830R99001
EPA
Implementation Guidance
for the
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
and the
Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule
-------
This page is left intentionally blank.
-------
Contents
Introduction
Section 1.
Section II.
Section III.
Section IV.
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
Rule Requirements
A. Key Dates of the Rules
Al. Key Dates for the IESWTR
A2. Key Dates for the Stage 1 DBPR
B. Rule Executive Summaries
Bl. IESWTR
B2. Stage 1 DBPR
Violation Determination, SDWIS Reporting, and SNC Definitions
A. SDWIS Reporting
A1. Reporting Violations under the IESWTR
A2. Reporting Violations under the Stage 1 DBPR
B. SNC Definitions
Bl. SNC Definitions—IESWTR
B2. SNC Definitions—Stage 1 DBPR
Primacy Revision Applications
A. Changes to the Primacy Revision Process
B. State Primacy Program Revisions
Bl. The Revision Process
B2. The Final Review Process
C. State Primacy Program Revision Extensions
Cl. The Extension Process
C2. Criteria that an Extension Request Must Meet
C3. Conditions of the Extension
D. State Primacy Package
E. Guidance for Special Primacy Requirements
El. Special Primacy Requirements—IESWTR
E2. Special Primacy Requirements—Stage 1 DBPR
Other Resources and Guidance
A. Technical Information Available on the IESWTR and Stage 1 DBPR
B. Fact Sheets
C. Questions and Answers
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (and Preamble)
Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule (and Preamble)
Primacy Revision Crosswalks
Sample Memorandum of Understanding
SDWIS-Fed DTF Reporting and Flowcharts
SDWIS Contaminant Codes
Violation Tables for Data Management and Enforcement Purposes
Statement of Principles—Guidance on Audit Law Issues
Plain English Summaries of the Rules
Rule Presentations
-------
This page is left intentionally blank.
-------
Contacts
Region I
Katie Leo
617-918-1623
Region II
Michael Lowy
212-637-3830
Region III
Jason Gambatese
215-814-5759
Region IV
David Parker
404-562-9460
Region V
Miguel Del Toral
312-886-5253
Region VI
Blake Atkins
214-665-2297
Region VH
Ralph Floumoy
913-551-7374
Region VTT1
Bob Clement
303-312-6653
Region IX
Bruce Macler
415-744-1884
Region X
Wendy Marshall
206-553-1890
-------
State
Contacts
REGION I
Connecticut
Gerald Iwan
Maine
Brian Tarbuck
Massachusetts
David Terry
New Hampshire
Rene Pelletier
Rhode Island
June Swallow
Vermont
Jay Rutherford
REGION II
New Jersey
Vince Monaco
New York
Ron Entringer
Puerto Rico
Olga Rivera
US Virgin Islands
Christine Louis
REGION III
Delaware
Ed Hallock
Maryland
Nancy Reilman
Pennsylvania
John Wroblewski
Virginia
John Capito
Bob Taylor
West Virginia
Vic Wilford
REGION IV
Alabama
Joe Alan Power
Florida
Van Hoofnagle
Georgia
Onder Serefli
Kentucky
Vicki Ray
Mississippi
David Mitchell
North Carolina
Jessica Miles
Sojith Carolina
Alton C. Boozer
Tennessee
W. David Draughon
-------
REGION V
REGION XHI
Illinois
Roger Selburg
Don Dillenburg
Dianna Heaberlin
Indiana
Stacy Jones
Jill Shalabi
Michigan
James Cleiand
Colorado
Jerry Biberstine
Montana
John Camden
North Dakota
Larry Thelen
South Dakota
Garland Erbele
Minnesota
Dennis E. Maki
Ohio
Kirk Leifheit
Wisconsin
Robert Baumeister
Utah
Russ Topham
Wyoming
Gary Beach
REGION IX
REGION VI
Arkansas
Harold R. Seifert
Louisiana
Bobby Savoie
New Mexico
Robert Gallegos
Oklahoma
Jon L. Craig
Texas
Steven Walden
American Samoa
Sheila Wiegman
Arizona
Jeff Stuck
California
David P. Spath
Guam
Fred Castro
Hawaii
Bill Wong
Nevada
Jon Palm
REGION VII
Northern Mariana Islands
Miriam Seman
Iowa
Dennis Alt
Dave Waldo
REGION X
Alaska
James Weise
Missouri
Terry Timmons
Nebraska
Jack Daniel
Idaho
Tom John
Oregon
Michael Grimm
Washington
Jim Hudson
-------
This page is left intentionally blank.
-------
Introduction
The purpose of this guidance manual is to provide aid to EPA, States, and public water systems (PWSs)
for the implementation of the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and the Stage
1 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR). These rules were published concurrently
in the Federal Register on December 16, 1998.
This manual was developed through a workgroup process involving Regions, States, and Stakeholders,
and contains the following sections:
Section I summarizes the IESWTR and Stage 1 DBPR and presents timetables and timelines of important
dates of these rules. Section II addresses violation determination and associated reporting requirements,
including compliance flowcharts and violation tables to assist States in their compliance activities.
Section III covers State Primacy Revision Requirements, including a detailed timeframe for application
review and approval. This section also contains guidance and references to help States adopt each new
special primacy requirement included in these rules. Section IV contains a series of "stand-alone"
guidance materials that will help States and public water systems comply with the new requirements.
The Appendices of this document also provide information that will be useful to States and EPA Regions
throughout the primacy revision application process. Appendices A and B contain the Final IESWTR and
Final Stage 1 DBPR, respectively, including the preambles to the rules. Appendix C contains the
Primacy Revision Application crosswalks for both rules. Appendix D contains a sample Memorandum of
Understanding between EPA and the States which will allow States and EPA.to document how they will
share rule implementation responsibilities if the State does not submit a primacy application by the
deadline. Appendices E and F contains Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) contaminant
codes and flowcharts describing SDWIS reporting. Appendix G contains additional violation tables
arranged for data management and enforcement purposes. Appendix H contains a "Statement of
Principles" which outlines the criteria EPA will use to determine whether States with audit laws have
retained adequate enforcement and information gathering authority to meet the requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Appendix I contain Plain English summaries of each rule. Appendix J
contains training presentation materials for each rule .
Introduction
-------
This page is left intentionally blank.
Introduction
-------
Section I.
Rule Requirements
-------
This page is left intentionally blank.
-------
IESWTR
A. Key Dates of the Rules
Al. Key Dates for the IESWTR
The compliance date for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) is January 1,
2002. Several provisions, including disinfection profiling and benchmarking and restrictions on
uncovered finished water storage facilities, however, will require compliance before the primary
compliance date. The timetable for the IESWTR is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1: PWS Timetable for the IESWTR Requirements
Date from Rule
Publication
December 16, 1998
Februaiy 16, 1999
February 16, 1999
March 1999
April 1999
December 16, 2000
December 31, 1999
December 3 1,1999
December31, 1999
March 3 1,2000
March 3 1,2000
April 1, 2000
April 1, 2000
April 1, 2001
December 3 1.2001
IESWTR Requirement
Rule is published in Federal Register [63 FR 241 69478].
60-day legal challenge period ends.
Construction of uncovered finished water storage reservoirs is prohibited [§141.170(c)].
TTHM and HAA5 monitoring must begin for systems that do not have ICR or occurrence data and
wish to determine if they must develop a disinfection profile [§141.172(aX2)(iii)j.
Systems that have 4 consecutive quarters of HAAS occurrence data that meet the TTHM monitoring
requirements must submit those data to the State to determine if they must develop a disinfection
profile [§141.172(a)(5Xu)].
Final primacy applications must be submitted to EPA unless granted an extension [§ 14l.l2(b)(i)]
TTHM and HAAS data are due for those systems that collected data under the ICR to determine if
they must develop a disinfection profile [§141.172(a)(5)(i)J.
Systems that elect to profile without conducting 4 quarters of TTHM and HAAS monitoring must
notify the State of their election [§14U72(aX5Xiv)].
Systems that wish to request State approval of "a more representative annual data set" than the ICR
data set to determine if they must develop a disinfection profile must do so in writing
{§14I.172(a)(5Xv)].
TTHM and HAAS and monitoring must be complete for systems determining if they must develop a
disinfection profile [§141.172(aK2Xiii)]
Systems determining if they must develop a disinfection profile must submit their TTHM and HAAS
data to the State [§141.] 72(a)(5)(iiiXA)].
Systems must begin developing a disinfection profile if either their annual average TTHM 2 0.064
mg/L or their annual average HAA5 2 0.048 mg/L [§141.172(bX2)].
If system is using 3 years of existing operational data to develop the disinfection profile, the profile
generated from these data and a request for State approval must be submitted [§141.172(b)(3){i)].
Disinfection profile is complete [§141.172(b)(ii)].
Systems that were required to develop a disinfection profile that wish to make a significant change to
their disinfection practice after this date must first calculate a disinfection benchmark and consult with
the State [§ 14 U70(a)J.
Rule Requirements
-------
IESWTR
Date from Rule
Publication
December 3 1,2001
December 31, 2001
December 31, 2001
December 2001
January 1,2002
January 1, 2002
December 16,2002
December 2004
December 2006
IESWTR Requirement .
Systems that are not required to filter must comply with the requirements for TTHM in §141.12 and
§141.30 until this date. After this date, systems must comply with the requirements in Subpart L for
TTHM. HAAS, bromate, chlorite, chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine dioxide [§141.71(b)(6)].
i Systems that do not meet all of the criteria for avoiding filtration and use conventional/direct filtration
must meet the turbidity requirements of the rule (0.3 NTU CFE 95 percent of the time, at no time
exceed 1 NTU) [§141.73{aX3)J.
Alternative technologies for systems that serve at least 10,000 people must remove 99 percent of
Cryptosporidium oocysts, and the State must establish alternative turbidity performance standards that
must be met 95 percent of the time [§ 141 .73(d)].
States must begin first round of sanitary surveys for all Subpart U Systems.
Systems must comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of §141 .175, including
turbidity exceptions reporting. Systems must, when appropriate:
• Produce filter profiles or identify obvious reason for poor filter performance
• Report profile has been produced or identify obvious reason for poor filter performance
• Conduct fi Iter self-assessments
• Have 3ri party CPEs performed
Requirements of Subpart P generally apply to Subpart H systems mat serve at least 10,000 people
\ [§141.170(a)].
Final primacy revisions applications with extensions most be submitted to EPA [§142.12{bX2)].
i State must have first round of sanitary surveys completed for Subpart H CWSs [ 1 42. 1 6 1 ].
j State must have first round of sanitary surveys completed for Subpart H CWSs with "outstanding
performance" and Subpart H NCWSs.
Rule Requirements
-------
Stage 1 DBPR
A2. Key Dates for the Stage 1 DBPR
The compliance dates for the Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage I DBPR) are
January 1,2002 and January 1, 2004. Surface water systems and systems using ground water under the
direct influence (GWUDI) of surface water that serve 10,000 or more people will have to comply with
the provisions of the rule beginning January 1, 2002. Surface water and GWUDI systems that serve
fewer than 10,000 people and all ground water systems will have to comply with the provisions of the
rule beginning January 1, 2004. The timetable for the Stage 1 DBPR is presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2: PWS Timetable for the Stage 1 DBPR Requirements
Date from Rule
Publication
December 16, 1998
February 16, 1999
February 16, 1999
December 2000
January 1,2002
January 1, 2002
January 1, 2002
January 1, 2002
January 1, 2002
January 1, 2002
January 1,2004
January 1, 2004
January 1,2004
DBPR Requirement
Rule is published in Federal Register [63 FR 241 69390].
60-day legal challenge period ends.
Methods specified in §141.131 for analyzing disinfection byproducts, disinfection residuals, and
DBF precursors must be used [§141. 131(a)].
Large surface water and GWUDI (Subpart H) systems may begin monitoring to determine Step 1
TOC removals before the compliance date.
Large Subpart H CWSs and NTNCWSs must comply with the MCLs for TTHM. HAAS, bromate,
and chlorite [§1 4 1.64(b)(l)].
Large Subpart H CWSs and NTNCWSs must comply with the MRDLs for chlorine, chloramines,
and chlorine dioxide [§141 ,65(b)( 1 )J.
Large Subpart H TNCWSs that use chlorine dioxide must comply with the MRDL for chlorine
dioxide [§ 14 1.65(bX2)].
Requirements of Subpart L generally apply to large Subpart H CWSs and NTNCWs
[§!41.130(bXl)J.
• Monitoring requirements
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Compliance
• Treatment technique for control of DBF precursors
Large Subpart H TNCWSs that use chlorine dioxide must comply with requirements for chlorine
dioxide and chlorite [§141.65(bX2)].
Small Subpart H systems may begin monitoring to determine Step 1 TOC removals before the
compliance date.
Small Subpart H and ground water CWSs and NTNCWSs must comply with the MCLs for TTHM,
HAAS, bromate. and chlorite [§14l.64(b)(l)].
Small Subpart H and ground water CWSs and NTNCWSs must comply with the MRDLs for
chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine dioxide [§141.65(b)(I)j.
Small Subpart H and ground water TNCWSs that use chlorine dioxide must comply with the MRDL
for chlorine dioxide [§141.65 (b)(2)].
Rule Requirements
-------
Stage 1 DBPR
Date from Rule
Publication
January !, 2004
January I, 2004
June 30,2005
DBPR Requirement
Requirements of Subpart L generally apply to small surface water and GWUDI and ground water
: CWSsandNTNCWsl§14U30(bXI)J.
* Monitoring requirements
i • Reporting and rccordkeeping requirements
I • Compliance
i • Treatment technique for control of DBF precursors
' Small Subpart H TNCWSs that use chlorine dioxide must comply with requirements for chlorine
1 dioxide and chlorite [§141.130(bX2)].
• Systems that made a clear and irrevocable financial commitment before the applicable compliance
date to install technologies that limit TTHM and HAAS to 0.040 rag/L and 0.030 mg/L, respectively,
| must have these technologies installed and operating. [§141. 135(aX2Xiii)}.
Rule Requirements
-------
IESWTR
B. Rule Executive Summaries
Bl. IESWTR
Purpose
The purpose of this summary is to acquaint State decision-makers and public health officials with the
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR). The IESWTR, published in the Federal
Register on December 16, 1998 (63 FR 69477; www.epa.gov/OGWDW/mdbp/ieswtrfr.htmO, is the first
part of a series of rules, the "Microbial-Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Cluster" (M-DBP
Cluster), to be published over the next several years that are intended to control microbial pathogens
while minimizing the public health risks of disinfectants and disinfection byproducts (DBFs). The
IESWTR is designed to address the health risks from microbial contaminants without significantly
increasing the potential risks from chemical contaminants. This rule was published concurrently with the
Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR), which will address control of
disinfectants and their byproducts.
Background
In 1990, EPA's Science Advisory Board, an independent panel of experts established by Congress, sited
drinking water contamination as one of the most important environmental risks and indicated that
disease-causing microbial contaminants (i.e., bacteria, protozoa, and viruses) are probably the greatest
remaining health-risk management challenge for drinking water suppliers. Data from the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC) confirm this concern and indicate that between 1980 and 1994,379 waterbome
disease outbreaks were reported, with over 500,000 cases of disease. During this period, a number of
agents were implicated as the cause, including protozoa, viruses, bacteria, and several chemicals. Most of
the cases (but not the outbreaks) were associated with surface water, including a single outbreak of
cryptosporidiosis in Milwaukee (over 400,000 cases).
One of the key regulations EPA has developed to date to counter pathogens in drinking water is the 1989
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR). Among its provisions, the rule requires that a surface water
system have sufficient treatment to reduce the source water concentration ofGiardia lamblia and viruses
by at least 99.9 percent (3 log) and 99.99 percent (4 log), respectively. The goal of the SWTR is to
reduce risk to less than one infection per year per 10,000 people. However, the SWTR's limitation is that
the source water of some systems has high pathogen concentrations that, when reduced by the levels
required under the rule, still may not meet this health goal, and the rule does not specifically control for
the protozoan Cryptosporidium.
In addition to these microbial issues, there is another potentially confounding public-health concern. The
disinfectants used to control pathogens may react with organic chemicals in the source water to produce
potentially toxic or carcinogenic DBPs (see the Stage 1 DBPR Executive Summary). Thus, the dilemma
facing water supply professionals is how to minimize the risk from both microbial pathogens and DBPs
simultaneously.
IESWTR Executive Summary
-------
IESWTR
Development of the IESWTR
The new rales are a product of 6 years of collaboration among the water supply industry, environmental
and public health groups, and local, State, and Federal governments. To address the complex issues
associated with regulating microbial pathogens, EPA first launched a rule-making process in 1992 and
convened a Regulatory Negotiation (RegNeg) Advisory Committee under the Federal Advisory
Committees Act (FACA), representing a range of stakeholders affected by possible regulation. The
RegNeg Committee met repeatedly over a period of 10 months and arrived at a consensus proposal for
taking progressive steps toward addressing both DBFs and microbial pathogens. The 1992 consensus-
building process resulted in the three following regulatory proposals—
N. A staged approach to regulation of DBFs (referred to as the Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBPRs)
incorporating Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), Maximum Residual Disinfectant Levels
(MRDLs), and treatment technique requirements;
O. A companion Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) designed to improve
control of microbial pathogens and prevent inadvertent reductions in microbial safety as a result
of DBF control efforts; and,
P. An Information Collection Rule (ICR) to collect information necessary to reduce many key
uncertainties prior to subsequent negotiations for the Stage 2 DBPR.
Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1996 and affirmed the strategy developed
by the RegNeg Committee. Congress also established a series of new statutory-deadlines for the rules.
In 1997, a similar FACA process was implemented with the Microbial-Disinfectants/Disinfection
Byproducts (M-DBP) Advisory Committee. The M-DBP Committee convened to collect, share, and
analyze new information available since 1994, review previous assumptions made during the RegNeg
process, as well as build consensus on the regulatory implications of this new information. The IESWTR,
as structured today, is the result of the FACA process.
Benefits of the IESWTR
The IESWTR will improve public health by increasing the level of protection from exposure to
Cryptosporidiian and other pathogens in drinking water supplies through improvements in filtration at
water systems. According to the risk assessment performed for the Regulatory Impact Analysis, the
IESWTR decreases the likelihood of endemic illness (constant, low-level presence of a disease or
infection) from Cryptosporidium by 110,000 to 463,000 cases annually. Based on these values, the
estimated annual benefits of reducing the illness range from S0.263 billion to $1.240 billion per year.
This calculation is based on a valuation of $2,000 per incidence of cryptosporidiosis prevented. The
IESWTR will also reduce the risk of more severe health impacts on sensitive populations, including the
risk of mortality. Additionally, the IESWTR will reduce the likelihood of outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis
and its associated costs by providing a larger margin of safety against such outbreaks in some systems.
IESWTR Executive Summary
-------
IESWTR
Applicability and Compliance Dates
The IESWTR applies to public water systems (PWSs) that use surface water or ground water under the
direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) as a source and serve 10,000 or more people. Additionally, it
establishes a schedule by which States are required to conduct sanitary surveys for all surface water and
GWUDI PWSs.
Systems must comply with the turbidity and monitoring requirements, the primary requirements of the
IESWTR, no later than December 31, 2001 (36 months after publication of the rule). However, PWSs
with elevated levels of DBPs (Total Trihalomethanes—TTHM; and five haloacetic acids—HAAS) are
required to develop an evaluation of their existing disinfection practices—a disinfection profile—no later
than March 31, 2000 (27 months after publication).
Requirements of the Rule: Public Water Systems
Disinfection profiling and benchmarking
Surface water or GWUDI systems having average annual TTHM * 0.064 mg/L or annual average
HAAS 2 0.048 mg/L must develop a disinfection profile. The disinfection profile is a compilation of
daily criteria that affect the efficacy of the disinfection process (microbial inactivation potential)
collected over the period of 1 year. From the disinfection profile, the PWS calculates the average
microbial inactivation potential for each month, and the lowest monthly average inactivation becomes
the disinfection benchmark.
The purpose of these provisions is to provide a process whereby a PWS and the State, working together,
assure that there will be no significant reduction in microbial protection as the result of disinfection
practice modifications designed to meet the more restrictive Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for
DBPs established in the Stage 1 DBPR. If a PWS required to develop disinfection profiles subsequently
wishes to modify its disinfection practices to meet the new MCLs, it must establish the disinfection
benchmark and consult with the State prior to implementing such modifications. In addition, PWSs must
keep the disinfection profile on file for the State to review during their sanitary surveys.
Cryptosporidium
The IESWTR sets a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of zero for the protozoan
Cryptosporidium. It also establishes a requirement for 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium for systems that
must currently filter under the SWTR. 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 IESWTR (discussed below). 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.
The IESWTR also extends the existing watershed control requirements for unfiltered systems to include
the control of potential sources of Cryptosporidium. Such sources must be included in an unfiltered
system's watershed control plan.
IESWTR Executive Summary
-------
IESWTR
Strengthened turbidity requirements
The IESWTR includes a series of requirements related to turbidity. These requirements strengthen
current SWTR requirements for combined filter effluent for systems that use conventional or direct
filtration. The turbidity level of a system's combined filtered water at each plant must be less than or
equal to 0.3 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) in at least 95 percent of the measurements taken each
month, and the turbidity level of a system's combined filtered water must at no time exceed 1 NTU
(under the SWTR, these turbidity requirements are 0.5 NTU and 5 NTU, respectively).
Individual filter monitoring requirements
The IESWTR introduces continuous turbidity monitoring for individual filters. The rule requires that
surface water systems that use conventional or direct filtration must conduct continuous turbidity
monitoring on the effluent of each individual filter. PWSs must report instances of poor filter
performance to the State, and, based on performance triggers, must take prescribed actions to identify
and correct the cause(s).
Uncovered finished water storage facilities
The rule prohibits building any uncovered finished water storage facility (reservoir, holding tank, or
other storage facility) for which construction begins after February 16,1999 (60 days after publication).
Public water system recordkeeping and reporting requirements
The IESWTR requires PWSs to report monitoring and compliance data to States within 10 days after the
end of each month the system serves water to the public. Additionally, PWSs must submit filter profiles,
filter self-assessments, or Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE) reports when instances of poor
filter performance occur or persist based on monitoring of individual filter performance.
Requirements of the Rule: States or Other Primacy Agents
Sanitary surveys
The IESWTR requires that the State must conduct sanitary surveys for all PWSs using surface water or
GWUDI, regardless of the population the PWS serves, no less frequently than every 3 years for
community water systems and every 5 years for noncommunity systems. For community water systems
determined by the State in previous sanitary surveys to have "outstanding performance," successive
sanitary surveys may be conducted at up to 5-year intervals.
States must have rules or other authority to ensure that a PWS responds to any ''significant deficiencies"
revealed during its survey within 45 days, indicating how and on what schedule the system will address
the deficiencies noted in the survey. States must also have rules or other authority to ensure that facilities
take the steps necessary to address significant deficiencies identified in the survey report that are within
the control of the PWS and its governing body.
8 IESWTR Executive Summary
-------
IESWTR
State primacy, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
In order to receive primacy for the IESWTR, States must adopt regulations no less stringent than this
rule. In addition, States are required to explain, through responses to special primacy requirements, how
they will implement the key provisions in the rule. States must have rules or other authority to require
PWSs to respond to significant deficiencies uncovered in a sanitary survey, to conduct a Composite
Correction Program (CCP), and to assure that PWSs implement any follow-up recommendations that
result from the CCP. States must submit revisions to their programs, regulations, or authorities no later
than December 16,2000 (2 years after rule publication), although States can request an extension of up
to 2 years (December 16,2002).
States must keep records of PWS turbidity measurements, PWSs required to do filter self-assessment
reports, CPEs, CCPs, PWSs consulting with the State concerning modifications to disinfection practices,
and decisions for PWSs using alternative filtration technology.
More information can be obtained from:
A. The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
63 FR 69477 (December 16,1998); and
www.epa.gov/OGWDW/mdbp/ieswtrfr.html
B. The EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline, Telephone: 1.800.426.4791
IESWTR Executive Summary
-------
This page is left intentionally blank.
10 IESWTR Executive Summary
-------
Stage 1 DBPR
B2. The Stage 1 DBPR
Purpose
The purpose of this summary is to acquaint State decision-makers and public health officials with the
Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR). The Stage 1 DBPR, published in
the Federal Register on December 16, 1998 (63 FR 69389; www.epa.gov/OGWDW/mdbp/dbptr.htmI), is
the first part of a series of rules, the "Microbial-Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Cluster" (M-DBP
Cluster), to be published over the next several years that are intended to control microbial pathogens
while minimizing the public health risks of disinfectants and disinfection byproducts (DBPs). The Stage
1 DBPR specifically addresses risks associated with disinfectants and DBPs. This rule was published
concurrently with the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), which will address
control of microbial pathogens.
Background
Many water systems treat their water with a chemical disinfectant in order to inactivate pathogens that
cause disease. 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—DBPPs) in the water and form DBPs, some of which pose health risks at certain levels.
Since the discovery of chlorination byproducts in drinking water in 1974, numerous toxicologicai studies
have been conducted that show DBPs 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 doses, the weight-of-evidence indicates that DBPs present a potential public
health problem that must be addressed. One of the most complex questions facing water supply
professionals is how to reduce risks from disinfectants and DBPs while providing increased protection
against microbial contaminants (see the IESWTR Executive Summary). Much of the population is
exposed to these risks; therefore, a substantial concern exists.
Health risks associated with some DBPs are currently addressed by the Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM)
regulation for public water systems (PWSs) serving 10,000 or more people. EPA, however, believes that
the promulgation of the Stage 1 DBPR will significantly decrease the risks posed by DBPs and
disinfectants. The Stage 1 DBPR will broaden public health protection by covering many PWSs not
currently regulated for TTHM or other DBPs.
Development of the Stage 1 DBPR
The new rules are a product of 6 years of collaboration among the water supply industry, environmental
and public health groups, and local, State, and Federal governments. To address the complex issues
associated with regulating microbial pathogens, EPA first launched a rule-making process in 1992 and
convened a Regulatory Negotiation (RegNeg) Advisory Committee under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), representing a range of stakeholders affected by possible regulation. The
RegNeg Committee met repeatedly over a period of 10 months and arrived at a consensus proposal for
taking progressive steps toward addressing both DBPs and microbial pathogens. The 1992 consensus-
building process resulted in the three following regulator) proposals—
Stage I DBPR Executive Summary 11
-------
Stage 1 DBPR
Q. A staged approach to regulation of DBFs {referred to as the Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBPRs)
incorporating Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), Maximum Residual Disinfectant Levels
(MRDLs), and treatment technique requirements;
R. A companion Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) designed to improve
control of microbial pathogens and prevent inadvertent reductions in microbial safety as a result
of DBF control efforts; and,
S. An Information Collection Rule (ICR) to collect information necessary to reduce many key
uncertainties prior to subsequent negotiations for the Stage 2 DBPR.
Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1996 and affirmed the strategy developed
by the RegNeg Committee. Congress also established a series of new statutory deadlines for the rules.
In 1997, a similar FACA process was implemented with the Microbial-Disinfectants/Disinfection
Byproducts (M-DBP) Advisory Committee. The M-DBP Committee convened to collect, share, and
analyze new information available since 1994, review previous assumptions made during the RegNeg
process, as well as build consensus on the regulatory implications of this new information. The Stage 1
DBPR, as structured today, is the result of the FACA process.
Benefits of the Stage 1 DBPR
The Stage 1 DBPR is expected to reduce the reduce the risks associated with exposure to disinfectants
and DBFs. The MCLs will reduce exposure to specific DBPs from the use of ozone (byproduct:
bromate), chlorine dioxide (byproduct: chlorite), and chlorine (byproducts: TTHM and five Haloacetic
Acids—(HAAS)). In addition, the implementation of a treatment technique (enhanced coagulation/
enhanced softening) will reduce overall exposure to the broad range of non-specified DBPs. In the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Stage 1 DBPR, EPA estimated that the rule will result in a national
annual average reduction in TTHM levels of 24 percent. As many as 140 million people will have
increased protection from DPBs and their potential health risks, including bladder cancer and adverse
developmental and reproductive health effects.
Applicability and Compliance Dates
The existing TTHM requirements apply only to systems serving 10,000 or more people. The Stage 1
DBPR covers a larger number of PWSs, applying to all community water systems (CWSs) and
nontransient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWSs) that treat their water with a chemical
disinfectant for either primary or residual treatment. In addition, certain requirements apply to transient
noncommunity water systems (TNCWSs) that use chlorine dioxide.
Subpart H systems (PWSs that use that use surface water or ground water under the direct influence of
surface water—GWUDI—as a source) serving 10,000 or more people must comply with the
requirements of the Stage 1 DBPR no later than December 31,2001 (36 months after publication). Such
systems that plan to install granular activated carbon or membrane technologies to comply may apply to
the State for an extension of up to 24 months (January 1, 2004). Subpart H systems that serve fewer than
10,000 people, and all affected ground water systems, must comply with the requirements no later than
December 31, 2003 (60 months after publication).
12 Stage I DBPR Executive Summary
-------
Stage 1 DBPR
Requirements of the Rule: Public Water Systems
MCLGs and MCLsfor disinfection byproducts
The Stage 1 DBPR sets maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) for some of the regulated DBFs,
sets a more stringent maximum contaminant level (MCL) for TTHM, and sets new MCLs for HAAS,
bromate, and chlorite. MCLGs are set at concentrations at which no know or anticipated adverse health
effects are expected to occur. They are non-enforceable public health goals. MCLs are enforceable
contaminant standards that are feasible to achieve.
[
Disinfection Byproduct MCLG (mg/L) MCL (mg/L)
Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM)
Chloroform 0
Bromodichloromethane ' 0
Bromoform ; 0
Dibromochloromethane 0.06
Five Haloacetic Acids (HAAS)
Monochloroacetic Acid
0.080
: 0.060
Dichloroacetic Acid 0
Trichloroacetic Acid 0.30 1
t
Monobromoacetic Acid
Dibromoacetic Acid
Chlorite
0.80 1.0
Bromate < 0 ' 0.010
MRDLGs and MRDLs for disinfectant residuals
To protect against potential health risks caused by high levels of residua! disinfectants, the Stage 1
DBPR sets the following maximum residual disinfectant level goals (MRDLGs) and maximum residual
disinfectant levels (MRDLs). Like MCLGs and MCLs, respectively, MRDLGs are non-enforceable,
while MRDLs are enforceable.
Disinfectant
Chlorine
Chloramines
Chlorine Dioxide
MRDLG (mg/L)
4
4
0.8
MRDL (mg/L)
4.0
4.0
0.8
Stage 1 DBPR Executive Summary
13
-------
Stage 1 DBPR
Treatment technique for disinfection byproduct precursors
The rule includes a treatment technique that applies to Subpart H systems using conventional filtration
technology. The treatment technique was established because disinfectants can react with disinfection
byproduct precursors (DBPPs) to form both regulated and non-regulated DBFs. The treatment technique
requirements in the rule are designed to provide public health protection by minimizing the production of
all DBFs. Compliance with the rule's treatment technique requirement can be achieved by removing
specified percentages of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) using enhanced coagulation or enhanced
softening. Alternatively, systems are compliant by showing they meet alternative performance criteria
that indicate removal of DBPPs is unnecessary or impractical.
Best available technology (BAT)
EPA has specified the Best Available Technology (BAT) for each MCL and MRDL established in the
rule. These technologies and methods are believed to be effective in controlling chemicals in drinking
water while remaining economically feasible for PWSs to employ. PWSs must use the specified BAT if
they wish to qualify for variances.
DBFs
Disinfectants
Chemical
| TTHMandHAA5
i Chlorite
Bromatc
: Chlorine, chloramine,
and chlorine dioxide
Best Available Technology
Enhanced coagulation or granular activated carbon (GAC 10), with
chlorine as the primary and residual disinfectant
Control of treatment processes to reduce disinfectant demand and control
of disinfection treatment processes to reduce disinfectant levels
Control of ozone treatment process to reduce production
of bromate
Control of treatment processes to reduce disinfectant demand and control
of disinfection treatment processes to reduce disinfectant levels
Public water system recordkeeping and reporting requirements
For each disinfectant, contaminant, contaminant group, and treatment technique, EPA has developed
routine compliance monitoring schemes to be protective of acute and chronic health concerns. The
compliance monitoring requirements vary by the size and type of system, the treatment employed, and
the disinfectant used. In many cases, systems may reduce monitoring frequencies after establishing a
baseline that shows violations are unlikely.
Systems required to sample quarterly or more frequently must report to the State within 10 days after the
end of each quarter in which the samples were collected. Those required to sample less frequently than
quarterly must report to the State within 10 days after the end of each monitoring period in which
samples were collected. Systems that are required to conduct additional monitoring because of the
disinfectant used (e.g., chlorine dioxide) are subject to additional reporting requirements if certain
chemical levels are measured.
14 Stage 1 DBPR Executive Summary
-------
Stage 1 DBPR
Laboratory methods and certification
The rule specifies analytical methods for measuring each relevant water quality parameter, disinfectant,
contaminant, and DBPP. Consistent with current regulations, only certified laboratories can analyze
samples for compliance with the MCLs. For disinfectants and other specified parameters that EPA
believes can be adequately measured by other than certified laboratories, and for which there is good
reason to allow on-site analysis (e.g., for samples that may deteriorate before reaching a certified
laboratory), EPA is requiring that analyses be conducted by a party approved by the State.
Requirements of the Rule: States or Other Primacy Agents
State primacy, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
The Stage 1 DBPR requires States to adopt several new regulatory requirements including public
notification requirements, MCLs for DBPs, MRDLs for disinfectants, and the requirements of Subpart L.
In addition, States are required to adopt special primacy requirements and keep records of their activities,
records of decisions, and PWS monitoring results. State reporting to EPA is covered under existing
regulation.
More information can be obtained from:
A. The Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule
63 FR 69389 (December 16,1998); and
www.epa.gov/CKjWDW/mdbp/dbpfr.html
B. The EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline, Telephone: 1.800.426.4791
Stage 1 DBPR Executive Summary
15
-------
This page is left intentionally blank.
Stage J DBPR Executive Summary
-------
Section II.
Violation
Determination, SDWIS
Reporting, and SNC
Definitions
-------
This page is left intentionally blank.
-------
A. SDWIS Reporting
The following page is a summary of Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) reporting
requirements for the IESWTR and DBPR. A detailed list of violations is provided in Appendix G.
Appendix G is intended for use by programmers and for enforcement. The appendix is an easy reference
to all violations of the rules. A user can reference Appendix G to better understand violations in SDWIS.
Also, the reference can be used to determine how violations of the rules can be entered into SDWIS
Violation Determination, SDWIS Reporting, and SNC Definitions
-------
Al. Proposed Federal Reporting (States Report Only When Violations Occur) for IESWTR
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Violation
Code
43
44
47
48
37
38i
29
Contaminant
Code
0300
0300
0300
0300
0300
0300
0300
Treatment Technique Violations
Combined filter effluent exceeds 1 NTU
More than 5% of monthly combined filter effluent samples exceed 0.3
NTU.
Construction of an uncovered finished storage facility
Failure to meet Cryptosporidium site specific conditions (UF)
Failure to profile or consult w/state (disinfenction changes)
Monitoring and Reporting Violations
Major: Failure to collect 90% of required sample.
Minor: Any other failure to monitor or report
Major: Response to individual filter performance trigger
A2. Proposed Federal Reporting (States Report Only When Violations Occur) for DBPR
Disinfection Byproduct Rule
Violation
Code
02
02
02
02
11
11
112
12
46
273
Contaminant
Code
2950
2456
1011
1009
0999
1006
1008
0400
2920
0400
MCL and MRDL Violations
Total Trihalomethanes (MCL)
Haloacetic Acids (MCL)
Bromate (MCL)
Chlorite (MCL)
Chlorine (MRDL)
Chioramines (MRDL)
Chlorine Dioxide (Acute and Non- Acute) (MRDL)
Treatment Technique Violation
Failure to have qualified operator
DBF Precursor Removal (DBP)/(TOC).
Monitoring and Reporting Violations
Major: Failure to collect 90% of required samples.
Minor: Any other failure to monitor or report
Stage 1 DBPR and IESWTR
06
0400/0300
Public Notification - Both Rules
Failure to notify public after a violation.
1 The SDW1S/FED Major/Minor flag will be used for M/R Violations
2 For Chlorine Dioxide, the Major/Minor flag will be used. Major will indicate acute MRDL violation.
3 The SDW1S/FED Major/Minor flag will be used for M/R Violations
Vinlaiion Determination, SDWIS Reporting, andSNC Definitions
-------
B. SNC Definitions
The following pages are proposed SNC definitions for the IESWTR and DBPR. The SNC definition for the
IESWTR is based largely on precedents from the SWTR. The definitions for both rules have been presented
at State-EPA meetings and have been improved to reflect comments received.
Bl. SNC Definitions—IESWTR
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 6/27/90 Surface Water Treatment Rule
Implementation Manual. Systems become a 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/or 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/or 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/or
Minor M/R violations in any 12 consecutive months.
DISINFECTION PROFILING fif 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 storage facility after February 1999.
B2. SNC Definitions—DPBR
MONTHLY for more frequent) Compliance Determinations
(excluding chlorine dioxide)
• A system that has a combination of four (4) or more MCL violations in any 12 consecutive months.
« A system that has a combination of six (6) or more MCL violations and/or Major M/R violations in
anv 12 consecutive months.
Violation Determination, SDW1S Reporting, and SNC Definitions
-------
• A system that has a combination often (10) or more MCL violations, Major M/R violations, and/or
Minor M/R violations in any 12 consecutive months.
QUARTERLY Compliance Determinations
• A system that has a combination of two (2) or more MCL violations, MRDL violations, TT
violations, and/or Major M/R violations in any 12 consecutive months.
• A system that has a combination of three (3) or more MCL violations, MRDL violations, TT
violations, Major M/R violations, and/or Minor M/R violations in any 12 consecutive month.
YEARLY OR LESS Compliance Determinations
* A system which has one (1) MCL violation in any compliance cycle.
* A system which fails to collect and report all required sample(s).
CHLORINE DIOXIDE:
• A system that has four (4) non-acute chlorine dioxide violations in any 12 consecutive months.
• A system that has one (1) acute chlorine dioxide MRDL violation in any 12 consecutive months.
Failure to consult with the State before making a significant disinfection change.
Violation Determination, SOW IS Reporting, and SNC Definitions
-------
Section III.
State Primacy
Revision Applications
-------
This page is left intentionally blank.
-------
A. Changes to the Primacy Revision Process
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 create an additional requirement and
modify the process for States to obtain and/or retain primacy. On ApriJ 28,1998, EPA promulgated the
Primacy Rule to reflect these statutory changes (63 FR 23361).
For consistency with the Amendments to §1413, the Primacy Rule makes the following changes to the
existing regulations in 40 CFR 142:
1) Administrative Penalty Authority—As a condition of primacy, States must now have
administrative penalty authority for all violations of their approved primacy program, unless
prohibited by the States' constitution. This encompasses applicable requirements in 40 CFR 141
and 142 including, but not limited to, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, variances
and exemptions, if applicable, and public notification requirements.
2) Interim Primacy—The Primacy Rule also codifies the new process which grants primary
enforcement authority to States while their applications to modify their primacy programs are
under review (interim primacy). New section 142.12(e) explains that any State already having
primacy for all existing national primary drinking water regulations in effect when a new
regulation is promulgated is considered to have interim primacy for anew or revised regulation,
once it has submitted a complete and final primacy revision application. This interim
enforcement authority begins on the date of submission of a complete and final primacy revision
application or the effective date of the new or revised State regulation, whichever is later, and
ends when EPA makes a final determination.
3) Time increases for rule adoptions—The rule also increases the time for a State to adopt new or
revised federal regulations from 18 months to 2 years.
4) Examples of emergencies—Finally, the Primacy Rule adds examples of circumstances that
require an emergency plan for the provision of safe drinking water. Emergencies include
earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters.
For consistency with the Amendments to § 1401(4), the Primacy Rule expands the definition of a Public
water system (PWS) to include not only systems which provide water for human consumption through
pipes, but also systems which provide water for human consumption through "other constructed
conveyances."
B. State Primacy Program Revisions
Pursuant to §141.12, 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 3). Until those applications
are approved, EPA Regions have responsibility for directly implementing the IESWTR and the Stage 1
DBPR. 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 additional time, up to two years,
to submit its application package. During this period, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
outlining the State's and EPA:s responsibilities is required.
State Primacy Revision Applications 1
-------
Figure 3: State Rule Implementation and Revision Timetable
EPA/State Action Time Frame
Rules published by EPA . i December 16, 1998
State and Region establish a process and agree upon a schedule for application review and : May 1999
approval
State, at its option, submits draft program revision package including:
Preliminary Approval Request
Draft State Regulations
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 Enforccability Certification
EPA final review and determination:
Regional review (program and ORC)
Headquarters concurrence and waivers (OGWDW, OECA, OGC)
Public Notice
Opportunity for hearing
EPA's Determination
September 1999
Completed within 90 days of
State submittal of Draft
By December 16, 2000*
Completed within 90 days of
State submittal of final
45 days Region
45 days Headquarters
Rule Effective Date 3 years after publication
* An extension of up to 2 additional years may be requested by the State. EPA suggest submitting an application by September
2000.
Bl. 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 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. A draft
request should be submitted by 9 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 must 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 requests that States submit their complete and final revision package within 21 months from rule
promulgation. This will ensure that States will have interim primacy within 24 months and will prevent
States from becoming backlogged with revision applications to adopt future federal requirements.
2 State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
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 5 months.
Figure 4: Recommended Review Process for State Request for Approval of Program Revisions
EPA Promulgates
New or Revised
NPDWR or Regulation
Timeline
Start
Establish Process and
Tentative Schedule for
State Rule Approval
Feb.-May 1999
State
Submits Draft
Request to EPA
§142.12(dXl)
Request
for
Extension
§142.12(b)
Sept 1999
5 Months
9 Months
EPA Review and
Tentative Determination
§142.12(d)(lXii)
(within 90 days)
State Submits Complete
and Final Request to EPA
§142.12(d)(2Xi)
-•
Sept 2000-^ 21 Months
EPA Review and
Determination
§142.12(dX3)
(within 90 days)
Dec. 2000 -4 24 Months
State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
B2. 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. Upon a satisfactory completion of the review, OGWDW
will waive concurrence on all other State programs in that Region, although they will retain the option to
review additional State programs with cause. OECA will continue to review the remaining packages due
to audit law issues. 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, 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 Bob Blanco 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. After the first package from each Region is approved, the
Regions should forward remaining packages to Betsy Devlin in OECA.
C. State Primacy Program Revision Extensions
Cl. The Extension Process
Under §142.12(b), States may request that the 2-year deadline for submitting the complete and final
request 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.
C2. Criteria that an Extension Request Must Meet
For an extension to be granted, 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.
State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
C3. ConditioDs of the Extension
If an extension is granted, the Region and State will negotiate certain conditions that must be met during
the extension period. 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 a MOU between the State and the
EPA Regional office. Appendix D contains a sample MOU.
Conditions of an MOU 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;
* 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 5 provides a checklist the Region can use to review State extensions.
State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
Figure 5: Extension Request Checklist
I. Reason for State Request
Clustering of Program Revisions
Statutory Barrier
Regulatory Barrier
Lack of Program Capability
Insufficient Resources
Funding Leve]
Staffing
Lack of Adequately Trained Staff
Inadequate Procedures, Guidelines, and Policies
Other
II. Actions Taken by the State to Justify an Extension
Schedule Dates
(or attachments)
Seeking Increases in Program Resources
Training Existing Personnel/Revising Training Programs .
Revising State Regulations or Statutes
Developing Revised/New Procedures, Guidelines, Policies
Other
III. Extension Decision
Extension Request Approved Date:.
Period of Extension Request: / / to / /
Extension Request Denied Date: / /
Reason Cited:
IV. Conditions of the Extension
During the extension period the State will (check all that apply):
Inform public water systems of the new requirements and the fact that EPA will be
overseeing their implementation until the State's program is approved or submitted if State
qualifies for interim primacy
Collect and store laboratory results and other compliance data
Provide technical assistance to public water systems
Provide EPA with the information required under section 142.15 of the primacy rule
State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
D. State Primacy Package
The Primacy Revision Application package should consist of the following sections:
Section I. The State Primacy Revision Checklist (40 CFR 142.10)
This section is a checklist of general primacy requirements, taken from 40 CFR 142.10, as shown in
Figure 6. In completing this checklist, the State must identify the program elements that it has revised in
response to new Federal requirements. The State should indicate a "Yes" or "No" answer in the second
column next to the list of program elements. During the application review process, EPA will insert
findings and comments in the third column.
Figure 6; State Primacy Revision Checklist
; Revision to
Required Program Elements State Program EPA Findings/Comments
(Yes or No)
§142.10
§142.10(a)
§142JO(b)(l)
§l42.10(bX2)
§142.10(b)(3)
§142.!0(bX4)
§142.10(bX5)
§142.10(bX6Xi)
§142.10(bX6Xii)
§142.10(bX6Xiii)
§142.10(bX6)(iv)
§142.IO(bX6)(v)
§142.10(bX6)(vi)
§142,10(c)
§142.10(d)
§142.!0(e)
§142JO(f)
Primary Enforcement
— Definition of Public Water
System*
Regulations No Less Stringent
i
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
Maintenance of Records
Variance/Exemption Conditions (if
applicable)**
Emergency Plans
Administrative Penalry Authority*
* New requirement from the 1996 Amendments. Regulations published April 28, 1998
** New regulations published August 6, 1998
State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
States may still receive primacy for the IESWTR and Stage I DBPR even if they have not yet revised
their base program to comply with the new statutory requirements (PWS definition and administrative
penalty authority) provided that the time to adopt these requirements (including the extension period if
applicable) has not expired.
States may bundle the new PWS definition, administrative penalty authority, or variance and exemption
requirements with the IESWTR and/or Stage I DBPR primacy revision packages so long as the submittal
date (two years plus two year extension) has not lapsed. If States choose to bundle these requirements,
the State must include the text of the State regulation/statute. The Attorney General statement should
reference these new requirements.
Section U. Text of the State's Regulation
Each primacy application package must include the text of the State regulation.
Section HL Primacy Revision Crosswalk
The Primacy Revision Crosswalk, found in Appendix C, 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."
Section IV. State Reporting and Recordkeeping Checklists (40 CFR 142.14 and 142.15)
This section addresses State reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The State should use these
checklists to explain how State reporting and recordkeeping requirements are consistent with Federal
requirements. If State requirements are inconsistent with Federal requirements, the State must explain
how its requirements are "no less stringent." The checklist for the IESWTR is presented in Figure 7, and
the checklist for the Stage 1 DBPR is presented in Figure 8.
State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
Figure 7; Reporting and Recordkeeping Checklist for the IESWTR
Requirement
Are State policies consistent
with Federal requirements?
If not, please explain.
Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must keep records of
turbidity measurements for not less than 1 year; information retained must be
set forth in a form which makes possible comparison with turbidity limits
specified in §§141.71, 141.73, 141.173, 141.175.
Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must keep records of
disinfectant residual measurements and other parameters necessary to
document disinfection effectiveness in accordance with §§141.72,141.74,
141.75,141.175; records must be kept for not less than 1 year.
Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must keep written
records of decisions made on a system-by-system and case-by-case basis
under the provisions of 40 CFR 141, subpart H or subpart P.
Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must keep records of
systems consulting with the State concerning a modification to a disinfection
practice under §141.172(c) including the status of the consultation.
Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must keep records of
decisions mat a system using alternative filtration technologies as allowed
under §141.173(b) can consistently achieve 99% removal of
Cryptosporidium oocysts; decisions must include State-set enforceable
turbidity limits for each system; copy of the decision must be kept until the
decision is reversed or revised; State must provide a copy of the decision to
the system.
Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must keep records of
systems required to do filter self-assessment, CPE, or CCP under the
requirements of §141.175.
Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility will keep a list of
Subpart H systems mat have had a sanitary survey completed during the
previous year and an evaluation of the State's program for conducting
sanitary surveys under §141.16(b)(3).
State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
Figure 8: Reporting and Recordkeeping Checklist for the Stage 1 DBPR
Requirement
Are State policies consistent
with Federal requirements?
If not, please explain.
Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must keep records of
currently applicable or most recent State determinations including all
supporting information and an explanation of the technical basis for each
decision made under 40 CFR 141 subpart L for the control of disinfectants
and disinfection byproducts; records must also include interim measures
toward installation.
Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must keep records of
systems mat are installing GAC or membrane technology in accordance with
§141.64(bX2); records must include date by which the system is required to
have completed installation.
Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must keep records of
systems mat are required by the State to meet alternative minimum TOC
removal requirements or for whom the State has determined that the source
water is not amenable to enhanced coagulation in accordance with
§141.I35(bX3) and (4); records must include the alternative limits and the
rationale for establishing alternative limits.
Each State mat has primary enforcement responsibility must keep records of
Subpart H systems using conventional treatment meeting any of the
alternative compliance criteria in §141.135(a)(2) or (3).
Each State mat has primary enforcement responsibility must keep a register
of qualified operators that have met the State requirements developed under
§142.16X0(2).
Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must keep records of
systems with multiple wells considered to be 1 treatment plant in accordance
with §14U32(aX2) and §142.16(fX6).
Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must keep monitoring
plans for Subpart H systems serving more than 3,300 people in accordance
wfth§141.132(f).
Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must keep a list of
laboratories approved for analyses in accordance with §141.13 l(b).
Each State mat has primary enforcement responsibility must keep a list of
systems required to monitor for disinfectants and disinfection byproducts in
accordance with 141 subpart L; list must indicate what disinfectants and
DBFs other than chlorine, TTHM, and HAA5, if any, are measured.
10
State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
Section V. Special Primacy Requirements (40 CFR 142.16)
See Section E. This section provides guidance on how States may choose to meet each Special Primacy
Requirement.
Section VI. Attorney General's Statement of Enforceability
The complete and final primacy revision application must include an Attorney General statement
certifying that the State regulations were duly adopted and are enforceable. The Attorney General
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. Similarly, if a State is not adopting the new PWS definition because it has no
"constructed conveyance systems," the Attorney General should certify that the State statute or
regulation is "as stringent as" the federal requirements and that any future constructed conveyance
systems will be prohibited. An example of an Attorney General statement is presented in Figure 9.
Figure 9; Example of Attorney General Statement
Model Language
I hereby certify, pursuant to my authority as fll 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)] [or tribal ordinances of
(4)J to carry out the program set forth in the "Program Description11 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.
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 Appendix
H) 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 die 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 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.
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.
Stale Primacy Revision Applications 11
-------
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 Gil does not affect Q) 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 (51 the [audit privilege and/or immunity law] does
not affect programs implemented by (51 thus the program set forth in the "Program Description" is
unaffected by the provisions of [State / Commonwealth of QH [audit privilege and/or immunity law].
IIL 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 taw] of the [State /
Commonwealth of £2U does not affect £Q ability to meet enforcement and information gathering
requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act because [State /Commonwealth of (21] 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 CFR142.1 l(aX6XO for initial primacy applications or 142.12(cX 1 Xiii) for primacy program revision
applications..
(3) Name of State or Commonwealth
(4) Name of Tribe
(5) Name of Primacy Agency
12 State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
£. Guidance for Special Primacy Requirements
This section contains guidance States can use when addressing the special primacy requirements of 40
CFR 142.16. It specifically addresses the special primacy conditions added for implementation of the
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and the Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR). The guidance addresses special primacy conditions in the same order
that they occur in the rules. The IESWTR guidance is found in section El. The Stage 1 DBPR guidance
is found in £2. Guidance for provisions not included as special primacy requirements may be found in
section E3.
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.
El. Special Primacy Requirements—IESWTR
§142.16 Special primacy requirements. (b)(l)Enforceab!e requirements, (ii): States must have the
appropriate rules or other authority to assure PWSs respond in writing to significant deficiencies
outlined in sanitary survey reports required under paragraph (b)(3) of this section no later than 45 days
after receipt of report, indicating how and on what schedule the system will address significant
deficiencies noted in the survey.
Guidance
This special primacy requirement can be satisfied by a description of statutes, rules, and other authorities
the State can use to assure PWSs take the necessary actions as outlined above. The appropriate section(s)
of each source of authority must be cited and copies of the written documents must be included in the
program revision application package.
In their applications, States may also wish to address their authority to take administrative and/or legal
actions and assess penalties. Additionally, States may include a description of the plan for using their
appropriate rules and/or other authority to achieve the desired actions on the part of PWSs. The plan
could include the following:
A cover letter that would be included with the sanitary survey report that lists each significant
deficiency and provides notice to the system of the regulatory requirements. The cover letter would
state the date by which the system's response would be required and explain that the response would
have to indicate how and on what schedule the system plans to address each significant deficiency.
• Establishment of a "tickler" file to ensure State follow up.
• Follow-up actions for non-responding systems or systems that provide inadequate responses.
State Primacv Revision Applications 13
-------
§142.16 Special primacy requirements. (b)(l) Enforceable requirements, (iii): States must have the
appropriate rules or other authority to assure that PWSs lake necessary steps to address significant
deficiencies identified in sanitary survey reports required under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, if such
deficiencies are within the control of the PWS and its governing body.
Guidance
This special primacy requirement can be satisfied by a description of statutes, rules, and other authority
the State can use to assure PWSs take action necessary to address significant deficiencies. The
appropriate section(s) of each source of authority must be cited and copies of the written documents must
be included in the revision application package. EPA does not believe that the State's existing authority
to address immanent and substantial endangerment is sufficient to meet this special primacy requirement.
In addition, States may wish to address their authority to take administrative and/or legal actions and
assess penalties. Additionally, States may wish to include a description of how the appropriate rules
and/or other authority, including formal enforcement actions, will be used to ensure that the PWSs take
the steps necessary to correct significant deficiencies within their control.
EPA believes that many States have existing authorities that are adequate comply with the intent of this
special primacy requirement. These authorities can often be found in broad statutory language designed
to provide public health protection. An example of statutory language that, though not specifically
worded to address this requirement, EPA judges to be adequate is:
§142.16 Special primacy requirements. (b)(3) Sanitary survey: In addition to the general
requirements for sanitary surveys contained in §142.10.(b)(2), an application must describe how the
State will implement a sanitary survey program that meets the requirements in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)
through (v) of this section. For the purposes of this paragraph, "sanitary survey" means an onsite
review of the water source (identifying sources of contamination using results of source water
assessments where available), facilities, equipment, operation, maintenance, and monitoring compliance
of a public water system to evaluate the adequacy of the system, its sources and operations and the
distribution of safe drinking water.
Guidance
The special primacy requirements of §142.16(b)(3) describe several additional provisions States must
apply to their sanitary survey programs for systems using surface water or ground water under the direct
influence of surface water as a source. These provisions address the aspects of PWSs that must be
evaluated during the sanitary survey, minimum frequencies for conducting the sanitary surveys, review
of disinfection profiles, and identification of "significant deficiencies" that require immediate corrective
action. It also offers States the flexibility to allow some post-1995 sanitary surveys to serve as the first
set required under the IESWTR; to reduce the frequency of sanitary surveys necessary for community
surface water systems deemed by the State to have outstanding performance; and to conduct sanitary
surveys in a phased or staged manner.
The following guidance addresses each subsection of §142.16(b)(3) (i) through (v) in order. The
arrangement and structure of the State's description, however, is discretionary, provided the State gives
sufficient detail to demonstrate that its strategy and capacity are adequate for meeting the special
primacy conditions.
(i): The State must conduct sanitary surveys for all surface water systems (including groundwater under
the influence) that address the eight sanitary survey components listed in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A)
14 Slate Primacy Revision Applications
-------
through (H) of this section no less frequently than every three years for community systems and no less
frequently than every five years for noncommimity systems. The State may allow sanitary surveys
conducted after December 1995 to serve as the first set of required sanitary surveys if the surveys
address the eight sanitary survey components listed in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) through (H) of this
section.
(A) Source.
(B) Treatment.
(C) Distribution system.
(D) Finished water storage.
(E) Pumps, pump facilities, and controls.
(F) Monitoring and reporting and data verification.
(G) System management and operation.
(H) Operator compliance with State requirements.
Guidance
This special primacy requirement addresses both the scope of the State's sanitary surveys (eight
components must be included) and the minimum frequency for conducting surveys. Obviously, the
implication is that States must have adequate resources to comply with these requirements. Therefore,
components that States must address in their primacy revision application include the following.
Scope of sanitary surveys
The State must provide adequate information to demonstrate that the sanitary surveys to be performed
address, at a minimum, the eight components listed above. In cases where the State is currently
performing sanitary surveys that meet these minimum requirements, example, sanitary survey forms and
completed reports can be used to demonstrate that all eight elements are addressed. If the State does not
believe that it currently performs sanitary surveys that meet the minimum requirements, the revision
application must include details of a plan for upgrading its procedures, as necessary, including examples
of sanitary survey forms that will be used and a description of training for staff in performance of
sanitary surveys.
Capacity
The State's revision application should address capacity for conducting appropriate sanitary surveys at,
or in excess of, the frequency outlined in §142.16(b)(3Xi). When such capacity exists and the above
requirements are being met or exceeded by an existing program, a summary of the State's sanitary
survey program, including a brief description of past and future schedules, should be sufficient to
demonstrate adequate capacity.
A State that does not have an existing sanitary survey program that meets these requirements should
describe its proposed program and estimate the resources directed toward sanitary surveys. The State
should explain how the new requirements will affect its program and whether existing resources will be
adequate. When existing resources are clearly inadequate, the State should provide EPA with a plan for
obtaining additional support before the compliance dates of the rule.
Implementation
Finally, the State should provide EPA with a brief description of its plan for meeting the requirements of
§ 142.16(b)(3)(i) given existing or planned resources, the number of affected surface water systems,
anticipated follow-up technical assistance and enforcement needs, and other program demands.
State Primacy Revision Applications 15
-------
(it): For community systems determined by the State to have outstanding performance based on prior
sanitary surveys, subsequent sanitary surveys may be conducted not less than every five years. In its
primacy application, the State must describe how it will decide whether a system has outstanding
performance and is thus eligible for sanitary surveys at a reduced frequency.
Guidance
This special primacy requirement allows the State to decrease the frequency of sanitary surveys for some
community surface water systems from once every 3 years to once every 5 years. The provision is
designed to allow States to direct their limited resources toward those systems that have the greatest
potential for posing public health risks, i.e., those not achieving outstanding performance. States must
have a procedure for determining whether a system should be considered to have outstanding
performance that must be integrated into the sanitary survey process. The procedure must provide
inspectors with enough guidance to ensure consistent implementation.
Criteria States may use in determining outstanding performance can be found in Section 4.5 of
Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems Guidance Manual, USEPA, 1999.
(ui): Components of a sanitary survey may be completed as part of a staged or phased state review
process within the established frequency.
Guidance
Section 142.16(b)(3) requires States to conduct sanitary surveys for surface water systems including
groundwater under the direct influence that address eight components. In view of the fact that States
often have inspections and evaluations conducted on one or more of these PWS components in program
efforts separate from the sanitary surveys, the rule allows for those evaluations and inspections to be
used in a staged or phased review process as long as all eight components are addressed within the
required frequency. For example, the annual onsite inspection required for unfiltered systems, as one
criterion to remain unfiltered, can be used to supplement a full sanitary survey. Other programs whose
activities may serve to address one or more of the components include the following:
• Source Water Assessment and Protection Program
• Wellhead Protection Area Program
• Watershed Control Program
• The Composite Correction Program
• Comprehensive Performance Evaluations
Operator Training and Certification Programs
• Technical Assistance Programs
Capacity Development Programs
If a State wishes to conduct sanitary surveys in a staged or phased process, the primacy revision
application should contain a description of relevant programs and activities, how they will be
coordinated, and who the responsible parties will be for follow-up technical assistance and enforcement
in response to deficiencies.
(tv): When conducting sanitary surveys for systems required to comply with the disinfection profiling
requirements in §141.172 of this chapter, the State must also review the disinfection profile as part of the
sanitary survey.
16 State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
Guidance
EPA suggests that States address this provision under the treatment component of the general description
of their existing or planned sanitary survey programs. The description should include information on
how the systems that are required to prepare disinfection profiles will be identified and tracked so
inspectors will know when this review is needed and in what format the State will expect the data to be
presented. Inspectors should know how the State will consult with PWSs to evaluate modifications to
disinfection practices so these issues can be discussed during the sanitary survey (see § 142.16(g)(2)).
References for more detailed guidance
1. Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking, USEPA, 1999.
Available from:
Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791
2. Guidance Manual for Compliance With the Filtration and Disinfection Requirements for Public Water
Systems Using Surface Water Sources, the American Water Works Association, 3991.
Available from:
AWWA
6666 West Quincy Avenue
Denver, CO 80235
(v): In its primacy application, the State must describe how it will decide •whether a deficiency identified
during a sanitary survey is significant for the purposes of paragraph (b)(l)(ii) of this section.
Guidance
During sanitary surveys inspectors often discover a wide range of deficiencies. Some are minor and have
little near-term potential to pose risks to public health or safety. At the other end of the spectrum are
those that are currently supplying drinking water that is unsafe or operating in a manner that threatens the
safety of operators or the public. States must establish procedures for inspectors to use to determine the
point where deficiencies become "significant."
Perhaps the first step in this process is to define "significant deficiencies." Many public health
professionals believe that any aspect of a PWS (source, transmission, pumping, treatment, storage,
distribution, operation, maintenance, management, etc.) that may cause, or have potential to cause, risks
to public health or safety should be considered a significant deficiency. EPA does not specify the
definition States must use; rather, it suggests that States use their best professional judgement and
expertise to develop their own definitions. One potential definition that might be used is the following:
Significant deficiency: Any defect in a system's design, operation, maintenance, or administration,
as well as any failure or malfunction of any system component, that the State determines to cause, or
have the potential to cause, an unacceptable risk to health or that could affect the reliable delivery
of safe drinking water.
The second step may be for the State to develop a procedure whereby inspectors can evaluate system
defects and make a determination regarding "significance," i.e., does it meet the State definition?. The
procedure might begin with questions to be asked about each defect. A few examples (not intended to be
complete) of questions that may help inspectors in making determinations include the following:
Stare Primacy Revision Applications 1 /
-------
• Does the deficiency cause the potential for contaminants to be introduced to the drinking water?
• If left uncorrected will the deficiency cause the potential for the introduction of contaminants at
some point in the future?
Does the deficiency affect treatment in an unacceptable manner?
• Does the deficiency pose risks to the safety of the public or operators?
Finally, it should be helpful for States to develop a list of the most commonly found deficiencies that are
significant and that require immediate corrective actions. EPA would expect the list to be expanded and
modified over time based upon State experience. The following are some examples, organized by each of
the eight sanitary survey components, of system defects that States may consider to be significant and
require immediate corrective action (also not intended to be complete).
Source
• Raw water quality monitoring that is indicative of an immediate sanitary risk.
• Activities or pollution sources in the immediate source water area that will cause sanitary risks.
Location of a well making it vulnerable to surface water runoff.
* A well mat is not properly sealed (details of what is expected should be offered regarding, sanitary
seals, vents, grouting, etc.).
* Spring boxes that are poorly constructed and/or subject to flooding.
Treatment
* The disinfection contact time is inadequate.
• One or more of the unit processes is incapable of producing water that meets standards under ail
conditions of raw water quality.
• There are no provisions to warn operators of membrane failures.
• No disinfection profile is available for review (for systems required to develop a disinfection
profile).
Distribution and transmission
• Customers are receiving, and using for drinking water, raw water from the raw water transmission
main.
* The raw water transmission main is equipped with a bypass around the treatment plant and the
bypass does not have an air gap to prevent unintended bypass of untreated water.
Disinfection residuals in the distribution system regularly do not meet State requirements.
• Pressures in parts of the distribution system fall below 20 psi during peak flows.
• High leakage rates pose unacceptable risks of back siphonage.
Finished water storage
• The elevation of the storage facilities is such that pressures within the distribution system fall below
20 psi during peak demands.
• The tank is not adequately sealed to prevent entry of contamination (unscreened or poorly designed
vents, overflows, hatches, etc.).
* The elevated tank has not been inspected for sanitary defects for x years.
State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
Pumps, pump facilities, and controls
• The pumping station is used for storage of materials that offer unacceptable potential for
contamination of the water.
• The pumping station is used for storage of materials that pose safety risks to operators.
Cross connections are present.
• Auxiliary power is needed to keep pressures above 20 psi during commonly experienced power
outages.
Monitoring, reporting and data verification
Hie system has been found to be in significant non-compliance for one or more contaminants or for
disinfectant residuals.
• Operators are using improper procedures and/or methods when conducting onshe lab analyses.
• The system is not using a certified laboratory.
* The system has been falsifying data
System management and operation
* The system has inadequate personnel to keep the plant manned as required by State regulations.
* The system has not developed a plan for provision of water during emergencies.
Operator compliance with State requirements
• The system has no certified operator.
* The system's certified operator is not complying with the State's continuing education requirements.
States should note that the above lists of significant deficiencies are provided in this guidance as
examples of deficiencies that States may determine to be significant. The final determination of what
constitutes a significant deficiency will be determined by each State on a case by case basis.
References for more detailed guidance
1. Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems Guidance Manual, USEPA, 1999.
Available from:
Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791
2. How to Conduct a Sanitary Survey of Small Water Systems, University of Florida Training, Research
and Education for Environmental Occupations Center (developed under EPA Training Grant T902854),
1998.
Available from:
National Environmental Training Association
2930 East Camelback Road, Suite 185
Phoenix, AZ 85016-4412
Phone: 602-956-6099
3. State Sanitary Survey Resource Directory, AKA EPA/State Joint Guidance on Sanitary Surveys,
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, 1995.
Available from:
Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791
Stare Primacy Revision Applications 19
-------
4. 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
§142.16 Special primacy requirements, (g): Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFRpart 141,
subpart P Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection. 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 P Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection, must contain the information specified in
this paragraph: (1) Enforceable requirements: States must have the appropriate rules or other authority
to require PWSs to conduct a Composite Correction Program (CCP) and to assure thatPWSs implement
any follow up recommendations that result as part of the CCP (See the rule for a description of the CCP
components).
Guidance
This special primacy requirement can be satisfied by a description of statutes, rules, and other authority
(other than their immanent and substantial endangennent authority) the State can use to require PWSs to
conduct a Composite Correction Program (CCP) and implement any follow op recommendations
resulting from either a comprehensive performance evaluation (CPE) or comprehensive technical
assistance (CTA). 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 CCPs 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.
Additionally, States should note that this requirement of the IESWTR is intended to ensure that States
have authority to require comprehensive performance evaluations or comprehensive technical assistance
in situations beyond those in which the IESWTR establishes the requirement for CPEs. 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 CPEs 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 § 141.175 of the rule show that a CTA would be beneficial.
Another consideration for States is that §141.175 of the IESWTR requires systems, under certain
circumstances, to have a CPE conducted by the State or a third party approved by the State. If a State
does not have adequate resources to conduct the expected CPEs, it may wish to begin development of a
procedure for approving third parties that have the necessary expertise and meet other criteria established
by the State.
20 Stare Primacy Revision Applications
-------
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
State Primacy Revision Applications 21
-------
§142.16 Special primacy requirements, (g): Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFRpart 141,
subpart P Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection. 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 P Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection, must contain the information specified in
this paragraph: (2) State practices or procedures, (i): Section 141.172(a)(3) of this chapter—How the
State mil approve a more representative annual data set other than the data set determined under
§141.172(a)(l) or (2) of this chapter for the purpose of determining applicability of the requirements of
§141172 of this chapter.
Guidance
Section 141.172(a)(3) allows systems to request the State to approve their use of a more representative
data set for determining if the system is required to develop a disinfection profile. Requests for approval
to use a more representative data set may occur when a system has modified its treatment in a manner
such that the data collected pursuant to § 141.172(aXl) or (2) no longer reflect the potential for
production of disinfection byproducts. Use of a more representative data set would also be appropriate if
the sampling, handling, and/or analysis of the data collected pursuant to § J 41.172(aX I) or (2) were of
questionable quality.
EPA believes that requests for use of alternative data sets are best handled by States on a case-by-case
basis. Therefore, to meet this special primacy requirement, States' applications for program revision
must demonstrate that each request for use of a more representative data set will be evaluated on its
merits and approved only when a data set exists, or can be collected within the established time frame,
that is more representative of the system's potential for production of disinfection byproducts.
References for more detailed guidance
I. Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual, USEPA, 1999.
Available from:
Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-300-426-4791
2. Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct Rules Simultaneous Compliance Guidance Manual, USEPA,
1999.
Available from:
Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791
22 State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
§ 142,16 Special primacy requirements, (g): Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFRpart 141. subpart
P Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection. 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 P Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection, must contain the information specified in this
paragraph: (2) State practices or procedures, (it): Section I41.172(b)(5) of this chapter—How the State
will approve a method to calculate the logs of inactivation for viruses for a system that uses either
chloramines or ozone for primary disinfection.
Guidance
Section 141.172(bX5) of the IESWTR requires systems that use ozone or chloramines as primary
disinfectants to calculate the logs of inactivation of viruses using a method approved by the State. This
calculation is in addition to the calculation of the logs inactivation for Giardia lamblia and is required
because, for these disinfectants, EPA expects greater CT will be necessary to achieve the necessary virus
inactivation than will be necessary 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.
When determining virus inactivation, PWSs will be required to calculate the total CT from the point(s) of
disinfectant application to the first customer. This procedure for determining CT for purposes of
disinfection profiling under the IESWTR is outlined in §141.172(b) of the rule. It differs from that of the
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) guidance that simply required a demonstration that minimum
inactivation requirements were being met but that did not require a demonstration of the extent to which
the requirements were exceeded.
After the PWS has determined its daily peak hour's CT, it must determine the logs of inactivation for
viruses. EPA suggests that States, to the extent practicable, use the Guidance Manual for Compliance
With the Filtration and Disinfection Requirements for Public Water Systems Using Surf ace 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 manual. Systems that add the two chemicals concurrently, or those adding ammonia
first, have little free chlorine and cannot use Table E-13 but may determine viral inactivation efficiencies
by using the protocol found in Appendix G of the manual.
For systems using ozone as a primary disinfectant
Table E-l 1 of the SWTR Guidance Manual shows CT values for 2 log, 3 log, and 4 log inactivation of
viruses by ozone over a temperature range of
-------
Other methods
States may approve other methods for calculation of the logs of inactivation for viruses for systems using
ozone or chloramines as long as the methods are adequately explained in the primacy revision
application, are technically correct, and are used in a consistent manner by water systems.
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
2. Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual, USEPA, 1999.
Available from:
Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791
24 State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
§142.16 Special primacy requirements, (g): Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFRpart 141, subpart
P Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection. 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 P Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection, must contain the information specified in this
paragraph: (2) State practices or procedures. (Hi): Section 141.172(c) of this chapter—How the State
will consult with PWSs to evaluate modifications to disinfection practice.
Guidance
The IESWTR requires systems to develop a disinfection profile if they have concentrations of TTHM or
HAAS at or above 80 percent of the respective maximum contaminant levels. Systems that are required
to develop disinfection profiles, and that later want to make a significant change to their disinfection
practice, must consult with the State prior to making such change. As described in §141.172(cXO of the
IESWTR, significant changes include:
• Moving the point of disinfectant application.
Changing the disinfectant(s).
• Changing the disinfection process.
• Other changes identified by the State as significant (examples may include changes in pH, source
water, pretreatment, or contact basin geometry and baffling).
This requirement of the IESWTR is 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 § 141.172(cX 1) of the IESWTR to be effective, States must 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 IESWTR
requires "consultation" with the State but does not prescribe the outcome of the consultation.
In their applications for program revision, States must explain how they will consult with systems to
evaluate changes in disinfection practices. EPA suggests that States, in the consultation process, consider
the following:1
• 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?
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 and
system should jointly make a public-health-based decision using all available information.
1 More detailed guidance and strategies for simultaneous achievement of acute and chronic public health protection are
addressed in the two listed EPA references.
State Primacy Revision Applications 25
-------
References for more detailed guidance
1. 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
26 State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
§142.16 Special primacy requirements, (g): Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFRpart 141, subpart
P Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection. 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 P Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection, must contain the information specified in this
paragraph (2) State practices or procedures, (iv): Section 14L173(b) of this chapter—For filtration
technologies other than conventional filtration treatment, direct filtration, slow sand filtration, or
diatomaceous earth filtration, how the State will determine that a public -water system may use a
filtration technology if the PWS demonstrates to the State, using pilot plant studies or other means, that
the alternative filtration technology, in combination with disinfection treatment that meets the
requirements of§141.172(b) of this chapter, consistently achieves 99.9 percent removal and/or
inactivation o/Giardia lambiia 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 Slate
will set turbidity performance requirements that the system must meet 95% of the time and that the
system may not exceed at any time at a level that consistently achieves 99.9percent removal and/or
inactivation q/"Giardia lambiia cysts, 99.99 percent removal and/or inactivation of viruses, and 99
percent removal o/Cryptosporidium oocysts.
Guidance
The SWTR and IESWTR 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 lambiia, Legionella, viruses,
Cryptosporidium, and other pathogens. Section 141.173(b) of the EESWTR allows PWSs to use
technologies other than those mentioned above if they demonstrate to the State's satisfaction that the
chosen technology consistently meets the rule's minimum removal and inactivation requirements, and
the State approves the use of the technology. 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 and a turbidity limit the system may not exceed at any time. The State must set the turbidity
limits at levels that ensure the removal and/or inactivation requirements are consistently achieved.
To qualify for the authority to use the discretion provided for by § 141.173(b) of the IESWTR, States
must, in their primacy revision application, describe how they will determine whether a PWS will or will
not be granted approval for use of an alternative technology and how the State will establish the requisite
turbidity performance standards.
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.
State Primacy Revision Applications 27
-------
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
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.
1) System component evaluation for leaching of contaminants.
2) Demonstration of Giardia (and Cryptosporidium) removal performance.
a. Microscopic Paniculate Analyses (MPA).
b. Giardia/Cryptosporidium surrogate particle removal evaluations.
c. Particle size analysis demonstration for Giardia (and Cryptosporidium) removal credit.
d. Live Giardia/Cryptosporidium challenge studies.
3) On-site demonstration of performance effectiveness.
a. Prior testing of an identical system on a similar water.
b. Conditional acceptance with a performance bond.
c. Pilot testing with MPAs, appropriate monitoring, and final engineering report.
The final step in the process is for States to establish turbidity limits for the technologies. 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 performance limits, States
should give consideration to, among other things, cyst removal efficiencies, potential for interference
with disinfection, potential for interference with bacteriological testing, and the technology (failure
indicators) 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. Stale Alternative Technology Approval Protocol, ASDWA/EPA.
Available from:
Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791
3. Guidance Manual for Compliance With the Filtration ami Disinfection Requirements for Public Water
Systems Using Surface Water Sources, AWWA, 1991.
Available from:
AWWA
6666 West Quincy Avenue
Denver, CO 8023*5
28 State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
E2. Special Primacy Requirements—Stage 1 DBPR
§142.16 Special primacy requirements (h): Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFRpart 141, subpart
L. In addition to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in this part,, including the requirement that
State regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for approval of a State
program revision that adopts 40 CFRpart 141, subpart L, must contain a description of how the State
•will accomplish the following program requirements: (1): Section 141.64(b)(2) of this chapter (interim
treatment requirements). Determine any interim treatment requirements for those systems electing to
install GAC or membrane filtration and granted additional time to comply with §141.64 of this chapter.
«*" Note: Congress, in the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), amended
Section 1412(b)(10) to provide States with the discretion to allow up to 2 additional years to comply
with an MCL or treatment technique if the State determines that additional time is necessary for
capital improvements. States may, if they choose, address this special primacy condition by stating
in their applications for program revision that extensions will be handled under the provisions of
§1412(b)(10) of the SDWA. Guidance is offered below for those States that wish to use it.
Guidance
For the purpose of compliance with the MCLs for disinfection byproducts, §141.64(bX2) of the Stage 1
DBPR allows systems to apply to the State for an extension of up to 24 months (but not beyond 60
months after rule publication) if they are installing GAC or membrane technology. For practical purposes
this provision only applies to subpart H systems2 that serve 10,000 or more people, since all other
affected systems have up to 60 months to comply. The rule requires States to establish a compliance
schedule when granting extensions. States may also specify interim treatment measures the system must
take. The provision for interim treatment requirements is intended to give States the opportunity to
ensure that public health protection is maximized, within the constraints of the system's existing
configuration, while GAC or membrane technology is being installed.
EPA believes that it is important for States to consider each system's potential for achieving meaningful
overall risk reduction through reasonable interim treatment requirements. In their applications for
program revision, States must explain how they will determine any interim treatment requirements they
may choose to mandate. Some possibilities that States may wish to consider include the following:
• Moving the point of disinfectant application.
• Treatment changes designed for better disinfection byproduct precursor removal.
Changing of primary and/or secondary disinfectants.
• Reducing the disinfectant(s) dose (perhaps with increases in water temperature).
• Changing pH to reduce DBF formation.
• Addition of booster disinfection.
• Implementation of a main flushing program in areas with high detention times and/or biofilm
problems.
In all cases, EPA believes that it is essential for States to evaluate all potential interim treatment
requirements in terms of their impact on not only disinfection byproduct formation, but also microbiai
protection, corrosion control, and other public-health issues. Finally, interim treatment requirements that
are established must result in a net gain in public-health protection. Detailed guidance and case studies
~ Subpart H systems are those systems that use surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface
water.
State Primacy Revision Applications 29
-------
are presented in Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct Rules Simultaneous Compliance Guidance
Manual, USEPA, Draft guidance available for review 1999.
References for more detailed guidance
1. Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct Rules Simultaneous Compliance Guidance Manual, USEPA,
1999.
Available from:
Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791
2. Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual, USEPA, 1999.
Available from:
Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791
3. Treatment Techniques for Controlling Trihalomethanes in Drinking Water, AWWA, 1982.
4. Chloraminationfor THM Control: Principles and Practices, AWWA Seminar Proceedings, 1984
Annual Conference.
References 3. and 4. available from:
AWWA
6666 West Quincy Avenue
Denver, CO 80235
3 0 State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
§142.16 Special primacy requirements, (h): Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFRpart 141. subparl
L. In addition to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in this part, including the requirement that
State regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for approval of a State
program revision that adopts 40 CFRpart 141, subpart L, must contain a description of how the State
•will accomplish the following program requirements: (2): Section 141.130(c) of this chapter
(qualification of operators). Qualify operators of public water systems subject to 40 CFRpart 141,
subpart L. Qualification requirements established for operators of systems subject to 40 CFRpart 141,
subpart H—Filtration and Disinfection may be used in whole or in part to establish operator
qualification requirements for meeting 40 CFRpart 141, if the State determines that the subpart H
requirements are appropriate and applicable for meeting subpart L requirements.
Guidance
The rule requires that each community water system (CWS) and nontransient noncommuniry water
system (NTNCWS) regulated under the Stage 1 DBPR be operated by qualified personnel. States are
given the discretion of determining the standards for operator qualifications. Under 40 CFR part 141,
subpart H—Filtration and Disinfection, States are required to qualify operators of systems as a condition
for primacy for systems covered under the SWTR. The new rule allows States to continue to use these
procedures to qualify operators if the State determines that these requirements are appropriate and
applicable to the set of systems covered by the Stage 1 DBPR. In this case, the State primacy application
should contain a description of the SWTR procedure, how it will cover all affected PWSs, and the
rationale to demonstrate the procedure is appropriate and applicable.
Additionally, under section 1419 of the SDWA, EPA is required to develop guidelines for the
certification and re-certification of operators of community and nontransient noncommunity water
systems. Each State operation certification program must include, as a minimum, the essential elements
of 9 baseline standards. These include: authorization; classification of systems, facilities, and operators;
operator qualifications; enforcement, certification renewal; resources needed to implement the program;
re-certification; stakeholder involvement; and program review. In cooperation with States, final
guidelines were developed and published in the Federal Register on February 5,1998. EPA is required to
publish final guidelines by February 6, 1999. State operator certification programs that follow these
guidelines will also be deemed to meet this special primacy requirement.
In general, operator certification programs should consider indicators of public health risks, such as the
complexity, size, and source water for treatment facilities, and the complexity and size of distribution
systems when classifying and setting standards for system types and sizes. The guidance for the SWTR
operator personnel qualifications recommends that plant operators have a basic knowledge of science,
mathematics, and chemistry involved with water treatment and supply. Operators should have an
understanding of the following areas.
The principles of water treatment and distribution and their characteristics.
* The uses of potable water and variations in its demand.
The importance of water quality to public health.
• The equipment, operation, and maintenance of the distribution system.
The treatment process equipment used, its operational parameters, and maintenance.
• The principles of each unit.
• Performance criteria to determine operational adjustment.
Common operating problems.
• Current regulations and monitoring requirements.
Methods of sample collection and sample preservation.
• Laboratory equipment and tests used to analyze samples.
State Primacy Revision Applications 31
-------
• Use of laboratory results to analyze plant efficiency.
Recordkeeping.
• Customer relations.
• Budgeting and supervision.
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
2. Operator Certification Guidance, 64 FR 5915, February 5,1999.
32 State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
§142.16 Special primacy requirements, (h): Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFRpart 141, subpart
L In addition to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in this part, including the requirement that
State regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for approval of a State
program revision that adopts 40 CFRpart 141, subpart L, must contain a-description of how the State
•will accomplish the following program requirements: (3): Section 141.131(c)(2) of this chapter (DPD
colorimetric test kits). Approve DPD colorimetric test kits for free and total chlorine measurements.
State approval granted under §141.74(a)(2) of this chapter for the use of DPD colorimetric test kits for
free chlorine testing is acceptable for the use of DPD test kits in measuring free chlorine residuals as
required in 40 CFRpart 141, subpart L.
Guidance
Section 141.131 (c)(2) of the Stage 1 DBPR offers States the discretion to allow systems to use DPD
colorimetric test kits for measuring residual levels for chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine dioxide. The
residual measurements may then be used for compliance determinations in regard to CT requirements
and maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs). EPA recommends that States address the issue
directly in their rates. They may wish to do this by simply adding DPD colorimetric test kits as one of
the approved methods for disinfectant residual compliance monitoring or by clearly stating such kits are
not approved for this purpose. When DPD test lots are approved, the State will need to establish
procedures that systems must follow for making dilutions of water samples that contain chlorine
concentrations too high to be directly read on the color wheel.
To meet the terms of this special primacy condition, States need only explain how the issue is addressed
in their rules or other authorities, cite the relevant sections, and include copies of those rules or authority
in their primacy revision applications.
State Primacy Revision Applications 3 3
-------
§142.16 Special primacy requirements, (h): Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFRpart 141, subpart
L. In addition to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in this part, including the requirement that
State regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for approval of a State
program revision that adopts 40 CFRpart 141, subpart L, must contain a description of how the State
•will accomplish the following program requirements: (4): Sections 141.J31(c)(3) and (d) of this chapter
(State approval of parties to conduct analyses). Approve parties to conduct pH, bromide, alkalinity, and
residual disinfectant concentration measurements. The State's process for approving parties performing
•water quality measurements for systems subject to 40 CFRpart 141, subpart H requirements in
paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D) of this section may be used for approving parties measuring -water quality
parameters for systems subject to subpart L requirements, if the State determines the process is
appropriate and applicable.
Guidance
Sections 141.131.(cX3) and (d) of the Stage 1 DBPR require systems to have analyses for disinfectant
residuals, pH, bromide, and alkalinity conducted by parties approved by the State or EPA. The approved
parties could include, but would not be limited to, EPA- or State-certified laboratories. To meet this
special primacy requirement, States must describe how they will approve parties to conduct these
measurements. The process described by the State must ensure that the measurements are reliable and
accurate. To achieve this, the tests must be conducted by personnel who have adequate training and
experience and who are properly equipped. Therefore, the primacy revision application should describe
the criteria the State will consider, including minimum prerequisite training and laboratory facilities,
when granting approvals to parties for conducting the analyses.
States may wish to limit their approvals to certain levels (or classes) of certified operators that have been
provided with proper training. For some on-site measurements such as disinfectant residuals, States may
determine that it is appropriate for parties to conduct the measurements if they are under the direct
supervision of a certified operator.
States were required to develop processes and procedures for approving parties conducting
measurements under the SWTR. As mentioned above, if States determine it to be appropriate and
applicable, they may use those same processes and procedures to fulfill this special primacy requirement.
34 State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
§142.16 Special primacy requirements, (h): Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFRpart 141, subpart
L. In addition to the genera!primacy requirements elsewhere in this part, including the requirement that
State regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for approval of a State
program revision that adopts 40 CFRpart 141, subpart L, must contain a description of how the State
will accomplish the following program requirements: (5): Section I41.l32(a)(2) of this chapter (multiple
•wells as a single source). Define the criteria to use to determine if multiple wells are being drawn from a
single aquifer and therefore be considered a single source for compliance with monitoring requirements.
Guidance
Section 142.132(aX2) of the Stage 1 DBPR gives States the discretion to allow PWSs to reduce T7HM
and HAAS monitoring and associated costs by considering multiple wells drawing water from the same
aquifer as one treatment plant for determining the minimum number of TTHM and HAAS samples
required. This provision is applicable when there are multiple treatment plants applying the same
disinfectant to multiple wells completed in the same aquifer. To qualify for the ability to make this
discretionary reduction, States must establish criteria under this special primacy requirement The criteria
adopted by States should be designed to ensure that each well is indeed drawing from the identified
aquifer and the finished water quality characteristics of all wells are very similar. Thus, the water from
the wells should be expected to react alike in terms of formation of disinfection byproducts.
In general, EPA recommends that States require PWSs that are seeking a reduction in monitoring under
§ 142.16(f)(5) to submit an evaluation or study performed by a professional competent in the field of
hydrogeology such as a geologist, hydrogeologist, or professional engineer.3 The evaluation required by
the State should, with reasonable certainty, show all wells are completed in, and drawing water from, the
same aquifer and That the water quality characteristics/chemistry of each well are enough alike to
conclude disinfection byproduct formation would be very similar.
Some of the criteria States may consider for making these determinations include the following:
Well construction and geology
• Well locations—the locations of all wells should be marked on topographic maps.
• Well depths.
• Well logs—the logs should show the geological strata encountered during well construction, identify
water producing zones, screened or slotted sections, and grouting.
• Static water levels based upon a common elevation point.
* Aquifer studies and maps.
• Treatment applied.
Water characteristics and chemistry
• pH (field).
• Temperature (field).
• Specific conductivity.
• Total organic carbon (TOC).
» Analyses of common ions with a calculated cation/anion balance (calcium, magnesium, iron,
manganese, sodium, sulfate, alkalinity, chloride).
In many cases there may be reports, maps, or studies available from State or Federal agencies that will be
helpful in making the determinations.
J Often relevant information can be obtained from the USGS. State geological surveys, or State bureaus of mines and
geology.
State Primacy Revision Applications 3 5
-------
§142.16 Special primacy requirements, (h): Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFRpart 141, subpart
L In addition to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in this part, including the requirement that
State regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for approval of a State
program revision that adopts 40 CFRpart 141, subpart L, must contain a description of how the State
•will accomplish the following program requirements: (6): Approve alternate minimum TOC removal
(Step 2) requirements, as allowed under the provisions ofl41.135(b) of this chapter.
Guidance
Subpart H systems that use conventional filtration treatment are required to operate with enhanced
coagulation or enhanced softening to achieve mandatory levels of total organic carbon (TOC) removal
unless the system meets one or more of the "alternative compliance criteria" listed in §141.135(a)(2) or
(a)(3) of the Stage 1 DBPR. This requirement of §141.135 is designed to provide a level of protection for
unknown and/or unregulated disinfection byproducts.
In determining their compliance options, systems should first look to the alternative compliance criteria
of §14I.135(aX2) or (aX3) to see if one or more of them can be met at all times. If no alternative
compliance criterion can be met, systems must begin a 2-step process to achieve compliance.
Step 1—The first step is to operate their conventional treatment plants in a mode that ensures
compliance with the applicable Step 1 minimum TOC removal requirements as presented in the table
found in §141.135(b)(2). When systems are unable to meet the Step 1 TOC removal requirements, they
must go to Step 2.
Step 2—Systems unable to meet the Step 1 removal requirements must apply to the State for approval of
alternative minimum TOC removal (Step 2) requirements. The applications systems make to the State
for approval of Step 2 minimum TOC removal requirements must include, as a minimum, results of
bench- or pilot-scale testing conducted pursuant to § 141.135(b)(4Xi) of the Stage 1 DBPR.
Guidance for systems conducting this testing and for States in determining how and under what
conditions to approve Step 2 TOC removal requirements, is found in the Guidance Manual for Enhanced
Coagulation and Enhanced Softening, USEPA, 1999. In States' applications for primacy revision,
adequate information must be provided to ensure that approvals for alternative minimum TOC removals
(Step 2) will be handled on a case-by-case basis and will maximize TOC removal to the extent
practicable and, thus, be protective of public health.
References for more detailed guidance
I. Enhanced Coagulation and Enhanced Softening, USEPA, 1999.
Available from:
Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791
36 Stale Primacy Revision Applications
-------
E3. Other Requirements in the Stage 1 DBPR
§141.132 (/) Monitoring plans: Each system required to monitor under this subpart must develop and
implement a monitoring plan. The system must maintain the plan and make it available for inspection by
the State and the general public no later than 30 days following the applicable compliance dates in
§141.130(b). All Subpart H systems serving more than 3300 people must submit a copy of the monitoring
plan to the State no later than the date of the first report required under §141.1344. The State may also
require the plan to be submitted by any other system. After review, the State may require changes in any
plan elements. The plan must include the following elements:
1. Specific locations and schedules for all parameters included in this subpart.
2. How the system will calculate compliance with MCLs, MRDLs, and treatment techniques
3. If approved for monitoring as a consecutive system, or if providing water to a consecutive system.
under the provisions of §141.29, the plan must reflect the entire distribution system.
Guidance
Section 141.132(0 requires each system to develop and implement a monitoring plan for monitoring that
must be performed pursuant to subpart L. Systems must make the plan available for review by the State
and public no later than 30 days following the applicable compliance dates (see §141.130(b)). Surface
water systems (including GWUDI) serving more than 3,300 people must submit a copy of their
monitoring plan with their first monitoring report required under subpart L. States may require other
systems to submit copies as well.
The monitoring requirements of the Stage 1 DBPR can be complex; therefore, monitoring plans should
be helpful to systems in terms of ensuring compliance. Although there is no special primacy condition
related to monitoring plans, EPA believes that limited guidance may be helpful to States.
EPA suggests that States consider developing a procedure for PWSs to follow when preparing the
required monitoring plans. The procedure should ensure that systems prepare all plans in a format that is
useful to both the systems and the State. Some items States may wish to consider as suggestions (or
requirements) for systems to include in their monitoring plans are the following:
• A cover page that identifies the public water system and includes relevant information such as—
• System name
• PWSID Number
• Address
• Contact person and phone number
• System type (community, nontransient noncommunity, transient noncommunity)
• Population served
* Source water information (number and type)
• Entry points (tied to source(s))
• Treatment provided (tied to sources and entry points)
• A summary of the subpart L monitoring that will be required of the system, including monitoring
for—
• Disinfection byproducts
Disinfectants
Disinfection byproduct precursors
J § 141.134 of the Stage 1 DBPR addresses the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of public water systems. In
general, reports are required to be submitted to the State w:thin 10 days after the end of the monitoring period.
State Primacy Revision Applications 3 7
-------
• Schematic drawings of all treatment facilities, including—
* Source(s)
• Identification of treatment type and purpose
• Identification of chemicals applied and points of application
• Each unit process of each treatment train (with flow rates)
• Sampling points identified and numbered (e.g. T-l, T-2)
• A schematic drawing of the distribution system (and consecutive systems), including—
• Sources
• Entry points
• Treatment facilities
* Storage facilities
• Sampling points identified and numbered (e.g. D-1, D-2)
• A summary of typical system operating characteristics (on a seasonal basis if necessary) explaining
how sources are used to meet system demands, where extended residence times1 are expected to
occur, etc.
• A schedule for collecting all required samples including frequency and times for collection, sample
site identification number, sample handling/preservation requirements, and analysts plan for each
sample (on site analysis, certified laboratory). The schedule should address both regular monitoring
and reduced monitoring frequencies (if allowed by the State).
• The plan must also distinguish between compliance samples and those taken for process control
and/or information.
* For conventional surface water treatment plants, a summary of the system's enhanced
coagulation/softening requirements.
* A plan for calculating compliance with MCLs, MRDLs, and treatment techniques (unless
compliance is calculated by the State based upon required monitoring reports).
Some States may wish to expand the subpart L monitoring requirements to include other monitoring
requirements. A single monitoring plan, addressing all of a system's monitoring requirements, may be a
useful tool for both the State and the PWS.
References for more detailed guidance
1. ICR Sampling Manual, EPA 814-B-96-001, April 1996
Available from:
Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1 -800-426-4791
2. ICR Water Utility Database System Users' Guide, EPA 814-B-96-004, April 1996.
Available from:
Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791
5 In some cases Slates may wish to require modeling to establish locations of high residence time.
3 8 State Primacy Revision Applications
-------
Section IV.
Other Resources
and Guidance
-------
This page is left intentionally blank.
-------
The following materials are intended to help States and PWSs comply with the Interim Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and the Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage I
DBPR). These materials are designed to be "stand-alone" resources that meet specific informational
needs.
Technical Information Available on the IESWTR and Stage 1 DBPR
Eight guidance manuals published by EPA.
/" Disinfection Benchmarking Guidance Manual
v' Turbidity Guidance Manual
/ Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual
J Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems
/ Unfihered Systems Guidance Manual
/" Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs Manual
-------
A. Technical Information Available on tbe IESWTR and Stage 1 DBPR
A series of guidance manuals will support the IESWTR and Stage I DBPR. The manuals will aid EPA,
State agencies, and affected PWSs in implementing the two inter-related rules and will help ensure that
implementation among these groups is consistent. As these manuals become available, they may be
found on the EPA web site at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/implement/hfiml.
EPA made these manuals available for public review in early 1999, and is revising them based on the
comments received. Summaries of the information included in the manuals are provided below.
Disinfection Benchmarking Guidance Manual
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 must use the benchmark, in consultation with
the State, 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 public water systems; procedures for generating
a disinfection profile, including example profiles; methods for calculating the disinfection
benchmark, including example calculations; the use of the benchmark in modifying
disinfection practices, communication with the State, and assessing significant changes to
disinfection practices; the development of the profiling and benchmarking regulations; the
significance of the log inactivation concept and CT values for inactivations achieved by
various disinfectants; and the determ ination of contact time.
Turbidity Guidance Manual
Objective: The first section provides information regarding specific requirements of the IESWTR
relating to turbidity and is intended for experienced operators and others in the regulated
community. The second section of the document provides background on concepts
surrounding turbidity and serves as a primer for less experienced operators and individuals.
Contents: The first section contains key regulatory requirements, including combined filter effluent
monitoring and individual filter monitoring; recordkeeping and reporting requirements;
additional compliance issues, such as compliance schedules, public notification,
variances/exemptions, and follow-up action requirements; approved methods and additional
methods and additional measurement and calibration issues; components and description of a
filter self-assessment, and; components and description of a Comprehensive Performance
Evaluation. The second section of the manual includes more basic information on turbidity;
description of the particles (both natural and man-made) that typically contribute to
turbidity; discussion of typical steps in a treatment process and how turbidity is removed or
created in each step; discussion of turbidity in different source waters with an emphasis of
how changes in source water affect turbidity, and; basic turbidimeter design.
EPA Guidance Manuals
-------
Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual
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, chioramines, 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
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
State 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 die on-stte portion; conducting the on-site
survey; compiling a sanitary survey report, and; preforming follow-up activities.
Unfiltered Systems Guidance Manual
Objective: To supplement the existing IESWTR guidance for unfiltered surface water suppliers and to
identify the issues and requirements associated with the new regulations.
Contents: The manual discusses provision of the IESWTR that will affect unfiltered surface water, and
provides guidance on the development of watershed control programs or enhancements of
existing watershed control programs to address Cryptosporidium. In addition, it provides
information and guidance on monitoring for Cryptosporidium.
Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs Manual
Contents: Provides detailed information on the following subjects: developing and implementing
comprehensive open finished water reservoir management plans based on ste-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.
EPA Guidance Manuals
-------
M-DBP Simultaneous Compliance Manual
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.
Guidance Manual for Enhanced Coagulation and Precipitative Softening
Objective: To assist utilities in implementing, monitoring, and complying with the treatment
technique requirements in the final Stage 1 DBPR and to provide guidance to State staff
responsible for implementing the treatment requirements.
Contents: The manual provides detailed information on the total organic carbon (TOC removal
requirement; explains how to set an alternative TOC removal percentage under the Step
2 procedure; details monitoring, reporting, and compliance requirements, and; discusses
strategies that can be employed to mitigate the potential secondary effects on plant
performance due to implementation of the treatment technique.
For more information on this series of guidance manuals, contact EPA'5 Safe Drinking Water
Hotline: 1.800.426.4791, or see the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water website at
wvrH'.cDa.gov/safewater/standards.htnil
EPA Guidance Manuals
-------
B. Fact Sheets
The following pages are fact sheets on the rules. They may be useful in conveying information to water
systems, new personnel, and for educating stakeholders about the rules as States go through the adoption
process.
Fact Sheets
-------
This page is left intentionally blank.
Fact Sheets
-------
vxEPA
United States Office of Water EPA815-F-98-0014
Environmental Protection (4607) December 1998
Agency
Drinking Water Priority Rulemaking:
Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct Rules
Disinfection of drinking water is one of the major public health advances in the 20th century.
One hundred years ago, typhoid and cholera epidemics were common throughout American
cities and disinfection was a major factor in reducing these epidemics. However, the disinfectants
themselves can react with naturally-occurring materials in the water to form unintended
byproducts which may pose health risks.
Over the past ten years, we have also learned that there are specific microbial pathogens, such as
Cryptosporidium, that are highly resistant to traditional disinfection practices. In 1993,
Cryptosporidium caused 400,000 people in Milwaukee to experience intestinal illness. More than
4,000 were hospitalized, and at least 50 deaths have been attributed to the disease. There have
also been cryptosporidiosis outbreaks in Nevada, Oregon, and Georgia over the past several
years.
A major challenge for water suppliers is how to balance the risks from microbial pathogens and
disinfection byproducts. It is important to provide protection from these microbial pathogens
while simultaneously ensuring decreasing health risks to the population from disinfection
byproducts (DBFs). The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments, signed by President
Clinton in August 1996, required EPA to develop rules to achieve these goals. The new Stage 1
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rule and Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule are the first of a set of rules under the Amendments.
These new rules are a product of six years of collaboration between the water industry,
environmental and public health groups, and local, State and federal government. This fact sheet
contains general information about the two new rules and others that are a part of the Microbial-
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts (M-DBP) Rules. Separate fact sheets focus on the
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (EPA 815-F-98-009) and the Stage 1
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA 815-F-98-010).
Schedule of M-DBP Rules
November 1998— Final Rule
August 2000 — Final Rule
November 2000— Final Rule
May 2002 — Final Rule
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and
Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
Filter Backwash Recycling Rule
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and
Ground Water Rule
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and
Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
Fact Sheet—Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct Rules Page I of 6
-------
PUBUC HEALTH CONCERNS
Most Americans drink tap water that meets all existing health standards all the time. These new
rules will further strengthen existing drinking water standards and thus increase protection for
many water systems.
EPA's Science Advisory Board concluded in 1990 that exposure to microbial contaminants such
as bacteria, viruses, and protozoa (e.g., Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium) was likely the
greatest remaining health risk management challenge for drinking water suppliers. Acute health
effects from exposure to microbial pathogens is documented and associated illness can range
from mild to moderate cases lasting only a few days to more severe infections that can last
several weeks and may result in death for those with weakened immune systems.
In addition, while disinfectants are effective in controlling many microorganisms, they react with
natural organic and inorganic matter in source water and distribution systems to form potentially
DBFs. Many of these DBFs have been shown to cause cancer and reproductive and
developmental effects in laboratory animals. More than 200 million people consume water that
has been disinfected. Because of the large population exposed, health risks associated with
DBFs, even if small, need to be taken seriously.
EXISTING REGULATIONS
Microbial Contaminants: The Surface Water Treatment Rule, promulgated in 1989, applies to
all public water systems using surface water sources or ground water sources under the direct
influence of surface water. It establishes maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) for
viruses, bacteria and Giardia lamblia. It also includes treatment technique requirements for
filtered and unfiltered systems that are specifically designed to protect against the adverse
health effects of exposure to these microbial pathogens. The Total Coliform Rule, revised in
1989, applies to all PWSs and establishes a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for total
coliforms.
Disinfection Byproducts: In 1979, EPA set an interim MCL for total trihalomethanes of 0.10
mg/1 as an annual average. This applies to any community water system serving at least
10,000 people that adds a disinfectant to the drinking water during any part of the treatment
process.
INFORMATION COLLECTION RULE
To support the M-DBP rulemaking process, the Information Collection Rule (61 FR 24354, May
14,1996) establishes monitoring and data reporting requirements for large public water systems
serving at least 100,000 people. This rule is intended to provide EPA with information on the
occurrence in drinking water of microbial pathogens and DBFs. In addition, EPA is collecting
engineering data on how PWSs currently control such contaminants as part of the Information
Collection Rule.
Fact Sheet—Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct Rules Page 2 of 6
-------
INTERIM ENHANCED SURFACE WATER TREATMENT
RULE AND STAGE 1 DISINFECTANTS AND
DISINFECTION BYPRODUCTS RULE
EPA finalized the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and Stage 1 Disinfectants
and Disinfection Byproducts Rule in November 1998, as required by the 1996 Amendments to
the Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1412(b)(2)(C). The final rules resulted from formal
regulatory negotiations with a wide range of stakeholders that took place in 1992-93 and 1997.
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule applies to systems using surface water, or
ground water under the direct influence of surface water, that serve 10,000 or more persons. The
rule also includes provisions for States to conduct sanitary surveys for surface water systems
regardless of system size. The rule builds upon the treatment technique requirements of the
Surface Water Treatment Rule with the following key additions and modifications:
• Maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of zero for Cryptosporidium;
• 2-log Cryptosporidium removal requirements for systems that filter;
• Strengthened combined filter effluent turbidity performance standards;
• Individual filter turbidity monitoring provisions;
• Disinfection profiling and benchmarking provisions;
• Systems using ground water under the direct influence of surface water now subject to the
new rules dealing with Cryptosporidium;
• Inclusion of Cryptosporidium in the watershed control requirements for unfiltered public
water systems;
• Requirements for covers on new finished water reservoirs; and,
• Sanitary surveys, conducted by States, for all surface water systems regardless of size.
The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, with tightened turbidity performance
criteria and required individual filter monitoring, is designed to optimize treatment reliability and
to enhance physical removal efficiencies to minimize the Cryptosporidium levels in finished
water. In addition, the rule includes disinfection benchmark provisions to assure continued levels
of microbial protection while facilities take the necessary steps to comply with new DBF
standards.
Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
The final Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule applies to community water
systems and non-transient non-community systems, including those serving fewer than 10,000
people, that add a disinfectant to the drinking water during any part of the treatment process.
The final Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule includes the following key
provisions:
Fad Sheet—Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct Rules Page 3 of 6
-------
• Maximum residual disinfectant level goals (MRDLGs) for chlorine (4 mg/L), chloramines (4
mg/L), and chlorine dioxide (0.8 mg/L);
• Maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) for four trihalomethanes (chloroform (zero),
bromodichloromethane (zero), dibromochloromethane (0.06 mg/L), and bromoform (zero)),
two haloacetic acids (dichloroacetic acid (zero) and trichloroacetic acid (0.3 mg/L)), bromate
(zero), and chlorite (0.8 mg/L);
• MRDLs for three disinfectants (chlorine (4.0 mg/L), chloramines (4.0 mg/L), and chlorine
dioxide (0.8 mg/L));
• MCLs for total trihalomethanes - a sum of the four listed above (0.080 mg/L). haloacetic
acids (HAAS) (0.060 mg/L)- a sum of the two listed above plus monochloroacetic acid and
mono- and dibromoacetic acids), and two inorganic disinfection byproducts (chlorite (1.0
mg/L)) and bromate (0.010 mg/L)); and,
• A treatment technique for removal of DBF precursor material.
The terms MRDLG and MRDL, which are not included in the SDWA, were created during the
negotiations to distinguish disinfectants (because of their beneficial use) from contaminants. The
final rule includes monitoring, reporting, and public notification requirements for these
compounds. This final rule also describes the best available technology (BAT) upon which the
MRDLs and MCLs are based.
FUTURE RULES
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
While the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule will apply to systems of all
sizes, the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule only applies to systems serving
10,000 or more people. A Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, due in the fall
of 2000, will strengthen microbial controls for small systems i.e., those systems serving fewer
than 10,000 people. The rule will also prevent significant increase in microbial risk where small
systems take steps to implement the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule.
EPA believes that the rule will generally track the approaches in the Interim Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule for improved turbidity control, including individual filter monitoring and
reporting. The rule will also address disinfection profiling and benchmarking. The Agency is
considering what modifications of some large system requirements may be appropriate for small
systems.
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and Stage 2 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproduct Rule
The SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires EPA to finalize a Stage 2 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule by May 2002. Although the 1996 Amendments do not require
EPA to finalize a Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule along with the Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, EPA believes it is important to finalize these
rules together to ensure a proper balance between microbial and DBF risks.
Fact Sheet—Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct Rules Page 4 of 6
-------
EPA will begin discussions with stakeholders in December 1998 on the direction for these rules.
EPA anticipates proposed rules in early 2001. The intent of the rules is to provide additional
public health protection, if needed, from DBFs and microbial pathogens.
Ground Water Rule
EPA is developing a ground water rule which specifies the appropriate use of disinfection and,
just as importantly, addresses other components of ground water systems to ensure public health
protection. There are more than 158,000 public ground water systems. Almost 89 million people
are served by community ground water systems, and 20 million people are served by
non-community ground water systems. Ninety-nine percent (157,000) of ground water systems
serve fewer than 10,000 people. However, systems serving more than 10,000 people serve 55
percent (more than 60 million) of all people who get their drinking water from public ground
water systems. The Ground Water Rule will be promulgated November 2000.
Filter Backwash Recycling
The 1996 SDWA Amendments require that EPA set a standard on recycling filter backwash
within the treatment process of public water systems by August 2000. The regulation will apply
to all public water systems, regardless of size. EPA is currently gathering data, reviewing
literature, and consulting with industry representatives, members of the environmental
community, and consulting engineers to identify engineering and cost issues that are salient to
regulatory development.
Opportunities for Public Involvement
EPA encourages public input into regulation development. Public meetings and opportunities for
public comment on M-DBP rules are announced in the Federal Register. EPA's Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water also provides this information for the M-DBP rule and other programs
in its online Calendar of Events.
For more information, contact EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline, 1.800.426.4791, or see the
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water web page at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/
standards.html.
Fact Sheet—Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct Rules Page 5 of 6
-------
This page is left intentionally blank.
Fact Sheet—Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct Rules Page 6 of 6
-------
United States Office of Water EPA 815-F-98-009
Environmental Protection (4607) December 1998
Agency
A PDA Interim Enhanced Surface Water
<0"= Treatment Rule
Disinfection of drinking water is one of the major public health advances in the 20th century.
One hundred years ago, typhoid and cholera epidemics were common through American cities
and disinfection was a major factor in reducing these epidemics. However, the disinfectants
themselves can react with naturally-occurring materials in the water to form unintended
byproducts which may pose health risks.
In the past ten years, however, we have learned that there are specific microbial pathogens, such
as Cryptosporidium, that are resistant to traditional disinfection practices. In 1993,
Cryptosporidium caused 400,000 people in Milwaukee to experience intestinal illness. More than
4,000 were hospitalized, and at least 50 deaths have been attributed to the disease. There have
also been cryptosporidiosis outbreaks in Nevada, Oregon, and Georgia over the past several
years.
Amendments to SDWA in 1996 require EPA to develop rules to balance the risks. It is important
to strengthen protection against microbial contaminants, especially Cryptosporidium, and at the
same time, reduce potential health risks from disinfection byproducts. The new Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule and Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule are
the first of a set of rules under the Amendments. This fact sheet focuses on the Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule. A separate fact sheet focuses on the Stage 1 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule (EPA 815-F-98-010).
PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS FROM
MICROBIAL CONTAMINANTS IN DRINKING
WATER
EPA's Science Advisory Board concluded in 1990 that exposure to microbial contaminants such
as bacteria, viruses, and protozoa (e.g., Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium) was likely the
greatest remaining health risk management challenge for drinking water suppliers. Acute health
effects from exposure to microbial pathogens is documented and associated illness can range
from mild to moderate cases lasting only a few days to more severe infections that can last
several weeks and may result in death for those with weakened immune systems.
WHO MUST COMPLY WITH THE
RULE?
The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule applies to public water systems that use
surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) and serve at
Fact Sheet—IESWTR Page 1 of 6
-------
least 10,000 people. In addition, States are required to conduct sanitary surveys for all surface
water and GWUDI systems, including those that serve fewer than 10,000 people.
WHAT DOES THE RULE
REQUIRE?
The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule amends the existing Surface Water
Treatment Rule to strengthen microbial protection, including provisions specifically to address
Cryptosporidium, and to address risk trade-offs with disinfection byproducts. The final rule
includes treatment requirements for waterborne pathogens, e.g., Cryptosporidium. In addition,
systems must continue to meet existing requirements for Giardia lamblia and viruses.
Specifically, the rule includes:
• Maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of zero for Cryptosporidium;
• 2-log Cryptosporidium removal requirements for systems that filter;
• Strengthened combined filter effluent turbidity performance standards;
• Individual filter turbidity monitoring provisions;
* Disinfection profiling and benchmarking provisions;
• Systems using ground water under the direct influence of surface water now subject to the
new rules dealing with Cryptosporidium;
• Inclusion of Cryptosporidium in the watershed control requirements for unfiltered public
water systems;
• Requirements for covers on new finished water reservoirs; and,
* Sanitary surveys, conducted by States, for all surface water systems regardless of size.
The rule, with tightened turbidity performance criteria and individual filter monitoring
requirements, is designed to optimize treatment reliability and to enhance physical removal
efficiencies to minimize the Cryptosporidium levels in finished water. Turbidity requirements for
combined filter effluent will remain at least every four hours, but continuous monitoring will be
required for individual filters. In addition, the rule includes disinfection profiling and
benchmarking provisions to assure continued levels of microbial protection while facilities take
the necessary steps to comply with new DBF standards.
WHAT ARE THE COMPLIANCE
DEADLINES?
States have 2 years from publication to adopt and implement the requirements of this regulation.
Simultaneous compliance with the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rule,
promulgated at the same time, will be achieved as follows:
Public water systems that use surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface
water, either in whole or in part, and serve a population of 10,000 or more generally have 3 years
from Federal promulgation to comply with requirements of this rule, except for disinfection
profiling and benchmarking, which require systems to begin sampling after 3 months. In cases
Fact Sheet—IESWTR Page 2 of 6
-------
where capital improvements are needed to comply with the rule, States may grant systems up to
an additional 2 years to comply.
WHAT ARE THE COSTS AND
BENEFITS OF THE RULE?
EPA estimates that implementation of the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule will:
• Improve public health by increasing the level of protection from exposure to
Cryptosporidium and other pathogens (i.e., Giardia, or other waterborne bacterial or viral
pathogens) in drinking water supplies through improvements in filtration at water systems;
• Significantly reduce the level of Cryptosporidium in finished drinking water supplies through
improvements in filtration at water systems (i.e., revised turbidity requirements);
• Decrease the likelihood of endemic (constant low-level presence of a disease or infection)
illness from Cryptosporidium by 110,000 to 463,000 cases annually and related health costs,
as well as incidences of illness from Giardia and other waterborne pathogens; and,
* Reduce the likelihood of the occurrence of outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis (illness from
Cryptosporidium) and their associated economic costs by providing a larger margin of safety
against such outbreaks for some systems.
The total annualized national cost for implementing the Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule is $307 million. EPA believes that the benefits exceed the costs. The rule will
result in increased costs to public water systems for improved turbidity treatment, monitoring,
disinfection benchmarking and covering new finished water reservoirs,'as well as State
implementation costs.
EPA estimates that 92 percent of households will incur an increase in their water bill of less than
$1 per month; 7 percent of households will incur an increase in their water bills of between $1 -
$5 per month; and less than 1 percent will incur an increase of between $5-8 per month.
WHAT TECHNICAL INFORMATION WILL BE
AVAILABLE ON THE RULE?
A series of guidance manuals is planned to support the Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule and the Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule. The manuals will
aid EPA, State agencies and affected public water systems in implementing the two interrelated
rules, and will help to ensure that implementation among these groups is consistent. EPA
anticipates that the manuals will be available for review in early 1999.
The manuals will include:
Disinfection Benchmarking Guidance Manual
Objective: To help determine if a disinfection profile (an evaluation of current disinfection
practice) is required and how to do one; when a disinfection benchmark must be determined and
how to extract it from the profile; and how a public water system must use the benchmark, in
Fact Sheet—IESWTR Page 3 of 6
-------
consultation with the State, to assure protection from microbial risk is maintained when the
system changes disinfection practice.
Contents: The manual provides detailed information on the following subjects: applicability of
the profiling and benchmarking requirements to public water systems; procedures for generating
a disinfection profile, including example profiles; methods for calculating the disinfection
benchmark, including example calculations; the use of the benchmark in modifying disinfection
practices, communicating with the state, and assessing significant changes to disinfection
practices; the development of the profiling and benchmarking regulations; the significance of the
log inactivation concept and CT values for inactivations achieved by various disinfectants; and
the determination of contact time.
Turbidity Guidance Manual
Objective: The first section provides technical information regarding specific requirements of
the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule relating to turbidity and is intended for
experienced operators and others in the regulated community. The second section of the
document provides background on concepts surrounding turbidity and serves as a primer for less
experienced operators and individuals.
Contents: The first section contains key regulatory requirements including combined filter
effluent monitoring and individual filter monitoring; recordkeeping and reporting requirements;
additional compliance issues such as compliance schedule, public notification,
variances/exemptions, and follow-up action requirements; approved methods and additional
measurement and calibration issues; components and description of an filter self-assessment; and
components and description of a Comprehensive Performance Evaluation. The second section of
the manual includes more basic information on turbidity; description of the particles (both
natural and man-made) which typically contribute to turbidity; discussion of typical steps in a
treatment process and how turbidity is removed or created in each step; discussion of turbidity in
different source waters with an emphasis of how changes in source water effect turbidity; and
basic turbidimeter design.
Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual
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 hi evaluating which disinfectant(s) is most appropriate
given certain site-specific conditions (e.g., water quality conditions, existing treatment and
operator skill). The manual also contains a summary of existing alternative disinfectants use in
the United States and cost estimates for the use of alternative disinfectants.
Fact Sheet—IESWTR Page 4 of 6
-------
M/DBP Simultaneous Compliance Manual
Objective: To assist public water systems on complying simultaneously with various drinking
water regulations (e.g., Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, Lead and Copper Rule and the Total Coliform Rule).
The manual discusses operational problems systems may encounter when implementing these
rules.
Contents: The manual provides detailed information on the requirements in the Stage 1
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule and the Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule and issues involved with simultaneously complying with other rules.
Guidance Manual for Conducting Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Systems
Objective: The guidance manual provides an overview of how to conduct a sanitary survey of all
water systems using surface water and ground water under the direct influence of surface water.
It is intended to help state agencies improve their sanitary survey programs where needed.
Contents: The manual provides information about the objective and regulatory context of
sanitary surveys. It covers four principal stages of a sanitary survey: planning, including
preparatory steps to be taken by inspectors before conducting the onsite portion; conducting the
onsite survey; compiling a sanitary survey report; and performing follow-up activities.
Unfiltered Water Supply Guidance Manual
Objective: To supplement the existing Interim Surface Water Treatment Rule guidance for
unfiJtered surface water supplies and to identify the issues and requirements associated with the
new regulations.
Contents: This manual discusses provisions of the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule that will impact unfiltered surface water and; provides guidance on the development of
watershed control programs or enhancements of existing watershed control programs to address
Crypiosporidium. In addition, it provides information and guidance on monitoring for
Cryptosporidium.
Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs
Contents: The manual provides detailed information on the following subjects: developing and
implementing comprehensive open finished water reservoir management plans based on
site-specific conditions; identifying potential sources of contamination in open finished water
reservoirs and potential mitigation measures; employing different methods to control the
degradation of water quality while it resides in the reservoir; monitoring schemes that can be
used to characterize water quality and identify water quality degradation before it becomes
severe and is difficult to correct.
For more information, contact EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline, 1.800.426.4791, or see the
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water web page at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/
standards.html.
Fact Sheet—IESWTR Page 5 of 6
-------
This page is left intentionally blank.
FactSHea-IESWTR
------- |