Print
CHAPTER 43WATER SUPPLIES—DESIGN AND OPERATION[Prior to 12/12/90, portions of this chapter appeared in 567—Ch 41]567—43.1(455B) General information. 43.1(1) Emergency actions regarding water supplies. When, in the opinion of the director, an actual or imminent hazard exists, the supplier of water shall comply with the directives or orders of the director necessary to eliminate or minimize that hazard. 43.1(2) Prohibition on the use of lead pipes, solder and flux. Any pipe, solder or flux which is used in the installation or repair of any public water supply system or any plumbing in a residential or nonresidential facility providing water for human consumption which is connected to a public water supply system shall be lead-free as defined in 567—40.2(455B). This action shall not apply to leaded joints necessary for the repair of cast iron pipe. 43.1(3) Use of noncentralized treatment devices. a. Community PWS. Community public water systems shall not use bottled water, point-of-use (POU) or point-of-entry (POE) devices to achieve permanent compliance with a maximum contaminant level, action level, or treatment technique requirement in 567—Chapters 41 and 43. b. Noncommunity PWS. Noncommunity public water supply systems may be allowed by the department to use point-of-use devices to achieve MCL compliance provided the contaminant does not pose an imminent threat to health (such as bacteria) nor place a sensitive population at risk (such as infants for nitrate or nitrite). c. Reduced monitoring requirements. Bottled water, point-of-use, or point-of-entry devices cannot be used to avoid the monitoring requirements of 567—Chapters 41 and 43, but the department may allow reduced monitoring requirements in specific instances. d. Bottled water requirements. The department may require a public water system exceeding a maximum contaminant level, action level, or treatment technique requirement specified in 567—Chapters 41 and 43 to use bottled water as a condition of an interim compliance schedule or as a temporary measure to avoid an unreasonable risk to health. Any bottled water must, at a minimum, meet the federal Food and Drug Administration bottled water standards, listed in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Chapter 165.110. The system must meet the following requirements: (1) Monitoring program. Submit for approval to the department a monitoring program for bottled water. The monitoring program must provide reasonable assurances that the bottled water complies with all maximum contaminant levels, action levels, or treatment technique requirements in 567—Chapters 41 and 43. The public water system must monitor a representative sample of bottled water for all contaminants regulated under 567—Chapters 41 and 43 the first quarter that it supplies the bottled water to the public, and annually thereafter. Results of the monitoring program shall be provided to the department annually. If the bottled water is from a community public water system that currently meets all of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements, the monitoring requirements of this subparagraph shall be waived by the department. The specific supplier of the bottled water must be identified in order for the department to waive the monitoring requirements. (2) Certification requirements. The public water system must receive a certification from the bottled water company that the bottled water supplied has been taken from an “approved source”; the bottled water company has conducted monitoring in accordance with 43.1(3)“b”(1); and the bottled water meets MCLs, action levels, or treatment technique requirements as set out in 567—Chapters 41 and 43. The public water system shall provide the certification to the department the first quarter after it supplies bottled water and annually thereafter. (3) Provision of bottled water to consumers. The public water supply system is fully responsible for the provision of sufficient quantities of bottled water to every person supplied by the public water system via door-to-door bottled water delivery. e. Point-of-use devices. Reserved. f. Point-of-entry devices. Reserved. 43.1(4) Cross-connection control. To prevent backflow or backsiphonage of contaminants into a public water supply, connection shall not be permitted between a public water supply and any other system which does not meet the monitoring and drinking water standards required by this chapter except as provided below in “a” or “b.” a. Piping and plumbing systems. Piping systems or plumbing equipment carrying nonpotable water, contaminated water, stagnant water, liquids, mixtures or waste mixtures shall not be connected to a public water supply unless properly equipped with an antisiphon device or backflow preventer acceptable to the department. b. Bulk water loading stations. Positive separation shall be provided through the use of an air gap separation or a backflow preventer, which is acceptable to the department, at all loading stations for bulk transport tanks. (1) Minimum air gap. The minimum required air gap shall be twice the diameter of the discharge pipe. (2) Backflow preventer criteria. An approved backflow preventer for this application shall be a reduced pressure backflow preventer or an antisiphon device which complies with the standards of the American Water Works Association and has been approved by the Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research, University of Southern California.When, in the opinion of the department, evidence clearly indicates the source of contamination within the system is the result of a cross-connection, the department may require a public water supply to conduct public notification, identify and eliminate the connection, and implement a systemwide cross-connection program. 43.1(5) Requirement for certified operator. The department maintains a list of operators who are certified in accordance with 567—Chapter 81. The list includes the operator’s name, certification classification (Water Treatment, Water Distribution, or Grade A Water System), and grade (A, I, II, III, or IV), and is periodically updated during the year. a. CWS and NTNC systems. All community and nontransient noncommunity public water supply systems must have a certified operator in direct responsible charge of the treatment and distribution systems, in accordance with 567—Chapters 40 through 44 and 81. b. TNC systems. Any transient noncommunity public water supply system which is owned by the state or federal government, such as a state park, state hospital, or interstate rest stop, or is using a groundwater under the direct influence of surface water or surface water source, must have a certified operator in direct responsible charge of the treatment and distribution systems, in accordance with 567—Chapters 40 through 44 and 81. Any TNC which uses chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant or oxidant must have a certified operator in direct responsible charge of the system, pursuant to 567—Chapter 81. The department may require any TNC to have a certified operator in direct responsible charge. 43.1(6) Return water in public water supply systems. Steam condensate, cooling water from engine jackets, water used in conjunction with heat exchange devices, or treated wastewater shall not be returned to the public water supply system. 43.1(7) Sanitary surveys. Each public water supply system must have a periodic sanitary survey, conducted by the department or its designee, which is a records review and on-site inspection of the system. Systems must provide the department, at its request, any existing information that will enable the department to conduct the sanitary survey. The inspection evaluates the system’s ability to produce and distribute safe drinking water and identifies improvements necessary to maintain or improve drinking water quality. The sanitary survey includes review and inspection of the following areas: water source; treatment facilities; distribution system; finished water storage; pumps, pump facilities, controls and other equipment; monitoring, reporting, and data verification, including self-monitoring requirements; system operation and management; maintenance; properly certified operators; and records. A report of the sanitary survey is issued by the department or its designee, and may include both enforceable required actions for remedying significant deficiencies and nonenforceable recommended actions. The frequency of the sanitary survey inspection must be at least once every five years for noncommunity systems and once every three years for community systems. The department or its designee must provide the system with a written notice describing any significant deficiencies identified no later than 30 days after the department identifies the significant deficiency. The notice may be included in the sanitary survey report and may specify corrective actions and deadlines for completion of corrective actions. Systems must respond in writing to significant deficiencies outlined in the sanitary survey report or written notice within the time period specified in the report, indicating how and on what schedule the system will address significant deficiencies noted in the survey. At a maximum, the written response must be received within 30 days of receiving the survey report. All systems must take the steps necessary to address significant deficiencies identified in the sanitary survey report that are within the control of the system and its governing body.Related ARC(s): 9915B, 3735C567—43.2(455B) Permit to operate. 43.2(1) Operation fees. a. Annual fee. A fee for the operation of a public water supply system shall be paid annually. The fee will not be prorated and is nonrefundable. The fee shall be based on the population served. The fee shall be the greater of $25 per year or $0.14 multiplied by the total population served by the public water supply for all community and nontransient noncommunity public water supply systems. The fee shall be $25 per year for all transient noncommunity water systems. Where a system provides water to another public water supply system (consecutive public water supply system) which is required to have an operation permit, the population of the recipient water supply shall not be counted as a part of the water system providing the water. b. Fee notices. The department will send annual notices to public water supply systems at least 60 days prior to the date that the operation fee is due. c. Fee payments. The annual operation fee must be paid to the department by September 1 each year. d. Fee schedule adjustment. The department may adjust the per capita fee payment by up to +/– $0.02 per person served so as to achieve the targeted revenue of $350,000 during each fiscal year. The environmental protection commission must approve any per capita fee rate above $0.14 per person. The extent of the fee adjustment must comply with Iowa Code section 455B.183A. e. Exempted public water supply systems. Public water supply systems located on Indian lands are exempt from the fee requirements. f. Late fees. When the owner of a public water supply fails to make timely application or to remit payment of fees by September 1, the department will notify the system by a single notice of violation. In addition, a late fee of $100 will be assessed for failure to remit the operation fee by September 1. The department may thereafter issue an administrative order pursuant to Iowa Code section 455B.175(1) or request a referral to the attorney general under Iowa Code section 455B.175(3) as necessary. 43.2(2) Operation permit requirement. Except as provided in 43.2(3) and 43.2(4), no person shall operate any public water supply system or part thereof without, or contrary to any condition of, an operation permit issued by the director. 43.2(3) Application for operation permit. The owner of any public water supply system or part thereof must make application for an operation permit. No such system shall be operated without an operation permit, unless proper application has been made. Upon submission of a completed application form, the time requirement for having a valid operation permit is automatically extended until the application has either been approved or disapproved by the director. 43.2(4) Operation permit application form issuance. a. Operation permit application form. Application for operation permits shall be made on forms provided by the department. The application for an operation permit shall be filed at least 90 days prior to the date operation is scheduled to begin unless a shorter time is approved by the director. The director shall issue or deny operation permits for facilities within 60 days of receipt of a completed application, unless a longer period is required and the applicant is so notified. The director may require the submission of additional information deemed necessary to evaluate the application. If the application is incomplete or otherwise deficient, processing of the application shall not be completed until such time as the applicant has supplied the missing information or otherwise corrected the deficiency. b. Identity of signatories of operation permit applications. The person who signs the application for an operation permit shall be: (1) Corporation. In the case of a corporation, a principal executive officer of at least the level of vice president. The corporation has the option of appointing a designated signatory to satisfy this requirement. (2) Partnership. In the case of a partnership, a general partner. (3) Sole proprietorship. In the case of a sole proprietorship, the proprietor. (4) Public facility. In the case of a municipal, state or other public facility, by either the principal executive officer or the ranking elected official. c. Appeal. The denial of a permit, or any permit condition, may be appealed by the applicant to the environmental protection commission pursuant to 567—Chapter 7. 43.2(5) Operation permit conditions. a. Operation permit conditions. Operation permits may contain such conditions as are deemed necessary by the director to ensure compliance with all applicable rules of the department, to ensure that the public water supply system is properly operated and maintained, to ensure that potential hazards to the water consumer are eliminated promptly, and to ensure that the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act are met. b. Compliance schedule. Where one or more maximum contaminant levels, treatment techniques, designated health advisories, or action levels cannot be met immediately, a compliance schedule for achieving compliance with standards may be made a condition of the permit. A compliance schedule requiring alterations in accordance with the standards for construction in 43.3(1) and 43.3(2) may also be included for any supply that, in the opinion of the director, contains a potential hazard. c. Treatment. If the department determines that a treatment method identified in 43.3(10) is technically feasible, the department may require the system to install or use that treatment method in connection with a compliance schedule issued under the provisions of 43.2(5)“b.” The department’s determination shall be based upon studies by the system and other relevant information. 43.2(6) Notification of change in operation permit application conditions. The owner of a public water supply system shall notify the director within 30 days of any change in conditions identified in the permit application. This notice does not relieve the owner of the responsibility to obtain a construction permit as required by 567—43.3(455B). 43.2(7) Renewal of operation permits. The department may issue operation permits for durations of up to five years. Operation permits must be renewed prior to expiration in order to remain valid. The renewal date shall be specified in the permit or in any renewal. Application for renewal must be received by the director, or postmarked, 60 days prior to the renewal date, on forms provided by the department. 43.2(8) Denial, modification, or suspension of operation permit. The director may deny renewal of, modify, or suspend, in whole or in part, any operation permit for good cause. Denial of a new permit, renewal of an existing permit, or modification of a permit, may be appealed to the environmental protection commission pursuant to 567—Chapter 7. Suspension or revocation may occur after hearing, pursuant to 567—Chapter 7. Good cause includes the following: a. Violation of any term or condition of the permit. b. Obtaining a permit by misrepresentation of fact or failure to disclose fully all material facts. c. A change in any condition that requires either a permanent or temporary modification of a permit condition. d. Failure to submit such records and information as the director may require both generally and as a condition of the operation permit in order to ensure compliance with conditions specified in the permit. e. Violation of any of the requirements contained in 567—Chapters 40 to 43. f. Inability of a system to either achieve or maintain technical, managerial, or financial viability, as determined in rule 567—43.8(455B).567—43.3(455B) Public water supply system construction. 43.3(1) Standards for public water supplies. Any public water supply that does not meet the drinking water standards contained in 567—Chapters 41 and 43 shall make the alterations in accordance with the standards for construction contained in 43.3(2) necessary to comply with the drinking water standards unless the public water supply has been granted a variance from a maximum contaminant level or treatment technique as a provision of its operation permit pursuant to 567—43.2(455B), provided that the public water supply meets the schedule established pursuant to 567—43.2(455B). Any public water supply that, in the opinion of the director, contains a potential hazard shall make the alterations in accordance with the standards for construction contained in this rule necessary to eliminate or minimize that hazard. A system that is not operating within the design standards may be required by the department via a compliance schedule to upgrade the deficient areas of the system before a construction permit will be issued for any work in the system that does not address the current deficiencies. 43.3(2) Standards for construction. a. The standards for a project are the Ten States Standards as adopted through 2012 and the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standards as adopted through 2016 and 43.3(7) to 43.3(9). To the extent of any conflict between the Ten States Standards and the American Water Works Association Standards and 43.3(7) to 43.3(9), the Ten States Standards, 43.3(2), and 43.3(7) to 43.3(9) shall prevail. Additional standards include the following: (1) Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe manufactured in accordance with ASTM D2241, AWWA C900, AWWA C905, ASTM F1483, or AWWA C909 may be used for water main construction. The maximum allowable pressure for PVC or polyethylene (PE) pipe shall be determined based on a safety factor of 2.0 and a surge allowance of no less than two feet per second (2 fps). (2) For CWS groundwater systems, a minimum of two wells shall be provided, unless the system demonstrates to the department’s satisfaction that a single well will provide a reliable and adequate source. For NTNC and TNC groundwater systems, a single well is acceptable. (3) Separation of water mains from sanitary and combined sewers. 1. Horizontal separation of water mains from gravity sanitary and combined sewers. Water mains shall be separated from gravity sanitary and combined sewer mains by a horizontal distance of at least ten feet measured edge to edge unless the bottom of the water main is at least 18 inches above the top of the sewer, and either:The water main is placed in a separate trench, or The water main is located on a bench of undisturbed earth at a minimum horizontal separation of three feet from the sewer. If it is not possible to obtain a horizontal separation of three feet and a vertical separation of 18 inches between the bottom of the water main and the top of the sewer, a linear separation of at least two feet shall be provided, and one of the following shall be utilized:The water main shall be enclosed in watertight casing pipe with an evenly spaced annular gap and watertight end seals, or The sewer shall be constructed of water main materials. The separation distance between the water main and the sewer shall be the maximum feasible in all cases. 2. Horizontal separation of water mains from sanitary sewer force mains. Water mains shall be separated from sanitary sewer force mains by a horizontal distance of at least ten feet measured edge to edge unless the sanitary sewer force main is constructed of water main materials and the water main is laid at least four feet horizontally from the sanitary sewer force main. The separation distance between the water main and the sanitary sewer force main shall be the maximum feasible in all cases. 3. Vertical separation of water mains from sanitary and combined sewer crossovers. Vertical separation of water mains crossing over any sanitary or combined sewers shall be at least 18 inches when measured from the bottom of the water main to the top of the sewer. If it is not possible to maintain the required vertical separation, one of the following shall be utilized:The bottom of the water main shall not be placed closer than six inches above the top of a sewer, or The top of the water main shall not be placed closer than 18 inches below the bottom of a sewer. When a water main crosses below or less than 18 inches above a sanitary or combined sewer, one of the following shall be utilized within ten feet measured edge to edge horizontally, centered on the crossing:The water main shall be enclosed in watertight casing pipe with an evenly spaced annular gap and watertight ends, or Sewer pipe of water main material shall be installed. The separation distance shall be the maximum feasible in all cases. Wherever a water main crosses a sanitary or combined sewer, the water main and sanitary or combined sewer pipes must be adequately supported. A low permeability soil shall be used for backfill material within ten feet of the point of crossing along the water main. 4. Horizontal separation of water mains from sanitary and combined sewer manholes. No water pipe shall pass through or come in contact with any part of a sanitary or combined sewer manhole. A minimum horizontal separation of three feet shall be maintained. (4) Separation of water mains from storm sewers. 1. Horizontal separation of water mains from gravity storm sewers. Water mains shall be separated horizontally from gravity storm sewers by at least ten feet measured edge to edge. If it is not possible to maintain the required horizontal separation of ten feet, a minimum of three feet of separation shall be maintained and one of the following shall be utilized within ten feet measured edge to edge:The water main shall be constructed of ductile iron pipe with gaskets impermeable to hydrocarbons, or The water main shall be enclosed in watertight casing pipe with an evenly spaced annular gap and watertight end seals, or Storm sewer pipe of water main material shall be installed, or Reinforced concrete pipe storm sewers shall be constructed with gaskets manufactured in accordance with ASTM C443. 2. Vertical separation of water mains from storm sewer crossovers. Water mains shall be vertically separated from storm sewers by at least 18 inches between the outside edges of the water main and the storm sewer. The separation distance shall be the maximum feasible in all cases. In all cases where a water main crosses a storm sewer, the water main and storm sewer pipes must be adequately supported. A low permeability soil shall be used for backfill material within ten feet of the point of crossing along the water main. If it is not possible to obtain 18 inches of vertical separation where the water main crosses above a storm sewer, a minimum of 6 inches vertical separation shall be maintained and one of the following shall be utilized within ten feet measured edge to edge horizontally, centered on the crossing:The water main shall be constructed of ductile iron pipe with gaskets impermeable to hydrocarbons, or The water main shall be enclosed in watertight casing pipe with an evenly spaced annular gap and watertight end seals, or Storm sewer pipe of water main material shall be installed, or Reinforced concrete pipe storm sewers shall be constructed with gaskets manufactured in accordance with ASTM C443. b. Variance. When engineering justification satisfactory to the director is provided substantially demonstrating that variation from the design standards will result in equivalent or improved effectiveness, such a variation from design standards may be accepted by the director. A variance denial may be appealed to the environmental protection commission pursuant to 567—Chapter 7. Variance requests for projects qualifying for a waiver from the engineering requirement of 43.3(4) may be made without the retained services of a professional engineer. 43.3(3) Construction permits. No person shall construct, install or modify any project without first obtaining, or contrary to any condition of, a construction permit issued by the director or by a local public works department authorized to issue permits under 567—Chapter 9 except as provided in 43.3(3)“b,”43.3(4) and 43.3(6). Construction permits are not required for point-of-use treatment devices installed by a noncommunity water system except those devices required by the department to meet a drinking water standard pursuant to 567—Chapters 41 and 43. No construction permit will be issued for a new public water supply system without a completed viability assessment, which has been approved by the department, and demonstrates that the system is viable, pursuant to 567—43.8(455B). a. Construction permit issuance conditions. A permit to construct shall be issued by the director if the director concludes from the application and specifications submitted pursuant to 43.3(4) and 567—40.4(455B) that the project will comply with the rules of the department. The construction of the project must begin within one year from the date the permit was issued; if it is not, the permit is no longer valid. If construction is ongoing and continuous (aside from delays due to winter or exceptional weather) and the permitted project cannot be completed within one year, the permit shall remain valid until the project is completed. The department may grant an extension of the permit for a multiphase project, for a maximum two additional years. b. Construction permit application. Application for any project shall be submitted to the department at least 30 days prior to the proposed date for commencing construction or awarding of contracts. This requirement may be waived when it is determined by the department that an imminent health hazard exists to the consumers of a public water supply. Under this waiver, construction, installation, or modification may be allowed by the department prior to review and issuance of a permit if all the following conditions are met: (1) The construction, installation or modification will alleviate the health hazard; (2) The construction is done in accordance with the standards for construction pursuant to 43.3(2); (3) Plans and specifications are submitted within 30 days after construction; (4) A professional engineer, licensed in the state of Iowa, supervises the construction; and (5) The supplier of water receives approval of this waiver prior to any construction, installation, or modification. c. Construction permit fees. A nonrefundable fee for a construction permit issued in accordance with subrules 43.3(3) and 43.3(4) and 567—subrules 40.3(1) and 40.4(1) shall be submitted with the application for a construction permit prior to the authorization to commence construction. The construction permit fee shall be based upon the following rate structure: (1) Routine construction permits. The fee shall be determined based upon the total length of water main plus the non-water-main-related construction costs, calculated as follows:1. Water mains (minimum fee of $100; maximum fee of $5,000):Length of permitted water mainRateFirst 1,000 ft.$100Next 19,000 ft.$0.10/ft.Next 300,000 ft.$0.01/ft.Over 320,000 ft. No additional charge2. Non-water-main-related construction costs, including source, treatment, pumping, storage and waste handling (minimum fee of $100; maximum fee of $16,000):Estimated construction costRateFirst $50,000$100Next $950,0000.2% of estimated construction costNext $14,000,0000.1% of estimated construction costOver $15,000,000No additional charge (2) “As-built” construction. “As-built” construction is defined as construction that occurred before a construction permit is issued. The fee shall be calculated according to 43.3(3)“c”(1), plus an additional fee of $200, and is effective for construction that occurred after December 1, 2003. The fee for water main projects permitted in accordance with paragraph 43.3(3)“e” shall be calculated in accordance with subparagraph 43.3(3)“c”(1); however, the additional “as-built” fee of $200 shall not be assessed for these projects. (3) Change orders, addenda, permit supplements, and request for time extensions. A fee for change orders, addenda, or permit supplements will only be charged if the aggregate of the changes approved for the project to date causes the total project construction cost to exceed the original project construction cost by at least 5 percent. For water main extensions, the fee will be charged if the total length of water main exceeds the original approved length by 5 percent. The request for a time extension is a flat fee.CategoriesRateChange orders, addenda, and permit supplements for water mains$0.10/ft. of additional water main, minimum fee: $50Change orders, addenda, and permit supplements for non-water-main-related construction costs0.2% of additional non-water-main-related construction costs, minimum fee: $50Request for time extension$50 (4) Calendar year construction permit fee cap. The total amount of construction permit fees for a public water supply system owner during any calendar year shall not exceed $5,000 for water mains and $16,000 for non-water-main-related construction projects. d. Water well construction. All water well construction must be performed by a certified well contractor in accordance with 567—Chapter 82. It is the responsibility of the public water supply and certified well contractor to ensure that a public well construction permit has been issued by the department prior to initiation of well construction and to ensure that all well construction is performed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. e. Minor water main construction permit. A public water system may obtain a minor water main construction permit from the department for construction or replacement of minor water mains that serve additional users. By obtaining this permit, the system is able to construct new minor water mains or extend or replace existing minor water mains without obtaining an individual construction permit for each specific water main. The permit shall allow construction or replacement of minor water mains that do not exceed six inches in diameter and, in aggregation, do not increase the average daily demand (in gallons per day) of the public water supply system by more than 5 percent over the duration of the permit.The additional users must have been included in the system’s hydraulic analysis that has been approved by the department. The water demands of the additional users must be consistent with the water demands in the approved hydraulic analysis. (1) A minor water main construction permit shall be issued subject to the following conditions:An up-to-date hydraulic analysis of the system, prepared and submitted by a licensed professional engineer, must be either on file with the department or submitted with the permit application. The hydraulic basis of flow (gallons per minute per connection) used in the analysis must be acceptable to the department. The hydraulic analysis shall include: ○All existing water mains within the system;○All proposed water mains intended to be covered by the permit;○A demonstration that the system has adequate hydraulic capacity to serve the existing and new users under peak flow conditions without causing the pressure to fall below 20 psi anywhere within the system;○The location of all potential users of the system;○The diameter of all existing and proposed pipes;○The projected system flows; and○The static and dynamic pressures anticipated throughout the system with the addition of the new users incorporated in the analysis.A completed Schedule 1b, Minor Water Main Construction Permit Application (Form 542-3151), listed in 567—subrule 40.3(1). (2) The system must submit completed Schedule 2c, Notification of Minor Water Main Construction (Form 542-3152), prior to the construction or replacement of each minor water main covered by this permit. Each water main covered by the permit must have either been included in the previously submitted hydraulic analysis or must be included in an update to the hydraulic analysis, submitted with Schedule 2c. If an update to the hydraulic analysis is submitted with Schedule 2c, it must include all portions of the distribution system potentially affected by the new construction. (3) By January 31 of the following year, the system shall submit the following to the department:The proposed well is located on the best available site; The existing facility does not have adequate land to provide the 200-foot control zone; The owner has attempted to obtain legal control without success; and There is no other public water supply available to which the supply could connect. 4. When the proposed well is located in an existing well field and will withdraw water from the same aquifer as the existing well(s), individual separation distances may be waived if substantial historical data are available indicating that no contamination has resulted.No record of total coliform or fecal coliform contamination in untreated samples collected over the past three years. No history of turbidity problems associated with the well, other than turbidity as a result of inorganic chemical precipitates. No history of known or suspected outbreak of Giardia or other pathogenic organisms associated with surface water (e.g., Cryptosporidium) which has been attributed to the well. Identification of a Giardia cyst, live diatoms, and blue-green, green, or other chloroplast containing algae in any source water shall be considered evidence of direct surface water influence. Rotifers and insect parts are indicators of surface water. Without knowledge of which species is present, the finding of rotifers indicates that the source is either directly influenced by surface water, or the water contains organic matter sufficient to support the growth of rotifers. Insects or insect parts shall be considered strong evidence of surface water influence, if not direct evidence. The presence of coccidia (e.g., Cryptosporidium) in the source water is considered a good indicator of direct influence of surface water. Other macroorganisms (greater than 7 um) which are parasitic to animals and fish such as, but not limited to, helminths (e.g., tapeworm cysts), ascaris, and Diphyllobothrium, shall be considered as indicators of direct influence of surface water. If chlorine dioxide or chloramines are used to maintain a residual disinfectant in the distribution system, or if chlorine is used to maintain a residual disinfectant in the distribution system and there are no disinfection addition points after the entrance to the distribution system (i.e., no booster chlorination), the system must take three samples as close to the first customer as possible, at intervals of at least six hours. If chlorine is used to maintain a residual disinfectant in the distribution system and there are one or more disinfection addition points after the entrance to the distribution system (i.e., booster chlorination), the system must take one sample at each of the following locations: as close to the first customer as possible, in a location representative of average residence time, and as close to the end of the distribution system as possible (reflecting maximum residence time in the distribution system). Determine one inactivation ratio (CTcalc/CT99.9) before or at the first customer during peak hourly flow. Determine successive CTcalc/CT99.9 values, representing sequential inactivation ratios, between the point of disinfectant application and a point before or at the first customer during peak hourly flow. Under this alternative, the system must calculate the total inactivation ratio by determining (CTcalc/CT99.9) for each sequence and then adding the (CTcalc/CT99.9) values together to determine Σ(CTcalc/CT99.9). 2. If the system uses more than one point of disinfectant application before the first customer, the system must determine the CT value of each disinfection segment immediately prior to the next point of disinfectant application, or for the final segment, before or at the first customer, during peak hourly flow. The CTcalc/CT99.9 value of each segment and Σ(CTcalc/CT99.9) must be calculated using the method in 43.9(2)“b”(4)“1.”The consecutive system cannot meet in its distribution system the byproduct level requirements of less than 0.064 mg/L for TTHM and less than 0.048 mg/L for HAA5, and The producing system wants to make a significant change to its disinfection practices. 2. The department will then assign the requirement to the producing system to conduct the disinfection profiling study and determine a disinfection benchmark. b. Required elements of a disinfection profile. (1) Collection of the following data for 12 consecutive months, beginning by July 1, 2003, for systems serving 500 to 9,999 people, and by January 1, 2004, for systems serving fewer than 500 people. A system must monitor the following parameters to determine the total log inactivation by using the analytical methods in paragraph 43.5(4)“a,” once per week on the same calendar day, over 12 consecutive months.One inactivation ratio (CT calc/CT99.9) before or at the first customer during peak hourly flow, or Successive (CT calc/CT99.9) values, representing sequential inactivation ratios, between the point of disinfection application and a point before or at the first customer during peak hourly flow. Under this alternative, the system must calculate the total inactivation ratio by determining (CT calc/CT99.9) for each sequence and then adding the (CT calc/CT99.9) values together to determine (ƩCT calc/CT99.9). Assessment of filter performance; Development of a filter profile; Identification and prioritization of factors limiting filter performance; Assessment of the applicability of corrections; Preparation of a filter self-assessment report; Date the self-assessment requirement was triggered; and Date the self-assessment was completed. (3) If the turbidity of an individual filter (or the turbidity of the combined filter effluent for a system with one or two filters, pursuant to 43.10(5)“c”) exceeds 2.0 NTU in two consecutive recordings 15 minutes apart in two consecutive months, the system must meet the following requirements:Physically composite the source samples into a single sample for analysis. Systems may composite the sample from each source into one sample prior to analysis. The volume of the sample from each source must be weighted according to the proportion of the source in the total plant flow at the time the sample is collected. Analyze the samples separately and mathematically composite the results. Systems may analyze samples from each source separately and calculate a weighted average of the analytical results for each sampling date. The weighted average must be calculated by multiplying the analytical result for each source by the fraction that source contributed to the total plant flow at the time the sample was collected and then summing the weighted analytical results. e. Analytical methodology, laboratory certification, and data reporting requirements. Systems must have samples analyzed pursuant to the specifications listed in this paragraph. The system must report, in a format acceptable to the department, the analytical results from the source water monitoring no later than ten days after the end of the first month following the month when the sample is collected. (1) Cryptosporidium. Systems must have Cryptosporidium samples analyzed by a laboratory that is approved under EPA’s Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program for Analysis of Cryptosporidium in Water.PWSID. Facility ID. Sample collection date. Sample type (i.e., field or matrix spike). Sample volume filtered (L), to the nearest 0.25 L. Whether 100 percent of the filtered volume was examined by the laboratory. Number of oocysts counted. For matrix spike samples: sample volume spiked and estimated number of oocysts spiked. For samples in which less than 10 L is filtered or less than 100 percent of the sample volume is examined: the number of filters used and the packed pellet volume. For samples in which less than 100 percent of sample volume is examined: the volume of resuspended concentrate and the volume of this resuspension processed through immunomagnetic separation. (2) E. coli. Systems must have the E. coli samples analyzed by a laboratory certified by EPA, the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference, or the department for total coliform or fecal coliform analysis in drinking water samples using the same approved E. coli method for the analysis of source water.1. The approved analytical methods for the enumeration of E. coli in source water are shown in Table 2.Table 2: E. coli Analytical MethodsMethodEPAStandard MethodsOtherMost probable number with multiple tube or multiple well1, 29223 B11991.154Colilert3, 5Colilert-183, 5, 6Membrane filtration, single step1, 7, 816039m-ColiBlue2410Membrane filtration, two step9222D/9222G121Tests must be conducted to provide organism enumeration (i.e., density). Select the appropriate configuration of tubes/filtrations and dilutions/volumes to account for the quality, consistency, and anticipated organism density in the water sample.2Samples shall be enumerated by the multiple-tube or multiple-well procedure. Using multiple-tube procedures, employ an appropriate tube and dilution configuration of the sample as needed and report the Most Probable Number (MPN). Samples tested with Colilert® may be enumerated with the multiple-well procedures, Quanti-Tray®, Quanti-Tray® 2000, and the MPN calculated from the table provided by the manufacturer.3These tests are collectively known as defined enzyme substrate tests, where, for example, a substrate is used to detect the enzyme beta-glucouronidase produced by E. coli.4Association of Official Analytical Chemists, International. “Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 16th Ed., Volume 1, Chapter 17, 1995. AOAC, 481 N. Frederick Ave., Suite 500, Gaithersburg, MD 20877-2417.5Descriptions of the Colilert®, Colilert-18®, Quanti-Tray®, and Quanti-Tray® 2000 may be obtained from IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., 1 IDEXX Drive, Westbrook, ME 04092.6Colilert-18® is an optimized formulation of the Colilert® for the determination of total coliforms and E. coli that provides results within 18 hours of incubation at 35 degrees C rather than the 24 hours required for the Colilert® test.7The filter must be a 0.45 micron membrane filter or a membrane filter with another pore size certified by the manufacturer to fully retain organisms to be cultivated and to be free of extractables which could interfere with organism growth.8When the membrane filter method has been used previously to test waters with high turbidity or large numbers of noncoliform bacteria, a parallel test should be conducted with a multiple-tube technique to demonstrate applicability and comparability of results.9“Method 1603: Escherichia coli (E. coli) in Water by Membrane Filtration Using Modified Membrane-Thermotolerant Escherichia coli Agar (modified mTEC), USEPA, July 2006.” US EPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC, EPA 821-R-06-011. Available at www.nepis.epa.gov.10A description of the m-ColiBlue24® test, Total Coliforms and E. coli, is available from Hach Company, 100 Dayton Ave., Ames, IA 50010.11Standard Methods for the Analysis of Water and Wastewater, 18th (1992), 19th (1995), and 20th (1998) editions, American Public Health Association. Available from APHA, 800 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001-3710.12Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th edition (1998). Available from APHA, 800 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001-3710.2. The holding time (the time period from sample collection to initiation of analysis) shall not exceed 30 hours. The department may approve on a case-by-case basis an extension of the holding time to 48 hours, if the 30-hour holding time is not feasible. If the extension is allowed, the laboratory must use the Colilert® reagent version of the Standard Methods 9223B to conduct the analysis.3. The samples must be maintained between 0 and 10 degrees C during storage and transit to the laboratory.4. The following data elements must be reported for each E. coli analysis:PWSID. Facility ID. Sample collection date. Analytical method number. Method type. Source type (flowing stream or river; lake or reservoir; or influenced groundwater). Number of E. coli per 100 mL. Turbidity in NTU. (3) Turbidity. The approved analytical methods for turbidity are listed in 43.5(4)“a”(1). Measurements of turbidity must be made by a party approved by the department, and reported on the laboratory data sheet with the corresponding E. coli sample. 43.11(4) Disinfection profiling and benchmarking. a. General requirements. Following completion of the first round of source water monitoring, a system that plans to make a significant change to its disinfection practice must develop disinfection profiles and calculate disinfection benchmarks for Giardia lamblia and viruses. (1) Notification to the department. The system must notify the department prior to changing its disinfection practice and must include in the notice the completed disinfection profile and disinfection benchmark for Giardia lamblia and viruses, a description of the proposed change in disinfection practice, and an analysis of how the proposed change will affect the current level of disinfection. (2) Definition of “significant change.” A significant change to the disinfection practice is defined as follows:Determine one inactivation ratio before or at the first customer during peak hourly flow. Determine successive sequential inactivation ratios between the point of disinfectant application and a point before or at the first customer during peak hourly flow. Calculate the total inactivation ratio by determining the inactivation ratio for each sequence (CTcalc/CT99.9) and adding the values together. The watershed sanitary survey must meet the following criteria: encompass the region identified in the department-approved watershed control plan as the area of influence; assess the implementation of actions to reduce source water Cryptosporidium levels; and identify any significant new sources of Cryptosporidium. If the department determines that significant changes may have occurred in the watershed since the previous watershed sanitary survey, systems must undergo another watershed sanitary survey by the date specified by the department, which may be earlier than the regular schedule of a three- or five-year frequency. For direct integrity tests using applied pressure or vacuum, the direct integrity test sensitivity must be calculated according to the following equation: LRVDIT = LOG10 [Qp/(VCF × Qbreach)]Where:LRVDIT = the sensitivity of the direct integrity test;Qp = total design filtrate flow from the membrane unit;Qbreach = flow of water from an integrity breach associated with the smallest integrity test response that can be reliably measured; andVCF = volumetric concentration factor, which is the ratio of the suspended solids concentration on the high-pressure side of the membrane relative to that in the feed water.For direct integrity tests using a particulate or molecular marker, the direct integrity test sensitivity must be calculated according to the following equation: LRVDIT = LOG10 (Cf) – LOG10 (Cp)Where:LRVDIT = the sensitivity of the direct integrity test;Cf = the typical feed concentration of the marker used in the test; andCp = the filtrate concentration of the marker from an integral membrane unit.
- The system has standard specifications for water main construction approved and on file with the department;
- The system has adequate source capacity and, where treatment is provided, adequate treatment plant capacity to meet the peak day demand of all existing users and the proposed additional users covered under the permit;
- The system has adequate storage capacity to meet the average day demand of all existing users and the proposed additional users covered under the permit; and
- The system submits an application for a minor water main construction permit prior to the construction or replacement of any water main covered by the permit. The permit application must be submitted to the department 90 days before the anticipated first use of the permit, and construction shall not commence prior to the issuance of the permit. The minor water main construction permit expires on December 31 of the year in which it is issued. The application shall include the following:
- A complete set of plans for all water main extensions constructed under the permit. The plans must be prepared and submitted by a licensed professional engineer.
- Completed Schedules 1a, 1c, and 2a, listed in 567—subrule 40.3(1).
- The construction permit fee calculated in accordance with subparagraph 43.3(3)“c”(1). The fee calculation shall be based upon the total length of water main constructed under the permit. For the purpose of calculating the total amount of water main construction permit fees, paid by the system in accordance with subparagraph 43.3(3)“c”(4), the fee shall be credited to the calendar year in which the actual fee was received by the department.
- Violation of any term or condition of the permit;
- Misrepresentation of fact or failure to disclose fully all material facts in order to obtain a permit;
- Failure to submit the records and information as required by the director, both generally and as condition of the permit;
- Failure to submit timely reports from previous permits;
- Failure to construct in accordance with approved design standards in accordance with subrule 43.3(2); or
- Failure to construct in accordance with the system’s approved standard specifications.
- Drainage must be directed away from the well in all directions for a minimum radius of 15 feet.
- A well site must be separated from contamination sources by the distances specified in Table A at a minimum.
- After the well site has received preliminary approval from the department, the owner of the proposed well must submit proof of legal control of the land for a 200-foot radius around the well, through purchase, lease, easement, ordinance, or other similar means. Proof of legal control must be submitted as part of the construction permit application, prior to construction. The legal control must be maintained by the public water system for the life of the well, and the system must ensure that the siting criteria indicated in Table A are met.
- No well shall be constructed within the projected plume of any known anthropogenic groundwater contamination without the department’s written approval. The department may allow a well to be constructed within a contamination plume if the applicant can provide adequate treatment to ensure that all drinking water standards are met and that the pumpage of the proposed well will not cause migration of the plume such that it impacts the water quality of other nearby wells. The applicant must demonstrate, using a hydrogeologic model acceptable to the department, that the time of transport is greater than two years for a viral, bacterial, or other microorganism contaminant and greater than ten years for all chemical contaminants. At a minimum, modeling of the projected plume must take into account the proposed pumpage rate of the well. The department may require additional construction standards for these situations to ensure protection of the groundwater from contamination.
- The department may require that an identification tag be applied to each well and may supply the numbered tag. The responsibility for ensuring that the tag is properly attached to the well is with the certified water well contractor for new wells and with the department for existing wells.
- The department identifies in the following table the best available technology for achieving compliance with the radionuclide maximum contaminant levels as indicated.
- Small system compliance technologies. The following technologies are identified as radionuclide BAT for systems serving 10,000 or fewer people.
- Well construction criteria. The well shall be constructed so as to prevent surface water from entering the well or traversing the casing.
- Water quality criteria. Water quality records shall indicate:
- Other available data. If data on particulate matter analysis of the well are available, there shall be no evidence of particulate matter present that is associated with surface water. If information on turbidity or temperature monitoring of the well and nearby surface water is available, there shall be no data on the source which correlates with that of a nearby surface water.
- Further evaluation. Wells that do not meet all the requirements listed shall require further evaluation in accordance with 43.5(1)“b”(3) and (4).
- Complete file review. In addition to the information gathered in 43.5(1)“b”(1), the complete file review shall consider but not be limited to: design and construction details; evidence of direct surface water contamination; water quality analysis; indications of waterborne disease outbreaks; operational procedures; and customer complaints regarding water quality or water-related infectious illness. Sources other than a well source shall be evaluated in a like manner to include a field survey.
- Field survey. A field survey shall substantiate findings of the complete file review and determine if the source is at risk to pathogens from direct surface water influence. The field survey shall examine the following criteria for evidence that surface water enters the source through defects in the source which include but are not limited to: a lack of a surface seal on wells, infiltration gallery laterals exposed to surface water, springs open to the atmosphere, surface runoff entering a spring or other collector, and distances to obvious surface water sources.
- Surface water indicators. Particulate analysis shall be conducted to identify organisms which only occur in surface waters as opposed to groundwaters, and whose presence in a groundwater would indicate the direct influence of surface water.
- Physical properties. Turbidity, temperature, pH and conductivity provide supportive, but less direct, evidence of direct influence of surface water. Turbidity fluctuations of greater than 0.5-1.0 NTU over the course of a year may be indicative of direct influence of surface water. Temperature fluctuations may also indicate surface water influence. Changes in other chemical parameters such as pH, conductivity, or hardness may also give an indirect indication of influence by nearby surface water.
- Routine turbidity monitoring requirements. Turbidity measurements as required by 43.5(3) must be performed on representative samples of the system’s filtered water every four hours (or more frequently as long as measurements are recorded at equal time intervals and detailed in the turbidity protocol) that the system serves water to the public. A public water system may substitute continuous turbidity monitoring for grab sample monitoring or may monitor more frequently than every four hours if it validates the continuous measurement for accuracy on a regular basis using a turbidity protocol approved by the department and audited for compliance during sanitary surveys. Major elements of the protocol shall include, but are not limited to: sample measurement location, method of calibration, calibration frequency, calibration standards, method of verification, verification frequency, documentation, data collection, data recording frequency, and data reporting. For any systems using slow sand filtration or filtration treatment other than conventional treatment, direct filtration, or diatomaceous earth filtration, the department may reduce the sampling frequency to once per day if it determines that less frequent monitoring is sufficient to indicate effective filtration performance. For systems serving 500 or fewer persons, the department may reduce the turbidity sampling frequency to once per day, regardless of the type of filtration treatment used, if the department determines that less frequent monitoring is sufficient to indicate effective filtration performance. Approval shall be based upon documentation provided by the system, acceptable to the department and pursuant to the conditions of an operation permit.
- Turbidity monitoring requirements for population greater than 100,000. A supplier of water serving a population or population equivalent of greater than 100,000 persons shall provide a continuous or rotating cycle turbidity monitoring and recording device or take hourly grab samples to determine compliance with 43.5(3). The system must meet the requirements in 43.5(4)“b”(1)“1,” including the turbidity protocol.
- Failure of the continuous turbidity monitoring equipment. If there is a failure in the continuous turbidity monitoring equipment, the system must conduct grab sampling every four hours in lieu of continuous monitoring until the turbidimeter is repaired and back online. A system has a maximum of five working days after failure to repair the equipment or else the system is in violation. The system must notify the department within 24 hours of both when the turbidimeter was taken offline and when it was returned online.
- Residual disinfectant entering the system. The residual disinfectant concentration of the water entering the distribution system shall be monitored continuously, and the lowest value recorded each day, except that if there is a failure in the continuous monitoring equipment, grab sampling every four hours may be conducted in lieu of continuous monitoring, but not to exceed five working days following the failure of the equipment. If acceptable to the department, systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons may take grab samples in lieu of providing continuous monitoring on an ongoing basis at the frequencies prescribed below:
- Residual disinfectant in the system. The residual disinfectant concentration must be measured at least daily in the distribution system. Residual disinfectant measurements that are required as part of the total coliform bacteria sample collection under 567—subparagraph 41.2(1)“c”(7) shall be used to satisfy this requirement on the day(s) when a bacteria sample(s) is collected. The department may allow a public water system that uses both a groundwater source and a surface water source or a groundwater source under direct influence of surface water to take residual disinfectant samples at points other than the total coliform sampling points, if these points are included as a part of the coliform sample site plan meeting the requirements of 567—paragraph 41.2(1)“c”(1)“1” and if the department determines that such points are representative of treated (disinfected) water quality within the distribution system. Heterotrophic plate count bacteria (HPC) may be measured in lieu of residual disinfectant concentration, using the analytical methods specified in 567—subparagraph 41.2(3)“e”(1). The time from sample collection to initiation of analysis shall not exceed eight hours. HPC samples must be kept below 10 degrees C during transit to the laboratory. All HPC samples must be analyzed by a department-certified laboratory meeting the requirements of 567—Chapter 83.
- Surface water and IGW CWS and NTNC. CWS and NTNC systems using surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (IGW) in whole or in part and which serve 10,000 or more persons must comply with this rule beginning January 1, 2002. CWS and NTNC surface water or IGW systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons must comply with this rule beginning January 1, 2004.
- Groundwater CWS and NTNC. CWS and NTNC systems using only groundwater not under the direct influence of surface water must comply with this rule beginning January 1, 2004.
- TNC using chlorine dioxide. TNC systems serving over 10,000 persons and using surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water and using chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant or oxidant must comply with any requirements for chlorine dioxide in this rule beginning January 1, 2002. TNC systems serving 10,000 persons or less, regardless of source water type, and using chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant or oxidant must comply with any requirements for chlorine dioxide in this rule beginning January 1, 2004.
- Extension of compliance period for GAC or membrane technology installation. A system that is installing GAC or membrane technology to comply with this rule may apply to the department for an extension of up to 24 months past the dates in 43.6(1)“a”(3), but not beyond December 31, 2003. In granting the extension, the department will set a schedule for compliance and may specify any interim measures the system must take. Failure to meet a compliance schedule or interim treatment requirements constitutes a violation of the public drinking water supply rules, requires public notification per 567—subrule 42.1(1), and may result in an administrative order.
- Systems must take all samples during normal operating conditions. If the system does not use the disinfectant or oxidant on a daily basis, the system must conduct the required daily monitoring each day the disinfectant or oxidant is used, and any required monthly monitoring during those months in which the disinfectant or oxidant is used during any portion of the month.
- Failure to monitor in accordance with the monitoring plan required under 43.6(1)“c”(1)“5” is a monitoring violation.
- Failure to monitor is a violation for the entire period covered by the annual average where compliance is based on a running annual average of monthly or quarterly samples or averages and the system’s failure to monitor makes it impossible to determine compliance with MRDLs.
- Systems may use only data collected under the provisions of this rule or of 567—41.6(455B) to qualify for reduced monitoring.
- Systems required to monitor under the provisions of this rule or of 567—41.6(455B) must develop and implement a monitoring plan, in accordance with 567—paragraph 41.6(1)“c”(1)“6.”
- Routine monitoring. Community and nontransient noncommunity water systems that use chlorine or chloramines must measure the residual disinfectant level at the same points in the distribution system and at the same time as total coliforms are sampled, as specified in 567—subrule 41.2(1). Surface water and groundwater under the direct influence of surface water systems may use the results of residual disinfectant concentration sampling conducted under 43.5(4)“b”(2)“2,” in lieu of taking separate samples.
- Reduced monitoring. Chlorine and chloramine monitoring may not be reduced.
- Routine monitoring. Any public water supply systems that use chlorine dioxide for disinfection or oxidation must take daily samples at the entrance to the distribution system. For any daily sample that exceeds the MRDL, the system must take samples in the distribution system the following day at the locations required by 43.6(1)“c”(3)“2,” in addition to the sample required at the entrance to the distribution system.
- Additional monitoring. On each day following a routine sample monitoring result that exceeds the MRDL, the system is required to take three chlorine dioxide distribution system samples.
- Reduced monitoring. Chlorine dioxide monitoring may not be reduced.
- When compliance is based on a running annual average of monthly or quarterly samples or averages and the system’s failure to monitor makes it impossible to determine compliance with MRDLs for chlorine and chloramines, this failure to monitor will be treated as a monitoring violation for the entire period covered by the annual average.
- All samples taken and analyzed under the provisions of this rule must be included in determining compliance, even if that number is greater than the minimum required.
- Compliance must be based on a running annual arithmetic average, computed quarterly, of monthly averages of all samples collected by the system under 43.6(1)“c”(2). If the average covering any consecutive four-quarter period exceeds the MRDL, the system is in violation of the MRDL and must notify the public pursuant to 567—42.1(455B), in addition to reporting to the department pursuant to 567—paragraph 42.4(3)“d.”
- In cases where systems switch between the use of chlorine and chloramines for residual disinfection during the year, compliance must be determined by including together all monitoring results of both chlorine and chloramines in calculating compliance. Reports submitted pursuant to 567—paragraph 42.4(3)“d” must clearly indicate which residual disinfectant was analyzed for each sample.
- Acute violations. Compliance must be based on consecutive daily samples collected by the system under 43.6(1)“c”(3). If any daily sample taken at the entrance to the distribution system exceeds the MRDL, and on the following day one or more of the three samples taken in the distribution system exceed the MRDL, the system is in violation of the MRDL and shall take immediate corrective action to lower the level of chlorine dioxide below the MRDL and shall notify the public pursuant to the Tier 1 requirements in 567—subrule 42.1(2) in addition to reporting to the department pursuant to 567—paragraph 42.4(3)“d.” Failure to take samples in the distribution system the day following an exceedance of the chlorine dioxide MRDL at the entrance to the distribution system will also be considered an MRDL violation and the system must notify the public of the violation in accordance with the provisions for Tier 1 violations in 567—subrule 42.1(2), in addition to reporting to the department pursuant to 567—paragraph 42.4(3)“d.”
- Nonacute violations. Compliance must be based on consecutive daily samples collected by the system under 43.6(1)“c”(3). If any two consecutive daily samples taken at the entrance to the distribution system exceed the MRDL and all distribution system samples taken are below the MRDL, the system is in violation of the MRDL and must take corrective action to lower the level of chlorine dioxide below the MRDL at the point of sampling and will notify the public pursuant to the Tier 2 requirements in 567—subrule 42.1(3), in addition to reporting to the department pursuant to 567—paragraph 42.4(3)“d.” Failure to monitor at the entrance to the distribution system the day following an exceedance of the chlorine dioxide MRDL at the entrance to the distribution system is also an MRDL violation and the system must notify the public of the violation in accordance with the provisions for Tier 2 violations in 567—subrule 42.1(3), in addition to reporting to the department pursuant to 567—paragraph 42.4(3)“d.”
- Surface water and groundwater under the direct influence of surface water systems which use conventional filtration treatment must monitor each treatment plant for total organic carbon (TOC) no later than at the point of combined filter effluent turbidity monitoring and representative of the treated water. The systems must also monitor for TOC in the source water prior to any treatment at the same time as monitoring for TOC in the treated water. These samples (source water and treated water) are referred to as paired samples. At the same time the source water sample is taken, all systems must monitor for alkalinity in the source water prior to any treatment. Systems must take one paired set of source water and treated water samples and one source water alkalinity sample per month per plant at a time representative of normal operating conditions and influent water quality.
- Surface water and groundwater under the direct influence of surface water systems which do not use conventional filtration treatment must conduct the TOC monitoring under 43.6(2)“b”(1)“1” in order to qualify for reduced disinfection byproduct monitoring for TTHM and HAA5 under 567—paragraph 41.6(1)“c”(4)“2.” The source water TOC running annual average must be less than or equal to 4.0 mg/L based on the most recent four quarters of monitoring on a continuing basis at each treatment plant to reduce or remain on reduced monitoring for TTHM and HAA5. Once qualified for reduced monitoring for TTHM and HAA5, a system may reduce source water TOC monitoring to quarterly TOC samples taken every 90 days at a location prior to any treatment.
- The system’s source water TOC level, measured according to 43.6(2)“c”(1), is less than 2.0 mg/L, calculated quarterly as a running annual average.
- The system’s treated water TOC level, measured according to 43.6(2)“c”(1), is less than 2.0 mg/L, calculated quarterly as a running annual average.
- The system’s source water TOC level, measured according to 43.6(2)“c”(1), is less than 4.0 mg/L, calculated quarterly as a running annual average; the source water alkalinity, measured according to 43.6(2)“c”(1), is greater than 60 mg/L as CaCO3, calculated quarterly as a running annual average; and either the TTHM and HAA5 running annual averages are no greater than 0.040 mg/L and 0.030 mg/L, respectively; or prior to the effective date for compliance in 567—subparagraph 41.6(1)“a”(3) and in 43.6(1)“a”(3) and 43.6(2)“a”(3), the system has made a clear and irrevocable financial commitment not later than the effective date for compliance in 567—subparagraph 41.6(1)“a”(3) and in 43.6(1)“a”(3) and 43.6(2)“a”(3), to use of technologies that will limit the levels of TTHMs and HAA5 to no more than 0.040 mg/L and 0.030 mg/L, respectively. Systems must submit evidence of a clear and irrevocable financial commitment, in addition to a schedule containing milestones and periodic progress reports for installation and operation of appropriate technologies, to the department for approval not later than the effective date for compliance in 567—subparagraph 41.6(1)“a”(3) and in 43.6(1)“a”(3) and 43.6(2)“a”(3). These technologies must be installed and operating not later than June 30, 2005. Failure to install and operate these technologies by the date in the approved schedule will constitute a treatment technique violation.
- The TTHM and HAA5 running annual averages are less than or equal to 0.040 mg/L and 0.030 mg/L, respectively, and the system uses only chlorine for primary disinfection and maintenance of a residual in the distribution system.
- The system’s source water SUVA, prior to any treatment and measured monthly according to 43.6(2)“c,” is less than or equal to 2.0 L/mg-m, calculated quarterly as a running annual average.
- The system’s finished water SUVA, measured monthly according to 43.6(2)“c,” is less than or equal to 2.0 L/mg-m, calculated quarterly as a running annual average.
- Softening that lowers the treated water alkalinity to less than 60 mg/L as CaCO3, measured monthly according to 43.6(2)“c” and calculated quarterly as a running annual average.
- Softening that removes at least 10 mg/L of magnesium hardness as CaCO3, measured monthly and calculated quarterly as a running annual average.
- Alternate enhanced coagulation level. Alternate enhanced coagulation level is defined as coagulation at a coagulant dose and pH as determined by the method described in 43.6(3)“b”(4)“1” to “5” such that an incremental addition of 10 mg/L of alum (or equivalent amount of ferric salt) results in a TOC removal of less than or equal to 0.3 mg/L. The percent removal of TOC at this point on the “TOC removal versus coagulant dose” curve is then defined as the minimum TOC removal required for the system. Once approved by the department, this minimum requirement supersedes the minimum TOC removal required by the table in 43.6(3)“b”(2). This requirement will be effective until such time as the department approves a new value based on the results of a new bench-scale or pilot-scale test. Failure to achieve department-set alternative minimum TOC removal levels is a treatment technique violation.
- Bench-scale or pilot-scale testing of enhanced coagulation must be conducted by using representative water samples and adding 10 mg/L increments of alum (or equivalent amounts of ferric salt) until the pH is reduced to a level less than or equal to the enhanced coagulation Step 2 target pH shown in the following table:
- For waters with alkalinities of less than 60 mg/L for which addition of small amounts of alum or equivalent addition of iron coagulant drives the pH below 5.5 before significant TOC removal occurs, the system must add necessary chemicals to maintain the pH between 5.3 and 5.7 in samples until the TOC removal of 0.3 mg/L per 10 mg/L alum added (or equivalent addition of iron coagulant) is reached.
- The system may operate at any coagulant dose or pH necessary (consistent with other public drinking water rules in 567—Chapters 41 through 43) to achieve the minimum TOC percent removal approved under 43.6(3)“b”(3).
- If the TOC removal is consistently less than 0.3 mg/L of TOC per 10 mg/L of incremental alum dose at all dosages of alum (or equivalent addition of iron coagulant), the water is deemed to contain TOC not amenable to enhanced coagulation. The system may then apply to the department for a waiver of enhanced coagulation requirements.
- Step 1: Determine actual monthly TOC percent removal using the following equation, to two decimal places:
- Step 2: Determine the required monthly TOC percent removal from either 43.6(3)“b”(2) or (3).
- Step 3: Divide the “actual monthly TOC percent removal” value (from Step 1) by the “required monthly TOC percent removal” value (from Step 2). Determine this value for each of the last 12 months.
- Step 4: Add together the “monthly percent removal ratio” values from Step 3 for each of the last 12 months and divide by 12, to determine the annual average value.
- Step 5: If the “annual average” value calculated in Step 4 is less than 1.00, the system is not in compliance with the TOC percent removal requirements.
- In any month that the system’s treated or source water TOC level, measured according to 43.6(2)“c”(1), is less than 2.0 mg/L, the system may assign a monthly value of 1.0 (in lieu of the value calculated in 43.6(3)“c”(1)“3”) when calculating compliance under the provisions of 43.6(3)“c”(1).
- In any month that a system practicing softening removes at least 10 mg/L of magnesium hardness as CaCO3, the system may assign a monthly value of 1.0 (in lieu of the value calculated in 43.6(3)“c”(1)“3”) when calculating compliance under the provisions of 43.6(3)“c”(1).
- In any month that the system’s source water SUVA, prior to any treatment and measured according to 43.6(2)“c”(2), is less than or equal to 2.0 L/mg-m, the system may assign a monthly value of 1.0 (in lieu of the value calculated in 43.6(3)“c”(1)“3”) when calculating compliance under the provisions of 43.6(3)“c”(1).
- In any month that the system’s finished water SUVA, measured according to 43.6(2)“c”(2), is less than or equal to 2.0 L/mg-m, the system may assign a monthly value of 1.0 (in lieu of the value calculated in 43.6(3)“c”(1)“3”) when calculating compliance under the provisions of 43.6(3)“c”(1).
- In any month that a system using enhanced softening lowers alkalinity below 60 mg/L as CaCO3, the system may assign a monthly value of 1.0 (in lieu of the value calculated in 43.6(3)“c”(1)“3”) when calculating compliance under the provisions of 43.6(3)“c”(1).
- The results of all test samples collected for each of the water quality parameters in 43.7(2)“c”(3);
- A report explaining the test methods used by the water system to evaluate the corrosion control treatments listed in 43.7(2)“c”(1), the results of all tests conducted, and the basis for the system’s selection of optimal corrosion control treatment;
- A report explaining how corrosion control was installed and how it is being maintained to ensure minimal lead and copper concentrations at consumers’ taps; and
- The results of tap water samples collected in accordance with 567—paragraph 41.4(1)“c” at least once every six months for one year after corrosion control has been installed.
- Those systems whose highest source water lead level is below the method detection limit may also be deemed to have optimized corrosion control under this paragraph if the 90th percentile tap water lead level is less than or equal to the practical quantitation level for lead for two consecutive six-month monitoring periods.
- Any water system deemed to have optimized corrosion control in accordance with this paragraph shall continue monitoring for lead and copper at the tap no less frequently than once every three calendar years using the reduced number of sites specified in 567—subparagraph 41.4(1)“c”(3) and collecting the samples at times and locations specified in 567—paragraph 41.4(1)“c”(4)“4,” fourth bulleted paragraph.
- Any water system deemed to have optimized corrosion control pursuant to this paragraph shall notify the department in writing pursuant to 567—subparagraph 42.4(2)“a”(3) of any upcoming long-term change in treatment or the addition of a new source as described in 567—subparagraph 42.4(2)“a”(3). The department must review and approve the addition of a new source or long-term change in water treatment before it is implemented by the water system.
- Unless a system meets the copper action level, it is not deemed to have optimized corrosion control under this paragraph and shall implement corrosion control treatment pursuant to 43.7(1)“b”(3)“5.”
- Any system triggered into corrosion control because it is no longer deemed to have optimized corrosion control under this paragraph shall implement corrosion control treatment in accordance with the deadlines in paragraph 43.7(1)“e.” Any such large system shall adhere to the schedule specified in that paragraph for medium-size systems, with the time periods for completing each step being triggered by the date the system is no longer deemed to have optimized corrosion control under this paragraph.
- Lead;
- Copper;
- pH;
- Alkalinity;
- Calcium;
- Conductivity;
- Orthophosphate (when an inhibitor containing a phosphate compound is used);
- Silicate (when an inhibitor containing a silicate compound is used);
- Water temperature.
- A minimum value or a range of values for pH measured at each entry point to the distribution system;
- A minimum pH value, measured in all tap samples. Such value shall be equal to or greater than 7.0 unless meeting a pH level of 7.0 is not technologically feasible or is not necessary for the public water supply system to optimize corrosion control;
- If a corrosion inhibitor is used, a minimum concentration or a range of concentrations for the inhibitor, measured at each entry point to the distribution system and in all tap samples, necessary to form a passivating film on the interior walls of the pipes of the distribution system;
- If alkalinity is adjusted as part of optimal corrosion control treatment, a minimum concentration or a range of concentrations for alkalinity, measured at each entry point to the distribution system and in all tap samples; or
- If calcium carbonate stabilization is used as part of corrosion control, a minimum concentration or a range of concentrations for calcium, measured in all tap samples.
"New system" for viability assessment purposes includes public water supply systems which are newly constructed after the effective date of this rule, as well as systems which do not currently meet the definition of a PWS, but which expand their infrastructure and thereby grow to become a PWS. Systems not currently meeting the definition of a PWS and which add additional users and thereby become a PWS without constructing any additional infrastructure are not “new systems” for the purposes of this subrule.
"Nonviable system" for viability assessment purposes means a system lacking the technical, financial, and managerial ability to comply with 567—Chapters 40 through 43 and 81.
"Significant noncompliance (SNC)" for viability assessment purposes means the failure to comply with any drinking water standard as adopted by the state of Iowa as designated by the department.
"Viability" for viability assessment purposes is the ability to remain in compliance insofar as the requirements of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and 567—Chapters 40 through 43 and 81.
"Viable system" for viability assessment purposes means a system with the technical, financial, and managerial ability to comply with applicable drinking water standards adopted by the state of Iowa.
43.8(2) Applicability and purpose. These rules apply to all new and existing public water supplies, including the following: new systems commencing operation after October 1, 1999; systems deemed to be in significant noncompliance with the primary drinking water standards; DWSRF applicants; and existing systems. The purpose of the viability assessment program is to ensure the safety of the public drinking water supplies and ensure the viability of new public water supply systems upon commencement of operation. The department may assess public notification requirements and administrative penalties to any public water supply system which fails to fulfill the requirements of this rule. 43.8(3) Contents of a viability assessment. The viability assessment must address the areas of technical, financial, and managerial viability for a public water supply system. The assessment must include evaluation of the following areas at a minimum, and the public water supply system may be required to include additional information as directed by the department. The viability of a system should be forecast for a 20-year period. a. Technical viability. (1) Supply sources and facilities (2) Treatment (3) Infrastructure (examples: pumping, storage, distribution) b. Financial viability. (1) Capital and operating costs (2) Revenue sources (3) Contingency plans c. Managerial viability. (1) Operation (2) Maintenance (3) Management (4) Administration 43.8(4) New systems. a. Submission of system viability assessment. New public water supply systems (including community, nontransient noncommunity systems, and transient noncommunity systems) commencing operation after the effective date of this rule are required to submit a completed system viability assessment for review by the department, prior to obtaining a construction permit. The viability assessment may be submitted with the application for a construction permit. The department may reject receipt or delay review of the construction plans and specifications until an adequate viability assessment is provided. If the department finds, upon review and approval of the viability assessment, that the PWS will be viable, a construction permit will be issued in accordance with 567—Chapters 40 and 43. Prior to beginning operation, a public water supply operation permit must be obtained in accordance with 567—43.2(455B) and 567—40.5(455B). b. Review of the viability assessment. If the department declines to approve the viability assessment as submitted by the applicant, or if the department finds that the PWS is not viable, approval of construction and operation permit applications will be denied. If the viability assessment is conditionally approved, construction and operation permits will be issued, with conditions and a schedule to achieve compliance specified in the operation permit. 43.8(5) Existing systems. a. Submission of system viability assessment. Any community, nontransient noncommunity, or transient noncommunity water system which operated prior to October 1, 1999, and was regulated as a public water system by the department shall be considered an existing system. Any system which does not currently meet the definition of a PWS, but which expands their infrastructure and thereby grows to become a PWS is considered a new system. Systems not currently meeting the definition of a PWS and which add additional users and thereby become a PWS without constructing any additional infrastructure are considered existing systems for the purposes of this subrule. All PWSs should complete a viability assessment. However, only those existing PWSs which meet one or more of the following criteria are required to complete a viability assessment for the department’s review and approval. (1) Systems applying for DWSRF loan funds. (2) Systems categorized as being in significant noncompliance by the department, due to their history of failure to comply with drinking water standards. (3) Systems identified by the department via a sanitary survey as having technical, managerial, or financial problems as evidenced by such conditions as poor operational control, a poor state of repair or maintenance, vulnerability to contamination, or inability to maintain adequate distribution system operating pressures. (4) Systems which have been unable to retain a certified operator in accordance with 567—Chapter 81. b. Review of viability assessments for systems required to submit an assessment. If the assessment is incomplete and does not include all of the required elements, the supply will be notified in writing and will be given an opportunity to modify and resubmit the assessment within the time period specified by the department. If the system fails to resubmit a completed viability assessment as specified by the department, the department may find that the system is not viable. If the submitted assessment is complete, the department will either indicate that the system is viable or not viable after the assessment review process. The system will be notified of the results of the evaluation by the department. c. Review of voluntarily submitted viability assessments. It is recommended that all existing systems complete the viability assessment and submit it to the department. Voluntarily submitted assessments may be reviewed upon request and will be exempt from any requirements to modify the assessment if it is not approved, or from a determination that the system is not viable, providing the system does not meet any of the criteria for mandatory completion of a viability assessment as set forth in 43.8(4)“a” above. 43.8(6) Systems which are determined to be not viable. a. Applicability. The following applies to community, nontransient noncommunity, and transient noncommunity systems: (1) Systems applying for DWSRF loan funds must be viable, or the loan funds must be used to assist the system in attaining viable status. If a system making a loan application is found to be not viable, and loan funds will not be sufficient or available to ensure viability, then the situation must be corrected to the department’s satisfaction prior to qualification to apply for loan funds. (2) Systems which meet the department’s criteria of significant noncompliance are not considered viable. The viability assessment completed by the public water supply and the most recent sanitary survey results will be evaluated by the department to assist the system in returning to and remaining in compliance, which would achieve viability. Required corrective actions will be specified in the system’s operation permit and will include a compliance schedule. Field office inspections will be conducted on an as-needed basis to assist the system in implementing the required system improvements. (3) Systems experiencing technical, managerial, or financial problems as noted by department in the sanitary survey will be considered not viable. The viability assessment completed by the public water supply will be evaluated by the department to assist the system in attaining viability, and any required corrective actions will be specified in the system’s operation permit. (4) Systems unable to retain a certified operator will be considered not viable. All community and nontransient noncommunity water systems, and transient noncommunity water systems as denoted by the department, are required to have a certified operator who meets the requirements of 567—Chapter 81. The viability assessment completed by the public water supply will be used to determine the source of the problem, and required corrective actions will be specified in the system’s operation permit. b. Reserved. 43.8(7) Revocation or denial of operation or construction permit. a. Revocation or denial of an operation permit. Failure to correct the deficiencies regarding viability, as identified in accordance with a compliance schedule set by the department, may result in revocation or denial of the system’s operation permit. If the department revokes or denies the operation permit, the owner of the system must negotiate an alternative arrangement with the department for providing treatment or water supply services within 30 days of receipt of the notification by the department unless the owner of the supply appeals the decision to the department. The public water supply is required to provide water that continually meets all health-based standards during the appeal process. b. Denial of new construction permits for an existing system. In addition to the criteria provided in 567—Chapters 40 through 44, new construction permits for water system improvements may be denied until the system makes the required corrections and attains viable status unless the proposed project is necessary to attain viability. c. Failure to conform to approved construction plans and specifications, or to comply with the requirements of to . Failure of a project to conform to approved construction plans and specifications, or failure to comply with the requirements of 567—Chapters 40 to 44, constitutes grounds for the director to withhold the applicable construction and operation permits. The system is then responsible for ensuring that the identified problem with the project is rectified so that permits may be issued. Once an agreement for correcting the problem is reached between the department and the system, the department will issue the appropriate permits according to the provisions of the agreement. If an agreement cannot be reached within a reasonable time period, the permit shall be denied. d. Contents of the notification denying the permit. The notification of denial or withholding approval of the operation or construction permit will state the department’s reasons for withholding or denying permit approval. 43.8(8) Appeals. a. Request for formal review of determination of viability. A person or entity who disagrees with the decision regarding the viability of a public water supply system may request a formal review of the action. A request for review must be submitted in writing to the director by the owner or their designee within 30 days of the date of notification by the department of the viability decision. b. Appeal of denial of operation or construction permit. A decision to deny an operation or construction permit may be appealed by the applicant to the environmental protection commission pursuant to 567—Chapter 7. The appeal must be made in writing to the director within 30 days of receiving the notice of denial by the owner of the public water supply.567—43.9(455B) Enhanced filtration and disinfection requirements for surface water and IGW systems serving at least 10,000 people. 43.9(1) General requirements. a. Applicability. The requirements of this rule constitute national primary drinking water regulations. This rule establishes the filtration and disinfection requirements that are in addition to criteria under which filtration and disinfection are required in 567—43.5(455B). The requirements of this rule are applicable, beginning January 1, 2002, to all public water systems using surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water, in whole or in part, and which serve at least 10,000 people. This rule establishes or extends treatment technique requirements in lieu of maximum contaminant levels for the following contaminants: Giardia lamblia, viruses, heterotrophic plate count bacteria, Legionella, Cryptosporidium, and turbidity. Each surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water system serving at least 10,000 people must provide treatment of its source water that complies with these treatment technique requirements and they are in addition to those identified in subrule 43.5(1). The treatment technique requirements consist of installing and properly operating water treatment processes that reliably achieve: (1) At least 99 percent (2-log) removal of Cryptosporidium between a point where the raw water is not subject to recontamination by surface water runoff and a point downstream before or at the first customer for filtered systems. (2) Compliance with the profiling and benchmark requirements under 43.9(2). (3) The department may require other surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water systems to comply with this rule, through an operation permit. b. Compliance determination. A public water system subject to the requirements of this rule is considered to be in compliance with the requirements of 43.9(1)“a” if it meets the applicable filtration requirements in either 43.5(3) or 43.9(3) and the disinfection requirements in 43.5(2) and 43.6(2). c. Prohibition of new construction of uncovered intermediate or finished water storage facilities. Systems that are required to comply with this rule may construct only covered intermediate or finished water storage facilities. For the purposes of this rule, an intermediate storage facility is defined as a storage facility or reservoir after the clarification treatment process. d. Systems with populations that increased after January 1, 2002, to more than 10,000 people served. Systems using surface water or influenced groundwater sources that did not conduct optional monitoring under 43.9(2) because they served fewer than 10,000 persons when such monitoring was required, but serve more than 10,000 persons prior to January 1, 2005, must comply with 43.9(1), 43.9(3), 43.9(4), and 43.9(5). These systems must also consult with the department to establish a disinfection benchmark. A system that decides to make a significant change to its disinfection practice as described in 43.9(2)“c”(1)“1” through “4” must consult with the department prior to making such a change. 43.9(2) Disinfection profiling and benchmarking. a. Determination of systems required to profile. A public water system subject to the requirements of this rule must determine its total trihalomethane (TTHM) and haloacetic acid (HAA5) annual averages using the procedures listed below. The annual average is the arithmetic average of the quarterly averages of four consecutive quarters of monitoring. Both the TTHM and HAA5 samples must be collected as paired samples during the same time period in order for each parameter to have the same annual average period for result comparison. A paired sample is one that is collected at the same location and time and is analyzed for both TTHM and HAA5 parameters. (1) Allowance of information collection rule data. Those systems that collected data under the provisions of the federal Information Collection Rule listed in Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 141, Subpart M, must use the results of the TTHM and HAA5 samples collected during the last four quarters of monitoring required under 40 CFR 141.142. The system must have submitted the results of the samples collected during the last 12 months of required monitoring. (2) Systems that have not collected TTHM and HAA5 data under 43.9(2)“a”(1). Those systems that have not collected four consecutive quarters of paired TTHM and HAA5 samples as described under 43.9(2)“a”(1) must comply with all other provisions of this subrule as if the HAA5 monitoring had been conducted and the results of that monitoring required compliance with 43.9(2)“b.” The system that elects this option must notify the department in writing of its decision. (3) The department may require that a system use a more representative annual data set than the data set determined under 567—subparagraph 42.9(2)“a”(1) for the purpose of determining applicability of the requirements of this subrule. (4) Profiling determination criteria. Any system having either a TTHM annual average greater than 0.064 mg/L or an HAA5 annual average greater than 0.048 mg/L during the period identified in 43.9(2)“a”(1) through (3) must comply with 43.9(2)“b.” b. Disinfection profiling. (1) Applicability. Any system that meets the criteria in 43.9(2)“a”(4) must develop a disinfection profile of its disinfection practice for a period of up to three years. (2) Monitoring requirements. The system must monitor daily for a period of 12 consecutive calendar months to determine the total logs of inactivation for each day of operation, based on the CT99.9 values in Tables 1 through 8 in Appendix A, as appropriate, through the entire treatment plant. This system must begin this monitoring as directed by the department. As a minimum, the system with a single point of disinfectant application prior to entrance to the distribution system must conduct the monitoring in 43.9(2)“b”(2)“1” through “4.” A system with more than one point of disinfectant application must conduct the monitoring in 43.9(2)“b”(2)“1” through “4” for each disinfection segment. The system must monitor the parameters necessary to determine the total inactivation ratio, using analytical methods in 43.5(4)“a” as follows:- The temperature of the disinfected water must be measured once per day at each residual disinfectant concentration sampling point during peak hourly flow.
- If the system uses chlorine, the pH of the disinfected water must be measured once per day at each chlorine residual disinfectant concentration sampling point during peak hourly flow.
- The disinfectant contact time(s) (“T”) must be determined for each day during peak hourly flow.
- The residual disinfectant concentration(s) (“C”) of the water before or at the first customer and prior to each additional point of disinfection must be measured each day during peak hourly flow.
- The system must determine the total logs of inactivation by multiplying the value calculated in 43.9(2)“b”(4)“1” or “2” by 3.0.
- Changes to the point of disinfection;
- Changes to the disinfectant(s) used in the treatment plant;
- Changes to the disinfection process; and
- Any other modification identified by the department.
- For each year of profiling data collected and calculated under 43.9(2)“b,” the system must determine the lowest average monthly Giardia lamblia inactivation in each year of profiling data. The system must determine the average Giardia lamblia inactivation for each calendar month for each year of profiling data by dividing the sum of daily Giardia lamblia inactivation by the number of values calculated for that month.
- The disinfection benchmark is the lowest monthly average value (for systems with one year of profiling data) or average of lowest monthly average values (for systems with more than one year of profiling data) of the monthly logs of Giardia lamblia inactivation in each year of profiling data.
- A description of the proposed change;
- The disinfection profile for Giardia lamblia (and, if necessary, viruses) under 43.9(2)“b” and the disinfection benchmark as required by 43.9(2)“c”(2); and
- An analysis of how the proposed change will affect the current levels of disinfection.
- Temperature of the disinfected water at each residual disinfectant concentration sampling point during peak hourly flow, measured in degrees Celsius;
- For systems using chlorine, the pH of the disinfected water at each residual disinfectant concentration sampling point during peak hourly flow, measured in standard pH units;
- The disinfectant contact time (“T”) during peak hourly flow, measured in minutes; and
- The residual disinfectant concentration(s) (“C”) of the water following each point of disinfection at a point(s) prior to each subsequent point of disinfection and at the entry point to the distribution system or at a location just prior to the first customer during peak hourly flows, measured in mg/L.
- If the system uses only one point of disinfectant application, it must determine:
- If a system uses more than one point of disinfectant application before the first customer, the system must determine the (CT calc/CT99.9) value of each disinfection segment immediately prior to the next point of disinfectant application, or for the final segment, before or at the first customer, during peak hourly flow using the procedure specified in 43.10(2)“b”(2) “1,” second bulleted paragraph.
- If a system uses chloramines, ozone, or chlorine dioxide for primary disinfection, the system must also calculate the inactivation logs for viruses and develop an additional disinfection profile for viruses using methods approved by the department.
- The disinfection profile is developed by graphing each log inactivation data point versus time. Each log inactivation serves as a data point in the disinfection profile. The system will have obtained 52 measurements at a minimum, one for each week of the year.
- The disinfection profile depicts the variation of microbial inactivation over the course of the year.
- The system must retain the disinfection profile data both in a graphic form and in a spreadsheet, which must be available for review by the department.
- This profile is used to calculate a disinfection benchmark if the system is considering changes to its disinfection practices.
- The filter number(s);
- Corresponding date(s);
- Turbidity value(s) which exceeded 1.0 NTU; and
- The cause of the exceedance(s), if known.
- The system must conduct a self-assessment of the filter(s) within 14 days of the day the filter exceeded 1.0 NTU in two consecutive measurements for the third straight month, unless a comprehensive performance evaluation as specified in the following paragraph is required. Two-filter systems that monitor the combined filter effluent turbidity instead of the individual filters must conduct a self-assessment of both filters.
- The self-assessment must consist of at least the following components:
- The system must arrange to have a comprehensive performance evaluation (CPE) conducted by the department or a third party approved by the department no later than 60 days following the day the filter exceeded 2.0 NTU in two consecutive measurements for the second straight month. The CPE report must be completed and submitted to the department within 120 days following the day the filter exceeded 2.0 NTU in two consecutive measurements for the second straight month.
- A new CPE is not required if a CPE has been completed by the department or a third party approved by the department within the prior 12 months or if the system and department are jointly participating in an ongoing comprehensive technical assistance project at the system.
- If at any time the turbidity exceeds 1 NTU in representative samples of filtered water in a system using conventional filtration treatment or direct filtration, the system must consult with the department as soon as practical, but no later than 24 hours after the exceedance is known, in accordance with the public notification requirements under 567—subparagraph 42.1(3)“b”(3).
- If at any time the turbidity in representative samples of filtered water exceeds the maximum level under subrule 43.5(3) for slow sand filtration or diatomaceous earth filtration, the system must consult with the department as soon as practical, but no later than 24 hours after the exceedance is known, in accordance with the public notification requirements under 567—subparagraph 42.1(3)“b”(3).
- If at any time the turbidity in representative samples of filtered water exceeds the maximum level set by the department under paragraph 43.10(4)“c” for filtration technologies other than conventional filtration treatment, direct filtration, slow sand filtration, or diatomaceous earth filtration, the system must consult with the department as soon as practical, but no later than 24 hours after the exceedance is known, in accordance with the public notification requirements under 567—subparagraph 42.1(3)“b”(3).
- Systems must sample their source water for E. coli at least once every two weeks for 12 months. If the annual mean E. coli concentration is at or below 100 E. coli per 100 mL, the system can avoid further Cryptosporidium monitoring in that sampling round.
- A system may avoid E. coli monitoring if the system notifies the department no later than three months prior to the E. coli monitoring start date that the system will conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring.
- Systems that fail to conduct the required E. coli monitoring or that cannot meet the E. coli annual mean limit are required to conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring. The system must sample its source water for Cryptosporidium either at least twice per month for 12 months or at least monthly for 24 months.
- A system that begins monitoring for E. coli and determines during the sampling period that the system mathematically cannot meet the applicable E. coli annual mean limit may discontinue the E. coli sampling. The system is then required to start Cryptosporidium monitoring according to the schedule in Table 1.
- If an extreme condition or situation exists that may pose danger to the sample collector, or that cannot be avoided, and causes the system to be unable to sample in the scheduled five-day period, the system must sample as close to the scheduled date as is feasible unless the department approves an alternative sampling date. The system must submit an explanation for the delayed sampling date to the department within one week of the missed sampling period. A replacement sample must be collected.
- If a system is unable to report a valid analytical result for a scheduled sampling date due to equipment failure, loss of or damage to the sample, failure to comply with the analytical method or quality control requirements, or failure of the laboratory to analyze the sample, the system must notify the department of the cause of the delay and collect a replacement sample.
- A replacement sample must be collected within 21 days of the scheduled sampling period or on the resampling date approved by the department.
- Systems that receive Cryptosporidium treatment credit for bank filtration under 43.9(3)“b” or 43.10(4)“c” must collect source water samples in the surface water source prior to bank filtration.
- Systems that use bank filtration as pretreatment to a filtration plant must collect source water samples from the well, which is after bank filtration has occurred. Use of bank filtration during monitoring must be consistent with routine operational practice. Systems collecting samples after a bank filtration process may not receive treatment credit for the bank filtration under 43.11(10)“c.”
- The use of multiple sources during monitoring must be consistent with routine operational practice.
- If a sampling tap is available where the sources are combined prior to treatment, the system must collect samples from that tap.
- If a sampling tap where the sources are combined prior to treatment is not available, the system must collect samples at each source near the intake on the same day and must use either of the following options for sample analysis.
- These are the approved analytical methods for Cryptosporidium:
- “Method 1623: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water by Filtration/IMS/FA,” 2005, US EPA, EPA-815-R-05-002. Available at www.nemi.gov;
- “Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in Water by Filtration/IMS/FA,” 2005, US EPA, EPA-815-R-05-001. Available at www.nemi.gov; and
- “Method 1623.1: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water by Filtration/Immunomagnetic Separation/Immunofluorescence Assay Microscopy,” 2012, EPA-816-R-12-001. Available at www.nepis.epa.gov.
- Using one of the approved methods, the laboratory must analyze at least a 10 L sample or a packed pellet volume of at least 2 mL. Systems unable to process a 10 L sample must analyze as much sample volume as can be filtered by two filters specified in the method, up to a packed pellet volume of at least 2 mL.
- A matrix spike (MS) sample must be spiked and filtered by the laboratory according to the approved method. If the volume of the MS sample is greater than 10 L, the system may filter all but 10 L of the MS sample in the field and ship the filtered sample and the remaining 10 L of source water to the laboratory. In this case, the laboratory must spike the remaining 10 L of water and filter it through the filter used to collect the balance of the sample in the field.
- Flow cytometer-counted spiking suspensions must be used for the matrix spike samples and the ongoing precision and recovery samples.
- The following data elements must be reported for each Cryptosporidium analysis:
- Any change to the point of disinfection;
- Any change to the disinfectant(s) used in the treatment plant;
- Any change to the disinfection process; or
- Any other modification identified by the department as a significant change to disinfection practice.
- For systems using a disinfectant other than UV, the temperature of the disinfected water must be measured in degrees Celsius at each residual disinfectant concentration sampling point or at an alternative location approved by the department.
- For systems using chlorine, the pH of the disinfected water must be measured at each chlorine residual disinfectant concentration sampling point or at an alternative location approved by the department.
- The disinfectant contact time must be determined in minutes.
- The residual disinfectant concentrations of the water must be determined in mg/L before or at the first customer and prior to each additional point of disinfectant application.
- A system may use existing data to meet the monitoring requirements if the data are substantially equivalent to the required data, the system has not made any significant change to its treatment practice, and the system has the same source water as it had when the data were collected. Systems may develop disinfection profiles using up to three years of existing data.
- A system may use disinfection profiles developed under 43.9(2) or 43.10(2) if the system has not made a significant change to its treatment practice and has the same source water as it had when the profile was developed. The virus profile must be developed using the same data on which the Giardia lamblia profile is based.
- Systems using only one point of disinfectant application may determine the total inactivation ratio (CTcalc/CT99.9) for the disinfection segment using either of the following methods.
- Systems using more than one point of disinfectant application before the first customer must determine the CT value of each disinfection segment immediately prior to the next point of disinfectant application, or for the final segment, before or at the first customer, during peak hourly flow. Calculate the (CTcalc/CT99.9) value of each segment and add the values together to determine the total inactivation ratio.
- Systems must then determine the total logs of inactivation by multiplying the total inactivation ratio by 3.0.
- Identification of an “area of influence” outside of which the likelihood of Cryptosporidium or fecal contamination affecting the treatment plant intake is not significant. This is the area to be evaluated in future watershed surveys under 43.11(9)“a”(5)“2.”
- Identification of both potential and actual sources of Cryptosporidium contamination and an assessment of the relative impact of these sources on the system’s source water quality.
- An analysis of the effectiveness and feasibility of control measures that could reduce Cryptosporidium loading from sources of contamination to the system’s source water.
- A statement of goals and specific actions the system will undertake to reduce source water Cryptosporidium levels. The plan must explain how the actions are expected to contribute to specific goals, identify watershed partners and their roles, identify resource requirements and commitments, and include a schedule for plan implementation with deadlines for completing specific actions identified in the plan.
- Submit an annual watershed control program status report to the department. The annual watershed control program status report must describe the system’s implementation of the approved plan and assess the adequacy of the plan to meet its goals. The plan must explain how the system is addressing any shortcomings in plan implementation, including those previously identified by the department or as a result of the watershed survey conducted under 43.11(9)“a”(5)“2.” It must also describe any significant changes that have occurred in the watershed since the last watershed sanitary survey. If a system determines during implementation that making a significant change to its approved watershed control program is necessary, the system must notify the department prior to making any such changes. If any change is likely to reduce the level of source water protection, the system must also list in its notification the actions the system will take to mitigate this effect.
- Undergo a watershed sanitary survey every three years for community water systems and every five years for noncommunity water systems and submit the survey report to the department. The survey must be conducted according to department guidelines and by persons acceptable to the department.
- The system must make the watershed control plan, annual status reports, and watershed sanitary survey reports available to the public upon request. These documents must be in a plain language style and include criteria by which to evaluate the success of the program in achieving plan goals. The department may approve systems to withhold portions of an annual status report, watershed control plan, and watershed sanitary survey from the public, based on water supply security considerations.
- Demonstrates at least 0.5-log mean reduction of influent turbidity. This reduction must be determined using daily turbidity measurements in the presedimentation process influent and effluent and must be calculated as follows: LOG10(monthly mean of daily influent turbidity) – LOG10(monthly mean of daily effluent turbidity).
- Complies with department-approved performance criteria that demonstrate at least 0.5-log mean removal of micron-sized particulate material through the presedimentation process.
- The failure was due to unusual and short-term circumstances that could not reasonably be prevented through optimizing the treatment plant design, operation, and maintenance.
- The system has experienced no more than two such failures in any calendar year.
- The removal efficiency demonstrated during challenge testing conducted under the criteria in 43.11(12)“b”(2).
- The maximum removal efficiency that can be verified through direct integrity testing used with the membrane filtration process under the conditions in 43.11(12)“b”(3).
- Challenge testing must be conducted on either a full-scale membrane module, identical in material and construction to the membrane modules used in the system’s treatment facility, or a smaller-scale membrane module, identical in material and similar in construction to the full-scale module. A module is defined as the smallest component of a membrane unit in which a specific membrane surface area is housed in a device with a filtrate outlet structure.
- Challenge testing must be conducted using Cryptosporidium oocysts or a surrogate that is removed no more efficiently than Cryptosporidium oocysts. The organisms or surrogate used during challenge testing is referred to as the challenge particulate. The concentration of the challenge particulate, in both the feed and filtrate water, must be determined using a method capable of discretely quantifying the specific challenge particulate used in the test; gross measurements such as turbidity shall not be used.
- The maximum feed water concentration that can be used during a challenge test is based on the detection limit of the challenge particulate in the filtrate and must be determined according to the following equation:
- Challenge testing must be conducted under representative hydraulic conditions at the maximum design flux and maximum design process recovery specified by the manufacturer for the membrane module. Flux is defined as the throughput of a pressure-driven membrane process expressed as flow per unit of membrane area. Recovery is defined as the volumetric percent of feed water that is converted to filtrate over the course of an operating cycle uninterrupted by events such as chemical cleaning or a solids removal process (i.e., backwashing).
- Removal efficiency of a membrane module must be calculated from the challenge test results and expressed as a log removal value according to the following equation:
- The removal efficiency of a membrane filtration process demonstrated during challenge testing must be expressed as a log removal value (LRVC-Test). If fewer than 20 modules are tested, then LRVC-Test is equal to the lowest of the representative LRVs among the modules tested. If 20 or more modules are tested, then LRVC-Test is equal to the tenth percentile of the representative LRVs among the modules tested. The percentile is defined by [i/(n+1)] where “i” is the rank of “n” individual data points ordered lowest to highest. If necessary, the tenth percentile may be calculated using linear interpolation.
- The challenge test must establish a quality control release value (QCRV) for a nondestructive performance test that demonstrates the Cryptosporidium removal capability of the membrane filtration module. In order to verify Cryptosporidium removal capability, this performance test must be applied to each production membrane module that was not directly challenge tested but was used by the system. Production modules that do not meet the established QCRV are not eligible for the treatment credit demonstrated during the challenge test.
- If a previously tested membrane is modified in a manner that could change the removal efficiency of the membrane or the applicability of the nondestructive performance test and associated QCRV, additional challenge testing to demonstrate the removal efficiency of the modified membrane must be conducted and submitted to the department, along with determination of a new QCRV.
- The direct integrity test must be independently applied to each membrane unit in service. A membrane unit is defined as a group of membrane modules that share common valving that allows the unit to be isolated from the rest of the system for the purpose of integrity testing or other maintenance.
- The direct integrity method must have a resolution of 3 micrometers or less, where resolution is defined as the size of the smallest integrity breach that contributes to a response from the direct integrity test.
- The direct integrity test must have a sensitivity sufficient to verify the log treatment credit awarded by the department for the membrane filtration process, where sensitivity is defined as the maximum log removal value that can be reliably verified by a direct integrity test. Sensitivity must be determined using the approach in either of the following paragraphs as applicable to the type of direct integrity test the system uses.
- Systems must establish a control limit within the sensitivity limits of the direct integrity test that is indicative of an integral membrane unit capable of meeting the removal credit awarded by the department.
- If the result of a direct integrity test exceeds the control limit established under 43.11(12)“b”(3)“4,” the system must remove the membrane unit from service. Systems must conduct a direct integrity test to verify any repairs and may return the membrane unit to service only if the direct integrity test is within the established control limit.
- Systems must conduct direct integrity testing on each membrane unit at a frequency of not less than once each day that the membrane unit is in operation. The department may approve less frequent testing, based on demonstrated process reliability, the use of multiple barriers effective for Cryptosporidium, or reliable process safeguards.
- Unless the department approves an alternative parameter, continuous indirect integrity monitoring must include continuous filtrate turbidity monitoring.
- Continuous monitoring must be conducted at a frequency of no less than once every 15 minutes.
- Continuous monitoring must be separately conducted on each membrane unit.
- If indirect integrity monitoring includes turbidity and if the filtrate turbidity readings are above 0.15 NTU for a period greater than 15 minutes (i.e., two consecutive 15-minute readings above 0.15 NTU), direct integrity testing must immediately be performed on the associated membrane unit as specified in 43.11(12)“b”(3)“1” through 43.11(12)“b”(3)“5.”
- If indirect integrity monitoring includes a department-approved alternative parameter and if the alternative parameter exceeds a department-approved control limit for a period greater than 15 minutes, direct integrity testing must immediately be performed on the associated membrane units as specified in 43.11(12)“b”(3)“1” through 43.11(12)“b”(3)“5.”
- When determining validated operating conditions, systems must account for the following factors: UV absorbance of the water; lamp fouling and aging; measurement uncertainty of on-line sensors; UV dose distributions arising from the velocity profiles through the reactor; failure of UV lamps or other critical system components; and inlet and outlet piping or channel configurations of the UV reactor.
- Validation testing must include the following: full-scale testing of a reactor that conforms uniformly to the UV reactors used by the system and inactivation of a test microorganism whose dose response characteristics have been quantified with a low-pressure mercury vapor lamp.
- The department may approve an alternative approach to validation testing.
- Systems must monitor their UV reactors to determine if the reactors are operating within validated conditions, as determined under 43.11(13)“d”(1). This monitoring must include UV sensor, flow rate, lamp status, and other parameters the department designates based on UV reactor operation. Systems must verify the calibration of UV sensors and must recalibrate sensors in accordance with a protocol approved by the department.
- To receive treatment credit for UV light, systems must treat at least 95 percent of the water delivered to the public during each month by UV reactors operating within validated conditions for the required UV dose. Systems must demonstrate compliance with this condition by the monitoring required under 43.11(13)“d”(2)“1.”