying
                         information; processing and
                         maintaining information, and disclosing
                         and providing information; adjust the
                         existing ways to comply with any
                         previously applicable instructions and
                         requirements; train personnel to be able
                         to respond to a collection of
                         information; search data sources;
                         complete and review the collection of
                         information; and transmit or otherwise
                         disclose the information.
                           An Agency may not conduct or
                         sponsor, and a person is not required to
                         respond to a collection of information
                         unless it displays a currently valid OMB
                         control number. The OMB control
                         numbers for EPA's regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter
15. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR
part 9 of currently approved ICR control
numbers issued by OMB for various
regulations to list the information
requirements contained in this final
rule.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

1. Summary of UMRA Requirements
  Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and Tribal governments and the private
sector. Under UMRA section 202, EPA
generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with "Federal mandates" that may
result in expenditures by State, local,
and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate,  or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more in any one year.
Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires EPA to identify  and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly,
most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost effective or least
burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted.
  Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments,
including Tribal governments, it must
have developed, under section 203 of
the UMRA, a small government agency
plan. The  plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small
governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
  EPA has determined that this rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local and
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year. The
estimated annual cost of this rule is
$39.5 million.  Thus today's rule is not

-------
              Federal  Register/Vol. 67, No.  9/Monday, January  14,  2002/Rules and Regulations
                                                                      1829
subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA.
  EPA has determined that this rule
contains  no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Of the
approximately 6,500 small government
entities potentially affected by the
LT1ESWTR, approximately 3,000 are
expected to incur average annualized
costs of less than $70 dollars  (0.003
percent of average annual revenue)
while approximately 2,000 are expected
to incur average annualized costs of less
than $850 dollars (0.03 percent of
average annual revenue). Of the
remaining systems, less than  300 are
expected to incur average annualized
costs of approximately $2,500 dollars
(0.1 percent of average annual revenue),
approximately 1,200 systems are
expected to incur average annualized
costs of approximately $13,000 dollars
(0.6 percent of average annual revenue).
Less than 100 systems are expected to
incur average annualized costs of
approximately $15,700 dollars (0.7
percent of average annual revenue).
While today's final rule only  applies to
systems serving fewer than 10,000, it is
not unique as it provides a comparable
level of health protection to individuals
served by small systems as the IESWTR
provided to individuals served by large
systems.  While there are small
differences between the LT1ESWTR and
IESWTR, these differences reflect an
effort to reduce burden for small
systems while still maintaining a
comparable level of health protection.
Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA.
  Nevertheless, EPA has tried to ensure
that State, local, and Tribal governments
had opportunities to provide  comment.
EPA consulted with small governments
to address impacts of regulatory
requirements in the rule that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. As discussed next, a
variety of stakeholders, including small
governments, were provided the
opportunity for timely and meaningful
participation in the regulatory
development process. EPA used these
opportunities to notify potentially
affected small governments of regulatory
requirements being considered.
  EPA began outreach efforts  to develop
the LTlESWTR in the summer of 1998.
Two public stakeholder meetings,
which were announced in the Federal
Register,  were held on July 22-23,1998,
in Lakewood, Colorado, and on March
3-4,1999, in Dallas, Texas.
Stakeholders include representatives of
State, local and Tribal governments,
environmental groups and publicly
owned and privately owned public
water systems. In addition to these
meetings, EPA has held several formal
and informal meetings with
stakeholders including the Association
of State Drinking Water Administrators
and representatives of State and local
elected officials. A summary of each
meeting and attendees is available in the
public docket for this rule. EPA also
convened a Small Business Advocacy
Review (SBAR) Panel in accordance
with the RFA, as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA) to address small
entity concerns including those of small
local governments. The SBAR Panel
allows small regulated entities to
provide input to EPA early in the
regulatory development process. In
early June 1999, EPA mailed an
informal draft of the LTlESWTR
preamble to the approximately  100
stakeholders who attended one of the
public stakeholder meetings. Members
of trade associations and the  SBREFA
Panel also received the draft preamble.
EPA received valuable suggestions and
stakeholder input from 15 State
representatives, trade associations,
environmental interest groups, and
individual  stakeholders. The majority of
concerns dealt with reducing burden on
small systems and maintaining
flexibility.
  To inform and involve Tribal
governments in the rulemaking process,
EPA presented the LTlESWTR at three
venues: the 16th Annual Consumer
Conference of the National Indian
Health Board, the annual conference of
the National Tribal Environmental
Council, and the EPA/Inter Tribal
Council of Arizona, Inc. Tribal
consultation meeting. Over 900
attendees representing Tribes from
across the country attended the National
Indian Health Board's Consumer
Conference and over 100 Tribes were
represented at the annual conference of
the National Tribal Environmental
Council. At the first two conferences, an
EPA representative conducted two
workshops  on EPA's drinking water
program and upcoming regulations,
including the LTlESWTR.
  At the EPA/Inter Tribal Council of
Arizona meeting, representatives from
15 Tribes participated. The presentation
materials and meeting summary were
sent to over 500 Tribes and Tribal
organizations. Additionally, EPA
contacted each of the 12 Native
American Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund Advisors to invite
them, and representatives of their
organizations to the stakeholder
meetings described previously.
  During the comment period, for
today's final rule, the Agency held a
public meeting in Washington D.C. on
April 14, 2000. Additionally, the
proposed rule was either presented or
discussed in nearly 50 meetings across
the U.S. Finally, EPA mailed
approximately 200 copies of the
proposed rule to stakeholders requesting
comment. EPA received 67 comments
from a variety of stakeholders including
24 States, 21 municipalities, one Tribe,
one elected official, two consultants,
eight trade groups, and four private
industries.
  In addition, EPA will educate, inform,
and advise small systems, including
those run by small governments, about
the LTlESWTR requirements. The
Agency is developing plain-English
guidance that will explain what actions
a small entity must take to comply with
the rule. Also, the Agency has
developed a fact sheet that concisely
describes various aspects and
requirements of the LTlESWTR. This
fact sheet is available by calling the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-
4791.

D. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
  As noted in the  proposed rule, section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113,
section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note),
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
  Today's rule does not establish any
technical standards, thus, NTTAA does
not apply to this rule. It should be
noted, however, that systems complying
with this rule need to use one of three
previously approved technical
standards already  included in § 141.74
(a). Method 2130B (APHA, 1995), is
published in Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater
(19th ed.) and is a voluntary consensus
standard. The Great Lakes Instrument
Method 2, has been approved by USEPA
as an alternate test procedure (Great
Lakes Instruments, 1992). EPA Method
180.1 for turbidity measurement was
published in August 1993 in Methods
for the Determination of Inorganic

-------
1830
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 9/Monday, January 14, 2002/Rules and  Regulations
Substances in Environmental Samples
(EPA-600/R-93-100) (USEPA, 1993).
  Today's final rule also requires
calibration of the individual
turbidimeter to be conducted using
procedures specified by the
manufacturer. EPA encouraged
comments on this aspect of the
rulemaking and specifically invited the
public to identify potentially applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to
explain why such standards should be
used in this regulation. EPA received no
comments on this issue.

E. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
  Under Executive Order 12866  (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is "significant" and therefore
subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines "significant
regulatory action" as one that is  likely
to result in a rule that may:
  (1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, Tribal governments  or
communities;
  (2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
  (3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof, or;
  (4) Raise novel legal or policy  issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
  Pursuant to the terms of the Executive
Order 12866, it has been determined
that this rule is a "significant regulatory
action." As such, this action was
submitted to OMB for review. Changes
made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations are documented in
the public record.

F. Executive Order 12898:
Environmental Justice
  Executive Order 12898 establishes a
Federal policy for incorporating
environmental justice into Federal
agency missions by directing agencies to
identify and address disproportionately
high and adverse human health  or
environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority and
low-income populations. The Agency
has considered environmental justice
related issues concerning the potential
impacts of this action and  consulted
                         with minority and low-income
                         stakeholders.
                           This preamble has discussed how the
                         IESWTR served as a template for the
                         development of the LTlESWTR. As
                         such, the Agency also built on the
                         efforts conducted during the lESWTRs
                         development to comply with Executive
                         Order 12898. On March 12, 1998, the
                         Agency held a stakeholder meeting to
                         address various components of pending
                         drinking water regulations and how
                         they may impact sensitive sub-
                         populations, minority populations, and
                         low-income populations. Topics
                         discussed included treatment
                         techniques, costs and benefits, data
                         quality, health effects, and the
                         regulatory process. Participants
                         included national, State, Tribal,
                         municipal, and individual stakeholders.
                         EPA conducted the meetings by video
                         conference call between 11 cities. This
                         meeting was a continuation of
                         stakeholder meetings that started in
                         1995 to obtain input on the Agency's
                         Drinking Water Programs. The major
                         objectives for the March 12, 1998
                         meeting were  to:
                         —Solicit ideas from stakeholders on
                           known issues concerning current
                           drinking water regulatory efforts;
                         —Identify key issues of concern to
                           stakeholders, and;
                         —Receive suggestions from stakeholders
                           concerning  ways to increase
                           representation of communities in
                           EPA's Office of Water drinking water
                           regulatory efforts.
                           In addition, EPA developed a plain-
                         English guide specifically for this
                         meeting to assist stakeholders in
                         understanding the multiple and
                         sometimes complex issues surrounding
                         drinking water regulation.
                           The LTlESWTR applies to
                         community water systems, non-
                         transient non-community water
                         systems, and transient non-community
                         water systems that use surface water or
                         GWUDI as their source water for PWSs
                         serving less than 10,000 people. These
                         requirements  will also be  consistent
                         with the protection already afforded to
                         people being served by  systems serving
                         10,000 or more persons.

                         G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
                         Children From Environmental Health
                         Risks and Safety Risks
                           Executive Order 13045: "Protection of
                         Children from Environmental Health
                         Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885,
                         April 23, 1997) applies  to any rule that:
                         (1) Is determined to be economically
                         significant as  defined under Executive
                         Order 12866,  and; (2) concerns an
                         environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
  While this final rule is not subject to
the Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, we nonetheless
have reason to believe that the
environmental health or safety risk
addressed by this action may have a
disproportionate effect on children. As
a matter of EPA policy, we therefore
have assessed the environmental health
effects of Cryptosporidium on children.
The results of this assessment are
contained in the LTlESWTR economic
analysis (USEPA, 2001a). A copy of the
analysis and supporting documents are
found in the public docket for today's
final rule (W-99-10, Final Long Term 1
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule.  The docket is available for public
review at EPA's Drinking Water Docket:
401 M Street, SW., Rm. EB57,
Washington, DC 20460.
  The risk of illness and death due to
cryptosporidiosis depends on several
factors, including age, nutrition,
exposure, genetic variability, disease
and immune status of the individual.
Mortality resulting from diarrhea shows
the greatest risk of mortality occurring
among the very young and elderly
(Gerbaefa/., 1996). For
Cryptosporidium, young children are a
vulnerable population subject to
infectious diarrhea (CDC 1994).
Cryptosporidiosis is prevalent
worldwide, and its occurrence is higher
in children than in adults (Payer and
Ungar, 1986).
  Cryptosporidiosis appears to be more
prevalent in populations, such as
infants, that may not have established
immunity against the disease and may
be in  greater contact with
environmentally contaminated surfaces
(DuPont, et al, 1995). An infected child
may spread the disease to other children
or family members. Evidence of such
secondary transmission of
cryptosporidiosis from children to
household and other close contacts has
been  found in a number of outbreak
investigations (Casemore, 1990; Cordell
et al., 1997; Frost et al., 1997). Chapelle
et al., (1999) found that prior exposure
to Cryptosporidium through the
ingestion  of a low oocyst dose provides
protection from infection and illness.
However, it is not known whether this
immunity is life-long or temporary. Data

-------
              Federal Register/Vol.  67,  No. 9/Monday, January 14, 2002/Rules and Regulations
                                                                      1831
 also indicate that either mothers confer
 short term immunity to their children or
 that babies have reduced exposure to
 Cryptosporidium, resulting in a
 decreased incidence of infection during
 the first year of life. For example, in a
 survey of over 30,000 stool sample
 analyses from different patients in the
 United Kingdom, the one to five year
 age group suffered a much higher
 infection rate than individuals less than
 one  year of age. For children under one
 year of age, those older than six months
 of age showed a higher rate of infection
 than individuals aged fewer than six
 months (Casemore, 1990).
  EPA has not been able to quantify the
 health effects for children as a result of
 Cryptosporidium-contaminated
 drinking water. However, the result of
 the LT1ESWTR will be a reduction in
 the risk of illness for the entire
 population, including children. Because
 available evidence indicates that
 children may be more vulnerable to
 Cryptosporidiosis than the rest of the
 population, the LTlESWTR would,
 therefore, result in greater risk reduction
 for children than for the general
 population.

 H. Consultations With the Science
 Advisory Board, National Drinking
 Water Advisory Council, and the
 Secretary of Health and Human Services
  In accordance with section 1412 (d)
 and  (e) of the SDWA, the Agency
 consulted with the National Drinking
 Water Advisory Council (NDWAC), the
 Secretary of Health and Human
 Services, and the EPA Science Advisory
 Board (SAB) on the proposed
 LTlESWTR. None  of the three
 consultations resulted in substantive
 comments on the LTlESWTR.
  On March 13 and 14, 2000 in
 Washington, DC, the Agency met with
 SAB during meetings open to the public
 where several of the Agency's drinking
 water rules were discussed. A copy of
 the SAB's comments are found in the
 docket (USEPA, 20001). Comments on
 the LTlESWTR were  generally
 supportive.
  On May 10, 2000 in San Francisco,
 California, the Agency met with
NDWAC. A copy of the materials
presented to the NDWAC, as well as the
 charge presented to the council are
 found in the docket (USEPA, 2000f,
NDWAC, 2000).
  EPA invited the Secretary of Health
 and Human Services to the April 14th,
 2000 informational meeting regarding
the proposed Long Term 1 Enhanced
 Surface Water Treatment Rule and
 consulted with the Centers for Disease
 Control (CDC) during a June 20, 2000
 conference call with the Centers'
Working Group on Waterborne
Cryptosporidiosis. The meeting notes
for that call are found in the docket
(CDC, 2000). CDC's role as an Agency of
the Department of Health and Human
Services is to provide a system of health
surveillance to monitor and prevent the
outbreak of diseases. With the assistance
of States and other partners, CDC guards
against international disease
transmission, maintains national health
statistics, and provides for
immunization services and supports
research into disease and injury
prevention.

I. Executive Order 13132: Executive
Orders on Federalism
  Executive Order 13132, entitled
"Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
"meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications." "Policies that have
federalism implications" is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have "substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States,  or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government."
  This final rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order  13132. Today's final
rule does not have a substantial direct
effect on local and State governments
because it is not expected to impose
substantial direct compliance costs. The
rule imposes annualized compliance
costs  on State and local governments of
approximately $30.6 million. $6.4
million of these costs are attributable to
States, while $24.2 million is
attributable to local governments
serving fewer than 10,000 persons. As
described in Section VI. A of the
preamble for today's final rule,  this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities, including small governments.
Furthermore, the rule does not have a
substantial direct effect on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government as specified in
Executive Order 13132 because the rule
does not change the current roles and
relationships of the Federal government,
State governments and local
governments in implementing drinking
water programs. Thus Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule.
Although the Executive Order does not
apply to this rule, EPA did consult with
State and local officials in developing
this rule. In addition to our outreach
efforts described earlier, on May 30,
2000, the Agency held a meeting in
Washington, DC with ten
representatives of elected State and
local officials to discuss how new
Federal drinking water regulations
(LTlESWTR, FBRR, Ground Water Rule,
Radon Rule, Radionuclides Rule, and
Arsenic Rule) may affect State, county,
and local governments. Throughout the
consultation, stakeholders asked EPA
for clarification of basic concepts and
rule elements. EPA addressed these
issues throughout the consultation and
provided background and clarification
to promote better understanding of the
issues. For example, stakeholders asked
EPA to describe what Cryptosporidium
is and how individuals are diagnosed
with Cryptosporidiosis. A detailed
summary of this consultation meeting
and the concerns raised is found in the
docket (USEPA, 2000g). No significant
concerns were raised regarding the
LTlESWTR.

/. Executive  Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
  On November 6, 2000, the President
issued Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249) entitled, "Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments." Executive Order 13175
took effect on January 6, 2001, and
revoked Executive Order 13084 (also
entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments.") as of
that date. However, EPA developed and
proposed this final rule when Executive
Order 13084 was in effect, and before
the effective date of the consultation
requirements of Executive Order 13175.
Therefore, the consultation
requirements of Executive Order 13084
apply to this rule.
  Under Executive Order  13084, EPA
could not issue a regulation that was not
required by statute, that significantly or
uniquely affected the communities of
Indian Tribal governments, and that
imposed substantial direct compliance
costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provided the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the  Tribal
governments, or EPA consulted with
those governments.
  Executive  Order 13084 required EPA
to provide to the Office of Management
and Budget, in a separately identified

-------
1832
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No.  9/Monday, January 14, 2002/Rules and Regulations
section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of
affected Tribal governments, a summary
of the nature of their concerns, and a
statement supporting the need to issue
the regulation. In addition, Executive
Order 13084 required EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of
Indian Tribal governments "to provide
meaningful and timely input in the
development of regulatory policies on
matters that significantly or uniquely
affect their communities."
  EPA has concluded that this rule will
not significantly or uniquely affect
communities of Indian Tribal
governments, and will not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
such communities. This rule will affect
approximately 70 of the 700 total Tribal
drinking water  systems. Of these 70
systems, half are estimated to incur
annualized compliance costs of less
than $70 per year (0.003 percent of
average annual revenue) and
approximately 20 systems are estimated
to incur annualized compliance costs of
less than $850 per year (0.03 percent of
average annual revenue). The remaining
systems would  incur an estimated
annualized compliance costs of less
than $13,000, or 0.6 percent of average
annual revenue.
  Nonetheless, EPA provided
representatives of Tribal governments
with several opportunities to become
knowledgeable of the proposed rule and
to provide meaningful and timely input
in its development. EPA began outreach
efforts to develop the LT1ESWTR in the
summer of 1998 as discussed in detail
above in the UMRA and Federalism
sections. To inform and involve the
representatives of Tribal governments
specifically, EPA presented the
LTlESWTR at three venues: The 16th
Annual Consumer Conference of the
                         National Indian Health Board, the
                         annual conference of the National Tribal
                         Environmental Council, and the EPA/
                         Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.
                         Tribal consultation meeting. Summaries
                         of the meetings have been included in
                         the public docket for this rulemaking.
                         EPA's consultation, the nature of the
                         Tribal concerns, and the position
                         supporting the need  for this rule are
                         discussed in Section VI.C., which
                         addresses compliance with UMRA.
                           Over 900 Tribal representatives from
                         across the country attended the National
                         Indian Health Board's Consumer
                         Conference and over 100 Tribes were
                         represented at the annual conference of
                         the National Tribal Environmental
                         Council. At the first two conferences, an
                         EPA representative conducted two
                         workshops on EPA's drinking water
                         program and upcoming regulations,
                         including the  LTlESWTR. At the EPA/
                         Inter Tribal Council of Arizona meeting,
                         representatives from 15 Tribes
                         participated. The presentation materials
                         and meeting summary were sent to over
                         500 Tribes and Tribal organizations.
                         Additionally,  EPA contacted and
                         invited each of the 12 Native American
                         Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
                         Advisors to attend the meetings
                         described above.
                           During the comment period for
                         today's final rule, the Agency held a
                         public meeting in Washington, DC on
                         April 14, 2000 which was announced in
                         the Federal Register. Additionally, the
                         proposed rule was either presented or
                         discussed in nearly 50 meetings across
                         the country. Finally, EPA mailed
                         approximately 200 copies of the
                         proposed rule to stakeholders, including
                         Tribal representatives, requesting
                         comment. EPA received 67 comments,
                         one of which  was from a Tribe. The
                         Tribe indicated that  they operated one
                         surface water  treatment plant and asked
                         several clarifying questions with respect
to optional monitoring and turbidity
monitoring.

K. Likely Effect of Compliance With the
LT1ESWTH on the Technical, Financial,
and Managerial Capacity of Public
Water Systems
  Section 1420(d)(3) of the SDWA as
amended requires that, in promulgating
a NPDWR, the Administrator shall
include an analysis of the likely effect
of compliance with the regulation on
the technical, financial, and managerial
capacity of public water systems. This
analysis can be found in the LTlESWTR
economic analysis (USEPA, 2001a).
Overall water system capacity is defined
in EPA guidance (USEPA, 1998J) as the
ability to plan for, achieve, and
maintain compliance with applicable
drinking water standards. Capacity has
three components: Technical,
managerial, and financial. Technical
capacity is the physical and operational
ability of a water system to meet SDWA
requirements.  Technical capacity refers
to the physical infrastructure of the
water system, including the adequacy of
source water and the adequacy of
treatment, storage, and distribution
infrastructure. It also refers to the ability
of system personnel to adequately
operate and maintain the system and to
otherwise implement requisite technical
knowledge. Managerial capacity is the
ability of a water system to conduct its
affairs to achieve and maintain
compliance with SDWA requirements.
Managerial capacity refers to the
system's institutional and
administrative capabilities. Financial
capacity is a water system's ability to
acquire and manage sufficient financial
resources to allow the system to achieve
and maintain compliance with SDWA
requirements. Technical, managerial,
and financial capacity can be assessed
through key issues and questions,
including:
                                                  Technical Capacity
Source water adequacy

Infrastructure adequacy
Technical  knowledge  and imple-
  mentation.
                 Does the system have a reliable source of drinking water? Is the source of generally good quality and ade-
                   quately protected?
                 Can the system provide water that meets SDWA standards? What is the condition of its infrastructure, in-
                   cluding well(s) or source water intakes, treatment, storage, and distribution? What is the infrastructure's
                   life expectancy? Does the system have a capital improvement plan?
                 Is the system's operator certified? Does the operator have sufficient technical knowledge of applicable
                   standards? Can the operator effectively implement this technical knowledge? Does the operator under-
                   stand the system's technical and operational characteristics? Does the system have an effective oper-
                   ation and maintenance program?
                                                  Managerial Capacity
Ownership accountability
Staffing and organization
                 Are the system owner(s) clearly identified? Can they be held accountable for the system?
                 Are the system operator(s) and manager(s) clearly identified?  Is the system properly organized and
                   staffed? Do personnel understand the management aspects of  regulatory requirements and system op-
                   erations? Do they have adequate expertise to manage water system operations?  Do personnel have the
                   necessary licenses and certifications?

-------
               Federal Register/Vol.  67, No.  9/Monday, January 14, 2002/Rules and Regulations
                                                                                   1833
 Effective external linkages
Does the system interact well with customers, regulators, and other entities? Is the system aware of avail-
  able external resources, such as technical and financial assistance?
                                                    Financial Capacity
Revenue sufficiency 	
Credit worthiness 	
Fiscal management and controls
Do revenues cover costs? Are water rates and charges adequate to cover the cost of water?
Is the system financially healthy? Does it have access to capital through public or private sources?
Are adequate books and records maintained? Are appropriate budgeting, accounting, and financial plan-
  ning methods used? Does the system manage its revenues effectively?
  Systems not making significant
modifications to the treatment process
to meet LT1ESWTR requirements are
not expected to require significantly
increased technical, financial, or
managerial capacity. As noted
previously, less than 1 percent of
affected systems are expected to incur
annual costs exceeding 1 percent of
their annual revenue as described in
Section VI.A. Accordingly, most
systems are not expected to require
significantly increased technical,
financial, or managerial capacity. EPA
does recognize that a very small number
of facilities may realize some technical,
managerial, or financial capacity
concerns as a result of the rule. EPA
works closely with organizations such
as the National Rural Water Association
and the American Water Works
Association to develop technical and
managerial tools, materials, and
assistance  to aid small systems.
Additionally, the Safe Drinking Water
Act, as amended in 1996, established
the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DWSRF)  to make  funds available
to drinking water systems to finance
infrastructure improvements. The
program emphasizes providing funds to
small and disadvantaged communities
and to programs that encourage
pollution prevention as a tool for
ensuring safe drinking water.
L. Plain Language
  Executive Order 12866 requires each
agency to write  its rules  in plain
language. Readable regulations help the
public find requirements quickly and
understand them easily. They increase
compliance, strengthen enforcement,
and  decrease mistakes, frustration,
phone calls, appeals, and distrust of
government. Of the several techniques
typically utilized for writing readably,
using a question and answer format, and
using the word 'you' for whoever must
comply, do the most to improve the look
and  sound of a regulation. Today's
preamble and final rule use both of
these principles and was developed
using a plain language format, except in
the case of modifications or additions to
existing subparts of parts 141 and 142,
where such a format would not fit into
existing rule language. The Agency
         requested comment on this approach
         and several commenter's indicated that
         the proposal was clear and easy to
         understand.
         M. Congressional Review Act
           The Congressional Review Act, 5
         U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
         Business Regulatory Enforcement
         Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
         that before a rule may  take effect, the
         agency promulgating the rule must
         submit a rule report, which includes a
         copy of the rule, to each House of the
         Congress and to the Comptroller General
         of the United States. EPA will submit a
         report containing this  rule and other
         required information to the U.S.  Senate,
         the U.S. House of Representatives, and
         the Comptroller General of the United
         States prior to publication of the rule in
         the Federal Register. A major rule
         cannot take effect until 60  days after it
         is published in the Federal Register.
         This action is not a "major rule" as
         defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule
         will be effective February 13, 2002.
         N. Executive Order 13211: Actions
         Concerning Regulations That
         Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
         Distribution, or Use
           This rule is not a "significant energy
         action" as defined in Executive Order
         13211, Actions Concerning Regulations
         That Significantly Affect Energy  Supply,
         Distribution, or Use" 66 FR 28355, (May
         22, 2001), because it is not likely to have
         a significant adverse effect on the
         supply, distribution, or use of energy.
         The requirements in this rule would
         have a negligible impact upon the
         energy demands of some public water
         supply systems. Therefore, there is not
         a significant adverse effect on energy
         supply, distribution, or use.
         VII. References
         Adham, S., Gagliado, P., Smith, D., Ross, D.,
             Gramith, K., and Trussell, R.  1998.
             Monitoring of Reverse Osmosis for Virus
             Rejection, Proceedings  Water Quality
             and Technology Conference.  9pp.
         American Water Works Association
             Committee Report. 1983. Deterioration of
             water quality in large distribution
             reservoirs (open reservoirs). AWWA
             Committee on Control of Water Quality
             in Transmission and  Distribution
             Systems. J. AWWA. )une 1983, 313-318.
Amirtharajah, A. 1988. Some theoretical and
    conceptual views of filtration. J. AWWA.
    (80:12: 36-46).
APHA. 1995. 19th Edition of Standard
    Methods for the Examination of Water
    and Wastewater, 1995. American Public
    Health Association. 1015 15th Street
    NW, Washington D.C. 20005. (Includes
    method 2130A, B).
Atherholt, T., LeChevallier, M., Norton, W.,
    and Rosen, J. 1998. Effect of rainfall on
    Giardia and crypto. J.AWWA (90:9:66-
    80).
Bucklin, K., Amirtharajah, A., and Cranston,
    K. 1988. The characteristics of initial
    effluent quality and its implications for
    the filter-to-waste procedure. AWWARF.
    Denver, 158pp.
Casemore, D. 1990. Epidemiological aspects
    of human cryptosporidiosis.  Epidemiol.
    Infect. (104:1-28).
CDC 1994. Addressing Emerging  Infectious
    Disease Threats: A Prevention Strategy
    for the United States. Executive
    Summary. P. 1-3.
CDC 2000. Notes from June 20, and October
    10, 2000, CDC Working Group on
    Waterborne Cryptosporidiosis
    Teleconference. October 10, 2000.
Chappell, C., Okhuysen, P., Sterling, C.,
    Wang, C., Jakubowski, W., and Dupont,
    H. 1999. Infectivity of Cryptosporidium
    Parvum in Healthy Adults with Pre-
    existing Anti-C. Parvum Serum
    Immunoglobulin G. Am. J. Trop. Med.
    Hyg. (60:1:157-164).
Cleasby, J. 1990. Filtration, Chapter 8, IN: (F.
    Pontius, ed) Water Quality and
    Treatment. AWWA, Denver,  57pp.
Collins, M., Dwyer, P., Margolin,  A., and
    Hogan, S. 1996. Assessment of MS2
    Bacteriphage Virus Giardia Cyst and
    Cryptosporidium Oocyst Removal by
    Hollow Fiber Ultrafiltration
    (Polysulfone) Membranes. Proceedings
    AWWA Membrane Conference, Reno,
    NV 1996.
Cordell, R., Thor, P., Addiss, D., Theurer, J.,
    Lichterman, R., Ziliak, S., Juranek, D.,
    and Davis, ). 1997. Impact of a massive
    waterborne cryptosporidiosis outbreak
    on child care facilities in metropolitan
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Pediatr Infect Dis
    J. (16:639-44).
Craun, Gunther. 1998. Memorandum from G.
    Craun to U. S. Environmental Protection
    Agency (M. Negro), dated 10/26/98.
    Waterborne outbreak data 1971-1996,
    community and noncommunity water
    systems.
Drozd, C., and Schartzbrod, J. 1997.
    "Removal of Cryptosporidium from River
    Water by Crossflow Microfiltration: A
    Pilot Scale Study," Water Science and
    Technology. (35:11-12:391-395).

-------
1834
Federal  Register/Vol.  67, No. 9/Monday, January  14, 2002/Rules and Regulations
Dupont, H., Chappell, C., Sterling, C.,
    Okhuysen, P., Rose, J., and Jakubowski,
    W. 1995. The Infectivity of
    Cryptosporidium parvum in Healthy
    Volunteers. N. Engl. J. Med. (332:13:855-
    859).
Payer, R. and Ungar, B. 1986.
    Cryptosporidium spp. and
    cryptosporidiosis. Microbial Review.
    (50:4:458-483).
Fayer, R., and T. Nerad. 1996. Effects of low
    temperatures on viability of
    Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts. Appl.
    Environ. Microbiol. 62:1431-1433.
Foundation for Water Research. 1994.
    Removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts by
    water treatment processes. Foundation
    for Water Research, Britain. April.
Frost, F., Craun, G., Calderon, R., and Hubbs,
    S. 1997. So many oocysts, so few
    outbreaks. J. AWWA (89:12:8-10).
Gerba, C.P., J.B. Rose and C.N. Haas (1996).
    Sensitive populations: who is at the
    greatest risk? International Journal of
    Food Microbiology: 30(1-2), 10pp.
Goodrich, J., Sylvana, Y., and Lykins, B.
    1995. Cost and Performance Evaluations
    of Alternative Filtration Technologies for
    Small Communities.  Proceedings
    AWWA Annual Conference.
Great Lakes Instruments.  1992. Analytical
    Method for Turbidity Measurement: GLI
    Method 2. GLI, Milwaukee, WI. 8 pp.
Hall, T., and Croll, B. 1996. The UK
    Approach to Cryptosporidium Control in
    Water Treatment. Proceedings AWWA
    Water Quality and Technology
    Conference, 14pp.
Hancock, C., Rose, J., and Callahan, M. 1998.
    Crypto  and Giardia in U.S. groundwater.
    J. AWWA (90:3:58-61).
Harrington W., Krupnick, A.J., and W.O.
    Spofford. 1985. "The Benefits of
    Preventing an Outbreak of Giardiasis Due
    to Drinking Water Contamination." EPA/
    Resources for the Future Report.
Hirata, T., and Hashimoto, A. 1998.
    "Experimental Assessment of the
    Efficacy of Microfiltration and
    Ultrafiltration for Cryptosporidium
    Removal," Water Science and
    Technology. (38:12:103-107).
Hoxie, N., Davis, J., Vergeront, J., Nashold, R.,
    and Blair, K. 1997. Cryptosporidiosis-
    associated mortality following a massive
    waterborne outbreak in Milwaukee,
    Wisconsin. Amer. J. Publ. Health
    (87:12:2032-2035).
Jacangelo, J., Adham, S., and Laine, J. 1995.
    Mechanism of Cryptosporidium, Giardia,
    and MS2 virus removal by MF and UF.
    J. AWWA (87:9:107-121).
Juranek, D.  1995. Cryptosporidiosis: Sources
    of Infection and Guidelines for
    Prevention. Clinical Infectious Diseases:
    21 (1). See also www.cdc.gov/ncidod/
    dpd/sources.html
Kelley, M.,  Warrier, P., Brokaw, J., Barrett, K.
    and Komisar, S. 1995. A Study of Two
    U.S. Army Installation Drinking Water
    Sources and Treatment Systems for the
    Removal of Giardia and
    Cryptosporidium. Proceedings AWWA
    Annual Conference.
LeChevallier, M., Norton, W., and Lee, R.
    1991. Giardia and Cryptosporidium spp.
                               in filtered drinking water supplies. Appl.
                               Environ. Microbial. (57:9:2617-2621).
                           LeChevallier, M., and Norton, W. 1992.
                               Examining relationships between
                               particle counts and Giardia,
                               Cryptosporidium and turbidity. J.
                               AWWA (84:120:54-60).
                           LeChevallier, M., and Norton, W. 1995.
                               Giardia and Cryptosporidium in raw and
                               finished water. J. AWWA (87:9:54-68).
                           Lykins, B., Adams, J., Goodrich, J., and Clark,
                               R., Meeting Federal Regulations with
                               MF/UF—EPA Ongoing Projects.
                               Microfiltration II Conference, November
                               12-13, 1994, San Diego, CA.
                           MacKenzie, W.R., NJ. Hoxie, M.E. Proctor,
                               M.S. Gradus, K.A. Blair, D.E. Peterson,
                               J.J. Kazmierczak, D.G. Addiss, K.R. Fox,
                               J.B. Rose, and J.P. Davis. 1994. A massive
                               outbreak in Milwaukee of
                               Cryptosporidium infection transmitted
                               through the public water supply. New
                               England Jour. Med. 331(3):161-167.
                           McTigue, N., LeChevallier, M., Arora, H., and
                               Clancy, J. 1998. National Assessment of
                               Particle Removal by Filtration.
                               AWWARF. Denver, 256pp.
                           NDWAC, 2000. National Drinking Water
                               Advisory Council Meeting Minutes and
                               Recommendations, June 14, 2000.
                           Nieminski, E., and Ongerth, J. 1995.
                               Removing Giardia and Cryptosporidium
                               by Conventional Treatment and Direct
                               Filtration. J. AWWA (87:9:96-106).
                           Ongerth, J., and Pecoraro, J. 1995. Removing
                               Cryptosporidium Using Multimedia
                               Filters. J. AWWA. (87:12:83-89).
                           Ongerth, J., and Button, P. 1997. DE
                               Filtration to Remove Cryptosporidium.
                               JAWWA. December, pp. 39-46.
                           Patania, N., Jacangelo, J., Cummings, L.,
                               Wilczak, A., Riley, K., and Oppenheimer,
                               J. 1995. Optimization of Filtration for
                               Cyst Removal. AWWARF. Denver,
                               178pp.
                           Rose, J.B., 1988, "Occurrence and
                               Significance of Cryptosporidium in
                               water, J. AWWA 80(2):53-58.
                           Schuler,  P.,  and Gosh, M. 1990.
                               Diatomaceous Earth Filtration of Cysts
                               and Other Particulates Using Chemical
                               Additives. Journal AWWA (Dec 1990).
                               82(12):67-75.
                           Schuler,  P., and Gosh, M. 1991. Slow Sand
                               Filtration of Cysts and Other
                               Particulates. AWWA Annual Conference
                               Proceedings. June. Pp 235-252.
                           Timms, S., Slade, J.  and Fricker, C. 1995.
                               Removal of Cryptosporidium by Slow
                               Sand Filtration. Wat. Sci. Tech. Vol. 31.
                               No. 5-6, pp. 81-84.
                           USEPA.1989. National Primary Drinking
                               Water Regulations: Filtration,
                               Disinfection; Turbidity, Giardia lamblia,
                               Viruses, Legionella, and Heterotrophic
                               Bacteria; Final Rule (SWTR).  54 FR
                               27486, June 29, 1989.
                           USEPA.1991. Guidance Manual for
                               compliance with the filtration and
                               disinfection requirements for public
                               water systems using surface water
                               sources. Washington, D.C., 574pp. [Also
                               published by AWWA].
                           USEPA.1993. Methods for the Determination
                               of Inorganic Substances in
                               Environmental  Samples. Environmental
    Monitoring Systems Laboratory.
    Cincinnati, OH 45268. August. 169pp.
    600/R-93-100.
USEPA.1997a. National Primary Drinking
    Water Regulations: Interim Enhanced
    Surface Water Treatment Notice of Data
    Availability.  62 FR 59486. EPA-815-Z-
    97-001.
USEPA.1997b. National Primary Drinking
    Water Regulations: Disinfectants and
    Disinfection  Byproducts; Notice of Data
    Availability.  62 FR 59388. EPA-815-Z-
    97-002/USEPA.1998a. National Primary
    Drinking Water Regulations: Interim
    Enhanced Surface Water Treatment;
    Final Rule. 63 FR 69477, December 16,
    1998. EPA 815-Z-98-009.
USEPA.1998b. Cryptosporidium and Giardia
    Occurrence Assessment for the Interim
    Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.
    Prepared for  the Office of Ground Water
    and Drinking Water, Washington, DC by
    Science  Applications  International
    Corporation, McLean, VA, 185pp.
USEPA.1998c. National Primary Drinking
    Water Regulations: Disinfectants and
    Disinfection  Byproducts; Final Rule. 63
    FR 69389, December 16, 1998.
USEPA.1998d. Addendum to the Drinking
    Water Criteria Document for Giardia.
    Prepared for  Office  of Water, Office of
    Science  and  Technology, U.S. EPA,
    Washington, D.C., by ARCTECH, Inc.,
    1999. Gunther F. Craun & Associates.
    271pp.
USEPA 1998e. Demographic Distribution of
    Sensitive Population Groups. Final
    Report. Prepared by SRA Technologies,
    Inc., Falls Church, VA. Work Assignment
    No. B-ll/22  (SRA 557-05/14: February
    24).
USEPA 1998f. National  Primary Drinking
    Water Regulation: Consumer Confidence
    Reports; Final Rule. 63 FR 44511, August
    19, 1998.
USEPA 1998g. Revision of Existing Variance
    and Exemption Regulations To Comply
    With Requirements of the Safe Drinking
    Water Act. 63 FR 43833,  August 14,
    1998.
USEPA 1998h. Announcement of the
    Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate
    List; Notice.  63 FR 10273, March 2, 1998.
USEPA.1998i. Revisions to State Primacy
    Requirements to Implement Safe
    Drinking Water Act Amendments; Final
    Rule. 63 FR 23362.
USEPA.1998J. Guidance on Implementing the
    Capacity Development Provisions of the
    Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of
    1996. EPA Document Number: 816-R-
    98-006.
USEPA.1998k. Final Report of the SBREFA
    Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
    on EPA's Planned Proposed Rule: Long
    Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water
    Treatment Rule, 76pp.
USEPA.19981. Response to Comment
    Document for the Interim Enhanced
    Surface  Water Treatment Rule.
USEPA.1999a. Meeting Summary: Long Term
    1 Enhanced  Surface Water Treatment
    Rule (LTlESWTR) and Filter Backwash
    Recycle Rule (FBR). Dallas, TX. March.
    llpp.
USEPA.1999b. Stakeholder Meeting
    Summary: Long Term 1 Enhanced

-------
              Federal Register/Vol.  67, No.  9/Monday,  January  14,  2002/Rules and Regulations
                                                                         1835
    Surface Water Treatment Rule and Filter
    Backwash Recycle Rule. Denver, CO.
    July. 67pp.
USEPA.2000a. Occurrence Assessment for
    the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface
    Water Treatment and Filter Backwash
    Recycle Rule, (EPA/815/R/00/019).
USEPA.2000b. National Primary Drinking
    Water Regulations: Long Term 1
    Enhanced Surface Water Treatment and
    Filter Backwash Rule; Proposed Rule. 65
    FR 19046. April 10, 2000. (EPA/815/Z/
    00/01).
USEPA.2000C. Summary of the Proposed
    Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water
    Treatment and Filter Backwash Rule.
    April, 14, 2000.
USEPA.2000d. Application of the Microbial
    Framework to LT2ESWTR FACA
    Options, M/DBP FACA Meeting, June 1,
    2000.
USEPA.2000e. Regulatory Flexibility
    Screening Analysis for the Long Term 1
    Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule,
    September 26, 2000.
USEPA.2000f. Proposed Long  Term 1
    Enhanced Surface Water Treatment and
    Filter Backwash Rule (LT1FBR)  Issues
    for the National Drinking  Water
    Advisory Council. April 20, 2000.
USEPA.2000g. Meeting Summary,
    Government Dialogue on EPA's
    Upcoming Drinking Water Regulations,
    May 30, 2000.
USEPA.2000h. Representative List of
    Meetings Attended where Presentations
    were Made or where Materials were
    Handed out (LTlESWTR and FBRR).
USEPA.2000i. Response to Comment
    Document for the Filter Backwash
    Recycle Rule.
USEPA.2000J. Estimated Per Capita Water
    Ingestion in the United States. Office of
    Science and Technology. February, 2000.
USEPA.2000k. M/DBP FACA Meeting
    Materials. June 1-2, 2000.
USEPA.20001. SAB Commentary on EPA's
    Draft Proposal for LTlESWTR and FBRR.
    EPA-SAB-DWC-COM-00-004. May 23,
    2000.
USEPA.2001a. Economic Analysis for the
    Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water
    Treatment Rule. EPA Document Number
    815-R-00-021. October 12, 2001.
USEPA.2001b. Response to Comment
    Document for the Long Term 1 Enhanced
    Surface Water Treatment Rule. EPA
    Document Number EPA 815-R-01-026.
USEPA/SAB 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting
    Priorities and Strategies for
    Environmental Protection. U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency
    Science Advisory Board (A-101),
    Washington, D.C. Report No. SAB-EC-
    90-021 (September).
West, T., Danile, P., Meyerhofer, P., DeGraca,
    A., Leonard,  S., and Gerba, C. 1994.
    Evaluation of Cryptosporidium Removal
    through High-rate Filtration. Proceedings
    AWWA Annual Conference, June. Pp
    493-504.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Parts 9

  Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
40 CFR Part 141
  Environmental protection, ChemicaJs,
Indians-lands, Intergovernmental
relations, Radiation protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 142
  Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Chemicals, Indians-lands, Radiation
protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water supply.
  Dated: December 20, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
  For the reasons set forth 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; Executive Order 11735, 38 FR
21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42
U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-
1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6,
300J-1, 300J-2, 300J-3, 300J-4, 300J-9, 1857
etseq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542,
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

  2. In § 9.1 the table is amended by
adding under the indicated heading:
  a. By adding entries 141.530-141.536,
141.540-141.544, 141.550-141.553,
141.560-141.564 and 141.570-141.571
in numerical order.
  b. By removing the entry 142.14(a)-
(d)(7) and adding in  its place a new
entry § 142.14(b)-(d)(7).
  c. By adding a new entry for 142.14(a)
in numerical order.
  d. By adding new entries for 142.16(g)
and 142.16(j) in numerical order.
  The additions read as follows:

§9.1   OMB approvals under the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
                   40 CFR citation
                           OMB control
                               No.
      40 CFR citation
OMB control
    No.
     National Primary Drinking Water
              Regulations
141.530-141.536
141.540-141.544
141.550-141.553
141.560-141.564
141.570-141.571
  2040-0229
  2040-0229
  2040-0229
  2040-0229
  2040-0229
                  National Primary Drinking Water
                    Regulations Implementation
142.14(a) 	

142.14(b)-(d)(7)

   *       *

142.16(g) 	
                                          2040-0229
                                          2040-0090
                                          2040-0090
                                          2040-0229
                                          2040-0229
             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 definitions of
             "Comprehensive performance
             evaluation" (CPE), "Ground water under
             the direct influence of surface water"
             and "Disinfection profile" 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 can be implemented without
significant capital improvements. For
purpose of compliance with subparts P
and T of this part, 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
Giardia lamblia inactivation through the
treatment plant. The procedure for
developing a disinfection profile is
contained in § 141.172 (Disinfection
profiling and benchmarking) in subpart
P and §§ 141.530-141.536 (Disinfection
profile) in subpart T of this part.

-------
1836
Federal Register/Vol.  67, No. 9/Monday, January 14, 2002/Rules and Regulations
  Ground water under the direct
influence of surface water (GWUDI)
means any water beneath the surface of
the ground with significant occurrence
of insects or other macroorganisms,
algae, or large-diameter pathogens such
as Giardia lamblia or Cryptosporidium,
or significant and relatively rapid shifts
in water characteristics such as
turbidity, temperature, conductivity, or
pH which closely correlate to
climatological or surface water
conditions. Direct influence must be
determined for individual sources in
accordance with criteria established by
the State. The State determination of
direct influence may be based on site-
specific measurements of water quality
and/or documentation of well
construction characteristics and geology
with field evaluation.
*****
  5. Section 141.70 is  amended by
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§141.70   General requirements.
*****
  (e) Additional requirements for
systems serving fewer  than 10,000
people. In addition to  complying with
requirements in this subpart, systems
serving fewer than 10,000 people must
also comply with the requirements in
subpart  T of this part.
  6. Section 141.73 is  amended by
adding paragraph (a)(4) and revising
paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§141.73   Filtration.
*****
  (a)* *  *
  (4) Beginning January 14, 2005,
systems serving fewer than 10,000
                         people must meet the turbidity
                         requirements in §§ 141.550 through
                         141.553.
                         *****
                           (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 1, 2002, systems
                         serving at least 10,000 people must meet
                         the requirements for other filtration
                         technologies in § 141.173(b). Beginning
                         January 14, 2005, systems serving fewer
                         than 10,000 people must meet the
                         requirements for other filtration
                         technologies in §141.550 through
                         141.553.
                           7. Section 141.153 is amended by
                         revising the first sentence of paragraph
                         (d)(4)(v)(C) to read as follows:

                         § 141.153 Content of the reports.
                         *****
                           (d)* *  *
                           (41 * *  *
                           (v) * *  *
                           (C) When it is reported pursuant to
                         § 141.73 or § 141.173 or § 141.551: the
                         highest single measurement and the
                         lowest monthly percentage of samples
                         meeting the turbidity limits specified in
§ 141.73 or § 141.173, or § 141.551 for
the filtration technology being used.
  8. The heading to Subpart P is revised
to read as follows:

Subpart P—Enhanced Filtration and
Disinfection—Systems Serving 10,000
or More People
  9. Section 141.170 is amended by
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 141.170  General requirements.
  (d) Subpart H systems that did not
conduct optional monitoring under
§ 141.172 because they served fewer
than 10,000 persons when such
monitoring was required, but serve more
than 10,000 persons prior to January 14,
2005 must comply with §§ 141.170,
141.171, 141.173, 141.174, and 141.175.
These systems must also consult with
the State to establish a disinfection
benchmark. A system that decides to
make a significant change to its
disinfection practice, as described in
§ 141.172(c)(l)(i) through (iv) must
consult with the State prior to making
such change.

  10. Section 141.202 is amended in
Table 1 by revising entry 6 to read as
follows:

§ 141.202  Tier 1 Public Notice—Form,
manner, and frequency of notice.
*****
  (a) * * *
   TABLE 1 TO SEC.  141.202.—VIOLATION CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING A TIER 1 PUBLIC NOTICE
(6) Violation of the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) or Long Term 1 En-
  hanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR) treatment technique requirement resulting from a single exceedance of the maximum al-
  lowable turbidity limit (as identified in Appendix A), where the primacy agency determines after consultation that a Tier 1 notice is required or
  where consultation does not take place within 24 hours after the system learns of the violation;
  11. Section 141.203 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(3)(ii) to read as
follows:

§ 141.203 Tier 2 Public Notice—Form,
manner, and frequency of notice.
*****
  (b) * * *
                           (3)*  *  *

                           (ii) Violation of the SWTR, IESWTR or
                         LT1ESWTR treatment technique
                         requirement resulting from a single
                         exceedance of the maximum allowable
                         turbidity limit.
  12. Appendix A to subpart Q is
amended:
  a. Under I. A. by revising entry 5.
  b. Under LA. by revising entry 7.
  c. Adding a new entry 9.
  d. Under I.G. by revising entry 10.
  e. Revising endnote 6.
  The additions and revisions read as
follows:

-------
                Federal Register/Vol.  67, No. 9/Monday, January 14,  2002/Rules  and Regulations
                                                                                1837
 APPENDIX A TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—NPDWR VIOLATIONS AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING PUBLIC NOTICE"
                                                   MCL/MRDL/TT violations2
               Contaminant
Tier of pub-
lic notice re-
   quired
                                                                  Citation
   Monitoring & testing procedure violations

Tier of pub-
lic notice re-              Citation
   quired
   Violations  of  National  Primary  Drinking
  Water Regulations (NPDWR):3
A. Microbiological Contaminants
    5. Turbidity  (for  TT violations resulting
      from a  single exceedance of max-
      imum allowable turbidity level).
       62,1
               141.73(a)(2),  141.73  (b)(2),
               141.73   (c)(2),    141.73(d),
               141.173(a)(2),     141.173(b),
               141.551(0).
                               141.74(b)(2),
               141.74(c)(1),        141.174,
               141.560(a)-(c), 141.561.
    7.  Interim   Enhanced  Surface  Water
      Treatment Rule violations,  other than
      violations  resulting  from  single  ex-
      ceedance of max. turbidity level (TT).
72  141.170-141.173,
      141.553.
                                  141.500-
          3  141.172,   141.174,   141.530-
               141.544, 141.560-141.564.
    9.  Long  Term  1   Enhanced  Surface
      Water Treatment Rule violations.
          2  141.500-141.553
          3  141.530-141.544,
               141.564.
                                                                     141.560-
G. Disinfection  Byproducts (DBPs), Byprod-
  uct  Precursors,   Disinfectant  Residuals.
  Where disinfection is used in the treatment
  of drinking water, disinfectants combine
  with  organic and inorganic matter present
  in  water to form chemicals called disinfec-
  tion  byproducts (DBPs).  EPA sets stand-
  ards for controlling the levels  of disinfect-
  ants and DBPs in drinking water, including
  trihalomethanes  (THMs)  and  haloacetic
  acids (HAAs).9
    10.  Bench  marking  and  disinfection
      profiling.
        N/A  N/A
                                                     3   141.172141.530-141.544.
  Appendix A-Endnotes:
  1 Violations and other situations not listed in this table (e.g., reporting violations and failure to prepare Consumer Confidence Reports), do not
require notice,  unless otherwise determined by the primacy agency. Primacy agencies may, at their option, also require a more stringent public
notice tier (e.g., Tier 1 instead of Tier 2 or Tier 2 instead of Tier 3) for specific violations and situations listed in this Appendix, as authorized
under §141.202(a) and §141.203(a).
  2MCL—Maximum contaminant level, MRDL—Maximum  residual disinfectant level, TT—Treatment technique
  3The term Violations of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations  (NPDWR) is used here to include violations of MCL, MRDL, treatment
technique, monitoring, and testing procedure requirements.

  6Systems with treatment technique violations involving  a single exceedance of a maximum turbidity  limit under  the Surface Water Treatment
Rule (SWTR),  the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), or the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(LT1ESWTR) are required to consult with the primacy agency within 24 hours after learning of the violation. Based on  this consultation, the  pri-
macy agency may subsequently decide to elevate the violation to Tier 1. If a system is unable to make contact with the primacy agency in  the
24-hour period, the violation is automatically elevated to Tier 1.
  7Most of the requirements of the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule  (63 FR 69477) (§§141.170—141.171,  141.173—141.174)
become effective January 1, 2002 for the Subpart H systems (surface water systems and ground water systems under the direct influence of sur-
face  water) serving at least 10,000 persons. However, §141.172 has some  requirements that become  effective as early as April 16, 1999. The
Surface Water Treatment Rule remains in effect for systems serving at least 10,000 persons even after 2002; the Interim  Enhanced  Surface
Water Treatment Rule adds additional requirements and does not in  many cases supercede the SWTR.

  9 Subpart H  community and  non-transient non-community systems serving >10,000 must comply with new DBF MCLs, disinfectant MRDLs,
and related monitoring requirements beginning January  1, 2002. All other community and non-transient non-community systems must meet  the
MCLs and MRDLs beginning January 1, 2004. Subpart H  transient non-community systems serving 10,000 or more persons and using chlorine
dioxide as a disinfectant or oxidant must comply with the  chlorine dioxide MRDL begining January 1, 2002. Subpart H  transient non-community
systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons and using only ground water not under the direct influence  of surface water and using chlorine diox-
ide as a disinfectant or oxidant  must comply with the chlorine dioxide MRDL beginning January 1, 2004.

-------
1838
           Federal  Register/Vol.  67, No. 9/Monday,  January 14,  2002/Rules  and Regulations
Appendix B—[Amended]

  13. Appendix B to subpart Q is
amended by:
                                        a. Revising entry A.2c.
                                        b. Revising heading B.
                                        c. Revising entries B.3., B.4, B.5, B.6.,
                                      andB.7.
d. Revising endnotes 4, 6 and 10.

e. Revising endnote 8.

The revisions read as follows:
     APPENDIX B TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—STANDARD HEALTH EFFECTS LANGUAGE FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
                Contaminant
                                              MCLG1, mg/L       MCL2 mg/L   Standard nealth effects language for public notifi
                                                                                                     cation
National  Primary  Drinking  Water  Regulations
  (NPDWR):
A. Microbiological Contaminants
2c.  Turbidity (IESWTR TT and LT1 ESWTR  None
  TT)8.
                                                                                  Turbidity has no health effects. However, turbidity
                                                                                   can  interfere with  disinfection  and provide  a
                                                                                   medium for microbial growth. Turbidity may in-
                                                                                   dicate the presence of disease-causing orga-
                                                                                   nisms. These  organisms  include bacteria, vi-
                                                                                   ruses, and parasites that can cause symptoms
                                                                                   such  as nausea, cramps,  diarrhea and associ-
                                                                                   ated headaches.
B. Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), Interim
  Enhanced  Surface  Water  Treatment   Rule
  (IESWTR),  Long Term 1  Enhanced  Surface
  Water Treatment Rule  (LT1ESWTR) and the
  Filter Backwash Recycling  Rule (FBRR) viola-
  tions:
    3. Giardia lamblia 	
    (SWTR/IESWTR/LT1ESWTR)
    4. Viruses
    (SWTR/IESWTR/LT1 ESWTR)
    5. Heterotrophic plate count (HPC) bacteria9
    (SWTR/IESWTR/LT1 ESWTR)
    6. Legionella
    (SWTR/IESWTR/LT1 ESWTR)
    7. Cryptosporidium
    (IESWTR/FBRR/LT1 ESWTR)
                                             Zero  	  TT10
                                                                              Inadequately treated water may contain disease-
                                                                                causing organisms.  These  organisms include
                                                                                bacteria,  viruses,  and  parasites which  can
                                                                                cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diar-
                                                                                rhea, and  associated headaches.
  1 MCLG—Maximum contaminant level goal.
  2 MCL—Maximum contaminant level.
  4There are various regulations that set turbidity standards for different types of systems, including 40 CFR 141.13,  and the 1989  Surface
Water Treatment Rule, the 1998 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and the 2001 Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treat-
ment Rule. The MCL for the montly turbidity average is 1 NTU; the MCL for the 2-day average is 5 NTU for systems that are required to filter but
have not yet installed filtration (40 CFR 141.13).
  6There are various regulations that set turbidity standards for different types of systems, including 40 CFR 141.13,  and the 1989  Surface
Water Treatment Rule, the 1998 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and the 2001 Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treat-
ment Rule. Systems subject to the Surface Water Treatment Rule (both filtered and unfiltered) may not exceed 5 NTU. In addition, in filtered sys-
tems, 95 percent of samples  each month must not exceed 0.5 NTU in systems using conventional or direct filtration and must not exceed 1 NTU
in systems using slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration or other filtration technologies approved by the primacy agency.
  8There are various regulations that set turbidity standards for different types of systems, including 40 CFR 141.13, the 1989 Surface Water
Treatment Rule  (SWTR), the 1998 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and the 2001  Long Term 1 Enhanced  Surface
Water Treatment Rule (LT1 ESWTR). For systems  subject to the IESWTR (systems serving at least  10,000 people,  using surface water or
tional, direct,  slow sand, or diatomaceous earth filtration must meet turbidity limits set by the primacy agency. For systems subject to the
LT1 ESWTR (systems serving fewer than 10,000 people,  using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water) that
use conventional filtration or direct filtration, after January 14, 2005 the turbidity level of a system's combined filter effluent may not exceed 0.3
NTU in at least 95 percent of monthly measurements, and the turbidity level of a system's combined filter effluent must not exceed 1 NTU at any
time. Systems subject to the LT1 ESWTR using technologies other than conventional,  direct, slow sand,  or diatomaceous earth filtration must
meet turbidity limits set by the primacy agency.
  9The bacteria detected by heterotrophic plate count  (HPC) are not necessarily harmful. HPC is simply an alternative method of determining
disinfectant residual levels. The number of such bacteria is an indicator of whether there is enough disinfectant in the distribution system.
  10SWTR, IESWTR, and LT1 ESWTR treatment technique violations that involve turbidity exceedances may use the health effects language for
turbidity instead.
                                                                                                                                S*.*

-------
               Federal Register/Vol. 67,  No. 9/Monday, January 14,  2002/Rules and Regulations
                                                                          1839
  14. Part 141 is amended by adding a
new subpart T to read as follows:

Subpart T—Enhanced Filtration and
Disinfection—Systems Serving Fewer Than
10,000 People

General Requirements
141.500  General requirements
141.501  Who is subject to the requirements
    of subpart T?
141.502  When must my system comply
    with these requirements?
141.503  What does subpart T require?

Finished Water Reservoirs
141.510  Is my system subject to the new
    finished water reservoir requirements?
141.511  What is required of new finished
    water reservoirs?

Additional Watershed Control Requirements
for Unfiltered Systems
141.520  Is my system subject to the updated
    watershed control requirements?
141.521  What updated watershed control
    requirements must my unfiltered system
    implement to continue to avoid
    filtration?
141.522  How does the State determine
    whether my system's watershed control
    requirements are adequate?

Disinfection Profile
141.530  What is a Disinfection Profile and
    who must develop one?
141.531  What criteria must a State use to
    determine that a profile is unnecessary?
141.532  How does my system develop a
    Disinfection Profile and when must it
    begin?
141.533  What data must my system collect
    to calculate a Disinfection Profile?
141.534  How does my system use this data
    to calculate an inactivation ratio?
141.535 What  if my system uses
    chloramines, ozone, or chlorine dioxide
    for primary disinfection?
141.536  My system has developed an
    inactivation ratio; what must we do
    now?

Disinfection Benchmark
141.540  Who has to develop a Disinfection
    Benchmark?
141.541  What are significant changes to
    disinfection practice?
141.542  What must my system do if we are
    considering a significant change to
    disinfection practices?
141.543  How is the Disinfection Benchmark
    calculated?
141.544  What if my system uses
    chloramines, ozone, or chlorine dioxide
    for primary disinfection?

Combined Filter Effluent Requirements
141.550  Is my system required to meet
    subpart T combined filter effluent
    turbidity limits?
141.551   What strengthened combined filter
    effluent turbidity limits must my system
    meet?
141.552   My system consists of "alternative
    filtration" and is required to conduct a
    demonstration. What is required of my
    system and how does the State establish
    my turbidity limits?
141.553  My system practices lime
    softening—is there any special provision
    regarding my combined filter effluent?
Individual Filter Turbidity Requirements
141.560  Is my system subject to individual
    filter turbidity requirements?
141.561  What happens if my system's
    turbidity monitoring equipment fails?
141.562  My system only has two or fewer
    filters—is there any special provision
    regarding individual filter turbidity
    monitoring?
141.563  What follow-up action is my
    system required to take based  on
    continuous turbidity monitoring?
141.564  My system practices lime
    softening—is there any special provision
    regarding my individual filter turbidity
    monitoring?
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
141.570  What does subpart T require that
    my system report to the State?
141.571  What records does subpart T
    require my system to keep?

Subpart T—Enhanced Filtration and
Disinfection—Systems Serving Fewer
Than 10,000 People

General Requirements

§141.500  General requirements.
  The requirements of this subpart
constitute national primary drinking
water regulations. These regulations
establish requirements for filtration and
disinfection that are in addition to
criteria under which filtration and
disinfection are required under subpart
H of this part. 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,
Cryptosporidium and turbidity. The
treatment technique requirements
consist of installing  and properly
operating water treatment processes
which reliably  achieve:
  (a) At least 99 percent (2 log) removal
of Cryptosporidium  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
Cryptosporidium control under the
watershed control plan for unfiltered
systems; and
  (b) Compliance with the profiling and
benchmark requirements in §§ 141.530
through 141.544.

§ 141.501   Who  is subject to the
requirements of subpart T?
  You are subject to these requirements
if your system:
  (a) Is a public water system;
  (b) Uses surface water or GWUDI as a
source; and
  (c) Serves fewer than 10,000 persons.

§ 141.502  When must my system comply
with these requirements?
  You must comply with these
requirements in this subpart beginning
January 14, 2005 except where
otherwise noted.

§141.503  What does subpart T require?
  There are seven requirements of this
subpart, and you must comply with all
requirements that are applicable to your
system. These requirements are:
  (a) You must cover any finished water
reservoir that you began to construct on
or after March 15, 2002 as described in
§§141.510 and 141.511;
  (b) If your system is an unfiltered
system, you must comply with the
updated watershed control requirements
described in §§ 141.520-141.522;
  (c) If your system is a community or
non-transient non-community water
systems you must develop a  disinfection
profile as described in §§ 141.530-
141.536;
  (d) If your system is considering
making a significant change to its
disinfection practices, you must develop
a disinfection benchmark and consult
with the State for approval of the change
as described in §§ 141.540-141.544;
  (e) If your system is a filtered system,
you must comply with the combined
filter effluent requirements as described
in §§141.550-141.553;
  (f) If your system is a filtered system
that uses conventional or direct
filtration, you must comply with the
individual filter turbidity requirements
as described in §§ 141.560-141.564; and
  (g) You must comply with  the
applicable reporting and recordkeeping
requirements as described in §§ 141.570
and 141.571.
Finished Water Reservoirs

§ 141.510  Is my system subject to the new
finished water reservoir requirements?
  All subpart H systems which serve
fewer than 10,000 are subject to this
requirement.

§141.511   What is required of new finished
water reservoirs?
  If your system begins construction of
a finished water reservoir on or after
March 15, 2002 the reservoir must be
covered. Finished water reservoirs for
which your system began construction
prior to March 15, 2002 are not subject
to this requirement.
Additional Watershed Control
Requirements for Unfiltered Systems

§ 141.520  Is my system subject to the
updated watershed control requirements?
  If you are a subpart H system serving
fewer than 10,000 persons which does

-------
1840
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 9/Monday, January 14, 2002/Rules and Regulations
not provide filtration, you must
continue to comply with all of the
filtration avoidance criteria in § 141.71,
as well as the additional watershed
control requirements in §141.521.

§ 141.521   What updated watershed control
requirements must my unfiltered system
implement to continue to avoid filtration?
  Your system must take any additional
steps necessary to minimize the
potential for contamination by
Cryptosporidium oocysts in the source
water. Your system's watershed control
program must, for Cryptosporidium:
  (a) Identify watershed characteristics
and activities which may have an
adverse effect on source water quality;
and
  (b) Monitor the occurrence of
activities which may have an adverse
effect on source water quality.

§ 141.522   How does the State determine
whether my system's watershed control
requirements are adequate?
  During an onsite inspection
conducted under the provisions of
§ 141.71(b)(3), the State must determine
whether your watershed control
program is adequate to limit potential
contamination by Cryptosporidium
oocysts. The adequacy of the program
must be based on the
comprehensiveness of the watershed
review; the effectiveness of your
program to monitor and control
detrimental activities occurring in the
watershed; and the extent to which your
system has maximized land ownership
and/or controlled land use within the
watershed.
                          Disinfection Profile

                          § 141.530  What is a Disinfection Profile
                          and who must develop one?
                            A disinfection profile is a graphical
                          representation of your system's level of
                          Giardia lamblia or virus inactivation
                          measured during the course of a year. If
                          you are a subpart H community or non-
                          transient non-community water systems
                          which serves fewer than 10,000 persons,
                          your system must develop a disinfection
                          profile unless your State determines that
                          your system's profile is unnecessary.
                          Your State may approve the use of a
                          more representative data set for
                          disinfection profiling than the data set
                          required under §§ 141.532-141.536.

                          § 141.531  What criteria must a State use to
                          determine that a profile is unnecessary?
                            States may only determine that a
                          system's profile is unnecessary if a
                          system's TTHM and HAAS levels are
                          below 0.064 mg/L and 0.048 mg/L,
                          respectively. To determine these  levels,
                          TTHM and HAAS samples must be
                          collected after January 1, 1998, during
                          the month with the warmest water
                          temperature, and at the point  of
                          maximum residence time in your
                          distribution system.

                          § 141.532  How does my system develop a
                          Disinfection Profile and when must it
                          begin?
                            A disinfection profile consists of three
                          steps:
                            (a) First, your system must collect
                          data for several parameters from the
                          plant as discussed in § 141.533 over the
                          course of 12 months. If your system
                          serves between 500 and 9,999 persons
                          you must begin to collect data no later
than July 1, 2003. If your system serves
fewer than 500 persons you must begin
to collect data no later than January 1,
2004.
  (b) Second, your system must use this
data to calculate weekly log inactivation
as discussed in §§ 141.534  and 141.535;
and
  (c) Third, your system must use these
weekly log inactivations to develop a
disinfection profile as specified in
§141.536.

§ 141.533  What data must my system
collect to calculate a Disinfection Profile?
  Your system must monitor the
following parameters to determine the
total log inactivation using the
analytical methods in § 141.74 (a), once
per week on the same calendar day, over
12 consecutive months:
  (a) The temperature of the disinfected
water at each residual disinfectant
concentration sampling point during
peak hourly flow;
  (b) If your system uses chlorine, the
pH of the  disinfected water at each
residual disinfectant concentration
sampling point during peak hourly flow;
  (c) The disinfectant contact time(s)
("T") during peak hourly flow; and
  (d) The residual disinfectant
concentration(s) ("C") of the  water
before or at the first customer and prior
to each additional point of disinfection
during peak hourly flow.

§ 141.534  How does my system use this
data to calculate an inactivation ratio?
  Calculate the total inactivation ratio
as follows, and multiply the value by
3.0 to determine log  inactivation of
Giardia lamblia:
       If your system '
                                              Your system must determine * *
(a) Uses only one point of disinfect-
  ant application.
(b)  Uses more than  one point of
  disinfectant application before the
  first customer.
                 (1) One inactivation ratio (CTcalc/CT99.9) before or at the first customer during peak hourly flow
                    or
                 (2) Successive CTcalc/CT999 values, representing sequential inactivation ratios, between the point of dis-
                   infectant application and a point before or at the first customer during peak hourly flow. Under this alter-
                   native, your system must calculate the total inactivation ratio by determining (CTcalc/CT99.9) for each se-
                   quence and then adding the (CTcalc/CT99.9) values together to determine (3CTcalc/CT99.9).
                 The (CTcalc/CT99.9) value of each disinfection segment immediately prior to the next point of disinfectant
                   application, or for the final segment, before or at the first customer, during peak hourly flow using the
                   procedure specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
§ 141.535  What if my system uses
chloramines, ozone, or chlorine dioxide for
primary disinfection?
  If your system uses chloramines,
ozone, or chlorine dioxide for primary
disinfection, you must also calculate the
logs of inactivation for viruses and
develop an additional disinfection
profile for viruses using methods
approved by the State.
                          § 141.536 My system has developed an
                          inactivation ratio; what must we do now?
                            Each log inactivation serves as a data
                          point in your disinfection profile. Your
                          system will have obtained 52
                          measurements (one for every week of
                          the year). This will allow your system
                          and the State the opportunity to
                          evaluate how microbial inactivation
                          varied over the course of the year by
                          looking at all 52 measurements (your
                          Disinfection Profile). Your system must
                          retain the Disinfection Profile data in
graphic form, such as a spreadsheet,
which must be available for review by
the State as part of a sanitary survey.
Your system must use this data to
calculate a benchmark if you are
considering changes to disinfection
practices.

Disinfection Benchmark

§ 141.540  Who has to develop a
Disinfection Benchmark?
  If you are a subpart H system required
to develop a disinfection profile under

-------
              Federal Register/Vol.  67,  No. 9/Monday, January 14, 2002/Rules and Regulations
                                                                        1841
§§ 141.530 through 141.536, your
system must develop a Disinfection
Benchmark if you decide to make a
significant change to your disinfection
practice. Your system must consult with
the State for approval before you can
implement a significant disinfection
practice change.

§ 141.541   What are significant changes to
disinfection practice?
  Significant changes to disinfection
practice include:
  (a) Changes to the point of
disinfection;
  (b) Changes to the disinfectant(s) used
in the treatment plant;
  (c) Changes to the disinfection
process; or
  (d) Any other modification identified
by the State.

§ 141.542  What must my system do if we
are considering a significant change to
disinfection practices?

  If your system is considering a
significant change to its disinfection
practice, your system must calculate  a
disinfection benchmark(s) as described
in §§ 141.543 and 141.544 and provide
the benchmark(s) to your State. Your
system may only make a significant
disinfection practice change after
consulting with the State for approval.
Your system must submit the following
information to the State as part of the
consultation and approval process:
                                          (a) A description of the proposed
                                        change;
                                          (b) The disinfection profile for Giardia
                                        lamblia (and, if necessary, viruses) and
                                        disinfection benchmark;
                                          (c) An analysis of how the proposed
                                        change will affect the current levels of
                                        disinfection; and
                                          (d) Any additional information
                                        requested by the State.

                                        § 141.543  How is the Disinfection
                                        Benchmark calculated?
                                          If your system is making a significant
                                        change to its disinfection practice, it
                                        must calculate a disinfection benchmark
                                        using the procedure specified in the
                                        following table.
                         To calculate a disinfection benchmark your system must perform the following steps
Step 1:  Using the data your system collected to develop the Disinfection Profile, determine the average Giardia lamblia inactivation for each cal-
  endar month by dividing the sum of all Giardia lamblia inactivations for that month by the number of values calculated for that month.
Step 2:  Determine the lowest monthly average value out of the twelve values. This value becomes the disinfection benchmark.
§ 141.544  What if my system uses
chloramines, ozone, or chlorine dioxide for
primary disinfection?

  If your system uses chloramines,
ozone or chlorine dioxide for primary
disinfection your system must calculate
the disinfection benchmark from the
data your system collected for viruses to
develop the disinfection profile in
addition to the Giardia lamblia
disinfection benchmark calculated
under § 141.543. This viral benchmark
must be calculated in the same manner
used to calculate the Giardia lamblia
disinfection benchmark in § 141.543.
Combined Filter Effluent Requirements

§ 141.550  Is my system required to meet
subpart T combined filter effluent turbidity
limits?
  All subpart H systems which serve
populations fewer than 10,000, are
required to filter, and utilize filtration
other than slow sand filtration or
diatomaceous earth filtration must meet
the combined filter effluent turbidity
requirements of §§ 141.551-141.553 . If
your system uses slow sand or
diatomaceous earth filtration you are
not required to meet the combined filter
effluent turbidity limits of subpart T,
but you must continue to meet the
combined filter effluent turbidity limits
in §141.73.
                                        § 141.551   What strengthened combined
                                        filter effluent turbidity limits must my
                                        system meet?
                                          Your system must meet two
                                        strengthened combined filter effluent
                                        turbidity limits.
                                          (a) The first combined filter effluent
                                        turbidity limit is a "95th percentile"
                                        turbidity limit that your system must
                                        meet in at least 95 percent of the
                                        turbidity measurements taken each
                                        month. Measurements must continue to
                                        be taken as described in § 141.74(a)  and
                                        (c). Monthly reporting must be
                                        completed according to § 141.570. The
                                        following table describes the required
                                        limits for specific filtration
                                        technologies.
If your system consists of * * *
(1 ) Conventional Filtration or Direct Filtration 	
(2) All other "Alternative" Filtration

Your 95th percentile turbidity value is * * *
0.3 NTU.
A value determined by the State (no to exceed
1 NTU) based on the demonstration de-
scribed in §141.552.
  (b) The second combined filter
effluent turbidity limit is a "maximum"
turbidity limit which your system may
at no time exceed during the month.
Measurements must continue to be
taken as described in § 141.74(a) and (c).
Monthly reporting must be completed
according to § 141.570. The following
                                        table describes the required limits for
                                        specific filtration technologies.
If your system consists of * * *
(1) Conventional Filtration or Direct Filtration
(2) All other "Alternative" 	

Your maximum turbidity value is * * *
1 NTU
A value determined by the State (not to ex-
ceed 5 NTU) based on the demonstration as
described in §141.552.

-------
1842
Federal Register/Vol.  67, No. 9/Monday, January 14,  2002/Rules and Regulations
§ 141.552  My system consists of
"alternative filtration" and is required to
conduct a demonstration—what is required
of my system and how does the State
establish my turbidity limits?
  (a) If your system consists of
alternative filtration(filtration other than
slow sand filtration, diatomaceous earth
filtration, conventional filtration, or
direct filtration) you are required to
conduct a demonstration (see tables in
§ 141.551). Your system must
demonstrate to the State, using pilot
plant studies or other means, that your
system's filtration, in combination with
disinfection treatment, consistently
achieves:
  (1) 99 percent removal of
Cryptosporidium oocysts;
  (2) 99.9 percent removal and/or
inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts;
and
  (3) 99.99 percent removal and/or
inactivation of viruses.
  (b) [Reserved]

§ 141.553  My system practices lime
softening—is there any special provision
regarding my combined filter effluent?
  If your system practices lime
softening, you may acidify
                          representative combined filter effluent
                          turbidity samples prior to analysis using
                          a protocol approved by the State.

                          Individual Filter Turbidity
                          Requirements

                          § 141.560   Is my system subject to
                          individual filter turbidity requirements?
                            If your system is a subpart H system
                          serving fewer than 10,000 people and
                          utilizing conventional filtration or direct
                          filtration, you must conduct continuous
                          monitoring of turbidity for each
                          individual filter at your system. The
                          following requirements  apply to
                          continuous turbidity monitoring:
                            (a) Monitoring must be conducted
                          using an approved method in
                          § 141.74(a);
                            (b) Calibration of turbidimeters must
                          be conducted using procedures
                          specified by the manufacturer;
                            (c) Results of turbidity monitoring
                          must be recorded at least every 15
                          minutes;
                            (d) Monthly reporting must be
                          completed according to § 141.570; and
                            (e) Records must be maintained
                          according  to § 141.571.
§ 141.561  What happens if my system's
turbidity monitoring equipment fails?
  If there is a failure in the continuous
turbidity monitoring equipment, your
system must conduct grab sampling
every four hours in lieu of continuous
monitoring until the turbidimeter is
back on-line. Your system has 14 days
to resume continuous monitoring before
a violation is incurred.

§ 141.562  My system only has two or fewer
filters—is there any special provision
regarding individual filter turbidity
monitoring?
  Yes, if your system only consists of
two or fewer filters, you may conduct
continuous monitoring of combined
filter effluent turbidity in lieu of
individual filter effluent turbidity
monitoring. Continuous monitoring
must meet the same requirements set
forth in § 141.560(a) through (d) and
§141.561.

§ 141.563  What follow-up action is my
system required to take based on
continuous turbidity monitoring?
  Follow-up action is required
according to the following tables:
                 If
                                                                        Your system must * * *
(a) The turbidity of an individual filter (or the tur-
  bidity of combined filter effluent (CFE) for sys-
  tems with 2 filters that monitor CFE in lieu of
  individual filters) exceeds 1.0 NTU  in  two con-
  secutive  recordings 15 minutes apart.
                            Report to the State by the 10th of the following month and include the filter number(s), cor-
                              responding date(s), turbidity value(s) which exceeded 1.0 NTU, and the cause (if known) for
                              the exceedance(s).
 If a system was required to report to the State
                                                                       Your system must
(b) For three months in a row and turbidity ex-
  ceeded 1.0 NTU  in two consecutive  record-
  ings  15 minutes apart at the same filter (or
  CFE  for systems with 2 filters that  monitor
  CFE  in lieu of individual filters).
(c) For two months in a row and turbidity ex-
  ceeded 2.0 BTU in 2 consecutive recordings
  15 minutes apart at the  same filter (or CFE
  for systems with 2 filters  that monitor CFE in
  lieu of individual filters).
                            Conduct a self-assessment of the filter(s) within 14 days of the day the filter exceeded 1.0
                              NTU in two consecutive measurements for the third straight month unless a CPE as speci-
                              fied in paragraph (c) of this section was required. Systems with 2 filters that monitor CFE  in
                              lieu of individual filters must conduct a self assessment on both filters. The self-assessment
                              must consist of at least the following components: assessment of filter performance; devel-
                              opment 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 re-
                              port. If a self-assessment is required, the date that it was triggered and the date that it was
                              completed.
                            Arrange to have a comprehensive performance evaluation (CPE) conducted by the State or a
                              third party approved by the State not later than 60 days following the day the filter exceeded
                              2.0 NTU  in two consecutive measurements for the second straight  month. If a CPE has
                              been  completed by the State or a third party approved by the  State within the 12 prior
                              months or the system and State are jointly participating in an ongoing  Comprehensive Tech-
                              nical Assistance (CTA) project at the system, a new  CPE is not required. If conducted,  a
                              CPE must be completed and submitted to the State  no later than 120  days following the
                              day the filter exceeded 2.0 NTU in two consecutive measurements for the second straight
                              month.
§ 141.564  My system practices lime
softening—is there any special provision
regarding my individual filter turbidity
monitoring?
  If your system utilizes lime softening,
you may apply to the State for
alternative turbidity exceedance levels
for the levels specified in the table in
                           § 141.563. You must be able to
                           demonstrate to the State that higher
                           turbidity levels are due to lime
                           carryover only, and not due to degraded
                           filter performance.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements

§ 141.570  What does subpart T require that
my system report to the State?
  This subpart T requires your system
to report several items to the State. The
following table describes the items
which must be reported and the

-------
               Federal Register/Vol.  67, No.  9/Monday, January 14,  2002/Rules and Regulations
                                                                                       1843
frequency of reporting. Your system is
required to report the information
described in the following table, if it is
            subject to the specific requirement
            shown in the first column.
       Corresponding
         requirement
            Description of information to report
               Frequency
(a) Combined Filter Effluent Re-
  quirements.
(§§141.550-141.553)
(b) Individual Turbidity Require-
  ments.
(§§141.560-141.564)
(c) Disinfection Profiling
(§§141.530-141.536)
(d) Disinfection Benchmarking
(§§141.540-141.544)
(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 your system's required 95th percentile limit.
(3) The date and value of any turbidity measurements taken
  during the month which  exceed  the  maximum turbidity
  value for your filtration system.
(1) That your system conducted individual filter turbidity moni-
  toring during the month.

(2) The filter number(s), corresponding date(s), and the tur-
  bidity value(s) which exceeded 1.0 NTU during  the month,
  but only if 2 consecutive measurements exceeded 1.0 NTU.
(3) If a self-assessment is required, the date that  it was trig-
  gered and the date that it was completed.
(4) If a CPE is required,  that the CPE is required and the
  date that it was triggered.
(5) Copy of completed CPE report  	
(1) Results  of optional monitoring which  show TTHM levels
  <0.064 mg/l and HAAS levels <0.048 mg/l (Only if your sys-
  tem wishes to  forgo profiling)  or  that your  system has
  begun disinfection profiling.
(1) A description of the proposed change  in disinfection, your
  system's disinfection profile  for Giardia lamblia (and, if nec-
  essary,  viruses) and disinfection benchmark, and  an anal-
  ysis of how the proposed change will affect the current lev-
  els of disinfection.
By the 10th of the following month.
                                                                                   By the 10th of the following month.
                                                                                   By the 10th of the following month.
By the 10th of the following month.
                                                                                   By the 10th of the following month.
By the 10th of the following month (or 14 days
  after the self-assessment was triggered only
  if the self-assessment was triggered during
  the last four days of the month)
By the 10th of the following month.

Within 120 days after the CPE was triggered.
(i) For systems serving 500-9,999 by July 1,
  2003;
(ii)  For systems serving  fewer than 500 by
  January 1, 2004.
Anytime your system is considering  a signifi-
  cant change to its disinfection practice.
§ 141.571  What records does subpart T
require my system to keep?
  Your system must keep several types
of records based on the requirements of
subpart T, in addition to recordkeeping
            requirements under § 141.75. The
            following table describes the necessary
            records, the length of time these records
            must be kept, and for which
            requirement the records pertain. Your
system is required to maintain records
described in this table, if it is subject to
the specific requirement shown in the
first column.
Corresponding requirement
(a) Individual Filter Turbidity Requirements .
(§§141.560-141.564)
(b) Disinfection Profiling 	
(§§141.530-141.536)
(c) Disinfection Benchmarking
(§§141.540-141.544)
Description of necessary records
Results of individual filter monitoring 	
Results of Profile (including raw data and analysis)
Benchmark (including raw data and analysis)

Duration of time
records must be kept
At least 3 years
Indefinitely
Indefinitely

PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION

  15. The authority citation for Part 142
continues to read as follows:

  Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-l, 300g-2,
300g-3, 300g^, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300J-4,
300J-9, and 300J-11.

  16. Section 142.14 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4)(i),
(a)(4)(ii) introductory text, and (a)(7) to
read as follows:
            § 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,
            141.550-141.553 and 141.560-141.564
            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,
141.175, and 141.570, 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

-------
1844
Federal Register/Vol.  67, No. 9/Monday,  January 14, 2002/Rules and Regulations
under provisions of part 141, subpart H,
subpart P, or subpart T of this chapter,
must be made in writing and kept by the
State.
*****
  (7) Any decisions made pursuant to
the provisions of part 141, subpart P or
subpart T of this chapter.
  (i) Records of systems consulting with
the State concerning a modification to
disinfection practice under
§§ 141.170(d), 141.172(c), and 141.542
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) and
§ 141.552 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
and 141.563 of this chapter.
*****
  17. Section 142.16 is amended by
revising paragraph (g) introductory text
and adding paragraph (j) to read as
follows:

§ 142.16  Special primacy requirements.
*****
  (g) Requirements for States to adopt
40 CFR part 141, Subpart P Enhanced
Filtration and Disinfection—Systems
Serving 10,000 or More People. 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—Systems Serving
                         10,000 or More People, must contain the
                         information specified in this paragraph:
                         *****
                           (j) Requirements for States to adopt 40
                         CFR part 141, Subpart T Enhanced
                         Filtration and Disinfection—Systems
                         Serving Fewer than 10,000 People. 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 T Enhanced Filtration
                         and Disinfection—Systems Serving
                         Fewer than 10,000 People, must contain
                         the information specified in this
                         paragraph:
                           (1) Enforceable requirements. States
                         must have rules or other authority to
                         require systems to participate in a
                         Comprehensive Technical Assistance
                         (CTA) activity, the performance
                         improvement phase of the Composite
                         Correction Program (CCP). The  State
                         must determine whether a CTA must be
                         conducted based on results of a CPE
                         which indicate the potential for
                         improved performance, and a finding by
                         the State that the system is able to
                         receive and implement technical
                         assistance provided through the CTA. A
                         CPE is a thorough review and analysis
                         of a system'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. During the CTA phase, the
                         system must identify and systematically
                         address factors limiting performance.
                         The CTA is a combination of utilizing
                         CPE results as a basis for follow-up,
                         implementing process control priority-
                         setting techniques and maintaining
long-term involvement to systematically
train staff and administrators.
  (2) State practices or procedures.
  (i) Section 141.530-141.536—How the
State will approve a more representative
data set for optional TTHM and HAAS
monitoring and profiling.
  (ii) Section 141.536 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,  ozone, or chlorine dioxide
for primary disinfection.
  (iii) Section 141.542 of this chapter—
How the State will consult with the
system and approve significant changes
to disinfection practices.
  (iv) Section 141.552 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,
in combination with disinfection
treatment that meets the requirements of
§141.72(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 Cryptosporidium
oocysts.
[FR Doc. 02-409 Filed 1-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

-------
             Complete Copy of the
          Minor Technical Corrections
             Including Preamble as
           Published on June 29, 2004
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance                         August 2004

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

-------
              Federal Register/Vol. 69, No.  124/Tuesday, June 29, 2004/Rules and Regulations
                                                                     38851
  This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists
the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by
this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your
facility is regulated by this action, you
should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in §§ 141.2 and
141.3 of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Changes and Clarifications

  EPA is promulgating today, all of the
changes and clarifications proposed on
March 2, 2004 (69 FR 9781), with the
exception of two proposed clarifications
discussed in section F concerning
calibration of turbiditimeters. Each
clarification and change promulgated
today is discussed under the heading of
the drinking water rule that it amends
(e.g., LT1ESWTR). EPA is also
promulgating today an additional
clarification, which was not in the
March 2, 2004, Minor Corrections  and
Clarification to Drinking Water
Regulations proposal. This clarification
is discussed in section III.
  In addition to clarifications of
typographical and editorial errors, EPA
is revising the LTlESWTR to add
optional monitoring for disinfection
profiling and an earlier compliance date
for some requirements in that rule. EPA
is also promulgating a detection limit
for the uranium methods. These three
changes are discussed first.

A. LTlESWTR Compliance Date Change
and Optional Monitoring for
Disinfection Profiling

  The final LTlESWTR was published
on January 14, 2002 (67 FR 1812). In
§ 141.502 of the LTlESWTR, EPA
directed PWSs to "comply with these
requirements in this subpart beginning
January 14, 2005, except where
otherwise noted." Today's rule changes
the compliance date from January  14,
2005, to January 1, 2005, in § 141.502 as
well as in endnote 8 of Subpart Q,
Appendix B. EPA's reasons for moving
the compliance date forward by two
weeks are set forth in the preamble to
the proposed rule at 69 FR 9782.
  EPA is also changing the compliance
date in two additional sections,
§§ 141.73(a)(4) and 141.170(d), which
reference the January 14, 2005, date.
These two citations should have been
included in the March 2, 2004,
proposal.
  By changing § 141.502, the following
12 requirements will have a compliance
deadline of January 1, 2005, instead of
January 14, 2005: §§ 141.520, 141.521,
141.522, 141.550, 141.551, 141.552,
141.553, 141.560, 141.561, 141.562,
141.563, and 141.564. July 1, 2003 (or
January 1, 2004, for systems serving
fewer than 500 persons), remains the
compliance date for §§ 141.530-
141.536. March 15, 2002, remains the
compliance date for § 141.511.
  In addition to changing the
compliance date, EPA is adding a
sentence to § 141.531 to  clarify that
States may approve a more
representative total trihalomethanes
(TTHM) and haloacetic acids (five)
(HAAS) data set (optional monitoring) to
avoid the disinfection profile
monitoring required in § 141.530. EPA's
intent was to allow this flexibility in the
final LTlESWTR rule (67 FR 1820,
January 14, 2002). EPA had failed to
make this flexibility explicit in that
regulation.

B. Detection Limit for Compliance
Monitoring of Uranium
  The December 7, 2000, final
Radionuclides Rule (65 FR 76708)
included a detection limit for gross
alpha, radium-226 and radium-228, and
reserved a place for a uranium detection
limit in Table B at § 141.25(c)(l). In
today's action, EPA is amending Table
B at § 141.25(c)(l) to add a detection
limit of 1 (J.g/L for uranium. Establishing
a uranium detection limit permits States
the flexibility to substantially reduce the
number of compliance samples and the
frequency of repeat monitoring for
uranium.

C. Radionuclide Rule Clarifications
  In addition to amending the detection
limit for uranium, EPA is making two
clarifications to the final Radionuclide
Rule (December 7, 2000, 65 FR 76708).
In § 141.26(b)(2)(iv), EPA is adding
"screening level" to the first sentence.
(Note also, that the second "beta" in this
sentence is a typographical error, and
under today's rule is being removed.)
Similarly, EPA is clarifying in
§ 141.26(b)(5), that there are two
screening levels by adding the word
"appropriate" to the first sentence so
that it reads "*  * * exceeds the
appropriate screening level * *  *." In
addition, in the text that proposed to
revise § 141.26(b)(5), we  inadvertently
referenced a nonexistent Table E, "or
Table E in 14l.66(d)"—this reference is
deleted in this final rule.
  In § 141.26(b)(6), EPA  is revising the
citation "(b)(l)(ii)" to read "(b)(l)(i),"
and is revising citation "(b)(2)(i)" to
read "(b)(2)(iv)." These were
typographical errors and should have
been (b)(l)(i) and (b)(2)(iv), which refer
to meeting the screening level
requirements until the system meets the
requirements for reduced monitoring.

D. LTlESWTR Clarifications
  In addition to changing the date in
§ 141.502 to reduce monitoring burden
as well as to allow States to approve
alternative data sets for optional
monitoring in §141.531, EPA is
clarifying typographical errors in the
final LTlESWTR. In Subpart Q
Appendix B, in endnotes 4 and 8, the
year of publication for the Long Term 1
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
is incorrectly identified as 2001 when it
should be 2002. Also in endnote 4, the
word "monthly" is misspelled. In
§ 141.530 EPA is removing the
grammatically incorrect, plural "s" from
"systems" in the sentence "If you are a
subpart H community or non-transient
non-community water systems which
serves fewer * * *".
  Two typographical errors are being
corrected in § 141.534. In the
introductory paragraph for § 141.534,
EPA inadvertently omitted a reference
to § 141.74(b)(3)(v), which provides
tables for determining the appropriate
CT99.9 value to calculate the
inactivation ratio. EPA is changing the
introductory paragraph of § 141.534 to:
"Use the tables in § 141.74(b)(3)(v) to
determine the appropriate CT99.9 value.
Calculate the total inactivation ratio as
follows, and multiply the value by 3.0
to determine log inactivation of Giardia
lamblia:"
  In the table in § 141.534(a)(2), EPA is
changing the "3" to "Z" in the CT
calculation formula. EPA inadvertently
changed  the "£" to a "3" during a text
file conversion.
  In § 141.551(a)(2), EPA is adding a "t"
to the "no" in "A value determined by
the State (no to exceed 1 NTU)  *  *  *".
In § 141.551(b)(2), EPA is adding the
word "Filtration" to the phrase "All
other 'Alternative' " so that it matches
related language in § 141.55l(a)(2).
  EPA is deleting the last sentence in
the second column in the table in
§ 141.563(b), because it is redundant.
Also in the same table in § 141.563(c),
the first column contains a
typographical error. The acronym
"BTU" will read "NTU" (Nephelometric
Turbidity Units).
  In the table in § 141.570(b)(2), EPA is
adding the phrase: "and the cause (if
known) for the exceedance(s)" to the
description of information to report
under § 141.570(b)(2). As a result, the
entire paragraph will read: "The filter

-------
38852
Federal Register/Vol.  69,  No. 124/Tuesday, June  29,  2004/Rules  and Regulations
number(s), corresponding date(s), and
the turbidity value(s) which exceeded
1.0 NTU during the month, and the
cause (if known) for the exceedance(s),
but only if 2 consecutive measurements
exceeded 1.0 NTU."
  This action redesignates the
LT1ESWTR special primacy text as
§ 142.16(p). In addition, EPA is revising
a citation in § 142.16 (p)(2)(ii) to
"141.536" to read "141.535." This was
a typographical error and should have
been "141.535," which refers to
calculating inactivation.

E. Stage 1  Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule

  The Stage 1 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule was
promulgated on December 16,1998 (63
FR 69390). This rule required systems to
measure and report, among other things,
violations of maximum residual
disinfectant levels (MRDLs), see
§ 141.134(c)(l)(iv) (see 63 FR 69422 and
69472). However, EPA failed to add
compliance with the applicable MRDL
to the compliance requirements in
§ 141.133(a)(3). EPA is correcting this,
and the language in § 141.133(a)(3) now
reads "If, during the first year of
monitoring under § 141.132, any
individual quarter's average will cause
the running annual average of that
system to exceed the MCL for total
trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids (five),
or bromate; or the MRDL for chlorine or
chloramine, the system is out of
compliance at the end of that quarter."
The burden for this requirement was
already accounted for in the approved
Information Collection Request No.
1895.02.
  Also, in the final Stage 1 Disinfectants
and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, EPA
incorrectly cited in § 142.14(d)(12)(iv)
and § 142.14(d)(13) a reference to
§ 142.16(f). The reference for both
sections is now being revised to read
§ 142.16(h)(2) and § 142.16(h)(5)
respectively.

F. Surface Water Treatment Rule

  The Surface Water Treatment Rule
(SWTR) was promulgated on June 29,
1989 (54 FR 27486). In that final rule,
EPA incorrectly cited in
§ 141.74(b)(4)(ii) a reference to
§ 142.72(a). This citation is being
corrected to read § 141.72(a).
  Today's rule does not include the
proposed clarifications (March 2, 2004,
69 FR 9784) concerning the calibration
of turbiditimeters in § 141.174(a)
(Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (IESWTR)) and in
§ 141.560(b) (LT1ESWTR). EPA is
deferring a decision on this clarification
                         until additional information provided in
                         a public comment can be evaluated.
                          EPA is changing all citations to
                         § 141.74(a)(3) or (4) to § 141.74(a)(l),
                         and all citations to § 141.74(a)(5) to
                         § 141.74(a)(2) to reflect revisions to the
                         SWTR as described in the proposal.

                            TABLE  1 .—REFERENCES TO THE
                          SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE
                          SWTR provisions with
                             incorrect cross
                              references
                         141.72(a)(3)
                         141.72(b)(2),
                         141.73(a)(2)
                         141.73(b)(1)
                         141.73(b)(2)
                         141.73(c)(1)
                         141.73(c)(2)
   Amendment
    ;)" to i

  and "(a)(5)" to

"(a)(3)" to (a)(1)
"(a)(5T to (a)(2)

  and, "(a)(3)" to
     " to
                                                   " to
                         G. Filter Backwash Recycling Rule
                           The Filter Backwash Recycling Rule
                         (FBRR) was promulgated on June 8,
                         2001 (66 FR 31086). EPA inadvertently
                         provided incomplete citations in
                         subpart Q, Appendix A of the Public
                         Notification rule for the FBRR
                         violations. In entry I.A.(8) of 40 CFR
                         part 141, subpart Q, Appendix A, EPA
                         is adding a "(c)" to the "MCL/MRDL/TT
                         violations Citation" column of § 141.76;
                         and, in the "Monitoring & testing
                         procedure violations Citation" column
                         EPA has added "(b), (d)" to § 141.76.
                           The FBRR preamble (66 FR 31086,
                         31094) explicitly states that violations of
                         the recordkeeping and reporting
                         portions of this treatment technique
                         trigger public notification (PN)
                         obligations under 40 CFR part 141,
                         subpart Q. EPA is clarifying the PN rule
                         by striking the reference to reporting
                         violations in Appendix A, endnote 1,
                         and explicitly adding §§ 141.76(b), (c)
                         and (d) to the list of categories requiring
                         reporting in Appendix A (previous
                         reference was to the entire § 141.76).

                         H. Bottled Water
                           In a November 1995 final rule (60 FR
                         57132), the Food and Drug
                         Administration (FDA) moved their
standards of quality for bottled water
from 21 CFR 103.35 to 21 CFR 165.110.
EPA is correcting a reference in our
regulations in § 142.62(g)(2) to reflect
the updated citation of these FDA
regulations.

/. Information Collection Rule
  The Information Collection Rule (ICR)
was promulgated on May 14, 1996 (61
FR 24354).  The requirements
promulgated in the ICR expired on
December 31, 2000. As a result, the ICR
requirements (referred to as subpart M—
Information Collection Requirements
(ICRs) for Public Water Systems) were
removed from the Code of Federal
Regulations in 2001. However, there
were remaining references to the data
collected as a result of the ICR in other
sections of part 141  that refer to
"subpart M." EPA is deleting the phrase
"or subpart M of this part" from
§ 141.132(a)(5). EPA is not deleting or
revising the other references to subpart
M because  the data collected under the
ICR are still being used.

/. Phase VRule
  In the final Phase V Rule (July 17,
1992, 57 FR 31776), EPA published a
list of Best  Available Technologies
(BATs) for  cyanide, see § 141.62(c). EPA
is making the list more specific as to the
type of chlorination ("alkaline
chlorination").

III. Correction in the Lead and Copper
Rule Public Education Requirement
  In this final version of the rule, EPA
is reinstating the list of the facilities  that
must be sent public education brochures
by a public water system that has
exceeded the action level for lead or
copper. This list was included in the
final Lead and Copper Rule, in
§141.85(c)(2)(iii) (June 7, 1991, 56 FR
26460; 26555) and published in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) from
1991 to 1999. However, a technical
drafting error in the way in  which EPA
drafted its language of amendment for
revisions to the LCR in 2000 caused  the
Office of Federal Register to delete this
text from the 2001 edition of the CFR
(January 12, 2000, 65 FR 1950, 2007).
Thus, the current CFR text contains only
a requirement to deliver public
education materials "to facilities and
organizations, including the following:"
with no text following the colon. To
remedy this, EPA is reinstating the
missing text, specifically subparagraphs
(A) through (G). Section 141.85(c)(2)(iii)
will once again read as follows:
   (iii) Deliver pamphlets and/or
brochures that contain the public
education materials in paragraphs
(a)(l)(ii) and (a)(l)(iv) of this section to

-------
              Federal Register/Vol. 69, No.  124/Tuesday, June  29,  2004/Rules  and Regulations
                                                                      38853
facilities and organizations, including
the following:
  (A) Public schools, and/or local
school boards;
  (B) City or county health department;
  (C) Women, Infants, and Children
and/or Head Start Program(s) whenever
available;
  (D) Public and private hospitals and/
or clinics;
  (E) Pediatricians;
  (F) Family planning clinics; and
  (G) Local welfare agencies.
  Section 553 of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),
provides that, when an agency for good
cause finds that notice and public
procedure are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest, the agency may issue a rule
without providing prior notice and an
opportunity for public comment. EPA is
reinstating the list of facilities that must
be sent public education brochures by a
public water system that has exceeded
the  action level for lead or copper. EPA
has determined that there is "good
cause" for making this rule change final
without prior proposal and opportunity
for comment because this list was the
product of a prior notice-and-comment
rulemaking, see (June 7, 1991, 56 FR
26502), it had appeared in the CFR for
several years, the deletion was due
solely to a technical drafting error in a
subsequent rule, and the list is not
controversial. Thus, additional notice
and public comment is not necessary.
EPA finds that this constitutes "good
cause" under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). For the
same reasons, EPA is making this rule
change effective upon publication. 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

IV.  Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
  Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR
51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is "significant" and therefore
subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines "significant
regulatory action" as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
  (1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments  or
communities;
  (2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
  (3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
  (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
  It has been determined that this rule
is not a "significant regulatory action"
under  the terms of Executive Order
12866  and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act
  This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This action
modifies and clarifies existing
regulations. It does not add monitoring,
recordkeeping or reporting
requirements.
  Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the  time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
  An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
  The  Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative  Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have  a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and  small government
jurisdictions.
  Small entities are defined as: (1) A
small business as defined by the Small
Business Administration's (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2)  a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any "not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field." However, the
RFA also authorizes an agency to use
alternative definitions for each category
of small entity, "which are appropriate
to the activities of the agency" after
proposing the alternative definition(s) in
the Federal  Register and taking
comment. 5  U.S.C. 601(3)-(5). In
addition, to  establish an alternative
small business definition, agencies must
consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for
Advocacy.
  For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today's rule on small entities, EPA
considered small entities to be public
water systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons. This is the cut-off level
specified by Congress in the  1996
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water
Act for small system flexibility
provisions. As required by the RFA
requirements, EPA proposed using this
alternative definition in the Federal
Register, (63 FR 7620, February 13,
1998), requested public comment,
consulted with the Small Business
Administration (SBA), and finalized in
the alternative definition in the
Consumer Confidence Reports
regulation (63 FR 44511, August 19,
1998). As stated in that final rule, the
alternative definition would be applied
to this regulation as well.
  The optional monitoring for
disinfection profiling provides
flexibility for PWSs complying with
LT1ESWTR. The earlier compliance
date will not increase the cost of
complying with LTlESWTR since the
monitoring and reporting requirements
are unchanged. By specifying the
detection limit for uranium, States have
the flexibility to waive some monitoring
for PWSs with samples below the
detection limit. This action will not add
new requirements.
  This final rule imposes no cost on any
entities over and above those imposed
by previously published drinking water
rules. This action corrects and clarifies
existing regulations.
  After considering the economic
impacts of today's final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The small entities directly  regulated by
this final rule are public water systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons. We
have determined that no number of
small entities will experience an impact.

-------
38850
Federal  Register/Vol. 69, No.  124/Tuesday, June 29, 2004/Rules and  Regulations
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
  Dated: May 27, 2004.
James W. Newsom,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

• 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

• 1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
  Authority: 42 U.S.C, 7401 et seq.

Subpart V—Maryland

• 2. Section 52.1070 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(184) to read as
follows:

§ 52.1070  Identification of plan.
  (184) Revisions to the Code of
Maryland Administrative Regulations
(COMAR) for the Control of VOC
Emissions from Portable Fuel
Containers submitted on March 8, 2002
by the Maryland Department of the
Environment:
  (i) Incorporation by reference.
  (A) Letter of March 8, 2002 from the
Maryland Department of the
Environment transmitting an addition to
Maryland's State Implementation Plan
pertaining to the control of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) emissions
from portable fuel containers.
  (B) Addition of new regulation .07
under COMAR 26.11.13—Control of
VOC Emissions from Portable Fuel
Containers, adopted by the Secretary of
the Environment on December 21, 2001,
and effective on January 21, 2002.
  (ii) Additional Material.—Remainder
of the State submittal pertaining to the
revisions listed in paragraph (c)(184)(i)
of this section.
[FR Doc. 04-14602 Filed 6-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                        AGENCY

                        40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
                        [OW-2003-0066; FRL-7779-4]
                        RIN 2040-AE58

                        National Primary Drinking Water
                        Regulations: Minor Corrections and
                        Clarification to Drinking Water
                        Regulations; National Primary Drinking
                        Water Regulations for Lead and
                        Copper

                        AGENCY: Environmental Protection
                        Agency (EPA).
                        ACTION: Final rule.

                        SUMMARY: This rule makes minor
                        changes to clarify and correct EPA's
                        Drinking Water regulations. This rule
                        clarifies typographical errors,
                        inadvertent omissions, editorial errors,
                        and outdated language in the final Long
                        Term 1  Enhanced Surface Water
                        Treatment Rule (LTlESWTR), the
                        Surface Water Treatment Rule, and
                        other rules. In addition to these
                        clarifications, EPA is adding optional
                        monitoring for disinfection profiling
                        and an earlier compliance date for some
                        requirements in the LTlESWTR, and a
                        detection limit for the Uranium
                        Methods.
                          Also, EPA is reinstating text that was
                        inadvertently dropped from the Lead
                        and Copper Rule which listed the
                        facilities that must be sent public
                        education brochures by a public water
                        system that has exceeded the action
                        level for lead or copper.
                        DATES: This final rule is effective on July
                        29, 2004, except for the amendment to
                        § 141.85(c)(2)(iii) which is effective June
                        29, 2004. For purposes of judicial
                        review, this final rule is promulgated as
                        of 1 p.m., eastern time on July 13, 2004,
                        as provided in 40 CFR 23.7.
                        ADDRESSES: EPA has  established a
                        docket for this action under Docket ID
                        No. OW-2003-0066.  All documents in
                        the docket are listed in the EDOCKET
                        index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket.
                        Although listed in the index, some
                        information is not publicly available,
                        i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in
EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Water
Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for
the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. If
you would like to schedule an
appointment for access to docket
material, please call (202) 566-2426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information, contact the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline,  telephone (800)
426-4791. The Safe Drinking Water
Hotline is open Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays, from 9 a.m. to
5:30 p.m., eastern time. For technical
inquiries, contact Tracy Bone, Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-5257;
fax: (202) 564-3767; e-mail address:
bone.tracy@epa .gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information

  Entities potentially regulated by this
action are public water systems (PWS).
The following table provides examples
of the regulated entities under this rule.
A public water system, as defined by
section 1401 of the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA), is "a system for the
provision to the public of water for
human consumption through pipes or
other constructed conveyances, if such
system has at least fifteen service
connections or regularly serves at least
twenty-five individuals." EPA defines
"regularly served" as receiving water
from the system 60 or more days per
year. Categories and entities potentially
regulated by this action include the
following:
Category
State Tribal and Local Government
Federal Government
Industry

Examples of potentially regulated entities
State tribal or local government-owned/operated water supply systems using ground water,
surface water or mixed ground water and surface water.
Federally owned/operated community water supply systems using ground water, surface water
or mixed ground water and surface water.
Privately owned/operated community water supply systems using ground water, surface water
or mixed ground water and surface water.

-------
38854
Federal Register/Vol.  69, No. 124/Tuesday, June 29, 2004/Rules and Regulations
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
  Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104—4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and Tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with "Federal mandates" that may
result in expenditures to State,  local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most  cost-
effective or least  burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives  of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect  small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
  Today's rule contains no Federal
mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for
State, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. This final rule imposes
no enforceable duty on any  State, local
or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action corrects and clarifies
existing regulations. The optional
monitoring for disinfection  profiling
provides  flexibility for PWSs to comply
with LT1ESWTR. The earlier
compliance date  will not increase the
cost of complying with LTlESWTR
since the monitoring and reporting
requirements are unchanged. By
specifying the detection limit for
uranium, EPA provides States with the
flexibility to waive some monitoring for
                         PWSs with samples below the detection
                         limit. Thus, today's final rule is not
                         subject to the requirements of sections
                         202 and 205 of the UMRA.
                           EPA has determined that this rule
                         contains no regulatory requirements that
                         might significantly or uniquely affect
                         small governments. This action corrects
                         and clarifies existing regulations. Thus,
                         today's proposed rule is not subject to
                         the requirements of section 203 of the
                         UMRA.
                         E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
                           Executive Order 13132, entitled
                         "Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10,
                         1999), requires EPA to develop an
                         accountable process to ensure
                         "meaningful and timely input by State
                         and local officials in the development of
                         regulatory policies that have federalism
                         implications." "Policies that have
                         federalism implications" is defined in
                         the Executive Order to include
                         regulations that have "substantial direct
                         effects on the States, on the relationship
                         between the national government and
                         the States, or on the distribution of
                         power and responsibilities among the
                         various levels of government."
                           This final rule does not have
                         Federalism implications. It will not
                         have substantial direct effects on the
                         States, on the relationship between the
                         national government and the States, or
                         on the distribution of power and
                         responsibilities among the various
                         levels of government, as specified in
                         Executive Order 13132. There is no cost
                         to State and local governments, and the
                         final rule does not preempt State law.
                         This action corrects and clarifies
                         existing regulations. The optional
                         monitoring for disinfection profiling
                         provides flexibility for PWSs to comply
                         with LTlESWTR.  The earlier
                         compliance date will not increase the
                         cost of complying with LTlESWTR
                         since the monitoring and reporting
                         requirements are unchanged. By
                         specifying the detection limit for
                         uranium, States have the flexibility to
                         waive some monitoring for PWSs with
                         samples below the detection limit.
                         Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
                         apply to this final rule. In the spirit of
                         Executive Order 13132, and consistent
                         with EPA policy to promote
                         communications between EPA and State
                         and local governments, EPA specifically
                         solicited comment on the proposed rule
                         from State and local officials.
                         F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
                         and Coordination  With Indian Tribal
                         Governments
                           Executive Order 13175, entitled
                         "Consultation and Coordination with
                         Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure "meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications." "Policies that have tribal
implications" is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations
that have "substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes."
  This final rule does not have tribal
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
There is no cost to tribal governments,
and the rule does not preempt tribal
law. This action corrects and clarifies
existing regulations. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
Moreover, in the spirit of Executive
Order 13175, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications
between EPA and tribal governments,
EPA specifically solicited comment on
the proposed rule from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection  of
Children From Environmental Health &
Safety Risks

  Executive Order 13045: "Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and  Safety Risks" (62  FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be "economically
significant" as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
  This final rule is not subject to the
Executive  Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive  Order 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe
the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.

-------
              Federal Register/Vol.  69, No.  124/Tuesday,  June 29, 2004/Rules and Regulations
                                                                     38855
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

  This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211,  "Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is
not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
/. National  Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
  As noted in the proposed rule, section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
("NTTAA"), Public Law 104-113, 12(d)
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so
would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are  developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
  This action does not involve technical
standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
/. Congressional Review Act

  The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801  et  seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before  a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the  Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a "major rule"  as
defined by  5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule
will  be effective July 29, 2004, except
for the amendment to § 141.85(c)(2)(iii)
which is effective June 29, 2004.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 141
  Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Indians-lands, Intergovernmental
relations, Radiation protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 142
  Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Chemicals, Indians-lands, Radiation
protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water supply.
  Dated: June 22,  2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.
• For the reasons set out in the preamble,
title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 141— NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

• 1. 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.

§141.25   [Amended]
• 2. Section 141.25(c)(l) is amended in
the entry for uranium in the second
column of Table B by removing the word
"reserve" and adding in it's place "1 |ig/
L".
• 3. Section 141.26 is amended as
follows:
• a. Revise paragraphs (b)(2)(iv) and
(b)(5); and
• b. In paragraph (b)(6) remove the
citation "(b)(l)(ii)" and add in its place
"(b)(l)(i)" and remove the citation
"(b)(2)(i)" and add in its place
  The revisions read as follows:

§ 1 41 .26  Monitoring frequency and
compliance requirements for radionuclides
in community water systems.
*****
  (b) * *  *
  (2)* *  *
  (iv) If the gross beta particle activity
minus the naturally occurring
potassium-40 beta particle activity at a
sampling point has a running annual
average (computed quarterly) less than
or equal to 15 pCi/L (screening level),
the State may reduce the frequency of
monitoring at that sampling point to
every 3 years. Systems must collect the
same type of samples required in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section during
the reduced monitoring period.
*****
  (5) If the gross beta particle activity
minus the naturally occurring
potassium-40 beta particle activity
exceeds the appropriate screening level,
an analysis of the sample must be
performed to identify the major
radioactive constituents present in the
sample and the appropriate doses must
be calculated and summed to determine
compliance with § 141.66(d)(l), using
the formula in § 141.66(d)(2). Doses
must also be calculated and combined
for measured levels of tritium and
strontium to determine compliance.
§141.62  [Amended]
• 4. Section 141.62(c) is amended as
follows:
• a. In the Table "BAT FOR INORGANIC
COMPOUNDS LISTED IN SECTION
141.62(b)" amend the entry for
"cyanide" by replacing the "10" with
"13"; and
• b. In the list "Key to BATS in Table 1",
add to the end of the list, "13 = Alkaline
Chlorination (pH > 8.5)".

§141.71   [Amended]
• 5. Section 141.71 is amended as
follows:
• a. In paragraph (a) (2) introductory text
remove the citation "§ 141.74(a)(4)" and
add in its place "§ 141.74(a)(l)" and
• b. In paragraph (c)(2)(i) remove the
citation "§ 141.74(a)(4)" and add in its
place "§ 141.74(a)(l)".

§141.72  [Amended]
• 6. Section 141.72 is amended as
follows:
• a. In paragraph (a)(3) remove the
citation "§ 141.74(a)(5)" and add in its
place "§ 141.74(a)(2)";
• b. In paragraph (a)(4)(i) remove the
citation "§ 141.74(a)(5)" and add in its
place "§ 141.74(a)(2)" and remove the
citation "§ 141.74(a)(3)" and add in its
place "§ 141.74(a)(l)";
• c. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii) remove the
citation "§ 141.74(a)(3)" and add in its
place "§ 141.74(a)(l)";
• d. In paragraph (b)(2) remove the
citation "§ 141.74(a)(5)" and add in its
place "§141.74(a)(2)";
• e. In paragraph (b)(3)(i) remove the
citation "§ 141.74(a)(5)" and add in its
place "§ 141.74(a)(2)", remove the
citation "§ 141.74(a)(3)" and add in its
place "§141.74(a)(l)"; and
• f. In paragraph (b)(3)(ii) remove the
citation "§ 141.74(a)(3)" and add in its
place "§141.74(a)(l)".

§141.73  [Amended]
• 7. Section 141.73 is amended as
follows:
• a. In paragraph (a)(l) remove both
citations "§ 141.74(a)(4)" and add in
their place "§ 141.74(a)(l)";
• b. In paragraph (a)(2) remove the
citation "§ 141.74(a)(4)" and add in its
place "§ 141.74(a)(l)";
• c. In paragraph (a)(4) remove the date
"January 14, 2005" and add in its place
"January 1, 2005";

-------
38856
Federal Register/Vol. 69,  No. 124/Tuesday, June 29, 2004/Rules and Regulations
• d. In paragraph (b)(l) remove the
citation "§ 141.74(a)(4)" and add in its
place "§ 141. 74(a)(l)";
• e. In paragraph (b)(2) remove the
citation "§ 141.74(a)(4)" and add in its
place "§141.74(a)(l)";
• f. In paragraph (c)(l) remove the
citation "§ 141.74(a)(4)" and add in its
place "§ 141.74(a)(l)"; and
• g. In paragraph (c)(2) remove the
citation "§ 141.74(a)(4)" and add in its
place "§ 141. 74(a)(l)".

§141.74  [Amended]
• 8. Section 141.74 is amended as
follows:
• a. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii) remove the
citation "§ 142.72(a)" and add in its
place "§141.72(a)";
• b. In paragraph (b)(6)(ii) remove the
citation "(a)(3)" and add in its place
• c. In paragraph (c)(3)(i) remove the
citation "(a)(3)" and add in its place
"(a)(l)"; and
• d. In paragraph (c)(3)(ii) remove the
citation "(a)(3)" and add in its place
§141.75  [Amended]
• 9. Section 141.75 is amended as
follows:
• a. In paragraph (a)(2)(viii)(G) remove
the citation "§ 141.74(a)(3)" and add in
its place "§ 141.74(a)(l)"; and
• b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(G) remove
the citation "§ 141.74(a)(3)" and add in
its place "§ 141. 74(a)(l)".
• 10. Amend § 141.85 by adding
paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) (A) through (G) to
read as follows:

§ 1 41 .85  Public education and
supplemental monitoring requirements.
*****
  (c) *  *  *
  (2)*  *  *
  (iii) *  *  *
  (A) Public schools, and/or local
school boards;
  (B) City or county health department;
  (C) Women, Infants,  and Children
and/or Head Start Program(s) whenever
available;
  (D) Public and private hospitals and/
or clinics;
  (E) Pediatricians;
  (F) Family planning  clinics; and
  (G) Local welfare agencies.
§141.132  [Amended]
• 11. Section 141.132 is amended in
paragraph (a) (5) by removing the
reference to "or subpart M of this part".
• 12. In § 141.133 revise paragraph (a)(3)
to read as follows:

§141.133  Compliance requirements.
  (a)*  *  *
                            (3) If, during the first year of
                          monitoring under § 141.132, any
                          individual quarter's average will cause
                          the running annual average of that
                          system to exceed the MCL for total
                          trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids (five),
                          or bromate; or the MRDL for chlorine or
                          chloramine, the system is out of
                          compliance at the end of that quarter.
                          §141.170  [Amended]
                          • 13. In paragraph (d) remove the date
                          "January 14, 2005" and add in its place
                          "January 1, 2005".
                          Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part 141
                          [Amended]

                          • 14. In Subpart Q, Appendix A is
                          amended as follows:
                          • a. In entry I.A. (8) remove the citation
                          in the third column "141.76" and add in
                          its place "141.76(c)" and remove the
                          citation in the fifth column "141.76" and
                          add in its place "141.76 (b), (d)".
                          • b. Amend endnote 1 by removing the
                          words "reporting violations and" from
                          the first parenthetical phrase.
                          • 15. In Subpart Q, Appendix B revise
                          endnotes 4  and 8 to read  as follows:
                          Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 141—
                          Standard Health Effects Language for
                          Public Notification
                           4 There are various regulations that set
                         turbidity standards for different types of
                         systems, including 40 CFR 141.13, and the
                         1989 Surface Water Treatment Rule, the 1998
                         Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
                         Rule and the 2002 Long Term 1 Enhanced
                         Surface Water Treatment Rule. The MCL for
                         the monthly turbidity average is 1 NTU; the
                         MCL for the 2-day average is 5 NTU for
                         systems that are required to filter but have
                         not yet installed filtration (40 CFR 141.13).
                         *****
                           8 There are various regulations that set
                         turbidity standards for different types of
                         systems, including 40 CFR 141.13, the 1989
                         Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), the
                         1998 Interim Enhanced Surface Water
                         Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and the 2002 Long
                         Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
                         Rule (LT1ESWTR). For systems subject to the
                         IESWTR (systems serving at least 10,000
                         people, using surface water or ground water
                         under the direct influence of surface water),
                         that use conventional filtration or direct
                         filtration, after January 1, 2002, the turbidity
                         level of a system's combined filter effluent
                         may not exceed 0.3 NTU in at least 95
                         percent of monthly measurements, and the
                         turbidity level of a system's combined filter
                         effluent must not exceed 1 NTU at any time.
                         Systems subject to the IESWTR using
                         technologies other than conventional, direct,
                         slow sand, or diatomaceous earth filtration
                         must meet turbidity limits set by the primacy
                         agency. For systems subject to the
                         LTlESWTR (systems serving fewer than
10,000 people, using surface water or ground
water under the direct influence of surface
water) that use conventional filtration or
direct filtration, after January 1, 2005, the
turbidity level of a system's combined filter
effluent may not exceed 0.3 NTU in at least
95 percent of monthly measurements, and
the turbidity level of a system's combined
filter effluent must not exceed 1 NTU at any
time. Systems subject to the LTlESWTR
using technologies other than conventional,
direct, slow sand, or diatomaceous earth
filtration must meet turbidity limits set by
the primacy agency.
*****

• 16. Revise § 141.502 to read as follows:

§ 141.502  When  must my system comply
with these requirements?
  You must comply with these
requirements in this subpart beginning
January 1, 2005, except where otherwise
noted.

§141.530  [Amended]
• 17. In § 141.530 in the second
sentence, revise "water systems" to read
"water system".
• 18. Amend § 141.531 by adding the
following sentence  to the end of the
section, to read as follows:

§ 141.531  What criteria must a State use to
determine that a profile is unnecessary?
  *  * *  your State may approve a more
representative TTHM and HAAS data
set to determine these levels.
• 19. Section 141.534 is amended as
follows:
• a. By revising the  introductory
paragraph,
• b. In the table in paragraph (a)(2),
remove the "3" and add in its place "I".

§ 141.534  How does my system use this
data to calculate an inactivation ratio?
  Use the tables in  § 141.74(b)(3)(v) to
determine the appropriate CT99.9 value.
Calculate the total inactivation ratio as
follows, and multiply the value by 3.0
to determine log inactivation of Giardia
lamblia:
§141.551  [Amended]
• 20. Section 141.551 is amended as
follows:
• a. In paragraph (a)(2) remove "no" and
add in its place "not"; and
• b. In paragraph (b)(2) remove
"Alternative" and add in its place
"Alternative Filtration".

§141.563  [Amended]
• 21. Section 141.563 is amended as
follows:
• a. in paragraph (b) remove the last
sentence in the second column of the
table, and

-------
              Federal  Register/Vol. 69, No.  124/Tuesday, June 29, 2004/Rules  and Regulations
                                                                    38857
• b. In paragraph (c) remove "BTU" and   • 22. In § 141.570, revise paragraph
add in its place "NTU" in the first        (b)(2) in the table to read as follows:
column of the table.
                                      § 141.570 What does subpart T require that
                                      my system report to the State?
     Corresponding requirement
       Description of information to report
                   Frequency
(b) Individual  Filter Turbidity  Require-  (2) The filter number(s), corresponding date(s), and the turbidity  By the  10th  of  the  following
  ments (§§141.560-141.564).           value(s) which exceeded  1.0 NTU during the month, and the    month.
                                   cause (if known) for the exceedance(s), but only if 2 consecutive
                                   measurements exceeded 1.0 NTU.
PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION

• 23. 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,
300J-9, and 300J-11.

§142.14  [Amended]

• 24. Section § 142.14 is amended as
follows:
• a. In paragraph (d)(12)(iv) remove the
citation "§ 142.16(f)(2)" and add in its
place "§ 142.16(h)(2)"; and
• b. In paragraph (d)(13) remove the
citation "§ 142.16(f](5)" and add in its
place "§ 142.16(h)(5)".

§142.16  [Amended]

• 25. Section 142.16 is amended as
follows:
• a. In paragraph (1)(2) remove the
citation "§ 142.16(e)(5)"and add in its
place "§ 142.16(e)(2)";
• b. Add and reserve paragraphs (m), (n),
and (o);
• c. Redesignate paragraph (j) which was
added on January 14, 2002, at 67 FR 1812
as paragraph (p); and
• d. In newly designated paragraph
(p)(2)(ii) remove the citation "141.536"
and add in its place "141.535".

§142.62  [Amended]

• 26. Section 142.62(g)(2) is amended by
removing the citation "103.35" and add
in its place "165.110".
[FR Doc. 04-14604 Filed 6-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 031216314-3314-01; I.D.
062304A]

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in
the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery; Annual
Specifications and Management
Measures; Inseason Adjustments

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration  (NO A A),
Commerce.
ACTION: Inseason adjustments to
management measures; request  for
comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces changes to
the commercial  limited entry fixed gear
primary season sablefish tier limits for
the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery.
These actions, which are authorized by
the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan (FMP), will allow
fisheries to access more abundant
groundfish stocks while protecting
overfished and depleted stocks.
DATES: Effective 0001 hours (local time)
June 29, 2004, until the 2005-06 annual
specifications and management
measures are effective; unless modified,
superseded,  or rescinded through a
publication in the Federal Register.
Comments on this rule will be accepted
through July 28, 2004.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by (I.D. 062304A), by any of
the following methods:
  •  E-mail:
Groundfishlnseason#4. nwr@noaa.gov:
Include the I.D.  number in the subject
line of the message.
  •  Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:/
/www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions  for  submitting comments.
  •  Mail: D. Robert Lohn,
Administrator, Northwest Region,
NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE,
Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or Rod
Mclnnis, Acting Administrator,
Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West
Ocean Blvd, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA
90802-4213.
  •  Fax: 206-526-6736
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jamie Goen (Northwest Region, NMFS),
phone: 206-526-6150; fax: 206-526-
6736; and e-mail: jamie.goen@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access
  This Federal Register document is
available on the Government Printing
Office's website at: ivww.gpoaccess.gov/
fr/index.html.
  Background information and
documents are available at the NMFS
Northwest Region website at:
www.uvvT.noaa.gOV/2sust/s/7/
gdfsh01.htm and at the Pacific Fishery
Management Council's website at:
www.pcouncil. org.

Background
  The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP
and its implementing regulations at 50
CFR part 660, subpart G, regulate fishing
for over 80 species of groundfish off the
coasts of Washington, Oregon, and
California. Groundfish specifications
and management measures are
developed by the Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Pacific Council),
and are implemented by NMFS. The
specifications and management
measures for the 2004 fishing year
(January  1 - December 31, 2004) were
initially published in the Federal
Register  as an emergency rule for
January 1 - February 29, 2004 (69 FR
1322, January 8, 2004), and as a
proposed rule for March 1 - December
31, 2004 (69 FR 1380, January 8, 2004).
The emergency rule was amended at 69
FR 4084, January 28,  2004, and the final
rule  for March 1 - December 31, 2004,
was published in the Federal Register
on March 9, 2004 (69 FR 11064), and
subsequently amended at 69 FR 23440
(April 29, 2004), 69 FR 23667 (April 30,

-------
Appendix C
Rule Fact Sheets/Quick
Reference Guide

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

-------
EPA Final Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
                                                               Page 1 of5
 Drinking Water and
  Health Basics

 Frequently Asked
  Questions

 Local Drinking Water
  Information

 Drinking Water
  Standards

 List of Contaminants &
  MCLs

 Regulations &
  Guidance

 Public Drinking Water
  Systems

 Source Water
  Protection

 Underground Injection
  Control

 Data & Databases

 Drinking Water
  Academy

 Safe Drinking Water
  Act

 National Drinking
  Water Advisory
  Council

 Water Infrastructure
  Security
 Drinking
 Water
                 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ground Water & Drinking Water                  ;
 Recent Additions | Contact Us | Print Version  Search: |_	j BB
 EPA Home > Water > Ground Water & Drinking Water > breadcrumb? > Final Long Term 1 Enhanced
 Surface Water Treatment Rule

Final Long Term 1  Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule
                                                        EPA815-F-02-001
                                                            January 2002
                      F • A • C • T • S • H • E • E • T
EPA has finalized the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(LT1ESWTR). The purposes of the LT1ESWTR are to improve control of microbial
pathogens, specifically the protozoan Cryptosporidium, in drinking water, and
address risk trade-offs with disinfection byproducts. The rule was published in the
Federal Register on January 14th, 2002. (read_Qnljne ) ~ ( PDF )
     You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the Adobe PDF files on this
     page. See EPA's PDF page for more information about getting and using
                        the free Acrobat Reader.
The rule will require certain public water systems to meet strengthened filtration
requirements. It will also require systems to calculate levels ofmicrobial inactivation
to ensure that microbial protection is not jeopardized if systems make changes to
comply with requirements of the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts
Rule (Stage 1-DBPR). This rule, which addresses subpart H systems serving fewer
than 10,000 persons, builds upon the framework established for larger systems in
the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR).

Which public water systems must comply with the rule?

The LT1 ESWTR applies to all public water systems that:

    • use surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water
     (GWUDI); and
    • serve fewer than 10,000 persons.

The rule is expected to apply to more than 11,000 systems that serve nearly 18.5
million Americans.

What does the rule require?

The LT1 ESWTR provisions fall into the four following categories:

1) Cryptosporidium Removal

   • All systems must achieve a 2-log removal (99 percent) of Cryptosporidium.

2) Enhanced Filtration Requirements
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/ltleswtr_fact.html
                                                                  7/29/04

-------
EPA Final Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Page 2 of 5
                          •  Filtered systems must comply with strengthened combined filter effluent
                            (CFE) turbidity performance requirements to assure 2-log removal of
                            Cryptosporidium; and

                          •  Conventional and direct filtration systems must continuously monitor the
                            turbidity of individual filters and comply with follow-up activities based on this
                            monitoring.

                      3) Microbial Inactivation Benchmarking

                          •  Systems will be required to develop a profile of microbial inactivation levels
                            unless they perform monitoring which demonstrates their disinfection
                            byproduct levels are less than 80 percent of the maximum contaminant
                            levels (MCLs) established  in the Stage 1 DBPR; and

                          •  Systems considering making a significant change to their disinfection
                            practice must determine their current lowest level of microbial inactivation
                            and consult with the state for approval prior to implementing the change.

                      4) Other Requirements

                          •  Finished water reservoirs for which construction begins 60 days after
                            promulgation of the rule must be covered; and
                          •  Unfiltered systems must comply with updated watershed control
                            requirements that add Cryptosporidium as a pathogen of concern.

                      These requirements were developed based on the IESWTR, but have been
                      modified to reduce the burden on small systems.
                      How soon will the changes take effect?

                      The rule is effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, however,
                      each of the requirements has a different compliance date. The table below provides
                      the applicable dates.
Rule Requirement
New reservoirs must be covered
Systems 500 or greater begin to develop profile
Systems < 500 begin to develop profile
2-log Cryptosporidium removal
New CFE Turbidity Limits
Individual Filter Turbidity Monitoring
Unfiltered systems must meet updated watershed control
requirements
Compliance Date
60 days after LT1ESWTR
promulgation
July 1,2003
January 1, 2004
3 years after LT1 ESWTR
promulgation
3 years after LT1 ESWTR
promulgation
3 years after LT1 ESWTR
promulgation
3 years after LT1 ESWTR
promulgation
                      What is the significance of this rule?

                      In 1990, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) cited drinking water contamination as
                      one of the most important environmental risks and indicated that disease-causing
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/ltl eswtr_fact.html
    7/29/04

-------
EPA Final Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule                          Page 3 of 5


                      microbiological contaminants (i.e., pathogens such as, bacteria, protozoa, and
                      viruses) are probably the greatest remaining health risk management challenge for
                      drinking water suppliers. The final LT1ESWTR addresses this challenge by
                      improving the control of microbiological pathogens such as Cryptosporidium in
                      public drinking water systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons. It will also protect
                      the public against increases in risk from such pathogens in cases where systems
                      alter their disinfection practices to meet new disinfection byproduct standards
                      promulgated under the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
                      (DBPR).

                      The final LT1ESWTR is part of the larger Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts (M-
                      DBP) cluster of rules. These rules include the IESWTR and the Stage 1 DBPR,
                      which were promulgated on December 16, 1998. Implementing the provisions
                      contained in the LT1ESWTR will provide protections against the potentially lethal
                      microorganism Cryptosporidium and Giardra to persons served by small public
                      water systems using surface waters. The IESWTR afforded the 165 million people
                      served by large water systems added protection against Cryptosporidium. The
                      LT1 ESWTR completes this effort by extending protection to the remaining 18.5
                      million Americans served by smaller public water systems.

                      How will this rule protect public health?

                      EPA has determined that the presence of microbiological pathogens in public water
                      supplies is a health concern. If finished water supplies contain microbiological
                      contaminants, illnesses and disease outbreaks may result. Twelve waterborne
                      cryptosporidiosis outbreaks caused by contamination in public water systems were
                      reported to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention between  1984 and 1998.
                      In 1993, Cryptosporidium caused more than 400,000 people in Milwaukee, Wl,  to
                      experience intestinal illness. More than 4,000 were hospitalized and at least 50
                      deaths were attributed to this cryptosporidiosis outbreak. Other recent
                      cryptosporidiosis outbreaks attributable to public water system contamination
                      occurred in Nevada, Oregon, and Georgia.

                      The IESWTR set enforceable drinking water treatment technique requirements to
                      reduce the risk of Cryptosporidium from surface water for systems serving at least
                      10,000 persons. The LT1 ESWTR extends further this necessary protection from
                      Cryptosporidium to communities of fewer than 10,000 persons.

                      Today's rule for the first time establishes Cryptosporidium control requirements for
                      systems serving less than 10,000 persons by requiring a minimum 2-log removal
                      for Cryptosporidium. The rule also strengthens filter performance requirements  to
                      ensure 2-log Cryptosporidium removal, establishes individual filter monitoring to
                      minimize poor performance in individual units, includes Cryptosporidium in the
                      definition of GWUDI, and explicitly considers  unfiltered system watershed control
                      provisions.

                      The rule also reflects a commitment to the importance of maintaining existing levels
                      of microbial protection in public water systems as plants take steps to comply with
                      newly applicable DBP standards. Systems considering significant changes to their
                      disinfection practices must first evaluate current levels of Giardia inactivation (and
                      virus inactivation if applicable) and consult with their state primacy agency for
                      approval before implementing those changes. Thus, compliance with the provisions
                      of the rule will improve public health protection by reducing the risk of exposure to
                      Cryptosporidium in  small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people even as those
                      systems begin to take steps to comply with related DBP standards.

                      How much will  this rule cost?

                      In estimating the costs of the LT1 ESWTR, the Agency considered impacts on


http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/lt leswtr_fact.html                                         7/29/04

-------
EPA Final Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule                           Page 4 of 5


                      PWSs and States (including territories and EPA implementation in non-primacy
                      States). The LT1ESWTR will result in increased costs to public water systems for
                      implementing the components of the rule. States will also incur implementation
                      costs. EPA estimates that the annual cost of the rule will be $39.5 million.

                      Approximately 84 percent ($33.1 million) of the rule's total annual costs are
                      imposed on drinking water utilities. States incur the remaining 16 percent ($6.4
                      million annually) of the LTIESWTR's total annual cost. The turbidity provisions,
                      which include treatment changes, monitoring and reporting, account for the largest
                      portion of the total rule costs ($37.7 million annually). Systems will incur most of the
                      turbidity provision costs. The national estimate of annual system costs  is based on
                      estimates of system-level costs for the rule and estimates of the number of systems
                      expected to incur each type of cost.

                      The average annual household cost is estimated to be $6.24 per year.  Ninety
                      percent of households will experience costs of less than $15 per year, and fewer
                      than one percent of households are estimated to incur annual costs of greater than
                      $120 per year; however, this estimate is conservative because systems with fewer
                      households are likely to  choose less costly improvements.

                      What are the benefits of this rule?

                      The primary benefits of today's final rule come from reductions in the risk of illness
                      from pathogens in drinking water. In  particular, the LT1ESWTR focuses on
                      reducing the risk associated with disinfection-resistant pathogens, such as
                      Cryptosporidium. Other pathogens may also be removed more efficiently due to
                      implementation of these provisions. Exposure to other pathogenic protozoa or other
                      waterborne bacterial or viral pathogens are likely to be reduced by the provisions of
                      this rule as well. In addition to preventing illnesses, this rule is expected to have
                      other non-health related benefits. These benefits result from avoiding non-health
                      related costs associated with waterborne disease outbreaks.

                      The annual monetized benefits of the proposed rule are conservatively calculated
                      to be $18.9-$90.9 million. EPA estimates that implementation of the LT1ESWTR
                      will result in a reduction of cryptosporidiosis illness of between 12,000 and 41,000
                      cases per year, and a reduction in mortalities due to cryptosporidiosis of between 1
                      and 5 deaths per year. Most of the avoided deaths would be among
                      immunocompromised and other sensitive subpopulations.

                      Is funding available to  help systems comply with this rule?

                      Since 1996, the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund has made over $4.4
                      billion available to states, which have used the funding to provide loans to help
                      water systems improve their infrastructure. Through December 31, 2000, states
                      had made close to 1,600 loans for more than $3.2 billion. Other federal funds for
                      infrastructure financing are available through the U. S. Department of Housing and
                      Urban Development's Community Development Block Grant Program and the Rural
                      Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. EPA also provides program
                      management funding to  states that have primary enforcement responsibility for
                      their drinking water programs through the Public Water Systems Supervision
                      (PWSS) grants program.

                      How did EPA consult with stakeholders in developing this rule?

                      EPA began outreach efforts to develop the LT1ESWTR in the summer of 1998 with
                      two public meetings: one in Denver,  Colorado and the other in Dallas, Texas.
                      Building on these two public meetings,  EPA held a number of additional meetings
                      with stakeholders, trade associations, environmental groups, and representatives of
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/ltl eswtr_fact.html                                         7/29/04

-------
EPA Final Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule                           Page 5 of 5


                       state and local elected officials. Of particular importance to this rule, given its focus
                       on small systems, EPA received valuable input from small entity representatives
                       who were consulted in accordance with the Small Business Regulatory
                       Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). The Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
                       was initiated in April of 1998 and officially convened in August of 1998. Many of the
                       Panel's recommendations are reflected in today's rule.

                       EPA provided numerous opportunities for stakeholder and public involvement. In
                       June 1999, EPA mailed an informal draft of the LT1ESWTR preamble to the
                       approximately 100 stakeholders who attended either of the public stakeholder
                       meetings. Members of trade associations and the small entity representatives
                       consulted in accordance with SBREFA also received the draft preamble. EPA
                       received valuable suggestions and stakeholder input from 15 state representatives,
                       trade associations, environmental interest groups, and individual stakeholders. EPA
                       proposed the LT1ESWTR on April 10, 2000. During the comment period, the
                       Agency held a public meeting in Washington, DC, on April 14, 2000. Additionally,
                       the proposed rule was presented to industry, state representatives, and the public
                       in nearly 50 meetings across the US, including a May 30, 2000 meeting in
                       Washington, DC, with ten representatives of elected state and local officials.
                       Finally, EPA mailed approximately 200 copies of the proposed rule to stakeholders.

                       Where can the public get more information about this final rule?

                       For general information on the LT1ESWTR, contact the Safe Drinking Water
                       Hotline, at (800) 426-4791, or visit the EPA Safewater website,
                       www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/lt1eswtr.html. For copies of the Federal Register
                       notice  of the final regulation or technical fact sheets, contact the Safe Drinking
                       Water  Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The Safe Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday
                       through Friday,  excluding Federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern
                       Time.
                         Safewater Home | About Our Office | Publications | Calendar | Links | Office of Water | En Espanol
                                        EPA Home | Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us


                                          Last updated on Tuesday, November 26th, 2002
                                      URL: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/lt1eswtr_fact.html
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/lt 1 eswtr_fact.html                                         7/29/04

-------
                                                                          ><«****
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

-------
        v>EPA
            United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
For additional information on
theLTIESWTR

Call the Safe Drinking Water
Hotline at 1-80M26-4791; visit
the EPA web site at
www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/
It1eswtr.html; or contact your
State drinking water
representative.
                            , 4$
S3  1 This frequency may be reduced
  1 by the State to once per day for     *
  I systems using slow sand/alternative
  | filtration or for systems serving 500
  persons or fewer regardless of the
  [ type of filtration used.
Long  Term  1  Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule:
A  Quick Reference Guide
Overview of the Rule
Title
Purpose
General
Description
Utilities
Covered
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR)
67 FR 1812, January 14, 2002, Vol. 67, No. 9
Improve public health protection through the control of microbial contaminants,
particularly Cryptosporidium. Prevent significant increases in microbial risk that
might otherwise occur when systems implement the Stage 1 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule.
Builds upon the requirements of the 1989 Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR).
Smaller system counterpart of the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(IESWTR).
Public water systems that use surface water or ground water under the direct
influence of surface water (GWUDI) and serve fewer than 10,000 people.
                                    Major  Provisions
                                   Control of
                                   Cryptosporidium
                                   Combined Filter
                                   Effluent (CFE)
                                   Turbidity
                                   Performance
                                   Standards
                                           CFE
                   The maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) is set at zero.
                   Filtered systems must physically remove 99% (2-log) of Cryptosporidium.
                   Unfiltered systems must update their watershed control programs to
                   minimize the potential for contamination by Cryptosporidium oocysts.
                   Cryptosporidium is included as an indicator of GWUDI.
                Specific CFE turbidity requirements depend on the type of filtration
                used by the system.
                Conventional and direct filtration:
                >  <, 0.3 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) in at least 95% of measurements
                   taken each month.
                *  Maximum level of turbidity: 1 NTU.

                Slow sand and diatomaceous earth (DE) filtration:
                >  Continue to meet CFE turbidity limits specified in the SWTR:
                   •  1 NTU in at least 95% of measurements taken each month.
                   •  Maximum level of turbidity: 5 NTU.

                Alternative technologies (other than conventional, direct, slow sand, or DE):
                >  Turbidity levels are established by the State based on filter
                   demonstration data submitted by the system.
                   •  State-set limits must not exceed 1 NTU (in at least 95% of
                     measurements) or 5 NTU (maximum).
                                   Turbidity Monitoring Requirements
                                   Combined Filter
                                   Effluent
                                   Individual Filter
                                   Effluent (IFE)
                                   (for systems using
                                   conventional and
                                   direct filtration only)
                     Performed at least every 4 hours to ensure compliance with CFE
                     turbidity performance standards.1
                  Since the CFE may meet regulatory requirements even though one
                  filter is producing high turbidity water, the IFE is measured to assist
                  conventional and direct filtration treatment plant operators in
                  understanding and assessing individual filter performance.
                  *  Performed continuously (recorded at least every 15 minutes).
                  *  Systems with two or fewer filters may conduct continuous monitoring
                     of CFE turbidity in place of individual filter effluent turbidity monitoring.
                  *  Certain follow-up actions are required if the IFE turbidity (or CFE for
                     systems with two filters) exceeds 1.0 NTU in 2 consecutive readings or
                     more (i.e., additional reporting, filter self-assessments, and/or
                     comprehensive performance evaluations (CPEs)).

-------
Disinfection Profiling and  Benchmarking  Requirements
Community and non-transient non-community public water systems must evaluate impacts on microbial risk before changing disinfection
practices to ensure adequate microbial protection is maintained. This is accomplished through a process called disinfection profiling and
benchmarking.
What are the disinfection profiling and benchmarking requirements?
>  Systems must develop a disinfection profile, which is a graphical compilation of weekly inactivation of Giardia lamblia, taken on the
   same calendar day each week over 12 consecutive months. (Systems using chloramines, ozone, or chlorine dioxide for primary
   disinfection must also calculate inactivation of viruses). Results must be available for review by the State during sanitary surveys.
>  A State may deem a profile unnecessary if the system has sample data collected after January 1, 1998-during the month of warmest
   water temperature and at maximum residence time in the distribution system-indicating TTHM levels are below 0.064 mg/L and HAAS
   levels are below 0.048 mg/L.
>  Prior to making a significant change to disinfection practices, systems required to develop a profile must calculate a disinfection
   benchmark and consult with the State. The benchmark is the calculation of the lowest monthly average of inactivation based on the
   disinfection profile.
Additional Requirements
   Construction of new uncovered finished water reservoirs is prohibited.
Critical Deadlines and Requirements
For Drinking Water Systems r^ -• _ • --• _ •?.- -, , ••• •
March 15, 2002
July 1,2003
January 1, 2004
June 30, 2004
December 31, 2004
January 14, 2005
For States
January 2002
October 14, 2003
January 14, 2004
December 2004
January 14, 2006
December 2006
Construction of uncovered finished reservoirs is prohibited.
No later than this date, systems serving between 500-9,999 persons must report to the State:
* Results of optional monitoring which show levels of TTHM < 0.064 mg/L and HAAS < 0.048 mg/L, OR
* System has started profiling.
No later than this date, systems serving fewer than 500 persons must report to the State:
* Results of optional monitoring which show levels of TTHM < 0.064 mg/L and HAAS < 0.048 mg/L, OR
> System has started profiling.
Systems serving between 500 and 9,999 persons must complete their disinfection profile unless the State has
determined it is unnecessary.
Systems serving fewer than 500 persons must complete their disinfection profile unless the State has determined it is
unnecessary.
Surface water systems or GWUDI systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must comply with the applicable
LT1ESWTR provisions (e.g., turbidity standards, individual filter monitoring, Cryptosporidium removal requirements,
updated watershed control requirements for unfiltered systems).
'• '• • ^ ' ;" '1-:?::;-:-:3Mj:H5::/1.::;H '. ' ; .^ ::^ffi^&' - . '

As per the IESWTR, States begin first round of sanitary surveys (at least every 3 years for community water systems
and every 5 years for non-community water systems).
States are encouraged to submit final primacy applications to EPA.
Final primacy applications must be submitted to EPA unless granted an extension.
States must complete first round of sanitary surveys for community water systems (as per the IESWTR).
Final primacy revision applications from States with approved 2-year extension agreements must be submitted to EPA.
States must complete first round of sanitary surveys for non-community water systems (as per the IESWTR).
Public  Health  Benefits
Implementation of
the LT1ESWTR will
result in ...
Increased protection against gastrointestinal illnesses from Cryptosporidium and other pathogens through
improvements in filtration.
Reduced likelihood of endemic illness from Cryptosporidium by an estimated 12,000 to 41,000 cases annually.
Reduced likelihood of outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis.         	   		
Estimated impacts
of the LT1ESWTR
include . ..
National total annualized cost: $39.5 million.
90% of affected households will incur an increase of less than $1.25 per month.
One percent of affected households are likely to incur an increase of more than $10 per month.
          Office of Water (4606)
                  EPA816-F-02-001
www.epa.gov/safewater
January 2002

-------
  WHAT SHOULD A CPE REPORT
              INCLUDE?
     REVIEW OF A CPE REPORT
Assessment of the performance of the plant includ-
ing evaluations of sedimentation basin performance,
filter media, and filter performance during routine
operation and critical "worst-case" time periods
(e.g., peak flow conditions and directly after
backwash). The report should include a graphical
representation of the plant's performance over a 1-
year period that shows raw, clarified, and finished
water turbidity against time.

Evaluation of all major unit processes existing at the
plant, for their potential to achieve optimized
performance (including flocculation, sedimentation,
filtration and disinfection processes). The report
should emphasize maximizing the  use of existing
facilities rather than constructing new infrastruc-
ture.

Performance Limiting Factors that were identified
as impacting plant performance should be listed in
their order of priority. Issues such as the aesthetics
of the plant should not be included in the report
unless linked to the performance problems. The
report should not include specific recommendations
for improvements. Recommendations are best
addressed in follow-up technical assistance, ideally
through solutions developed and implemented by
plant staff with outside facilitation.

The report should be free of design or operational
bias. Engineering professionals may be inclined to
emphasize design factors.  CPE teams may also be
reluctant to identify operational and administrative
issues that may offend or impact the plant's staff.
Preferably, the report should emphasize operational
solutions rather than major design changes.

Assessment of potential follow-up activities appro-
priate for the plant.  Follow-up could include state-
directed Comprehensive Technical Assistance
(CTA) or third-party activities.
The CPE report will be reviewed by the state to
ensure that the CPE team has followed the proper
protocol and has considered all of the key CPE
areas. The review ensures that the evaluation and
report maintains a focus on public health, optimiz-
ing performance, and the multiple barrier strategy
of surface water treatment.
      WHERE CAN  I GET MORE
            INFORMATION?
Introduction to Comprehensive Performance
Evaluations
          (EPA/625/C-01-011) CPE Training CD

Optimizing Water Treatment Plant Performance
Using the Composite Correction Program
          (EPA 625/6-91/027/August 1998)
For ordering either of these documents or for
general drinking water information, contact EPA's
Safe Drinking Water Hotline [800-426-4791] or see
the EPA website http://www.epa.gov/
safewater.html.
Office of Water (4606M)
EPA816-F-02-20
www.epa.gov/safewater
November 2002
Comprehensive
Performance
Evaluation  (CPE):

The  Basics
                                                                    Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
    PURPOSE
                       This brochure is intended
                       for use by surface water
                       treatment systems, state
                       personnel, and third-
parties that have become involved with a Compre-
hensive Performance Evaluation (CPE) of a surface
water treatment plant.  The CPE was originally
developed as a voluntary activity to assist filtration
plants in achieving "optimized" performance and
thereby achieving an increased level  of public
health protection. With EPA's promulgation of the
Interim Enhanced  Surface Water Treatment Rule
(IESWTR) and the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR),  some systems
may now be required to have a CPE  conducted at
their facility. The fundamental procedures for a
CPE, whether initiated due to an individual filter
effluent trigger or simply to achieve plant optimiza-
tion, are the same.  The process will involve the
water system staff,  state regulators, and, depend-
ing on the policies of the state, possibly a third-
party.

PLEASE NOTE: The  information presented here is
not intended to  instruct the reader in how to
conduct a CPE,  but  rather to help systems, states,
and third-parties understand their roles and respon-
sibilities in the CPE process. Specific information on
how to conduct a CPE is presented in the refer-
ences cited at the end of this brochure.
  WHAT IS A CPE?
                            A CPE is a thorough
                            review and analysis
                            of a filtration plant's
                            performance and an
assessment of the impact of administrative, design,
operation, and maintenance practices on the plant's
turbidity levels. The CPE focuses on factors that
adversely impact a plant's ability to achieve opti-
mized performance and consists of the following
components:

S  assessment of plant performance;
S  evaluation of major unit processes;
/  identification and prioritization of
    performance limiting factors;
S  assessment of the applicability of follow-up
    activities necessary; and
S  preparation of a CPE report.
                                                     WHAT IS THE FOCUS OF A CPE?
The focus of the CPE process is to assess the
water treatment plant facilities, operations and
administration to determine the ability of each one
to optimize treatment performance. The CPE
focuses on identifying and prioritizing factors that
limit optimized performance.  CPEs should provide
water systems a road map of key issues they will
need to address to achieve long-term optimized
turbidity performance and compliance.  Specific
recommendations are not provided.

During the CPE, a team of outside individuals will
collect data, perform special studies, and conduct
interviews with system personnel. The team will
gather information on:

*•   Performance Assessment including plant
    turbidity levels over a 12-month period and
    continuous individual filter performance.

*•   Administration including policies, budgeting,
    and staffing.

>   Design including basic information regarding
    the size and capacities of the plant's major
    unit processes (flocculation, sedimentation,
    filtration, and disinfection) to assess their
    potential to meet optimized performance at
    peak instantaneous flow.

*   Operational issues  regarding process control
    programs (chemical dosage, backwash, etc.).

>   Maintenance procedures to assess whether
    any aspect of the maintenance program limits
    the plant's capability to optimize performance.
                                                        WHAT SHOULD A CPE TEAM
                                                                    LOOK LIKE?
The following should be considered in the makeup
of a CPE team:

S  The CPE team should have experience and
    expertise in all key areas of a CPE, including
    field training and experience using EPA's
    protocol (outlined in the references cited at the
    end of this brochure).  The team must have
    solid knowledge of SDWA regulations, water
    treatment concepts, treatment plant opera-
    tions, and public health priorities.

\/  Team members should have broad experience
    in operating, designing, and troubleshooting
    surface water treatment facilities, including
    evaluating facilities with diverse raw water
    quality and operational or design constraints.

S  The team should consist of  at least two
    professionals, qualified to assess treatment
    plant design,  process control, operation,
    maintenance, and administrative practices.

S  The team must be able to identify potentially
    controversial  factors and effectively communi-
    cate them. The CPE team must be without
    bias toward design or capital improvements.
                                                                                                                                       (
                                                                                                                                       \

-------
               LT1ESWTR DISINFECTION PROFILING EXEMPTION FORM
                                 TTHM/HAA5 SAMPLING

    40 C.F.R. Section 141.531 of Subpart T (the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
for systems serving < 10,0000 people) allows the regulatory agency to determine that a public water
system does not need to conduct a Disinfection Profile if the  system's TTHM and HAAS levels are below
0.064 mg/L and 0.048  mg/L, respectively. To determine these levels, the TTHM and HAAS samples
must be collected after January 1,  1998, during the month with the warmest water temperature, and at the
point of maximum residence time in your distribution system. Note: THESE REQUIREMENTS
ONLY APPLY TO COMMUNITY OR NON-TRANSIENT, NON-COMMUNITY SYSTEMS-IF
YOUR PWS IS TRANSIENT, YOU CAN DISREGARD THIS NOTICE.

    If you wish to qualify for this exemption, please complete this form and attach copies of the
laboratory test results for TTHM and HAAS. We encourage  you to conduct this sampling this  summer,
and submit results to EPA by December 31, 2002 to allow us to determine your exemption status for
conducting Disinfection Profiling. Notes:

    Please consult the enclosed list of labs in [Insert State], which have been certified for analyzing these
    disinfection byproducts; a certified lab should be used.
•   Justification for your choice of the month of warmest water temperature should be  included; such as
    a summary of historical measurements of water temperature, etc.
•   Please explain and justify your choice of sampling location for the maximum residence time in the
    distribution system. This can be based upon lengths of piping, measurements of chlorine residuals
    showing  the  location with the lowest residual (maximum residence time), etc.
    Ic^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*^^^*^^^^^^^^*^^^*^^'^^^^*^^'^*:
PWS Name	         PWS ID #
Date of Sampling:	                   TTHM value
(mg/L)	

Date of Sampling:	                   HAAS value (mg/L)	
Sampling Location (indicate why this is the location of maximum residence time):
Sampling Month (indicate why this month has the warmest water temperature):
Submitted by:
         (Operator Name)

Please return this form with supporting data (lab reports, etc.) to:

Who Ever
XX Department of Health
XXX State Street
Anytown, XX XXXXX                 	
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance       Page C - 13                               August 2004

-------
                                Example System Notification Letter
                                               State Letterhead

John Smith, Supt.
Town Water System, PWSID XXXXXXX
Town, ST 12345

RE: Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

Dear Mr. Smith:

On January 14, 2002, the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule was published in the Federal Register.
This letter is being provided to notify you that your public water system may be affected by this rule.

The Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (abbreviated LT1ESWTR) applies to public water systems
that meet both of the following criteria:
        ^  Use surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water, and
        e>  Serve fewer than 10,000 people
You are receiving this letter as our data shows your system uses surface water or ground water under the direct influence
of surface water.

If you are an unfiltered system, you must take additional steps necessary to minimize potential for contamination by
Cryptosporidium. If you are a filtered system using conventional, direct, or an alternative filtration technology, the rule
will impact the performance and monitoring of your filtration plant beginning January 1, 2005*, by revising turbidity
limits for combined filter effluent. In addition, for systems using conventional or direct filtration, individual filter
effluent monitoring will now be required.  Systems using alternative filtration technologies are required to demonstrate
removal and inactivation capabilities prior to January 1, 2005* in order for this agency to establish turbidity limits.
Whether filtered  or not, the rule requires monitoring and reporting related to microbial inactivation (referred to as a
disinfection profile), for which you may need to take specific action by July 1, 2003  [or January 1, 2004] unless optional
TTHM and HAAS monitoring is conducted and this agency has determined a profile is unnecessary.

A Quick Reference Guide and Fact Sheets for the LT1ESWTR are enclosed. The guide provides more information on
this regulation and the Fact Sheet explains the requirements for disinfection byproduct profiling and benchmarking in
more detail.

Please contact this office at XXX-XXXX  if you have any questions about this letter or the LT1ESWTR and its affect on
your system. We appreciate your attention to this request.

Sincerely,


Enclosures: LT1ESWTR Quick Reference Guide, LT1ESWTR General Fact Sheet
        LT1ESWTR Fact Sheet: Turbidity Provisions for Conventional and Direct Filtration Systems
        LT1ESWTR Fact Sheet: Turbidity Provisions for Slow Sand, Diatom. Earth and Alt. Filtration
        LT1ESWTR Fact Sheet: Disinfection Profiling and  Benchmarking for LT1ESWTR
        LT1ESWTR Fact Sheet: Disinfection Profiling for the LT1ESWTR

*The compliance date was changed from January 14, 2005 to January 1, 2005 by technical correction [69 FR 38850].
  August 2004                                    Page C - 14        Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
              Fact Sheet:
         }   Disinfection  Profiling  and
              Benchmarking for LT1ESWTR
The Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR) was finalized January 14, 2002.
LT1ESWTR requires public water systems that use surface water or ground water under the direct
influence of surface water and serve fewer than 10,000 people to evaluate their disinfection practices
through disinfection profiling and benchmarking.
A disinfection profile summarizes the
effectiveness of your system's disinfection
practices. It is a graphical representation of
your system's level of inactivation (i.e.,
pathogens killed by disinfection) of Giardia
lamblia (and viruses if your system uses
chloramines, ozone or chlorine dioxide for
primary disinfection) each week for a period of
one year. The disinfection profile does not
need to be submitted to the State. However, it
must be available for review during a sanitary
survey.
01 0.400

J 0.200
  0.000
             12  16  20 24  28  32  36 40  44  48  52

                    Week Tested
          Example Disinfection Profile
Systems serving 500 to 9,999 people have to begin their disinfection profile by July 1, 2003.  Systems serving
fewer than 500 people must start their profile by January 1, 2004.  Systems are reminded that the State may
waive the profile requirement if a system can satisfy certain TTHM and HAAS criteria.
To develop a disinfection profile, a system
must start by identifying disinfection
segments. A disinfection segment is a
section of a treatment system beginning at
one disinfectant injection or monitoring
point and ending at the next disinfectant
injection or monitoring point. The final
disinfectant monitoring point must be
located before or at the first customer.

I
Chlorine
Injected
)^- ^
1 1 Intake — >
1 I C^°
\ \ Coagulation

Disinfection
o n
C^C^O — »
Flocculation

J I. J
Segment 1
Sedimentation

Disinfection Segment 1
Sampling Point
Cl 2 residual
Temperature
PH




n r i
Disinfection
Segment 2
Chlorine
Injected
Filtration 1
•tmmrrfrm'
wimtmimfnSaim

1
! 	 ~ 	 |
j V
Disinfection Segment 2 System
Sampling Point
Cl : residual
Temperature
pH

                                     Example Showing a System with Two Disinfection Segments
                                         Page 1

-------
After a system has identified the disinfection segments, the system must
collect the following data for each disinfection segment, on the same day
each week, over the course of one year, during peak hourly flow, to
determine log inactivation for the treatment plant:

> The residual disinfectant concentration ("C", in mg/L);
> Contact time "T" in minutes (the time the water is in contact with the
   disinfectant); AND
> At each residual disinfectant concentration sampling point:
       •   Water temperature (in degrees Celsius) and
       •   pH (only for systems using chlorine).

The contact time T (sometimes referred to as  T10)  is an estimate of the
detention time within a basin, pipe or other sub-unit (such as a clean/veil).
Operational data are collected
during peak hourly flow from all
disinfection segments using
analytical methods specified in
40 CFR Part §141.74(a).
An electronic spreadsheet to assist
systems in calculating log
inactivation values and the
disinfection profile and benchmark
is posted on the EPA website at
rhttp://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp
/Itleswtr.htmll.
HINT: Before measuring or calculating T, the system should review its own permits and/or other documents, or
contact the State to see if T has already been determined (e.g., historical records or a tracer study).  If T is
already known, Steps 3 through 7 in the table below (used to calculate T) can be skipped.

Use the following 12-step approach to calculate log inactivation for the treatment plant.

                  12 Suggested Steps to Calculating Weekly Giardia* Log Inactivation
Step
1
2
3
4
5
6
Action/Activity/Task
Determine the peak hourly flow in gallons/minute.
Measure the residual disinfectant concentration ("C", in
mg/L), temperature (in °C), and pH (if chlorine is used)
during peak hourly flow at the same sampling point and
time.
Measure the physical dimensions of the sub-unit (e.g.,
clean/veil or pipe)
• Measure the inner diameter, which will be used to
determine the volume of water in the sub-unit.
• Measure the minimum operating depth in the sub-
unit to obtain a conservative estimate of water depth
in the sub-unit.
Calculate the volume of the water (in ft3) in the sub-unit
based on measurements in Step 3.
• See Appendix F in the LT1 ESWTR Disinfection
Profiling and Benchmarking Technical Guidance
Manual for volume equations.
Calculate the Theoretical Detention Time (TDT)
• TDT= V / Q.
Where V = volume and Q = peak hourly flow.
Remember to work in common units
(7.48 gallons = 1 cubic foot).
Determine the baffling factor (BF) for the sub-unit [see
the LT1 ESWTR Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking
Technical Guidance Manual (Chapter 3 and Table 3-2)
for information on baffling factors or check with your
State].
Step
7
8
9
10
11
12
Action/Activity/Task
Calculate the contact time of the disinfectant in the sub-
unit (Contact Time "T" = TDT x BF).
Determine CTcaic- Where CTcaic = CxT [C is residual
disinfectant concentration, measured in Step 2 (in mg/L),
and T is contact time, calculated in Step 7 (in minutes)].
Locate CT table for 3-log Giardia inactivation based on
water temperature, pH, and residual disinfectant
concentration. See Appendix B in the LT1 ESWTR
Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Technical
Guidance Manual for the CT tables.
Obtain CTggg value(s) from the table in Step 9.
Where applicable, repeat steps 1 through 1 1 for each
disinfection segment.
For systems with one disinfection segment calculate log
inactivation = 3 x CTcaic/CTgg.g. For systems with two or
more disinfection segments, calculate log inactivation =
3 x ICTcaic/CTgg.g where ZCTcaic/CT99.g = the sum of the
inactivation ratios for all disinfection segments.
*Systems using chloramines, ozone, or chlorine dioxide, as the primary disinfectant must also calculate virus log inactivation. For more
information on calculating virus log inactivation see the LT1 ESWTR Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Technical Guidance
Manual.
                                                                                                            x,-.
                                                  Page 2

-------
To complete the disinfection profile, plot the weekly log inactivation
values calculated over the course of one year. The log inactivations
are plotted along the vertical axis with the corresponding weeks of
the year plotted along the horizontal axis as shown at right. After the
points are plotted, lines are drawn to connect the points in order by
the week tested.
                                                                      1-40
1.35 -
1.30
                                                                                Week Tested
                                                                                (Horizontal Axis)
A disinfection benchmark must be determined by your system if:

>  You had to develop a disinfection profile AND
>  You are considering making a significant change to your disinfection practices.

Your system must complete the disinfection profile and benchmark and consult with the State before making a
significant change to your disinfection practices.

The disinfection benchmark is a water system's lowest monthly average log inactivation, and is determined
using the data collected weekly for the disinfection profile.  To determine the benchmark, the system must first
calculate the average log inactivation for each calendar month of the disinfection profile. The monthly average
log inactivation is calculated by adding the weekly log inactivation values for a particular month and dividing
that value by the number of weekly values for that particular month. The month with the lowest monthly
average log inactivation is the benchmark.
A significant change is defined as: (a) Changes to the point of disinfection; (b) Changes to the disinfectant(s)
used in the treatment plant; (c) Changes to the disinfection process; or (d) Any other modification identified by
the State.

If you are considering a significant change to disinfection practices your system must consult with the State for
approval and submit the following information to the State:

>   A description of the proposed change;
>   The disinfection profile and benchmark;
>   An analysis of how the proposed change will affect the current levels of disinfection; and
>   Any additional information requested by the State.
                 r MORE INFORMATION ON
•  LT1ESWTR Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Technical Guidance Manual [EPA 816-R-03-
   004]- This manual will provide information on the disinfection profiling and benchmarking process.
   Detailed explanations and examples will be presented to assist system operators with performing the
   disinfection profiling and benchmarking analyses.

For general information or to obtain the document listed above, contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at
1-800-426-4791 or visit http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/lt1eswtr.html
                                                Page 3

-------
             PLEASE LOOK INSIDE

  Your water system is affected by the requirements
  of the new Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water
  Treatment Rule.
Office of Water (4606M)     EPA816-F-03-007       www.epa.gov/safewater        February 2003

-------
Appendix D
Flowcharts of Rule
Requirements

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

-------
Implementation Flowchart Index
LT1ESWTR

The following flowcharts are provided as a guide to the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule (LT1ESWTR) based on the Federal requirements. They do not include all the exceptions to the
LT1ESWTR that may apply. In addition, since State requirements may be more stringent than the
Federal requirements, systems should consult with their States regarding State-specific requirements.

    •   General Requirements of the LT1ES WTR
    •   LT1ESWTR Disinfection Profile and Benchmark Decision Tree
    •   Combined Filter Effluent (CFE) Turbidity Provisions of the LT 1 ES WTR For Systems Using
       Conventional or Direct Filtration
    •   Individual Filter Effluent (IFE) Turbidity Provisions of the LT 1 ES WTR For Systems Using
       Conventional or Direct Filtration
•.   Part 1: IFE Monitoring Provisions
•.   Part 2: IFE Turbidity Exceedance Follow-Up Actions
    •   Combined Filter Effluent (CFE )Turbidity Provisions of the LT 1 ES WTR For Systems Using
       Slow Sand or Diatomaceous Earth Filtration
    •   Combined Filter Effluent (CFE) Turbidity Provisions of the LT1ESWTR For Systems Using
       Alternative Filtration Technologies
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance       Page D - 3                               August 2004

-------
                                 General Requirements of the LTIESWTR
                          Does the system serve fewer than
                  10,000 people and is it classified as surface water or
                   ground water under the direct influence of surface __
                                water (GWUDI)?
                                                                  No
                                                                               System is not subject to
                                                                              LTIESWTR requirements
                                          Yes
            System is subject to LTIESWTR requirements. All new finished water reservoirs must be covered and system
              must meet 2-log Cryptosporidium requirements. Cryptosporidium is included as an indicator for GWUDI.
                                                                          System must meet new combined
                                                                       and individual filter effluent monitoring
                                                                             and turbidity requirements.
               Does the
     system use conventional or direct
               filtration?
                                                                     System must continue to meet monitoring and
                                                                      turbidity requirements of the Surface Water
                                                                                 Treatment Rule.
      Does the system use slow sand
     or diatomaceous earth filtration?
                                                                     System must demonstrate 2-log Cryptosporidium
                                                                      removal in addition to 3-log Giardia and 4-log
                                                                          virus removal/inactivation and meet
                                                                            State-established turbidity limits.
          Does the system use
          alternative filtration?
                                                                     System must continue to meet SWTR avoidance
                                                                      criteria and must implement watershed control
                                                                        requirements to address Cryptosporidium.
         Is the system unfiltered?
                      Is the system a
           ommumty or non-transient non-communit
                      water system?
                                                          No disinfection profile required
                   Has system conducted
                 optional TTHM and HAAS
                        monitoring?
                                                            System must conduct a disinfection profile
                                                                                               s system plan to make
                                                                                       a significant change to disinfection
                                                                                                  practices?
           Was TTHM level
< 0.064 mg/L and HAAS level < 0.048 mg/L
   in the warmest month at the maximum
            residence time?
                                         State may determine disinfection
                                              Profile not required
                                                                 System must calculate
                                                              a disinfection benchmark and
                                                                 consult with the State
                   Disinfection benchmark
                   calculation is not required
August 2004
                                                  Page D- 4
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
               LT1ESWTR Disinfection Profile and Benchmark Decision  Tree
                                                       Is the system
                                                  a transient non-community
                                                       water system?
        Is the source
water classified as either surface
        or GWUDI?
      Does the
system serve fewer than
    10,000 people?
          /No disinfection profiling
         /  or benchmarking required
         I    under the LT1ESWTR
          \.      provisions.
                                                     / System must comply with  \
                                                     /   disinfection profiling and   |
                                                     I  benchmarking requirements   /
                                                     V     under IESWTR.
                     Did the State
           determine that a disinfection profile
        NO  ~^^ was unnecessary?
                                                                     Has the system tested
                                                              TTHM and HAA5 after January 1, 1998
                                                          during the month of warmest water temperature
                                                            and at the point of maximum residence time
                                                                   in the distribution system?1
           Was the annual
     TTHM level < 0.064 mg/1 and
        the annual HAA5 level
            < 0.048
                 System must profile
                Giardia inactivation.1'2
                      Did the
             system develop a disinfection
                  profile and keep it
                      on file?
                                                              Are there plans
                                                            to modify the existing
                                                             isinfection practice?
                                                                                                 No disinfection
                                                                                               benchmark required
                                            System must calculate
                                             the benchmark for
                                           Giardia inactivation and
                                            consult with the State.2
                                             Did the system
                               calculate the benchmark for Giardia inactivation,
                                           and consult with the
                                                 State?
         NO
eSystem is in compliance \
      ith disinfection profiling  j
       and benchmarking     j
          requirements.    ^/
1.  If using chlorine dioxide, ozone, or chloramines as a primary disinfectant, the system must also profile and/or benchmark viral inactivation.
2.  Disinfection profile must be kept on file for State to review during sanitary survey.
3.  Tier 2 violation. Public notification is required within 30 days.
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                              Page D- 5
                      August 2004

-------
     Combined Filter Effluent (CFE) Turbidity Provisions of the LT1ESWTR For
                          Systems Using Conventional or Direct Filtration
                  Does the system use either
           surface water or GWUDI, filter, and serve less
                     than 10,000 people?
                      Does the system
                  use conventional or direct
                         filtration?
        No
                            No combined filter effluent
                          requirements under LT1ESWTR
No
System must comply with combined
 filter effluent provisions for either
 slow sand, diatomaceous earth or
      alternative filtration.
                      Yes
                  All systems using conventional or direct
                 filtration must comply with combined filter
                     effluent requirements (§ 141.550).
                               Did the
                        system monitor combined
                      filter effluent turbidity at 4-hour
                      Was turbidity less than or equal
               to 0.3 NTU in at least 95% of the measurements
                    taken for the month (ij 141.551(a))'
                      Did turbidity exceed 1 NTU at
                         my time (§ 141.551(b))?2
                                                 Did the system report
                                    combined filter effluent measurements to the State by
                                               the 10th of each month?3
                         s*                    -*.
                        /Relevant monthly reporting
                       ~\.   requirements satisfied
1. As per the SWTR, 40 CFR Section 141.74 (c)(l), the State may reduce this monitoring frequency for systems serving 500 or fewer people to
one sample per day if the State determines that less frequent monitoring is sufficient to indicate effective filtration performance.
2. System must consult with the Primacy Agency no later than 24 hours after learning of the violation in accordance with the Public Notification
Rule (40 CFR Section 141.203(b)(3)).
3. Systems must report to the State the total number of combined filter effluent turbidity measurements taken during the previous month, the
number and percentage of turbidity measurements that were less than or equal to 0.3 NTU, and date and value of any turbidity measurements
exceeding 1 NTU (40 CFR Section 141.570(a)).
4. Public notification is required per Appendix A to Subpart Q of 40 CFR Section 141.
        2004
        Page D- 6
  Final L77ES0T/J Implementation Guidance

-------
      Individual Filter Effluent (IFE)  Turbidity Provisions of the LT1ESWTR For
                          Systems Using Conventional of Direct Filtration
                                     Part 1: IFE Monitoring Provisions
                                                                         System is not required to do individual
                                                                      filter monitoring under LT1ESWTR (IESWTR
                                                                        applies if system serves > 10,000 people)
       Does the system use either
urface water or GWUDI, filter, and serve les
         than 10,000 people?
         Does the system use
     conventional filtration treatment
          or direct filtration?
                                                             System is not required to do
                                                             individual filter monitoring./
                                                                           M/R VIOLATION
                       perform individual
                                                              System must
                                                              conduct grab
                                                              sampling every
                                                              4 hours in lieu
                                                              of continuous
                                                               monitoring,
                                                              not to exceed
                                                               14 working
                                                              days following
                                                               failure of
                                                               equipment.
                                                                                    reestablish
                                                                                    continuous
                                                                                 monitoring by th
     Was there
a failure in continuous
 turbidity monitoring
    equipment
                            Was
                     monitoring conducted
               continuously at each filter and were the
                  results recorded at least every
                        15 minutes?1-2
                           Did the
                     system report to State
                 within 10 days after end of month
                   that relevant monitoring was
                         conducted?
                                                                   M/R VIOLATION3
                                                                   (Return to previous
                                                                   diamond and complete
                                                                   requirement)
                          Did any
                    individual filter turbidity
                   measurement from the same
                    filter exceed 1.0 NTU for
                    2 consecutive 15-minute
                                                               System is in compliance with individual N
                                                                 filter provisions of the LT1 ESWTR   )
                                           -*•  See Part 2 on next page.
1. Systems with two or fewer filters may conduct continuous monitoring of combined filter effluent in lieu of individual filter effluent turbidity
monitoring.
2. Monitoring must be conducted using an approved method in 40 CFR Section 141.74(a).  Calibration of turbidimeters must be conducted using
procedures specified by the manufacturer.
3. System has an M/R violation until the relevant requirement is completed (such as conducting a filter self-assessment).  Public notification is
required per Appendix A to Subpart Q of 40 CFR Section 141.
4. For systems with two or fewer filters, combined filter effluent can be substituted for individual filter effluent (see footnote 1). If a filter
self-assessment is triggered, the self-assessment must be conducted on both filters.
Final LT1 ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                           Page D- 7
                                                                      August 2004

-------
      Individual Filter Effluent (IFE) Turbidity Provisions of the LT1ESWTR For
                         Systems Using Conventional or Direct Filtration
                      Part 2: IFE  Turbidity Exceedance Follow-Up Actions
                         From Part 1
                        (previous page)
                          Did any
                    •Individual filter turbidity^
                  ' measurement from the same
                  . filter exceed 1.0 NTU for 2
                    \consecutive 15-minute,
                          readings?4
M/R VIOLATION3
(Return to previous
diamond and complete
requirement)
T


NO
NO
                                                        Was
                                                     evaluation
                                                    completed an
                                                     submitted to
                                                     State within
                                                        120
                                                       days?
  Did the
system report
that the self-
ssessment wa
  onducted?
                                            System must conduct
                                           a self-assessment of the
                                           filter within 14 days of
                                           the exceedance and report
                                             that self-assessment
                                           was conducted unless a
                                              CPE is required.4
                            System must arrange to have
                            State or State-approved third
                           party conduct a Comprehensive
                              Performance Evaluation
                            (CPE) no later than 60 days
                           after exceedance and have the
                             evaluation completed and
                           submitted to the State no later
                         than 120 days following exceedance.
                        Did the system
                     report the filter:
                  the turbidity measurement, th
                      ) on which the exceeda
                     occurred and cause(s)
     Did this
exceedance occur at
the same filter three
   consecutive
     months?4
                individual filter
            rbidity measurement > 2.
          NTU for 2 or more consecutive
             15-minute readings for
                two consecutive
                  months?4
                      M/R VIOLATION3
                                                 System is in compliance with individual
                                                  filter provisions of the LT1ESWTR
1.  Systems with two or fewer filters may conduct continuous monitoring of combined filter effluent in lieu of individual filter effluent turbidity
monitoring.
2.  Monitoring must be conducted using an approved method in 40 CFR Section 141.74(a).  Calibration of rurbidimeters must be conducted using
procedures specified by the manufacturer.
3.  System has an M/R violation until the relevant requirement is completed (such as conducting a filter self-assessment). Public notification is
required per Appendix A to Subpart Qof40CFR Section 141.
4.  For systems with two or fewer filters, combined filter effluent can be substituted for individual filter effluent (see footnote 1).  If a filter
self-assessment is triggered, the self-assessment must be conducted on both filters.
August 2004
      Page D- 8
        Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
     Combined Filter Effluent (CFE) Turbidity Provisions of the LT1ESWTR For
                  Systems Using Slow Sand or Diatomaceous Earth Filtration
               Does the system use either    ^^    No
        surface water or GWUDI, filter, and serve les
                  than 10,000 people?
                  Does the system use
               slow sand or diatomaceous
                   earth filtration?
         No combined filter effluent
        requirements under LT1ESWTR
          System must comply with
       combined filter effluent provisions
         for either conventional, direct
           or alternative filtration.
               Yes
               All systems using slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration must comply
                 with combined filter effluent requirements as specified in the SWTR
                                Did the
                system monitor combined filter effluent turbidity
                            at 4-hour intervals?1
                         Was turbidity less than or
               equal to 1 NTU in at least 95% of the measurements
                           taken for the month?
                   Did turbidity exceed 5 NTU at any time?2
                                                 Did the system report
                                              to the State by the 10th of each
                                                      month?3
                           Relevant monthly reporting
                             requirements satisfied.
1.  As per the SWTR, 40 CFR Section 141.74 (c)(l), the State may reduce this monitoring frequency to one sample per day for any systems using
slow sand filtration or for systems using diatomaceous earth filtration serving 500 or fewer people if the State determines that less frequent
monitoring is sufficient to indicate effective filtration performance.
2.  System must consult with the Primacy Agency no later than 24 hours after learning of the violation in accordance with the Public Notification
Rule (40 CFR Section 141.203(b)(3)).
3.  The total number of turbidity measurements taken during the previous month, the number and percentage of turbidity measurements that were
less than or equal to 1 NTU, and date and value of any turbidity measurements exceeding 5 NTU.
4.  Public notification is required per Appendix A to Subpart Q of 40 CFR Section 141.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page D- 9
August 2004

-------
      Combined Filter Effluent (CFE) Turbidity Provisions of the LTlESWTRFor
                        Systems Using Alternative Filtration Technologies
                 Does the system use either
         surface water or GWUD1, filter, and serve less
                    than 10,000 people?
                  Does the system use an
          alternative technology (technology other than
              conventional, direct, slow sand or
                   diatomaceous earth)?
                                             No
                                              No
  No combined filter effluent   \
requirements under LT1ESWTR/
 System must comply with combined N,
   filter effluent requirements for    \
  conventional, direct, slow sand or   /
    diatomaceous earth filtration    ./
            System must demonstrate to the State that the alternative filtration technology, in combination with disinfection,
            consistently achieves 2-log Cryptosporidium removal, 3-log Giardia removal and/or inactivation and 4-log virus
                                              removal and/or inactivation.
                                  Did the
                         system conduct demonstration
                                  studies?
                            Did the system monitor
                       combined filter effluent turbidity at
                              4-hour intervals?1
                                Was turbidity
                        less than or equal to State-set limit
                     (not to exceed 1 NTU) in at least 95% of
                           the measurements taken
                                for the month?
                              id turbidity exce
                    State-set maximum (not to exceed 5 NTU)
                                at any time'
                                                    Did the system
                                              report to the State by the 10th
                                                    of each month?3
—/Relevant monthly reporting
  ^requirements satisfied
1.  As per the SWTR, 40 CFR Section 141.74 (c)(l), the State may reduce this frequency to one sample per day if the State determines that less
frequent monitoring is sufficient to indicate effective filtration performance.
2.  System must consult the Primacy Agency no later than 24 hours after learning of the violation in accordance with the Public Notification Rule
(40 CFR Section 141.203(b)(3)).
3.  The total number of turbidity measurements taken during the previous month, the number and percentage of combined filter effluent turbidity
measurements that were less than or equal to the State-set limit (not to exceed 1 NTU), and date and value of any combined filter effluent
turbidity measurements exceeding the State-set maximum value (not to exceed 5 NTU).
4.  Public notification is required per Appendix A to Subpart Q of 40 CFR Section 141.
August 2004
                                              Page D - 10
  Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Appendix E
LT1ESWTR Data Entry
Instructions with Examples

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents	  E-3
List of Exhibits	  E-5
List of Examples 	  E-6
Acronyms, Abbreviations and Definitions	  E-7

Section 1 Introduction
Introduction 	  E-l 1
    1.1 What is the purpose of this Guidance Document?	  E-l 1
    1.2 How is this Document Organized?	  E-11
    1.3 What is the benefit of the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR)?
         	  E-l 1
    1.4 What is the General Applicability of the LT1ESWTR?	  E-l 1
    1.5 What is SDWIS and How Does it Work?	  E-12
    1.6 How is this Document Used?	  E-12

Section 2 Inventory and Violations Reporting
Inventory and Violations Reporting	  E-17
    2.1 Inventory Reporting Requirements  	  E-l7
    2.2 Violations Reporting  	  E-31
    2.2 Treatment Technique  (TT) Violations Reporting	  E-38
       2.2.1   Type 37/0300: Failure to Profile or Consult with Primacy Agency (Disinfection Char§e3$
       2.2.2   Type 43/0300: CFE Exceeds 1 NTU or Primacy Agency-Set Alternative Technology
              Maximum Value  	  E-42
       2.2.3   Type 44/0300: > 5% Monthly CFE Samples Exceed 0.3 NTU or Primacy Agency-Set
              Alternative Technology Maximum Value	  E-49
       2.2.4   Type 47/0300: Begin Construction of Uncovered Water Storage Facility After March 15,
              2002	  E-52
    2.3 Monitoring & Reporting (M&R) Violations  	  E-56
       2.3.1   Type 29/0300: Monitoring and Reporting Violations - Failure to conduct individual filter
              monitoring follow-up activities	  E-56
           2.3.1.1  Type 29/0300: Failure to Report to the State by the 10th of the Month Following a
                  IFE Turbidity Exceedance	  E-57
           2.3.1.2  Type 29/0300: Failure to Perform a Self-Assessment of an Individual Filter
                   	  E-59
           2.3.1.3  Type 29/0300: Failure to Arrange for a Comprehensive Performance Evaluation
                   	  E-60
       2.3.2  Type 38/0300: Failure to Collect and Report Filter Effluent Turbidity Monitoring . . .  E-63
           2.3.2.1 Type 38/0300: Failure to Monitor or Report Required CFE Samples  	  E-64
           2.3.2.1.1   Major - Failure to Collect and Report at Least 90% of Required Combined Filter
                     Effluent Samples	  E-64
           2.3.2.2  Type 38/0300 Major: Failure to Complete and Report Required Individual Filter
                  Monitoring	  E-65

Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance        Page E - 3                                August 2004

-------
    2.4 Recordkeeping Violations  	  E-68
       2.4.1   Type 09/0300: Failure to Maintain the Results of Individual Filter Monitoring for at
              Least 3 Years From Date of Sample Collection	  E-68
Section 3 General SDWIS Reporting
General SDWIS Reporting & SDWIS Inventory Reporting	  E-73
    3.1 Federally Reported Violations	  E-73
Section 4Additional Sources of Information	  E-77
Additional Sources for Technical Information on the LT1ESWTR 	  E-79
August 2004                                 Page E - 4       Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 2.1  System Information, Data Elements and DTFs for Source 00001	 E-19
Exhibit 2.2  System Information, Data Elements and DTFs for Source 00002	 E-20
Exhibit 2.3  System Information, Data Elements and DTFs for Source 00003	 E-21
Exhibit 2.4  System Information, Data Elements and DTFs for Source 00004	 E-22
Exhibit 2.5  System Information, Data Elements and DTFs for Treatment Plant #1	 E-23
Exhibit 2.6a System Information, Data Elements for Treatment Plant #2  	 E-24
Exhibit 2.6b DTFs for Treatment Plant #2	 E-25
Exhibit 2.7  Data Elements and DTFs for Linkage Between Source Entity ID and Treatment ID ... E-26
Exhibit 2.8  System Information, Data Elements and DTF's for a System that is Successfully Avoiding
    Filtration 	 E-28
Exhibit 2.9  System Information, Data Elements and DTF's for a System that Must Install Filtration E-30
Exhibit 2.10 Failure to Profile or Consult with Primacy Agency TT Violation Data Elements and DTP
    Transactions and Associated "RTC" Transaction	 E-41
Exhibit 2.11 Combined Filter Effluent Exceedance Treatment Technique Violation Data Elements and
    DTP Transactions for a Single Exceedance	 E-44
Exhibit 2.12 System BB Schematic 	 E-46
Exhibit 2.13 Combined Filter Effluent Exceedance Treatment Technique Violation Data Elements and
    DTP Transactions for Multiple Exceedances  	 E-48
Exhibit 2.14 Monthly Combined Filter Effluent (CPE) Exceedance Treatment Technique Violation Data
    Elements and DTP Transactions	 E-51
Exhibit 2.15 Data Elements and DTP Transactions Monthly CPE Exceedance TT Violation	 E-52
Exhibit 2.16 Construction of an Uncovered Finished Water Storage Facility Treatment Technique
    Violation Data Elements and DTP Transactions	 E-55
Exhibit 2.17 Major LT1ESWTR M&R Violation - Response to Individual Filter Triggers Data Elements
    and DTP Transactions	 E-63
Exhibit 2.18 LT1ESWTR M&R Major Sampling Violation Data Elements and DTP Transactions  . E-67
Exhibit 2.19 Recordkeeping Violation - Failure to Maintain Results of Individual Filter Effluent
    Measurements For at Least 3 Years After Date of Sample Data Elements and DTP Transactions E-70
Exhibit 3.1  General DTP File and Transaction Format  	 E-75
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance       Page E - 5                                August 2004

-------
List of Examples
Example #1: Reporting Water System Inventory  	 E-18
Example #2: Successfully Avoiding Filtration  	 E-27
Example #3: Must Install Filtration	 E-29
Example #4: TT 37/0300	 E-39
Example #5: TT 43/0300	 E-42
Example #6: TT 43/0300	 E-45
Example #7: TT 44/0300	 E-49
Example #8: TT 44/0300 	 E-51
Example #9: TT 47/0300	 E-54
Example #10A: M&R 29/0300 	 E-58
Example #10B: M&R 29/0300 	 E-59
Example #10C: M&R 29/0300 	 E-60
Example #11: M&R 38/0300	 E-64
Example #12: M&R 38/0300	 E-65
Example #13: Recordkeeping 09/0300  	 E-68
August 2004                              Page E - 6      Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Acronyms, Abbreviations and Definitions
 "C"
 CFE
 CFR
 CPE
 CT

 CWS
 DBF
 DBPP
 DBPR
 DTP
 EPA
 GWUDI
 HAA5

 LT1ESWTR
 IFE
 MCL
 M-DBP
 M&R
 MRT
 NTU
 PWS
 RTC
 SCADA
 SDWA
 SDWIS/FED
 Stage 1 DBPR
 Subpart H

 SWTR
 tfps*
 TT
 TTHM
 USEPA
 WSF
Residual Disinfectant Concentration
Combined Filter Effluent
Code of Federal Regulations
Comprehensive Performance Evaluation
Residual Disinfectant Concentration in mg/L "C" x Disinfectant Contact
Time in min "T"
Community Water System
Disinfection Byproducts
Disinfection Byproduct Precursors
Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule
Data Transfer File
Environmental Protection Agency
Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water
Haloacetic acids (Monochloroacetic, Dichloroacetic, Trichloroacetic,
Monobromoacetic and Dibromoacetic Acids)
Long Term 1  Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Individual Filter Effluent
Maximum Contaminant Level
Microbial and Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts
Monitoring and Reporting
Maximum Residence Time
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Public Water System
Return to Compliance
Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (System)
Safe Drinking Water Act, or "The Act," as amended  1996
Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Government
Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
PWS using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of
surface water
Surface Water Treatment Rule
Disinfectant Contact Time
Treatment Technique
Total Trihalomethanes
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Water System Facilities
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                Page E- 7
August 2004

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
Section 1
Introduction

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
Introduction
1.1  What is the purpose of this Guidance Document?
On January 14, 2002, the USEPA published in the Federal Register the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR). This document is intended to provide guidance to Primacy
Agencies regarding the monitoring and reporting requirements of the LT1ESWTR. It discusses, through
the use of typical water system examples, system inventory and reporting required under the rule and the
Primacy Agency's reporting responsibilities to EPA's database, the Safe Drinking Water Information
System/Federal Government (SDWIS/FED).  Using this reference, Primacy Agencies will be able to
identify the situations that define noncompliance under the LT1ESWTR, and they will be better prepared
to identify violations and report appropriate noncompliance information to EPA.  Throughout this
document, the term Primacy Agency will be used to refer to a State, Tribal Government, or EPA Region
with primary enforcement authority for the SDWA.

1.2 How is this Document Organized?

The document includes an introduction in Section 1 and three additional sections as follows: Section 2
discusses inventory reporting requirements for the rule, as well as violation determination and when,
where and what to report; Section 3 provides basic SDWIS reporting information regarding the
LT1ESWTR;  Section 4 describes additional resources for information on the LT1ESWTR. Section 2 is
divided into four subsections that discuss system inventory reporting, treatment technique (TT) violations,
monitoring and reporting (M&R) violations and recordkeeping violations. Each violation type  subsection
uses example facility descriptions and the appropriate SDWIS/FED violation type codes to illustrate the
typical violations that may be encountered during routine operations of water systems. Example DTP
(data transfer file) transactions that Primacy Agencies would report to EPA, representing the information
or violations are also included.

1.3 What is the benefit of the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule (LT1ESWTR)?	

The LT1ESWTR is part of a series of rules, the "Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts Cluster"(M-DBP
Cluster) that are intended to control microbial pathogens while minimizing the public health risks of
disinfectants and disinfection byproducts (DBFs). The LT1ESWTR is designed to address the health
risks from microbial contaminants without significantly increasing the potential risks from chemical
contaminants.

The LT1ESWTR will increase the level of protection from exposure to Cryptosporidium and other
pathogens for drinking water systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons.

1.4 What is the General Applicability of the LT1ESWTR?	

The LT1ESWTR applies to public water systems (PWSs) that use surface water or ground water under
the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI), in whole or in part, and serve fewer than 10,000 people.
(The term subpart H systems is used to refer to PWSs that use surface water or ground water under the
direct influence of surface water.)

As mentioned previously, any system that serves fewer than 10,000 people and uses a surface water or
GWUDI source must comply with the requirements of the LT1ESWTR.  Systems that use these sources


Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance      Page E - 11                                August 2004

-------
seasonally or for emergency purposes are required to comply with the LTIESWTR during any time that
the surface water or GWUDI source is used.

A system that purchases water from a subpart H system that must comply with the provisions of the
LTIESWTR will be provided with public notice of any violations of the LTIESWTR by the seller, and
must then provide that notice to its consumers according to the provisions of 40 CFR141.201.  Since the
provisions of the LTIESWTR generally apply to subpart H system treatment plants, systems that
purchase water generally do not have direct responsibilities under the LTIESWTR unless the purchased
water is untreated.

Systems are required to comply with the turbidity and monitoring requirements no later than January  1,
2005. In addition, PWS are required to develop an evaluation of their existing disinfection practice (a
disinfection profile) beginning no later than July 1, 2003 for systems serving 500 to 9,999 people and by
January 1, 2004 for systems serving fewer than 500 people. Systems must cover any finished water
reservoirs on which construction is begun on or after March 15, 2002.  For more information on the
LTIESWTR, please contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791 or visit EPA's website at
www.epa. gov/safewater/mdbp/lt 1 eswtr.html.

1.5  What is SDWIS and How Does it Work?

SDWIS/FED (Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal version) is an EPA national database
storing routine information about the Nation's drinking water.

Primacy Agencies supervise the drinking water systems within their jurisdictions to implement and
enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).  The SDWA requires reporting drinking water
information periodically to EPA; this information is maintained in SDWIS/FED.

Primacy Agencies report the following information to EPA:

1. Basic information on each water system, including: name, PWS-ID number, number of people served,
   type of system (year-round or seasonal), and source of water (ground water or surface water).

2. Violation information for each water system: whether it has failed to follow established monitoring
   and reporting schedules, failed to comply with mandated treatment techniques, or violated any
   Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).

3. Enforcement information: what actions Primacy Agencies have taken to ensure that drinking water
   systems return to  compliance if they are in violation of a drinking water regulation.

4. Monitoring results for unregulated contaminants and for regulated contaminants in certain instances
   when the monitoring results exceed the MCL.

EPA uses this information to determine if and when it needs to take action against non-compliant
systems, oversee Primacy Agency drinking water programs, track contaminant levels, respond to public
inquiries, and prepare national reports. EPA also uses this information to evaluate the effectiveness of its
programs and regulations, and to determine whether new regulations are needed to further protect public
health.  A subset of the data is posted to EPA's Envirofacts web page for public access.

1.6  How is this Document Used?

Primacy Agency personnel should evaluate each system for its need to comply with the provisions of the
LTIESWTR. For those systems required to comply with the LTIESWTR, this document provides
information to assist Primacy Agency evaluation of compliance for each rule requirement (i.e. required
August 2004                                Page E - 12      Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
system monitoring, system reporting to the Primacy Agency, system public notice, and reporting by the
Primacy Agency to SDWIS/FED). The descriptions of the example systems in this document include
example monitoring data and the calculations and data comparisons necessary to determine compliance
with the requirements of the LTIESWTR.  Example SDWIS/FED data transfer file (DTP) tables show
how the data describing violations of the LTIESWTR are to be encoded for entry into the SDWIS/FED
system. In addition, the examples provide guidance regarding public notification requirements consistent
with EPA's Public Notification Rule. This guidance document does not offer any examples of public
notification associated with water system violations of these requirements.  Users should refer to the
documents, Final State Implementation Guidance for the Public Notification Rule (EPA 816-R-01-010)
or the Implementation  Guidance for the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, for
additional information on these requirements.
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance       Page E-13                                August 2004

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
Section 2
Inventory and Violations
Reporting

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
Inventory and Violations Reporting
2.1  Inventory Reporting Requirements
Primacy Agencies are required to identify and report all sources of drinking water to EPA using
SDWIS/FED. Table 2-1 below identifies the types of sources and the code values for reporting sources of
water.  Further, for each source of water, an identification of the type of water the source provides is also
required.
Table 2-1. SDWIS/FED Water Sources and Codes
Type Code (C0405)
IN
WL
RC
SP
IG
RS
NP
CC
Description
Intake
Well
Roof Catchment
Spring
Infiltration Gallery
Reservoir
Non-piped
Consecutive Connection
Permissible Water Type Codes (C0407)
Surface Water (SW)
Ground Water (GW), GWUDI (GU)
Ground Water (GW)
Surface (SW), ground (GW) or GWUDI (GU)
GWUDI (GU) or Surface (SW)
Surface (SW)
Surface (SW), ground (GW) or GWUDI (GU)
Surface (SW), ground (GW) or GWUDI (GU)
All treatment that is applied to sources of drinking water must also be reported by Primacy Agencies. If a
source of water is not treated, Primacy Agencies must affirm that as well. Treatment is reported via a
Treatment Plant facility record.  Finally, the Primacy Agency must report a linkage between the source of
a water facility and treatment plant facility.

The following rules apply to source, treatment plant and treatment reporting:

1.  All treatment records will be posted to the SDWIS/FED database connected to treatment plant
    records, regardless of whether the treatment is occurring at a large treatment plant or a small building
    in which a disinfectant is added.

2.  EPA is eliminating reporting flexibility in reporting treatment data by eliminating the "generated
    treatment plants ."  Primacy Agencies may only report the treatment for treatment plant records.

3.  Primacy Agencies must provide information to allow SDWIS/FED to link the source records to the
    treatment plant records.

4.  For consecutive connections, EPA is aware of the complex relationships that may exist between water
    systems and their treatment. For the purchasing water  system, EPA will only require reporting
    whether the seller is treating the source other than by filtration, filtering the source, or not providing
    any treatment. Any buyer treatment must be reported as discussed above. Sellers must report all
    treatment performed on their sources of water.

5.  Explicit reporting of "no treatment" for a source is required.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
PageE- 17
August 2004

-------
The following discussion identifies the method to be used to meet the SDWIS/FED reporting requirement
for the linkage between sources of water and treatment plants:

•   Add a Source/Entity (SE) Flow Form (B3).
•   Require the PWS ID for Qualifier # 1.
    Require stable and unchanging Source/Entity ID (i.e., WSF State Assigned ID) of the source of water
    for Qualifier #2, as well as for the treatment plant to which the source is flowing.
    Use the data element (A5000) for use in conjunction with Form B3.
•   Link one source to one or more treatment plants.
•   Prohibit linkage between a source and itself, or a treatment plant and itself.
    Prohibit linkage between two sources.
•   Prohibit linkage between two treatment plants.
•   Prohibit duplicate links between a specific source - treatment plant combination.
    Restrict links to sources of water and treatment plants of the same PWS (i.e., inter-PWS linkages will
    not be allowed).

In summary, the Primacy Agency must report all sources of water, all treatment, assign the treatment to a
treatment plant record and link the source records to the treatment plant records. With regard to SWTR
reporting, they must also inform EPA of decisions made on unfiltered sources of water.

The example system below consists of four sources and two treatment plants.  What follows is an
example of the system information provided, data elements needed and the DTP transactions that need to
be created and reported to represent sources, treatment plants, treatment and linkages in the example
water system. The water system is responsible for reporting the data to the Primacy Agency, which in
turn reports to SDWIS/ FED.

SDWIS/FED uses Form ID's Bl, B2 and B3 for inventory reporting . Please see Section 3 for a
description of Form ID's used in SDWIS/FED reporting under the LT1ESWTR.

Example #1: Reporting Water System Inventory               PWS ID:      AZ1234567

The Well #1, SE ID: 00001, and Well #2, SE ID: 00002, are permanent ground water and ground water
under the direct influence of surface water sources, respectively, that are treated at Treatment Plant #1, SE
ID: 00005.  The C River source, SE ID: 00004, is a permanent surface water source treated at Treatment
Plant #2, SE ID: 00006. In addition, the example water system purchases water from the Apple Water
System, SE ID:  00003. The Apple Water System is a permanent surface water source and is filtered by
the seller prior to delivery to the example water system.  Water purchased from the Apple Water System
is sent directly to the example system's distribution system with no further treatment. The only treatment
provided at Treatment Plant #1 is chlorination.  The treatment processes at Treatment Plant #2 include
oxidation, coagulation, rapid mix, flocculation, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, and chlorination.
Exhibits 2.1 - 2.7 illustrate  the data elements needed and the DTP transactions that need to be entered into
SDWIS/FED.
August 2004                                 Page E - 18       Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
    Exhibit 2.1  System Information, Data Elements and DTFs for Source 00001

 System Information:
 SEID:
 SE Name:
 SE Record Type:
 SE Code:

 Data Elements:
Number
C0101
C0403
C0405
C0407
C0409
Name
PWS-ID
Name
Type Code
Water Type
Availability
 DTP Transactions:
00001 (Qualifier 2)
Well #1
Well
Groundwater
                                  Value or Comment
                                  AZ1234567 (Qualifier 1)
                                  Well #1
                                  WL (Well Source)
                                  GW (Ground Water)
                                  P Permanent
fc&
Bl
Bl
Bl
Bl
••'..• • • •'• "I-...": •',.
y^!:SM">^
AZ 1234567
AZ1234567
AZ 1234567
AZ1234567
•••,:.: ••,•.:,,-.•..
Qli«M;
00001
00001
00001
00001
vy... v:-
bistis-:




26
I
I
I
I
'rt&&;-M^&&&^l&&£
C0403 !WELL#1
C0405 iwL
1
C0407 !GW
C0409 IP
.. ..• -. :-. . ' • -.-
<:£%!&i




I^fe80y;v:-:




Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
    PageE- 19
August 2004

-------
    Exhibit 2,2  System Information, Data Elements and DTFs for Source 00002

 System Information:
 SEID:
 SE Name:
 SE Record Type:
 SE Code:
 SE Availability:

 Data Elements:
 DTP Transactions:
Number
C0101
C0403
C0405
C0407
C0409
Name
PWS-ID
Name
Type Code
Water Type
Availability
00002 (Qualifier 2)
Well #2
Well
Groundwater UDI
Permanent
                                   Value or Comment
                                   AZ1234567 (Qualifier 1)
                                   Well #2
                                   WL (Well Source)
                                   GU (Ground Water UDI)
                                   P Permanent
1-2
Bl
Bl
Bl
Bl
3-11
AZ1234567
AZ 1234567
AZ1234567
AZ1234567
12-18
00002
00002
00002
00002
19^25




26
I
I
I
I
27-31
C0403
C0405
C0407
C0409
• " • ' 32^r:-^K;.^
WELL #2
WL
GW
P
:;:-f2te




:^S$ifc?£




                                                                                           >«••*«••
August 2004
     Page E - 20
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
     Exhibit 2.3 System Information, Data Elements and DTFs for Source 00003

 System Information:
 SEID:
 SE Name:
 SE Record Type:
 SE Code:
 SE Availability:
 Buyer Treatment:
 Seller Treatment:

 Data Elements:

 Number      Name
 C0101
 C0403
 C0405
 C0407
 C0409
 C0411
 C0433
 C0435
PWS-ID
Name
Type Code
Water Type
Availability
Seller ID
Buyer Treatment
Seller Treatment
                                00003 (Qualifier 2)
                                Apple Water System (AZ7654321)
                                Consecutive Connection
                                Surface
                                Permanent
                                Not Treated
                                Filtered
 Value or Comment	
AZ1234567 (Qualifier 1)
Apple Water
CC (Consecutive Connection)
SW (Surface Water)
P (Permanent)
AZ7654321
N (Not Treated)
F (Filtered)
 DTF Transactions:
1-2
Bl
Bl
Bl
Bl
Bl
Bl
Bl
3-11
AZ1234567
AZ1234567
AZ1234567
AZ1234567
AZ 1234567
AZ1234567
AZ1234567
12-18
00003
00003
00003
00003
00003
00003
00003
19-25







26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
27-31 ! 32-71
C0403 IAPPLE WATER
i
C0405 iCC
1
C0407 isW
1
C0409 IP
C0411 JAZ7654321
1
C0433 !N
1
0435 !F
72-74







75-80







Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                         Page E-21
                              August 2004

-------
     Exhibit 2.4  System Information, Data Elements and DTFs for Source 00004
 System Information:

 SEID:
 SE Name:
 SE Record Type:
 SE Code:
 SE Availability:

 Data Elements:
Number
C0101
C0403
C0405
C0407
C0409
Name
PWS-ID
Name
Type Code
Water Type
Availability
 DTP Transactions:
00004 (Qualifier 2)
C River
Intake
Surface
Permanent
                                       Value or Comment
                                       AZ1234567 (Qualifier 1)
                                       C River
                                       IN (Surface Water Intake)
                                       SW (Surface Water)
                                       P Permanent
1-2
Bl
Bl
Bl
Bl
3-11
AZ1234567
AZ1234567
AZ1234567
AZ1234567
12-18
00004
00004
00004
00004
19-25




if
i
i
i
i
27-31 ! 32-71
C0403 1C RIVER
i
C0405 !lN
C0407 iSW
i
C0409 iP
72-74




75-80




August 2004
   Page E - 22
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
 Exhibit 2.5  System Information, Data Elements and DTFs for Treatment Plant #1

 System Information:
  SEID:
  SE Name:
  SE Record Type:
  Treatment ID:
  Treatment Process:
                     00005 (Qualifier 2)
                     Treatment Plant #1
                     Treatment Plant
                     00001 (Qualifiers)
                     Chlorination
 Data Elements:
 Number
 C0403
 C0405
 C0483
 C0485
              Name
Value or Comment
              Name
              Type Code
              Treatment Objective
              Treatment Process
Treatment ID 00001 is entered in Qualifier #3
Treatment Plant #1
TP (Treatment Plant)
D (Disinfection)
401 (Chlorination)
 DTP Transactions:
1-2
Bl
Bl
B2
B2
3-11
AZ 1234567
AZ 1234567
AZ1234567
AZ 1234567
12-18
00005
00005
00005
00005
19*25


00001
00001
if
i
i
i
i
'.• -2j«3i..-;|;-."v;! ;;: ;,'.:V32^i:'--. 'fev-: -•
C0403 [TREATMENT PLANT #1
C0405 !TP
C0483 !D
C0485 J401
:'.' -T2-74-




75-80




Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                        Page E - 23
                                       August 2004

-------
      Exhibit 2.6a System Information, Data Elements for Treatment Plant #2

 System Information:
 SEID:
 SE Name
 SE Record Type:
 Treatment ID:
 Treatment Process:
 Treatment ID:
 Treatment Process:
 Treatment ID:
 Treatment Process:
 Treatment ID:
 Treatment Process:
 Treatment ID:
 Treatment Process:
 Treatment ID:
 Treatment Process:
 Treatment ID:
 Treatment Process:
 Data Elements:
 Number
 C0403
 C0405
 C0483
 C0485
 C0483
 C0485
 C0483
 C0485
 C0483
 C0485
 C0483
 C0485
 C0483
 C0485
 C0483
 C0485
Name
Name
Type Code
Treatment Objective
Treatment Process
Treatment Objective
Treatment Process
Treatment Objective
Treatment Process
Treatment Objective
Treatment Process
Treatment Objective
Treatment Process
Treatment Objective
Treatment Process
Treatment Objective
Treatment Process
                           00006 (Qualifier 2)
                           Treatment Plant #2
                           Treatment Plant
                           00001 (Qualifiers)
                           Oxidation
                           00002 (Qualifier 3)
                           Coagulation
                           00003 (Qualifier 3)
                           Rapid Mix
                           00004 (Qualifier 3)
                           Flocculation
                           00005 (Qualifier 3)
                           Sedimentation
                           00006 (Qualifier 3)
                           Filtration, Rapid Sand
                           00007 (Qualifier 3)
                           Chlorine
Value or Comment
Treatment Plant #2
TP (Treatment Plant)
O (Organics Removal)
543 (Ozonation, Pre)
P (Paniculate Removal)
240 (Coagulation)
P (Paniculate Removal)
600 (Rapid Mix)
P (Paniculate Removal)
360 (Flocculation)
P (Paniculate Removal)
660 (Sedimentation)
P (Paniculate Removal)
345 (Filtration, Rapid Sand)
D (Disinfection)
401 (Gaseous Chlorine, Post)
August 2004
                            Page E - 24
                Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
                     Exhibit 2.6b DTFs for Treatment Plant #2
 DTP Transactions:
1-2
Bl
Bl

B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
3-11 !12-18
AZ1234567 100006
AZ1234567 !o0006
i
i
i
i
AZ1234567 !o0006
AZ1234567 100006
AZ 1234567 !o0006
i
AZ 1234567 !o0006
AZ1234567 !o0006
1
AZ1234567 !o0006
AZ1234567 100006
1
AZ1234567 J00006
AZ 1234567 !o0006
AZ1234567 !o0006
AZ1234567 100006
AZ 1234567 \ 00006
AZ 1234567 \ 00006
AZ1234567 !o0006
i
19-25



00001
00001
00002
00002
00003
00003
00004
00004
00005
00005
00006
00006
00007
00007
26
j
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
T
1
I
T
1
I
I
T
1
T
1
I
27-31 '132-71
! TREATMENT PLANT #2
j
i
!TP
. i
i
C0483 10
C0485 J543
C0483 !P
C0485 1240
C0483 IP
C0485 1600
C0483 IP
I
C0485 J360
C0483 !P
1
C0485 \660
C0483 IP
1
C0485 ,!345
1
C0483 ID ,
C0485 J401
72-74

















75-80

















Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page E - 25
August 2004

-------
  Exhibit 2.7 Data Elements and DTFs for Linkage Between Source Entity ID and
                                    Treatment ID
 Data Elements:

 Number      Name
                          Value or Comment
 A5000
 C0101
Facility Flow
PWS-ID
Linkage between source entity ID and Treatment ID
AZ1234567 (Qualifier 1)
 SE ID in Qualifier #2(12-18) (WSF State assigned ID of the source of water)
 Treatment ID in Data Value 32-71

 DTF Transactions:
.1-2
B3
B3
B3
.
3-11
AZ 1234567
AZ1234567
AZ 1234567
12-18
00001
00002
00004
19-25



26
I
I
I
27-31
A5000
A5000
A5000
32-71
00005
00005
00006
72-74



75-80



August 2004
                        Page E- 26
             Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Under the existing Surface Water Treatment Rule, Primacy Agencies must report certain treatment
decisions for water systems subject to the rule. Specifically, where the Primacy Agency decides that an
unfiltered source successfully meets filtration avoidance criteria, then that "successfully avoiding
filtration" (SAP) status must be reported to EPA. If an unfiltered source fails to meet the filtration
avoidance criteria, then the "must install filtration" (MIF) decision must be reported to EPA. These
requirements continue to be in effect in the LT1ESWTR.

When either of these conditions exist, the Primacy Agency must report "SAP" or "MIF" in data element
C0408 (In the past, these were reported as treatment codes - that capability is being replaced by this more
direct reporting method).  Example #2 and Example #3 show the DTP transactions for reporting "SAP"
and "MIF" status for drinking water systems.  For existing sources of water (i.e., already exist in
SDWIS/FED, for States performing traditional processing), the Primacy Agency must submit a "modify"
transaction to change the value of this field. For sources to be newly inserted into SDWIS/FED, or for a
Primacy Agency performing total replace processing, the field should be inserted along with the
remainder of the source data.

Example #2: Successfully Avoiding Filtration

System AA, which serves 400 people, has one treatment plant. Treatment Plant Al, SE ID: 00002 draws
water from a high quality surface water source, D Lake, SE ID: 00001.  The only treatment provided at
Treatment Plant Al  is chlorination. Water quality records show that the total coliform concentration has
been less than  100 per 100 mL in at least 90 percent of the measurements taken over six months
immediately prior to the point of disinfectant application since Treatment Plant Al went on-line in 1985.
The fecal coliform concentration is not measured. The source water turbidity, which is measured
immediately prior to the point of disinfectant application, has not exceeded 5 NTU since Treatment Plant
Al went on-line. Based on these measurements, System AA continues to meet the filtration avoidance
criteria and is not required to install filtration. The data elements and DTP transactions that would be
needed for the initial reporting of this source to SDWIS are shown in Exhibit 2.8.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance       Page E - 27                                 August 2004

-------
   Exhibit 2.8  System Information, Data Elements and DTF's for a System that is
                          Successfully Avoiding Filtration

 System Information:
 SEID:
 SE ID Name:
 SE Record Type:
 SE Code:
 SE Availability

 Data Elements:

 Number

 C0101
 C0403
 C0405
 C0407
 C0408
 DTP Transactions:
00001 (Qualifier 2)
DLake
»•


Name
PWS-ID
Name
Type Code
Water Type
IN
SW
Permanent






Value or Comment
GA1234568 (Qualifier 7)
DLake
IN (Surface Water Intake)
SW (Surface Water)
SAP (Successfully Avoiding Filtration}
1-2
Bl
Bl
B3
3-11
GA1234568
GA1234568
GA1234568
12-18
00001
00001
00001
19-25



26
I
I
I
27-31
C0405
C0407
C0408
32-71
IN
SW
SAP
72-74



75-80



August 2004
Page E - 28
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Example #3: Must Install Filtration

System AB, which serves 1,000 people, has one treatment plant.  Treatment Plant AB1, SE ID: 00003
draws water from Well E, SE ID: 00001.  Well E is classified as a ground water source under the direct
influence of surface water. The only treatment provided at Treatment Plant AB 1 is chlorination. Water
quality records show that in the first eight years of operation, the total coliform concentration met the
requirement of less than  100 cfu  per 100 mL in at least 90 percent of the measurements taken over six
months immediately prior to the  point of disinfectant application. The fecal coliform concentration is not
measured. The source water turbidity, which is measured immediately prior to the point of disinfectant
application, did not exceed 5 NTU in the first eight years that Treatment Plant AB1 was in operation.
However, the treatment plant operators have noticed that in the last 12 months the water quality of both
well sources has begun to deteriorate. From January 1, 2002 through June 30, 2002 the total coliform
concentration exceeded 100 cfu per 100 mL in 15 percent of the measurements taken in those six months.
Therefore, System AB no longer qualifies for filtration avoidance and is now  required to install filtration
by December 29, 2003. The data elements and DTP transactions that would be reported to SDWIS for
failure to meet the filtration avoidance criteria are shown in Exhibit 2.9 below. Since the source of water
had already been reported to SDWIS/FED, the primacy agency need only change the value of the  field
C0408 to MIF.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance       Page E - 29                                August 2004

-------
Exhibit 2.9 System Information, Data Elements and DTF's for a System that Must
                                 Install Filtration
System Information:

System ID :
SE Name:
SE Record Type:
SE Code:
SE Availability

Data Elements:

Number       Name
 C0101
 C0408
             PWS-ID
DTP Transactions:
                          0000 1 (Qualifier 2)
                          Well E
                          Well
                          Groundwater UDI
                          Permanent
                                       Value or Comment
                                       GA1234569 (Qualifier 1)
                                       MIF (Must Install Filtration)
1,2 j
B3 !
3-11
GA1234569
! 12-18 IM
i ooooi i
1-25 1 2« !
i M i
27-31
C0408
i .
SMIF
32-71

^•;'4:^i-i::.;>?;75-8r •..
i i
i i
i i
August 2004
                                     Page E - 30
                                                    Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
  f
2.2  Violations Reporting
Violations of the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule include treatment technique (TT), Monitoring and Reporting (M&R) and
record keeping.  They are summarized in Tables 2-2a and 2-2b below.
Table 2-2a Violations of the LT1ESWTR
VIOLATION DEFINITION

Type 09/0300
Failure to maintain the results of individual filter
monitoring for at least 3 years.




Type 29/0300
- Failure to report to State by 10th of the next
month the filter number, date(s), turbidity
value(s) and cause of IFE >1.0 NTU in two
consecutive 15-minute readings.
- Failure to conduct within 14 days of
exceedance (>1.0 NTU in 2 consecutive
measurements taken 1 5 minutes apart in each of
3 consecutive months) and/or report to State a
self-assessment of an individual filter.
Type 29/0300
Failure to have a CPE arranged by State or third
party no later than 60 days after exceedance (>2.0
NTU in 2 consecutive measurements taken 1 5
minutes apart in 2 consecutive months) and have
the CPE completed and submitted to the State no
later than 120 days following the exceedance.

DESCRIPTION

Begins: When State
becomes aware of
violation (e.g. during a
site visit or sanitary
survey).
Ends: When system has 3
years of data.
Violations reported
monthly at the system
level.







Begins: When system
fails to take action
indicated.

Ends: When system has
reported to State's
satisfaction that follow-up
action complete.
MAJOR
MINOR
N/A






Major









Major







VIOLATION
TYPE
Record Keeping






M&R









M&R







DETAILS

This is considered a record
keeping violation















Have a future end date =
12/31/2015) with the end date
modified as a result of a link to
an RTC, to be reported




Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page E-31
August 2004

-------
           VIOLATION DEFINITION
    DESCRIPTION
MAJOR
MINOR
VIOLATION
    TYPE
          DETAILS
  Type 37/0300
  Failure to consult with State before making a
  significant change to a disinfection practice if
  required to develop a disinfection profile.
Begins: Either date of
change or when State
becomes aware of the
change.

Ends: When State notifies
the facility that it
approves of the change.
  N/A
     TT
Have a future end date =
12/31/2015) with the end date
modified as a result of a link to
an RTC, to be reported
  Type 38/0300
  - MAJOR: Failure to collect and report at least
  90% of required samples.
  - Failure to report that the system has conducted
  all individual filter monitoring to State within 10
  days after the end of each month.
  - Failure to report that the system has exceeded
  1 NTU (or maximum set by State) in
  representative samples by end of next business
  day.
  - MINOR: Any other failure to monitor or report.
Violations reported
monthly at the system
level. No severity
indicator.
 Either
    M&R
The fact that user's will not be
able to distinguish between the
different major violations is
acceptable to EPA. If it is
needed, EPA will get that
information from the states on
an as-needed basis
  Type 43/0300
  Failure to achieve CFE turbidity level < 1 NTU if
  PWS uses conventional or direct filtration OR
  exceedance of the State-set maximum turbidity
  performance requirements for PWSs using
  alternative filtration technologies.
Report violations on a
monthly basis, with
severity indicated by the
number of exceedances
>1 NTU (max. is 31x6 =
186), using data element
C1112
  N/A
     TT
For Water Systems with
multiple sets of filters, or
multiple treatment plants with
filtration, add the total number
of exceedances at all locations
for the month to compute the
value for Cl 112
  Type 44/0300
  Failure to achieve CFE turbidity level of 0.3
  NTU in 95% of monthly measurements if PWS
  uses conventional or direct filtration OR failure
  to meet the State-set turbidity performance
  requirements in 95% of monthly measurements
  of PWSs using alternative filtration technologies.
Violations reported
monthly at the system
level.  No severity
indicator.
  N/A
     TT
August 2004
                 Page E- 32
                           Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
                                                                                                                               r
VIOLATION DEFINITION
Type 47/0300
Beginning construction of an uncovered finished
water storage facility on or after March 15, 2002.

DESCRIPTION
Begins: At beginning of
construction.
Ends: Either when the
storage facility is covered
or when the storage
facility is no longer used
to store finished water.
MAJOR
MINOR
N/A

VIOLATION
TYPE
TT

DETAILS


Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page E - 33
August 2004

-------
Only the violation reporting fields identified below in Table 2-2b are to be reported to represent LTIESWTR rule violations. All other violation
fields should NOT be included in submissions to EPA.  Those fields will be rejected.
Table 2-2b. Violation Reporting Fields for the LTIESWTR
Violation
Failure to maintain the
results of individual filter
monitoring for at least 3
years.




- Failure to report to State
by 10* of the next month the
filter number, date(s),
turbidity value(s) and cause
ofIFE>1.0NTUintwo
consecutive 15-minute
readings.
- Failure to conduct within
14 days of exceedance (>1.0
NTU in 2 consecutive
measurements taken 15
minutes apart in each of 3
consecutive months) and/or
report to State a self-
assessment of an individual
filter.
Type
Record
keeping




M&R






Contaminant
Code (C1103)
0300




0300






Type
Code
(C1105)
09




29






Compliance
Period Begin Date
(C1107)
When State
becomes aware of
violation (e.g.
during a site visit
or sanitary survey).




first day of month






Compliance
Period End Date
(C1109)
Insert a default
future end date of
12/31/2015.
Modify the date as
a result of a link to
anRTC
(SOX/EOX), or
intentional no
action code
(SO6/EO6) or no
longer subject to
the rule code
(SOO/EOO) to be
reported.
last day of month






Severity
Indicator count
(C1112)
Do not report




do not report






Major Violation
Indicator
(C1131)
Do not report




always major






August 2004
Page E- 34
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
                                                                                                                                o

-------
Violation


Failure to have a CPE
arranged by State or third
party no later than 60 days
after exceedance (>2.0 NTU
in 2 consecutive
measurements taken 15
minutes apart in 2
consecutive months) and
have the CPE completed and
submitted to the State no
later than 120 days following
the exceedance.


Failure to consult with State
before making a significant
change to a disinfection
practice if required to
develop a disinfection
profile.








Type


M&R













XT













Contaminant
Code (Cl 103)

0300













0300













Type
Code
(C1105)
29













37













Compliance
Period Begin Date
(C1107)
When system fails
to take action
indicated











Either date of
change or when
State becomes
aware of the
change









Compliance
Period End Date
(C1109)
Have a future end
date =12/3 1/201 5)
with the end date
modified as a
result of a link to
anRTC
(SOX/EOX), or
intentional no
action code
(SO6/EO6) or no
longer subject to
the rule code
(SOO/EOO) to be
reported
Have a future end
date =12/3 1/20 15)
with the end date
modified as a
result of a link to
anRTC
(SOX/EOX), or
intentional no
action code
(SO6/EO6) or no
longer subject to
the rule code
(SOO/EOO) to be
reported
Severity
Indicator count
(C1112)
do not report













do not report













Major Violation
Indicator
(C1131)
always Major













do not report













Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page E - 35
August 2004

-------
Violation


- Failure to collect and report
at least 90% of required
samples, or failure to report
that the system has
conducted all individual filter
monitoring to State within 1 0
days after the end of each
month, or
- failure to report that the
system has exceeded 1 NTU
(or maximum set by State) in
representative samples by
end of next business day or
- any other failure to monitor
or report.







Failure to achieve CFE
turbidity level < 1 NTU if
PWS uses conventional or
direct filtration OR
exceedance of the State-set
maximum turbidity
performance requirements
for PWSs using alternative
filtration technologies.
Type


M&R





















XT








Contaminant
Code (C1103)

0300





















0300








Type
Code
(C1105)
38





















43








Compliance
Period Begin Date
(C1107)
first day of month





















first day of month








Compliance
Period End Date
(C1109)
last day of month





















last day of month








Severity
Indicator count
(C1112)
do not report





















the number of
exceedances >1
NTU (max. is
31x6=186)





Major Violation
Indicator
(C1131)
yes= failure to
collect at least
90% of samples,
or failure to report
that the system
has conducted all
individual filter
monitoring to
State within 10
days after the end
of each month.
or failure to report
that the system
has exceeded 1
NTU (or
maximum set by
State) in
representative
samples by end of
next business day.
no=any other
failure to report
do not report








August 2004
Page E- 36
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
 o

-------
Violation
Failure to achieve CFE
turbidity level of 0.3 NTU in
95% of monthly
measurements if PWS uses
conventional or direct
filtration OR failure to meet
the State-set turbidity
performance requirements in
95% of monthly
measurements of PWSs
using alternative filtration
technologies.
Systems are not allowed to
begin construction of any
uncovered finished water
storage facility





Type
TT




TT






Contaminant
Code (Cl 103)
0300




0300






Type
Code
(C1105)
44




47






Compliance
Period Begin Date
(C1107)
first day of month




At beginning of
construction






Compliance
Period End Date
(C1109)
last day of month




Insert a default
future end date of
12/31/2015.
Modify the date as
a result of a link to
anRTC
(SOX/EOX), or
intentional no
action code
(SO6/EO6) or no
longer subject to
the rule code
(SOO/EOO) to be
reported.
Severity
Indicator count
(C1112)
do not report




do not report






Major Violation
Indicator
(C1131)
do not report




do not report






Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page E - 37
August 2004

-------
2.2 Treatment Technique (TT) Violations Reporting
General Discussion of Treatment Technique Violations

Treatment technique violations are reported for any one of a number of required actions which a water
system fails to take, when it fails to meet prescribed performance standards, or when it performs
incorrectly or incompletely. These include violations for failure to notify the Primacy Agency of certain
actions. All LT1ESWTR violations are reported as violations of the rule, rather than of a specific
contaminant. The contaminant code 0300 is utilized for the LT1ESWTR violations reported to
SDWIS/FED.
Table 2-2. SDWIS/FED Codes for Treatment Technique Violations Reporting
Violation
Code
37
43
44
47
Contaminant
Code
0300
0300
0300
0300
Treatment Technique
Violations
Failure to develop a disinfection
profile or consult with the
Primacy Agency before making
changes to disinfection practice
Combined filter effluent exceeds
1 NTU/Primacy Agency-set
performance standards
More than 5% of monthly
combined filter effluent samples
exceed 0.3 NTU/Primacy
Agency-set performance
standards
Construction of an uncovered
finished water storage facility
Section Where Discussed in
This Document
Section 2.2.1
Section 2.2.2
Section 2.2.3
Section 2.2.4
2.2.1  Type 37/0300: Failure to Profile or Consult with Primacy Agency (Disinfection
       Changes)

Violation type 37/0300 is the failure to produce a disinfection profile or to consult with the Primacy
Agency before making a significant change to disinfection practice if required to profile.
    Cross-reference to LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance:
           Section I, pages 10-13
           Section II, pages 3-5
           Section V, pages 2 & 4
August 2004
Page E - 38
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
                             Table 2-3. Violation Type:  37/0300
  Violation
    Code
Contaminant
    Code
    Treatment Technique Violations
 Rule Citation
     37
    0300
Failure to develop a disinfection profile or
consult with the Primacy Agency before
making a significant change to a
disinfection practice if required to develop a
disinfection profile.
40CFR141.530
40 CFR 141.536
40 CFR 141.540
40 CFR 141.542
Example System Description - System A:

System A is a subpart H system that has a conventional treatment plant treating a single surface water
source.  System A's plant has three individual filters and serves 9,100 persons.  The system adds chlorine
ahead of the flocculators and again to the combined filter effluent (CFE).  Monitoring conducted under 40
CFR141.531 showed that System A had disinfection byproduct levels that required preparation of a
disinfection profile. Therefore, System A calculated the log inactivation for Giardia lamblia on a weekly
basis at peak hourly flow for one full year as described in 40 CFR141.532 and 40 CFR141.533. System
A retained the disinfection profile data in a spreadsheet format that was approved by the Primacy  Agency.

Example #4: TT 37/0300

System A's operator collects the required samples for TTHMs and HAAS under the Stage 1 Disinfectants
and Disinfection Byproducts Rule for the first two quarters of calendar year 2004.  The operator believes
these data show the system will likely incur MCL violations for TTHMs and/or HAA5 at the end  of the
first full year of monitoring. Therefore, after checking to see that he can meet the CT requirements of the
SWTR with chlorination of the combined filter effluent alone, he discontinues the addition of chlorine
ahead of the flocculators and begins operation with chlorine only added to the CFE.  The  Primacy Agency
becomes aware of this change to disinfection practice when conducting a sanitary survey  on March 1,
2006. During the sanitary survey, the Primacy Agency notes that the operator made changes to the
disinfection practice on about August 1, 2004. The Primacy Agency ultimately approves the changes
made by the PWS on July 15, 2006.

Example #4 Decision:

This TT violation is SDWIS coded as 37/0300.  System A has incurred a treatment technique violation
because it did not submit to the Primacy Agency a description of the proposed change, the disinfection
profile and  benchmark, an analysis of how the proposed change would affect the levels of disinfection,
and did not consult with the Primacy Agency prior to making the significant change to disinfection
practices.

In reporting to SDWIS, the violation begin date is either the date on which disinfection process change  is
initiated, or the date on which the Primacy Agency becomes aware of the change(s).  For  this type of
violation, the end date should not be reported to SDWIS/FED because the Primacy Agency did not have
an opportunity to review the information prior to reporting the violation to EPA. With the compliance
period end date left blank, the SDWIS/FED database processing will default the end date  to 20151231
(December  31, 2015). Since the Primacy Agency approved the disinfection changes on July 15, 2006, it
must then submit an enforcement action to SDWIS/FED - indicating a return  to compliance (Code SOX)
with a transaction to link it to the original violation.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                            Page E- 39
                                                     August 2004

-------
Public Notice Requirement

According to the requirements of 40 CFR141.201, the system must provide Tier 2 public notice regarding
this violation.

System Reporting

The system must submit to the Primacy Agency a description of the proposed change, the disinfection
profile and benchmark, an analysis of how the proposed change would affect the levels of disinfection,
and must consult with the Primacy Agency prior to making a significant change to disinfection practices.

Primacy Agency to SDWIS/FED Reporting

The appropriate SDWIS/FED data elements and the DTP transactions for the specific TT violation
described as a Failure to Profile or Consult with the Primacy Agency are listed in Exhibit 2.10.
August 2004                                Page E - 40      Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
 Exhibit 2.10 Failure to Profile or Consult with Primacy Agency TT Violation Data
        Elements and DTF Transactions and Associated "RTC" Transaction
 Number
 C0101
 CHOI
 C1103
 C1105
 C1107
 C1109
Name
PWS-ID
Violation ID
Contaminant
Violation Type
Compliance Period Begin Date
Compliance Period End Date
 C1203
 C1205
 Y5000
Data Elements:
       Value or Comment
       Qualifier 1
       Qualifier 2
       0300
       37
       Date / Primacy Agency (PA) aware date
       A date should not be provided with the original
       violation report to SDWIS/FED. SDWIS/FED
       processing will generate a default date of
       12/31/2015. When the Primacy Agency reaches
       agreement with the PWS about the disinfection
       processes to be implemented and has determined
       that the PWS is compliant with them, then the
       Primacy Agency needs to submit a "returned to
       compliance" enforcement action and link it to the
       original treatment technique violation. The date of
       the action should represent the date the Primacy
       Agency made that determination. SDWIS/FED
       processing will modify the end date of the original
       violation to be the same date as the "returned to
       compliance" reported.
Executive Action Date
Enforcement Follow-Up Action
Associated Violation ID
       SOX (Primacy Agency)
       0400111 (Refers to this particular violation ID)
 DTF Transactions:
i-2
Dl
Dl
Dl

El
El
El
3-11
GA1234582
GA1234582
GA1234582

GA1234582
GA1234582
GA1234582
12-18
0400111
0400111
0400111

0600001
0600001
0600001
19-25







26
I
I
I

T
I
I
27-31
C1103
C1105
C1107

C1203
C1205
Y5000
32-71
0300
37
20040801

20060715
SOX
0400111
72-74







75-80







Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                        Page E-41
                                         August 2004

-------
2.2.2  Type 43/0300:  CFE Exceeds 1 NTU or Primacy Agency-Set Alternative Technology
       Maximum Value

    Cross-reference to LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance:
           Section I, pages 14-16
           Section II, page 7
           Section V, pages 2 & 4
                            Table 2-4. Violation Type: 43/0300
  Violation
    Code
 43
Contaminant
    Code
    0300
     Treatment Technique
          Violations
Failure to achieve combined filter
effluent turbidity level that at no
time exceeds 1 NTU if PWS uses
conventional or direct filtration
              or
Failure to achieve combined filter
effluent level that at no time
exceeds the Primacy Agency-set
maximum turbidity performance
requirements if PWS uses an
alternative filtration technology
  Rule Citation
40CFR141.551(b)
Example System Description - System B:

System B is a subpart H system utilizing a membrane microfiltration treatment plant (i.e. an alternative
filtration technology) that treats water from Lake P.  System B's water treatment plant includes four
individual filter modules and serves 7,500 persons. The system uses chlorine as a primary and secondary
disinfectant and adds the chlorine to the CFE ahead of the clearwell where detention time is provided to
ensure adequate CT. Pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 141.551 and 40 CFR 141.552(a), System B
has conducted a pilot study that showed the plant capable of removing 99% of Cryptosporidium oocysts,
and removing or inactivating 99.9% ofGiardia lamblia cysts and 99.99% of viruses when the CFE is
maintained below 0.5 NTU in 95% of all measurements taken at 4-hour intervals and below 1 NTU at all
times. Subsequently, the Primacy Agency established treatment technique turbidity performance
standards of 0.5 NTU that System B must meet in 95% of all measurements taken of the CFE at 4-hour
intervals, and a level of 1 NTU that the CFE may not exceed at any time.

Example #5: TT 43/0300

The System B operator measures the CFE turbidity every four hours that the plant is in operation.  Those
measurements are recorded on a form provided by the Primacy Agency and the completed form is
submitted to the Primacy Agency prior to the 10th of the following month. The report provides the
Primacy Agency with the total number of filtered water turbidity measurements taken each month, the
number and percentage of CFE measurements taken each month that are less than or equal to 0.5 NTU,
and the date and value of any CFE turbidity measurement that exceeds 1 NTU. The following
information was included on the system's monthly report submitted on October 7, 2005:
August 2004
                           Page E - 42
                            Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Table 2-5. System B September 2005 CFE Turbidity Monthly Report (Excerpt)
Total Filter Measurements
180
# < 0.5 NTU
179
% < 0.5 NTU
99%
Date > 1
NTU
9-12-05
Value of >1
NTU
2 NTU
On the 12th of September, 2005, a membrane failure caused one of the four-hour CFE turbidity
measurements to be read and recorded at 1.6 NTU. This value is rounded to 2 NTU.

Example #5 Decision:

This is a TT violation and is SDWIS coded as 43/0300. The report submitted to the Primacy Agency by
System B on October 7, 2005 identifies this measurement as being >1 NTU and indicates that the system
has violated a TT requirement.

Since this violation can occur multiple times in a single month, EPA has opted to have Primacy Agencies
provide a single violation record for any month in which there is an exceedance with a field that identifies
the number of times during the month that the standard was exceeded. A data element, Cl 112 (severity
indicator count) will be used to capture this number.

Public Notice Requirement

According to the requirements of 40 CFR 141.201, the system must provide Tier 2 public notice, unless in
consultation with the Primacy Agency, which must occur within 24 hours, it is determined that Tier 1
public notice should be provided. Failure to consult the Primacy Agency automatically results in a Tier 1
public notice requirement for this type of TT violation.

System Reporting Requirement

Public water systems must consult with the Primacy Agency as soon as practical but no later than 24
hours after the public water system learns of the violation, to determine whether a Tier 1 public notice
under § 141.202(a) is required to protect public health. When consultation does not take place within the
24-hour period, the water system must distribute a Tier 1 notice of the violation within the next 24 hours
(i.e., no later than 48 hours after the system learns of the violation),  following the requirements under
§141.202(b) and (c). Within 10 days after the end of the month,  the system must provide a report of
turbidity measurements to the Primacy Agency which includes the total number of measurements taken
during the month, the number and percentage of measurements less  than or equal to 0.5 NTU (the
Primacy Agency-set value for the 95th percentile turbidity value), and the date and value of any
measurements taken during the month which exceed 1 NTU.

Primacy Agency to SDWIS/FED Reporting

The appropriate SDWIS/FED CFE data elements and DTF transactions for the specific violation
described as a Treatment Technique violation Type 43/0300 are listed in Exhibit 2.11.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page E - 43
August 2004

-------
 Exhibit 2.11  Combined Filter Effluent Exceedance Treatment Technique Violation
           Data Elements and DTF Transactions for a Single Exceedance
 Data Elements:

 Number
 C0101
 CHOI
 C1103
 C1105
 C1107
 C1109
 C1112
Name
PWS-ID
Violation ID
Contaminant
Violation Type
Compliance Period Begin Date
Compliance Period End Date
Severity Indicator
Value or Comment
Qualifier 1
Qualifier 2
0300
43

Must be one month later than C1107
The number of times during the month the
standard was exceeded
 DTF Transactions:
1-2
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
3-11
GA1234584
GA1234584
GA1234584
GA1234584
GA1234584
12-18
0500001
0500001
0500001
0500001
0500001
19-25





26
I
I
I
I
I
27-31
C1103
C1105
C1107
C1109
C1112
32-71
0300
43
20050901
20050930
1
72-74





75-80





August 2004
                       Page E - 44
          Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Example System Description - System BB:

System BB has two treatment plants which both use surface water as a source and together serve 8,500
people (see the system schematic in Exhibit 2.12).  Treatment Plant #1 is a conventional filtration plant
that draws water from a small river. Treatment Plant #2 is a direct filtration plant that draws water from a
reservoir. Both treatment plants use chlorine as a predisinfectant and primary disinfectant and add the
chlorine directly after the intake and ahead of the clearwell. Detention time is provided in the clearwell in
both plants to ensure adequate CT. The treatment technique standard in 40 CFR 141.551(b) for direct and
conventional filtration systems require that the CFE must be maintained below 0.3 NTU in 95% of all
measurements taken at 4-hour  intervals and below 1 NTU at all times during each monthly reporting
period.

Example #6: TT 43/0300

The System BB operator measures the CFE turbidity every four hours that the plant is in operation.
Those measurements are recorded on a form provided by the Primacy Agency and the completed form is
submitted to the Primacy Agency by the 10th of the following month. The report provides the Primacy
Agency with the total number of combined filter effluent turbidity measurements taken each month, the
number and percentage of CFE measurements taken each month that are less than or equal to 0.3 NTU,
and the date and value of any CFE turbidity measurement that exceeds 1 NTU.  The following
information was  included on the system's monthly report submitted on February 6, 2006:
Table 2-6. System BB, Treatment Plant #1 January 2006 CFE Turbidity Monthly
Report (Excerpt)
Total Filter Measurements
180
# < 0.3 NTU
173
% < 0.3 NTU
96%
Date > 1
NTU
1-5-06
Value of > 1
NTU
3 NTU
On the 5th of January, 2006, one of the four-hour CFE turbidity measurements was read and recorded at
3.2 NTU in treatment plant #1. This value is rounded to 3 NTU.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page E - 45
August 2004

-------
                           Exhibit 2.12 System BB Schematic

Treatment
Plant #1
fi



•fc





















Treatment
" Plant #2
*
\

A
\ f
Rese
Table 2-7. System BB, Treatment Plant #2 January 2006 CFE Turbidity Monthly
Report (Excerpt)
Total Filter Measurements
180
# < 0.3 NTU
176
% < 0.3 NTU
98%
Date > 1
NTU
1-17-06
Value of> 1
NTU
2 NTU
On the 17th of January, 2006, one of the four-hour turbidity measurements at Treatment Plant #2 was read
and recorded at 1.9 NTU. This value is rounded to 2 NTU.

Example #6 Decision:

The violations at both plants are TT violations and are SDWIS coded as 43/0300. The report submitted to
the primacy agency by System BB on February 6, 2006 identifies that the CFE measurement greater than
1 NTU at Treatment Plant #1 is 3 NTU and indicates that the system has violated a TT requirement.
Likewise, the CFE measurement greater than 1 NTU at Treatment Plant 2, reported in the February 6,
2006 submission by the system is 2 NTU and indicates that the system has violated a TT requirement.

Since this violation can occur multiple times in a single month, EPA desires to have Primacy Agencies
provide a single violation record for any month in which there is an exceedance with a field that identifies
the number of times during the month that the standard was exceeded. A data element, Cl 112 (severity
indicator count) will be used to capture this number. Although there are two treatment plants in System
BB, the Primacy Agency would only submit one violation record for the month of January, 2006 for
System BB.  However, the severity indicator count (data element Cl 112) would indicate that two
violations had occurred within System BB in January, 2006.
August 2004
Page E - 46
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Public Notice Requirement

According to the requirements of 40 CFR 141.201, the system must provide Tier 2 public notice, unless in
consultation with the Primacy Agency, which must occur within 24 hours, it is determined that Tier 1
public notice should be provided. If the Primacy Agency is not contacted within 24 hours, then the
violation automatically becomes Tier 1.

System Reporting Requirement

Public water systems must consult with the Primacy Agency as soon as practical but no later than 24
hours after the public water system learns of the violation, to determine whether a Tier 1 public  notice
under § 141.202(a) is required to protect public health. When consultation does not take place within the
24-hour period, the water system must distribute a Tier 1 notice of the violation within the next  24 hours
(i.e., no later than 48 hours after the system learns of the violation), following the requirements under
§141.202(b) and (c). Within 10 days after the end of the month, the system must provide a report of
turbidity measurements for each treatment plant to the Primacy Agency which includes the total number
of measurements taken during the month, the number and percentage of measurements less than or equal
to 0.3 NTU, and the date and value of any measurements taken during the month which exceed  1 NTU.

Primacy Agency to SDWIS/FED Reporting

The appropriate SDWIS/FED CFE data elements and DTF transactions for the specific violation
described as a Treatment Technique violation Type 43/0300 are listed in Exhibit 2.13 below.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance       Page E - 47                                August 2004

-------
 Exhibit 2.13  Combined Filter Effluent Exceedance Treatment Technique Violation
          Data Elements and DTF Transactions for Multiple Exceedances
 Data Elements:

 Number
 C0101
 CHOI
 C1103
 C1105
 C1107
 C1109
 C1112
Name
PWS-ID
Violation ID
Contaminant
Violation Type
Compliance Period Begin Date
Compliance Period End Date
Severity Indicator
Value or Comment
Qualifier 1
Qualifier 2
0300
43

Must be one month later than C1107
The number of times during the month the
standard was exceeded
 DTF Transactions:
1^2
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
•
3-11
GA1234681
GA1234681
GA1234681
GA1234681
GA1234681
12-18
0600001
0600001
0600001
0600001
0600001
19-25





26
I
I
I
I
I
27-31
C1103
C1105
C1107
C1109
C1112
32-71
0300
43
20060101
20060130
2
72-74





75-80





August 2004
                       Page E - 48
        Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
2.2.3  Type 44/0300: > 5% Monthly CFE Samples Exceed 0.3 NTU or Primacy Agency-
       Set Alternative Technology Maximum Value

    Cross-reference to LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance:
           Section I, pages 14-16
           Section II, page 7
           Section V, pages 2 & 5
Table 2-8. Violation Type: 44/0300
Violation
Code
44
Contaminant
Code
0300
Treatment Technique Violations
Failure to achieve combined filter effluent
turbidity level of 0.3 NTU in 95 percent of
monthly measurements if PWS uses
conventional or direct filtration
or
Failure to meet Primacy Agency-set
turbidity performance requirements in 95
percent of monthly measurements for
systems using alternative filtration
technologies
Rule Citation
40CFR141.551(a)
Example #1: TT 44/0300

The System B operator measures the CFE turbidity every four hours that the plant is in operation. Those
measurements are recorded on a form provided by the Primacy Agency and the completed form is
submitted to the Primacy Agency prior to the 10th of the following month. The report provides the
Primacy Agency with the total number of filtered water turbidity measurements taken each month, the
number and percentage of CFE measurements taken each month that are less than or equal to 0.5 NTU
(the Primacy Agency set performance standard for this alternative filtration technology), and the date and
value of any CFE turbidity measurement that exceeds 1 NTU.  The November 2005 report submitted by
System B to the Primacy Agency on Dec 10, 2005 showed that only 92% of the CFE turbidity
measurements taken every four hours were less than or equal to 0.5 NTU.  The following information was
included in the system's November 2005 report to the Primacy Agency.
Table 2-9. System B November 2005 CFE Turbidity Monthly Report (Excerpt)
Total Filter Measurements
180
# < 0.5 NTU
166
% < 0.5 NTU
92%
Date > 1 NTU
—
Value of >1 NTU
-
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page E - 49
August 2004

-------
Example #7 Decision:

The TT violation is SDWIS coded as 44/0300.  System B has a treatment technique violation for
November 2005 as a result of its failure to meet the 95% performance standard set by the Primacy
Agency (i.e., more than 5% of the CFE turbidity measurements taken in the month exceeded 0.5 NTU).

Public Notice Requirement

According to the requirements of 40 CFR141.201, this system must provide Tier 2 public notice,
regarding this violation.

System Reporting Requirement

Within 10 days after the end of the month, the system must provide a report of turbidity measurements to
the Primacy Agency which includes the total number of measurements taken during the month, the
number and percentage of measurements less than or equal to 0.5 NTU  (the Primacy Agency-set value for
the 95th percentile turbidity value), and the date and value of any measurements taken during the month
which exceed 1 NTU.

Primacy Agency to SDWIS/FED Reporting

These TT violations are reported monthly and there is no severity indicator. The appropriate
SDWIS/FED Monthly CFE Treatment Technique violation Type 44/0300 data elements and individual
DTP transactions are listed in Exhibit 2.14.
August 2004                                Page E - 50      Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
   Exhibit 2.14 Monthly Combined Filter Effluent (CFE) Exceedance Treatment
              Technique Violation Data Elements and DTF Transactions
 Data Elements:

 Number
 C0101
 CHOI
 C1103
 C1105
 C1107
 C1109
Name
PWS-ID
Violation ID
Contaminant
Violation Type
Compliance Period Begin Date
Compliance Period End Date
Value or Comment
Qualifier 1
Qualifier 2
0300
44

Must be one month later than C1107
 DTF Transactions:
1-2
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
3-11
GA1234585
GA1234585
GA1234585
GA1234585
12-18
0600001
0600001
0600001
0600001
19-25




26
I
I
I
I
27-31
C1103
C1105
C1107
C1109
32-71
0300
44
20051101
20051130
72-74




75-80




Example System Description - System BC:

System BC is a Subpart H system that serves 9,000 people and utilizes two conventional filtration water
treatment plants, each with four filter beds.

Example #8:  TT 44/0300

During the month of July 2006, the operator measures CFE turbidity every four hours at each plant while
they are in operation and records the results on a form provided by the agency. His report, that he
submits to the Primacy Agency on August 9th, 2006, includes the following information.
Table 2-10. System BC Plant #1 July 2006 CFE Turbidity Monthly Report (Excerpt)
Total Filter Measurements
186
# < 0.3 NTU
167
% £ 0.3 NTU
90%
Date > 1 NTU
—
Value of > 1 NTU
-
Table 2-11. System BC Plant #2 July 2006 CFE Turbidity Monthly Report (Excerpt)
Total Filter Measurements
186
# <; 0.3 NTU
169
% < 0.3 NTU
91%
Date > 1 NTU
-
Value of >1 NTU
--
The report shows that during the month of July, 2006, Plants #1 and #2 failed to achieve a 0.3 NTU or
less CFE turbidity at least 95% of the time operating.

Example #8 Decision:
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                        Page E-51
                                  August 2004

-------
These TT violations are SDWIS coded as 44/0300. System BC has incurred two Type 44/0300 violations
of the LT1ESWTR, since both of the system's water treatment plants failed to achieve 0.3 NTU or less
CFE turbidity 95% of the time operating in July 2006.  Although there are two Type 44/0300 violations
observed at this facility during the month, only one record of violation is reported to SDWIS/FED.

Public Notice Requirement

According to the requirements of 40 CFR141.201, this system must provide Tier 2 public notice.

System Reporting Requirement

Within 10 days after the end of the month, the system must provide a report of turbidity measurements to
the Primacy Agency which includes the total number of measurements taken during the month, the
number and percentage of measurements less than or equal to 0.3 NTU, and the date and value of any
measurements taken during the month which exceed 1 NTU.

Primacy Agency to SDWIS/FED Reporting

The appropriate SDWIS/FED CFE Treatment Technique violation Type 43/0300 data elements and
individual DTP transactions are shown below in Exhibit 2.15.
  Exhibit 2.15  Data Elements and DTF Transactions Monthly CFE Exceedance TT
                                        Violation

 Data Elements:
Number
C0101
CHOI
C1103
C1105
C1107
C1109
Name
PWS-ID
Violation ID
Contaminant
Violation Type
Compliance Period Begin Date
Compliance Period End Date
Value or Comment
(Qualifier 1)
(Qualifier 2)
0300
44
Must be one month later than


C1107
 DTF Transactions:
1-2
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
3-11
GA1234585
GA1234585
GA1234585
GA1234585
12-18
0600002
0600002
0600002
0600002
19-25




26
I
I
I
I
27-31
C1103
C1105
C1107
C1109
32-71
0300
44
20060701
20060731
72-74




75-80




2.2.4  Type 47/0300: Begin Construction of Uncovered Water Storage Facility After
       March 15, 2002

    Cross-reference to LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance:
August 2004
Page E- 52
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
           Section I, page 19
           Section V, pages 2 & 5
Table 2-12. Violation Type: 47/0300
Violation
Code
47
Contaminant
Code
0300
Treatment Technique Violations
Construction of an uncovered finished water
storage reservoir on or after March 15, 2002.
Rule Citation
40CFR141.510
40CFR141.511
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page E - 53
August 2004

-------
Example System Description - System C:

System C is an unflltered subpart H system that meets the filtration avoidance criteria and uses water from
Y2 Lake. System C chlorinates the unflltered water to provide adequate CT, then pumps it into the
distribution system.  The system provides water to 1,000 persons.

Example #9: TT 47/0300

On May 15, 2002 System C had a construction company begin construction of an uncovered finished
water storage reservoir. The storage facility was constructed and put on-line on October 31, 2002.
During a sanitary survey conducted by the Primacy Agency in March, 2003, the completed reservoir was
discovered and a cease and desist order was issued. The reservoir was physically disconnected from the
water system on January 15, 2004.

Example #9 Decision:

This TT violation is SDWIS coded as 47/0300. System C incurred a Type 47/0300 TT violation that
began on May 15, 2002, the day the uncovered finished water storage reservoir construction was begun.
The violation would end when the reservoir was properly covered or taken off-line (physically
disconnected from the system). (Note: Since the primacy agency became aware of the violation in March
2003, the violation is considered to be a fiscal year 2003 violation. Thus the fiscal year portion of the
violation ID is 03).

Public Notice Requirement

According to the provisions of 40 CFR141.201, the system must provide Tier 2 public notice.

System Reporting Requirements

Since this violation was discovered by the Primacy Agency during a sanitary survey, there are no
applicable system reporting requirements.

Primacy Agency to SDWIS/FED Reporting

The appropriate SDWIS/FED Construction of an Uncovered Storage Facility Treatment Technique  '
violation data elements and the individual DTP transactions are listed below in Exhibit 2.16.
August 2004                                 Page E - 54       Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
     Exhibit 2.16 Construction of an Uncovered Finished Water Storage Facility
        Treatment Technique Violation Data Elements and DTF Transactions
 Data Elements:

 Number
 C0101
 CHOI
 C1103
 C1105
 C1107
 C1109
Name
Value or Comment
PWS-ID
Violation ID
Contaminant
Violation Type
Compliance Period Begin Date
Compliance Period End Date
  C1203         Enforcement Action Date
  C1205         Enforcement Follow-Up Action
  Y5000         Associated Violation ID

  DTF Transactions:
 Qualifier 1
 Qualifier 2
 0300
 47
 20020515
 A date should not be provided with the original
 violation report to SDWIS/FED. When a date is not
 provided, SDWIS/FED processing will generate a
 default date of 12/31/2015. When the Primacy Agency
 has determined that the PWS has returned to
 compliance (i.e., either covered the reservoir or
 physically taken offline), then the Primacy Agency
 should submit a "returned to compliance" enforcement
 action and link it to the original treatment technique
 violation. The date of the action should be the date the
 Primacy Agency made that determination.
 SDWIS/FED processing will modify the end date of the
 original violation to be the same date as the "returned to
 compliance" reported.
 20040115
 SOX (Followed-up by Primacy Agency)
 0300001
1-2
Dl
Dl
Dl

El
El
El
3-11
GA1234586
GA1234586
GA1234586

GA1234586
GA1234586
GA1234586
12-18
0200001
0200001
0200001

0400001
0400001
0400001
19-25







26
I
I
I

I
I
I
27-31
C1103
C1105
C1107

C1203
C1205
Y5000
32-71
0300
47
20020515

20040115
SOX
0200001
72-74







75-80







Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                           Page E- 55
                                  August 2004

-------
2.3  Monitoring & Reporting (M&R) Violations
General Discussion of Monitoring and Reporting (M&R) Violations

M&R violations of the LT1ESWTR are reported for water systems that have failed to conduct the
required turbidity monitoring or report the results of the monitoring, have failed to conduct appropriate
individual filter turbidity trigger response activities or have otherwise failed to report required
information to the Primacy Agency. All LT1ESWTR violations are reported as violations of the rule,
rather than of a specific contaminant. The contaminant code 0300 is utilized for the LT1ESWTR
violations reported to SDWIS/FED. Only one M&R violation may be reported for a facility per
compliance period, for each violation type. The type 29 violation is considered by EPA to be a major
violation. The type 38 violation can be either major or minor, depending upon the severity of the missed
sampling and reporting.  Thus, for type 29 violations, the Major violation flag (Cl 131) field is to be
reported as "Y" to represent "Yes" instead of reporting multiple violation. The following Table 2-15 is a
summary of the CFE and IFE turbidity monitoring requirements under the LT1ESWTR.
Table 2-13. Turbidity Monitoring Requirements for Conventional and Direct Filtration
Systems
Type/Location of Sample
Combined
Individual
Filter Effluent (CFE)
Filter Effluent (IFE)
Frequency
Collect and analyze a sample every four (4) hours
of operation. Less frequent monitoring is allowed
for systems serving 500 or fewer people.
Monitor continuously and record values every
fifteen (15) minutes of filter operation.
                   Table 2-14.  M&R Violations Under the LT1ESWTR
   Violation
     Code
       29
       38
                  Contaminant
                      Code
                      0300
                      0300
 Monitoring and Reporting
         Violations
Major: Failure to conduct
follow-up activities triggered
by individual filter turbidity
exceedances.
Major: Failure to collect and
report 90% of required
combined filter effluent
turbidity samples
                                   Major: Failure to report all
                                   individual filter monitoring
                                   has been conducted
                                   Minor: Any other failure to
                                   monitor or report
Section Where Discussed in
      This Document
       Section 2.3.1
       Section 2.3.2
                                                                        Section 2.3.2
                                                                        Section 2.3.2
                                   monitor or report

2.3.1  Type 29/0300:  Monitoring and Reporting Violations - Failure to conduct individual
       filter monitoring follow-up activities

August 2004                                Page E - 56      Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidana

-------
    Cross-reference to Implementation Guidance:
           Section I, pages 16-18
           Section II, pages 7 - 9
           Section V, pages 2 & 6
Table 2-15. Violation Type: 29/0300
Violation
Code
29
Contaminant
Code
0300
Monitoring and Reporting Violations
Failure to conduct follow-up activities triggered by individual filter
turbidity exceedances (multiple).
                     Table 2-16 Individual Filter Follow Up Activities'"
             Violation 29/0300
  Failure to report to the Primacy Agency by
  the 10th of the month following a turbidity
  exceedance (> 1.0 NTU in 2 consecutive
  recordings taken 15 minutes apart)
 Failure to conduct and/or report to the
 Primacy Agency a self-assessment of an
 individual filter within 14 days of a turbidity
 exceedance (>1.0 NTU in 2 consecutive
 recordings taken 15 minutes apart in each of
 3 consecutive months)  .
 Failure to have a comprehensive
 performance evaluation conducted by the
 Primacy Agency or a third party no later
 than 60 days after a turbidity exceedance (>
 2.0 NTU in 2 consecutive recordings taken
 15 minutes apart in 2 consecutive months)
 and have the evaluation completed and
 submitted to the Primacy Agency no later
 than 120 days following the exceedance.
    Rule Citation
  40CFR141.563(a)
  40CFR141.563(b)
  40CFR141.563(c)
Section Where Discussed in
      This Document
      Section 2.3.1.1
      Section 2.3.1.2
      Section 2.3.1.3
* These follow-up activities apply only to systems using conventional or direct filtration treatment.

2.3.1.1 Type 29/0300: Failure to Report to the State by the 10th of the Month Following a IFE
       Turbidity Exceedance

    Cross-reference to Rule: 40 CFR141.563(a)
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page E - 57
                  August 2004

-------
Example System Description - System D:
System D is a subpart H system that treats a single surface water source with a direct filtration plant that
has eight individual filters capable of producing 6.91 MOD over a 24-hour period. The system serves
9,000 persons. Pursuant to the treatment technique requirements of the LT1ESWTR, System D must
measure the turbidity of the CFE every four hours of operation and record those measurements on a form
approved by the Primacy Agency. Additionally, System D must have continuous monitoring
turbidimeters placed on the effluent of each individual filter and must measure the turbidity continuously
while each filter is producing water that goes to the clearwell. These individual filter turbidity readings
must be recorded every 15 minutes during the time each filter is in operation and records of the 15-minute
measurements must be retained by the system for at least three years. Systems must report that they have
conducted individual filter monitoring within ten days following the end of each month.  Systems must
also report to the State by the 10th of the following month if the  IFE exceeded 1.0 NTU in 2 consecutive
recordings taken  15 minutes apart.

At the time of the Primacy Agency's sanitary survey, conducted on February 26, 2006, the inspector
printed out the individual filter monitoring data and learned the  following information, presented in the
following four example scenarios. A description of the violation, example data reports, and the data
elements and DTF transactions which should be used to report these kinds of violations to SDWIS/FED
are presented.

In the following examples #10A, #10B and #10C relevant data is excerpted from turbidity monitoring
forms and presented numerically. Shaded cells represent data that has been recorded but does not trigger
follow-up activities under the LT1ESWTR.

Example #10A: M&R 29/0300

Filter number 7 had exceeded 1.0 NTU in two consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart on
November 11, 2005 and again on December 6, 2005.  No report was provided to the Primacy Agency.
      Table 2-17.  System D Filter #7 November 2005 IFE Turbidity Monitoring Form
                                          (Excerpt)
August 2004
Page E- 58
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
      Table 2-18. System D Filter #7 December 2005IFE Turbidity Monitoring Form
                                         (Excerpt)
Example #10A. Decision:

These M&R violations are SDWIS coded as 29/0300. System D has incurred two (2) Major M&R
violations because of the failure to report by the 10th of the following month that the turbidity in filter #7
exceeded 1.0 in two consecutive recordings taken 15 minutes apart in November 2005 (report due by
December 10, 2005) and in December 2005 (report due by January 10, 2006). The SDWIS/FED data
elements and individual DTP transactions are summarized at the end of the section in Exhibit 2.17.

2.3.1.2 Type 29/0300: Failure to Perform  a Self-Assessment of an Individual Filter

    Cross-reference to Rule: 40 CFR141.563(b)

Example #10B: M&R 29/0300

Filter number 3 exceeded 1.0 NTU in two consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart on October
31, 2005, November 1, 2005 and December 2, 2005 (3 consecutive months).  System D failed to conduct
a self-assessment of filter number 3 within 14 days of the trigger and made no report to the Primacy
Agency.
Table 2-19. System D Filter #3 October 2005 IFE Turbidity Monitoring Form (Excerpt)
Date
'T •% , " •
•$»'.*
; '(_ ^ffM
10/30
10/31
"** *
' *, - . •£
> •
Time
<$&'-;..
M'^-i
?""'i» *.r.^*>
,. V j f-^rf
'^vk'*;.-*"^
V '-V;^
- -;„/ "ft ,y '
.^-a:v-
->»•* :* * -;. "£
12:00 pm
,. "•"» i .< ':
rV^J^j:".5!
1.2 NTU

12:15 pm
*•*"•-.. '.C-* ;,',;
:!
^ ':<"•::;
* n J ' « ' •
i-H T "*
J i~ "tv ^ »
.4% y - •;, •-,:
12:45 pm
'<"*•> «•£*$•
"4 ->-* v» *f*ji
/};:^
tf it *"* ^C^(>
'xVV«*j J
•.•y:.".^
1:00 pm
"i^j^i:^
•rA^'^fJ Jl.f~'
^i^t*
hir ^'1? },•
5f%'^
^.'f^,;:
1:15 pm
\A^:..€
^•tV*. " ' ' ''
*.,?^ i^. Ij
'•'!"' ,, "*"'"
'> * a "
^t-¥'. '•»'
4*$,;.-" •
;W'<:;~ A.
i ^. .^ ,„, , ,
n £ 4, y ;
* '- / - ;
^ S r •)
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page E - 59

-------
     Table 2-20. System D Filter #3 November 2005IFE Turbidity Monitoring Form
                                        (Excerpt)
 Date
                          Time
         fttl
                    12:00 pm  12:15 pm
                     12:30 pm
                     12:45pm
 11/1
 11/2
      Table 2-21.  System D Filter #3 December 2005 IFE Turbidity Monitoring Form
                                        (Excerpt)
 Date
                          Time
         pm
                    12:00 pm
          12:15 pm
          12:30 pm
12:45pm  1:00 pm
1:15 pm
 12/2
2.2 NTU
2.4 NTU
 12/3
Example #10B. Decision:

This M&R violation is SDWIS coded as 29/0300.  System D has incurred a Major M&R violation
because of the failure to conduct a self-assessment of filter number 3 within 14 days of the observation of
two consecutive measurements exceeding 1.0 NTU taken 15 minutes apart in three consecutive months on
December 2, 2005. The SDWIS/FED data elements and individual DTP transactions are summarized at
the end of the section in Exhibit 2.17.

2.3.1.3 Type 29/0300: Failure to Arrange for a Comprehensive Performance Evaluation

    Cross-reference to Rule: 40 CFR141.563(c)

Example #10C: M&R 29/0300

Filter number 3 exceeded 2.0 NTU in two consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart on both
November 1, 2005 and December 2, 2005 (2 consecutive months) which triggered a CPE. System D had
not, at the time of the sanitary survey (February 26, 2006), made arrangements for the Primacy Agency or
a third party approved by the Primacy Agency to conduct a CPE (required to have been arranged within
60 days of the last trigger).
August 2004
                    Page E - 60
                         Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Table 2-22. System D Filter #3 November 2005 IFE Turbidity Monitoring Form
(Excerpt)
Date
^m
11/1
11/2

Time
*•**•» J* ;



i,//.~K,,'"'. '^'i.*:
12:00 pm
v< , ?
^ <•
f" ^^ , *J..*V,S, ' **'
^/, ;•","-
?&'\*1
%~?J.'fjr\
?'•# <. ,•' •'-,
.'*••• ,. '•" ;
12:15 pm
- „ !f * j f
i "- *~ , v^
* 4
' -*" , *
". '•'' "a, •> ~y.
' "'
12:30 pm
- •:. •„ C^ •
'•>*,.'>!' }'<•'"'
•^^;-
:-,,t'>»',i^"«:
t>;Iii,"i*f .'
f.\ '-;,"^;K»%
» ^^^ J+'^^'^s
',-r "V.'4>"'
12:45 pm
^*
» *"* «
e ! 	 n r«
*,-,' J, ,,-":•*
f " *
1:00 pm
,' " "^
2.3
NTU
"fr. .*. . 4 .^S^;

1:15 pm
-..;"/;^
2.1
NTU

. ">,vS^
'•',•'?•
>kt^* •'* :
ft€S<

'4r!-X':"::
*',">;• i*>> :'"'
f<-4^*Vjt^-'~\".
ygAjf.^^..
pp,jr.^n^T"
Table 2-23. System D Filter #3 December 2005 IFE Turbidity Monitoring Form
(Excerpt)
Date
/*Ai' ""J.tK
i ?V''*;*i
••t-y,r'4$*:l
12/2
12/3
1;
\.:..*m
Time
T^«;^. -
wl'*: ,"'<•'*•
sfvfY^ fVffri "^rf nf V fi
*$vjf t.pt,# *"^* J T ,
^- *
P»Ki*t*
^if;^!:^
12:00 pm
"^ " * , ^s y
2.2 NTU
^ -1** " r*
' Jt x*s \ S ^
12:15 pm
' "^ V ^ <"
2.4 NTU
v' 'g / / f ^ ^* V« :
*'**"-'
12:30 pm
' ^ "' ^'V""1
' -• •. - ';t- fe; ^
'-' , VrJfij
? -"v?;-4^^
/ - i 1 ! , «^
.,,; j-;'
12:45 pm
?
'-~'"-
! ' ' ' ' •
1:00 pm
, / v -
',"'•' •* ,"':
!'>" - ':{ " i

l:15pm
- -;;• i'«Q
"• , 'tt%f."
.; -v.#fp.s
-•'^ >U
' ^:,J?iS«
'-•• ;;#
	 ,if}:' '.",-"
L"ii-" *r
",*> ^ J " ^
Example #10C. Decision:

This M&R violation is SDWIS coded as 29/0300. System D has incurred a Major M&R violation
because of the failure to have the CPE arranged by no later than 60 days after the observation on
December 2, 2005 of the second of two consecutive measurements exceeding 2.0 NTU taken 15 minutes
apart in two consecutive months. System D is at risk of being out  of compliance for additional time if
they do not complete the CPE and submit the results within 120 days of December 2, 2005 (the date the
second consecutive (month) filter number 3 exceedance was measured). The CPE must be submitted to
the Primacy Agency by no later than April 1, 2006. The SDWIS/FED data elements and individual DTP
transactions are summarized at the end of the section.

Example #10 Summary:

During the month of November, the system incurred one Type 29/0300 M&R violation for failure to
report to the  State following an IFE turbidity exceedance.  During  the month of December, the  system
incurred two Type 29/0300 M&R violations for failure to report to the State by the 10th of the month
following an IFE turbidity exceedance and for failure to perform a Filter Self-Assessment. Although the
Primacy Agency should appropriately respond to both of the violations from the month of December, the
Primacy Agency should only submit one M&R violation report to  SDWIS for the month of December.
During the month of February the system incurred one Type 29/0300 violation  for failure to arrange for a
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page E-61
August 2004

-------
CPE within 60 days after the observation of two consecutive IFE measurements exceeding 2.0 NTU taken
15 minutes apart in 2 consecutive months.

Public Notice Requirements

According to the provisions of 40 CFR 141.201, the system must provide Tier 3 public notice for these
violations.

System Reporting

Within ten days after the end of each month the system must report to the Primacy Agency that
continuous monitoring was conducted at each individual filter and that the system recorded results of that
monitoring every fifteen minutes and will maintain the records for three years. The system must also
report for any individual filter turbidity measurement that meets any of the following:

    •   two consecutive measurements taken fifteen minutes apart > 1.0 NTU
    •   two consecutive measurements taken fifteen minutes apart > 1.0 NTU in each of three
       consecutive months
    •   two consecutive measurements taken fifteen minutes apart > 2.0 NTU in two consecutive months

The report must include the filter number, the turbidity measurement, and the date(s) on which the
exceedance(s) occurred.

Primacy Agency to SDWIS/FED Reporting

Although the Primacy Agency should appropriately respond to all documented violations of the rule,
SDWIS/FED should receive only one M&R violation report per monitoring period for each violation type
for each PWS. Since Type 29/0300 violations are reported monthly, by system, to the Primacy Agency,
and since all type 29/0300 violations are Major violations, the Primacy Agency should report one Type
29/0300 M&R violation, flagged as Major ("Y" in Cl 131) for November 2005, December 2005 and
February 2006. In example #10C above, the issue of a potential Major M&R violation during April of
2006 is raised, however, at the time of the sanitary survey, System D's compliance with the April
submittal date for the required CPE report is unknown.

The appropriate SDWIS/FED Individual Filter Trigger Response violation (29/0300) data elements and
individual DTP transactions for a violation  in November 2005 are listed below in Exhibit 2.17.  The same
entry should be made for the months of December 2005  and February 2006 (with associated Cl 107 and
Cl 109 dates).  It should be noted that the deadline date by which the system should have arranged for a
CPE falls in February 2006. All individual filter M&R violations are considered Major.  The Major
violation flag (Cl 131), if reported, must be "Y."  SDWIS/FED will default the value to "Y" if not it is not
reported.
August 2004                                Page E - 62       Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
   Exhibit 2.17  Major LT1ESWTR M&R Violation - Response to Individual Filter
                     Triggers Data Elements and DTF Transactions
 Data Elements:
 Number       Name
 C0101
 CHOI
 C1103
 C1105
 C1107
 C1109
 C1131
                                  Value or Comment
PWS-ID
Violation ID
Contaminant
Violation Type
Compliance Period Begin Date
Compliance Period End Date
Major Violation Flag
Qualifier 1
Qualifier 2
0300
29

Must be one month later than C1107
Y (default)
 DTF Transactions:
1-2
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
3-11
GA1234588
GA1234588
GA1234588
GA1234588
GA1234588
12-18
0600001
0600001
0600001
0600001
0600001
19-25





26
I
I
I
T
I
27-31
C1103
C1105
C1107
C1109
C1131
32-71
0300
29
20051101
20051130
Y
72-
74





75-80





2.3.2 Type 38/0300: Failure to Collect and Report Filter Effluent Turbidity Monitoring

    Cross-reference to LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance:
           Section V, pages 2 & 7

There are two distinct situations that define a Type 38/0300 M&R violation. They are described below
in Sections 2.3.2.1 and 2.3.2.2. They are followed by individual examples of each definition (Examples
#11 and #12). Finally, the data elements and individual DTFs used to report to SDWIS are presented.

Example System Description - System E:

System E is a subpart H system that treats a single surface water source with a direct filtration plant that
has four individual filters capable of producing 3.46 MGD over a 24-hour period. The system serves
5,000 persons. Pursuant to the treatment technique requirements of the SWTR and LT1ESWTR, System
E must measure the turbidity of the CFE every four hours of operation and record those measurements on
a form approved by the Primacy Agency.  Additionally, System E must have continuous monitoring
turbidimeters placed on the effluent of each individual filter and must measure the turbidity continuously
while each filter is producing water that goes to the clearwell. These individual filter turbidity readings
must be  recorded every 15 minutes during the time each filter is in operation and records of the 15-minute
measurements must be retained by the system for at least three years.  Systems must report that they have
conducted individual filter monitoring within ten days following the end of each month. If the IFE
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
                          Page E - 63
                               August 2004

-------
exceeded 1.0 NTU in 2 consecutive recordings taken 15 minutes apart, systems must also report this and
the reason for the exceedance to the State by the 10th of the following month.

2.3.2.1 Type 38/0300:  Failure to Monitor or Report Required CFE Samples
                            Table 2-24. Violation Type: 38/0300
  Violation
    Code
     38
Contaminant
    Code
    0300
   Monitoring and Reporting
          Violations
Major: Failure to collect and
report at least 90% of required
combined filter effluent turbidity
sample results.

Minor: Any other failure to
monitor or report.
  Rule Citation
40CFR141.570(a)
2.3.2.1.1    Major - Failure to Collect and Report at Least 9Q% of Required Combined Filter
           Effluent Samples

           Minor - Any Other Failure to Monitor or Report

Example #11: M&R 38/0300

System E's operator takes samples of the CFE every four hours and measures turbidity. The results of
these turbidity measurements are recorded on a daily CFE form approved by the Primacy Agency and the
operator submits the completed forms to the Primacy Agency prior to the 10th day of the following month.
However, on April 15, 2006, System E's operator went on extended medical leave for 90 days. During
this period of time (April 15, 2006 to July 15, 2006) although some samples were taken, the backup
operators failed to collect or report 25% of the required CFE samples, resulting in collection of only 15%
of required samples during that time period.

Example #11 Decision: M&R 38/0300

This M&R violation is SDWIS coded as 38/0300.  System E has incurred 3 Major M&R reporting
violations  (1 for each month) for the months of April, May  and June of 2006 because of the failure  to
collect or report the necessary CFE samples.

Public Notice Requirement

According to the requirements of 40 CFR141.201, the system must provide Tier 3 public notice
regarding the violation.

System Reporting

Within ten days after the end of each month the system must report to the Primacy Agency that
continuous monitoring was conducted at each individual filter and that the system recorded results of that
monitoring every fifteen minutes  and will maintain the records for three years.  The system must also
report for any individual filter turbidity measurement that meets any of the following:

       two consecutive measurements taken fifteen minutes apart > 1.0 NTU
August 2004
                            Page E - 64
                            Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
    •   two consecutive measurements taken fifteen minutes apart > 1.0 NTU in each of three
       consecutive months
    •   two consecutive measurements taken fifteen minutes apart > 2.0 NTU in two consecutive months

The report must include the filter number, the turbidity measurement(s), the date(s) on which the
exceedance(s) occurred, and if the follow-up action has been completed.

Primacy Agency to SDWIS/FED Reporting

The SDWIS/FED data elements and individual DTP transactions are summarized at the end of the section
and are illustrated in Exhibit 2.18.

2.3.2.2 Type 38/0300 Major: Failure to Complete and Report Required Individual Filter
       Monitoring
Table 2-25. Violation Type: 38/0300
Violation
Code
38
Contaminant
Code
0300
Monitoring and Reporting Violations
Major: Failure to report, within 10
days of end of month, that all individual
filter monitoring has been conducted
Rule Citation
40CFR141.570(b)
Example #12: M&R 38/0300

During the 90 day period that System E's operator is on extended medical leave the backup operators also
fail to report on a monthly basis that individual filter effluent has been monitored on a continuous basis
and that the results of such monitoring has been measured and recorded at 15-minute intervals for each
filter.

Example #12 Decision:

This M&R violation is SDWIS coded as 38/0300. System E has incurred 3 Major M&R violations (1 for
each month) for the failure in each month to report that the individual filter effluent has been monitored as
required.

Public Notice Requirement

According to the requirements of 40 CFR141.201, the system must provide Tier 3 public notice
regarding the violation.

System Reporting

Within ten days after the end of each month the system must report to the Primacy Agency that
continuous monitoring was conducted at each individual filter and that the system recorded results of that
monitoring every 15 minutes and will maintain the records for three years. The system must also report
for any individual filter turbidity measurement that meets any of the following:

    •   two consecutive measurements taken fifteen minutes apart > 1.0 NTU
    •   two consecutive measurements taken fifteen minutes apart > 1.0 NTU in each of three
       consecutive months
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance
Page E - 65
August 2004

-------
    •   two consecutive measurements taken fifteen minutes apart > 2.0 NTU in two consecutive months

The report must include the filter number, the turbidity measurement, and the date(s) on which the
exceedance(s) occurred.

Within 10 days of his return the operator submits the completed notification to the Primacy Agency prior
to the 10lh day of the following month that continuous monitoring was conducted at each individual filter
and that the results were recorded.

Primacy Agency to SDWIS/FED Reporting

Although the Primacy Agency should appropriately respond to all documented violations of the rule, only
one M&R violation is reported per monitoring period for each violation type. Type 38 /0300 violations
are reported monthly, by the system, to the Primacy Agency, and may be either Major or Minor
violations.  The examples above illustrate that the water system incurred a number of violations during
the months  of April, May and June.  If there are both Major and Minor Type 38/0300 violations at the
same system, during the same reporting period (month in this case), then preference for SDWIS reporting
should be given to the Major violation. The details of the violation are not reported to SDWIS, only the
type.

The appropriate SDWIS/FED Major M&R sampling violation data elements and individual DTP
transactions for Example #11 and Example #12 are listed below in Exhibit 2.18.
August 2004                                Page E - 66       Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Exhibit 2.18 LTIESWTR M&R Major Sampling Violation Data Elements and DTF
                                   Transactions
 Data Elements:

 Number
 C01Q1
 cnoi
 C1103
 C1105
 C1107
 C1109
       Name
       PWS-ID
       Violation ID
       Contaminant
       Violation Type
       Compliance Period Begin Date
       Compliance Period End Date
                           Value or Comment
 C1131        Maj or Violation Flag

 DTF Transactions:
                           Qualifier 1
                           Qualifier 2
                           0300
                           38

                           Must be one month later than C1107
                           (defaulted if neither C1109 nor Cllll is
                           reported)
                           Y = Major, N = Minor
  Dl
  Dl
  Dl
       GA1234589
GA1234589
GA1234589
GA1234589
            0600001
0600001
0600001
0600001
  Dl
  Dl
  Dl
GA1234589
GA1234589
GA1234589
0600002
0600002
0600002
  Dl
  Dl
  Dl
  Dl
GA1234589
GA1234589
GA1234589
GA1234589
0600003
0600003
0600003
0600003
                     C1105  138
                    	1—
 C1107  120060401
 C1109  120060430
	1	
 C1131  IY
 C1105  !38
 C1107  !20060501
 C1109  120060531
 C1105  138
	1—
 C1107  120060601
 C1109  120060630
 C1131  !Y
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
                               Page E - 67
                                                        August 2004

-------
2.4  Recordkeeping Violations
General Discussion of Recordkeeping Violations

Under the LT1ESWTR, one type of Recordkeeping violation is reported to SDWIS/FED. A
Recordkeeping violation is reported for water systems that fail to maintain, in a reviewable format, the
results of individual filter monitoring for at least 3 years from the date of sample collection. All
LT1ESWTR violations are reported as violations of the rule, rather than of a specific contaminant. The
contaminant code 0300 is utilized for the LT1ESWTR violations reported to SDWIS/FED.

2.4.1  Type 09/0300: Failure to Maintain the Results of Individual Filter Monitoring for
       at Least 3 Years From Date of Sample Collection

    Cross-reference to LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance:
           Section I, page 2 & 8
           Section V, pages 2 & 8
Table 2-26. Violation Type: 09/0300
Violation
Code
09
Contaminant
Code
0300
Recordkeeping Violations
Failure to maintain the results of
individual filter monitoring for at least
3 years after the date of sample
collection.
Rule Citation
40CFR141.571(a)
Example System Description - System F:

System F is a subpart H system that treats a single surface water source with a direct filtration plant that
has four individual filters capable of producing 3.46 MOD over a 24-hour period. The system serves
5,000 persons.  Pursuant to the treatment technique requirements of the LT1ESWTR, System F must
measure the turbidity of the CFE every four hours of operation and record those measurements on a form
approved by the Primacy Agency. Additionally, System F must have continuous monitoring
turbidimeters placed on the effluent of each individual filter and must measure the turbidity continuously
while each filter is producing water that goes to the clearwell. These individual filter turbidity readings
must be recorded every 15 minutes during the time each filter is in operation and records of the 15-minute
measurements must be retained by the system for at least three years. Systems must report that they have
conducted individual filter monitoring within ten days following the end of each month. Systems must
also report to the State by the  10th of the following month if the IFE exceeded 1.0 NTU in 2 consecutive
recordings taken 15 minutes apart. If the IFE exceeded 1.0 NTU in 2 consecutive recordings taken  15
minutes apart, systems must also report this and the reason for the exceedance to the State by the 10th of
the following month.

Example #13: Recordkeeping 09/0300

A representative from the Primacy Agency travels to System F on January 5, 2006 to conduct a sanitary
survey.  During the sanitary survey, she asks to see the individual filter monitoring results and learns that
they are purged from System F's SCADA system at the end of each quarter and no other records of such
measurements are retained.
Example #13 Decision:
August 2004
Page E - 68
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
This violation is SDWIS coded as 09/0300. System F has incurred a recordkeeping violation because
records of individual filter turbidity measurements have not been maintained for at least three years after
the date of sample collection (they are purged from the SCADA system at the end of each quarter and no
other records are kept).

Public Notice Requirements

According to the requirements of 40 CFR141.201, the system must provide Tier 3 public notice
regarding the violation.

System Reporting Requirements

There are no specific system reporting requirements for this violation.

Primacy Agency to SDWIS/FED Reporting

For SDWIS/FED reporting, the violation begin date is the date on which the Primacy Agency becomes
aware of the failure on January 5, 2006 (20060105).  The violation is considered to be returned to
compliance when the water system documents to the primacy agency that it has 3-years of filter turbidity
monitoring data.  The appropriate SDWIS/FED recordkeeping violation data elements and individual
DTP transactions for violation Type 09/0300 are listed in Exhibit 2.19.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance       Page E - 69                                August 2004

-------
  Exhibit 2.19  Recordkeeping Violation - Failure to Maintain Results of Individual
    Filter Effluent Measurements For at Least 3 Years After Date of Sample Data
                           Elements and DTF Transactions
 Data Elements:

 Number
 C0101
 CHOI
 C1103
 C1105
 C1107
 C1109
Name
PWS-ID
Violation ID
Contaminant
Violation Type
Compliance Period Begin Date
Compliance Period End Date
 DTF Transactions:
Value or Comment
 Qualifier 1
 Qualifier 2
 0300
 09

 This date should not be provided with the
 violation.  SDWIS/FED processing will generate
 a default date of 12/31/2015. When the primacy
 agency has determined that the PWS is
 compliant (i.e., collected and kept on site 3 years
 of individual filter turbidity measurements),
 then the primacy agency needs to submit a
 "returned to compliance" enforcement action and
 link it to the original record keeping violation.
 The date of the action should represent the date
 the primacy agency made that determination.
 SDWIS/FED processing will modify the end
 date of the original violation to be the same date
 as the "returned to compliance" reported.
:f"f';"'
Dl
Dl
Dl
• .-.. .' -:- '.. '•"-.-. ••--.:
v:-::-3Sll:,::;vF/
GA1234585
GA1234585
GA1234585
12-18 J19-2S
0600001 !
0600001 !
060000 l!
i
261 27-31
I ! C1103
1
I ! C1105
1
I i C1107
1
32-71
0300
09
20060105
72-74



75-80



August 2004
                         Page E - 70
          Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
Section 3
General SDWIS Reporting

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
General SDWIS Reporting & SDWIS Inventory Reporting


3.1 Federally Reported Violations

Under SDWIS/FED reporting, Primacy Agencies report when violations occur. In the interest of
reducing the reporting burden on Primacy Agencies, EPA has limited the number and type of violations to
be reported to SDWIS/FED. However, PWSs must still keep records and report all required information
to the Primacy Agency. Any violation of the rule, whether included in the accompanying table or not, is a
basis for a Primacy Agency or federal enforcement action. Table 3-1 summarizes the violation and
contaminant codes that will be used when it is necessary to report violations of the LT1ESWTR to
SDWIS/FED.

Table 5.2, from the LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance, contains the federally reportable violations for
the LT1ESWTR in more detail. These violations are listed by contaminant or requirement and violation
type. The table includes the SDWIS/FED reporting codes, the regulatory citation, system type affected, a
detailed description of the violation, and the initial compliance date. This table will contribute to a user's
understanding of those violations listed in SDWIS.

SDWIS/FED Reporting

This section provides guidance to EPA Regions and Primacy Agencies on reporting facility information
and violations of the LT1ESWTR and DBF rules to the national SDWIS/FED database.

The SDWIS/FED reporting requirements in this section apply to  systems of all types and sizes. Although
the method of violation determination may differ between systems, a particular violation code will define
the same violation at any system.

SDWIS/FED Data Transfer File (DTP) Format

Data are reported to SDWIS/FED via a formatted Data Transfer File (DTP).  Exhibit 3.1 depicts the
format of a DTP transaction. Refer to SDWIS/FED Data Entry Instructions for further information
regarding DTF processing and construction, particularly modification and deletion issues which are not
covered in this document.
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance       Page E - 73                               August 2004

-------
     37
0300
Failure to profile or consult w/Primacy Agency (disinfection changes)
     43
0300
Combined filter effluent exceeds 1 NTU/Primacy Agency-set maximum
requirements
     44
0300
More than 5% of monthly combined filter effluent samples exceed 0.3
NTU/Primacy Agency-set maximum requirements
     47
0300
Construction of an uncovered finished water storage facility
     29
0300
Major: Failure to conduct follow-up activities triggered by individual
filter turbidity exceedances.
     38'
0300
Major: Failure to collect and report 90% of required combined filter
effluent turbidity samples
                             Major: Failure to report all individual filter monitoring has been
                             conducted
                             Major: Failure to report combined filter effluent maximum turbidity
                             exceedances by the end of the next business day
                             Minor: Any other failure to monitor or report
                                                 Recordkee]
     09
0300
Failure to maintain the results of individual filter monitoring for at least
3 years
Flag used to denote major or minor
August 2004
                          Page E - 74
                               Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
                Exhibit 3.1  General DTF File and Transaction Format
1-2
Form ID
3-11
.
Quail
12-18
Qual2
19-25
QualS
26
DIM
Code
27-31
DE Number
• "-iJWriM---
Data Value
!.$&W«-
.. -••-.- .V: '
Blank
•&:$&&*•'-:',
: .--... .,• •,,, ;. ... .
Batch
Sequence
Number
 Form ID

     FormBl

     FormB2

     FormBS

     Form Dl

     Form El

 Qualifier 1


 Qualifier 2
 Qualifier 3



 DIM Code



 Data Element
 Number

 Data Value

 Batch Sequence Number
An identification number that allows input of certain types of data.

Used for Source/Entity Data in Inventory Reporting.

Used for Treatment Data.

Used for Facility Flow Data.

Used for Violation Data.

Used for Enforcement Data.

The Public Water System Identifier (PWS-ID) of the Water System to be
inserted, modified, or deleted.

Contains an ID that further defines what record is to be inserted, modified,
or deleted. Qualifier 2 contains the SE ID when reporting facilities and
Treatments, the violation ID when reporting violations, and the
enforcement ID when reporting enforcements.

Contains an ID that further defines what record is to be inserted, modified,
or deleted. Qualifier 3 contains the treatment ID when reporting
treatments.

D= Delete
I = Insert
M =    Modify

The DTF data element number (e.g., C0483, Cl 105) identifying a specific
element to be inserted, modified, or deleted.

The data value associated with the data element number.

The number assigned to the group of data being submitted. Used to
sequence processing against the database, if required.
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance
                Page E - 75
August 2004

-------
This page intentionally left blank
                                                                            X,,

-------
Section 4
Additional Sources of
Information

-------
This page intentionally left blank

-------
Additional  Sources for Technical Information on the
LT1ESWTR
SDWIS/FED Documents

SDWIS/FED Data Entry Instructions
This document provides details for the creation of all parts of DTP transactions

SDWIS/FED Online Data Dictionary
This application provides details on every table and field contained in SDWIS/FED, including definitions,
permitted values, names, and editing requirements.

LT1ESWTR Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Technical Guidance Manual (EPA 816-R-03-004)
    Objective: Help determine if a disinfection profile (an evaluation of current disinfection practices) 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 PWS should use the benchmark, in consultation
              with the Primacy Agency, to assure protection from microbial risk is maintained when
              the system changes its disinfection practice.
    Contents:  The manual provides detailed information on the following subjects: applicability of the
              profiling and benchmarking requirements to PWSs; 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, communication with the Primacy Agency, 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.

LT1ESWTR Turbidity Provisions Technical Guidance Manual (EPA 816-R-03-005)
    Objective: To provide information on the turbidity requirements in LT1ESWTR and on concepts
              surrounding turbidity.
    Contents:  The manual includes information on turbidity requirements, data collection, data
              management, filter self-assessments, and other treatment processes related to turbidity.

Alternative Disinfectants and Qxidants Guidance Manual (EPA 815-R-99-Q14)
    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 assist in evaluating which disinfectant, or disinfectants, 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 used in the U.S. and cost estimates for the use of alternative
              disinfectants.

Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems (EPA 815-R-99-016)
Final LT1ESWTR Implementation Guidance       Page E - 79                                August 2004

-------
    Objective:  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 Primacy Agency agencies improve their sanitary survey programs where needed.
    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 on-site portion
               conducting the on-site survey, compiling a sanitary survey report, and performing follow-
               up activities.

Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs Manual (EPA 815-R-99-011)
    Objective:  To provide information on ways to limit water quality degradation in existing uncovered
               finished water reservoirs.
    Contents:   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 difficult to correct.

Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts  Rules Simultaneous Compliance Guidance Manual (EPA 815-R-
99-015)
    Objective:  To assist PWSs on complying simultaneously with various drinking water regulations
               (e.g., Stage  1 DBPR, IESWTR, Lead and Copper Rule, and the Total Coliform Rule).
               The manual discusses operational problems systems may encounter when implementing
               these rule.
    Contents:   The manual provides detailed information on the requirements in the Stage  1 DBPR and
               the IESWTR.

Implementation Guidance for the LTIESWTR
    Objective:  To assist Primacy Agencies with implementation of the LTIESWTR, including
               preparation  of primacy  revision application packages.
    Contents:   The manual contains chapters on rule overview, primacy implementation issues, primacy
               revision packages, PN and CCR requirements related to the rule, and SDWIS reporting.
August 2004
Page E - 80
Final LTIESWTR Implementation Guidance

-------
c
c
c

-------
o
o
o

-------