US Codex
C.F.R.
Browse by date

View an earlier version

Latest
2026-08-27
Browse all versions by date
Notes

40 C.F.R. §§ 141.715–141.720

6 sections in range

§141.715. Microbial toolbox options for meeting Cryptosporidium treatment requirements.

40 C.F.R. § 141.715

(a)
(1)
Systems receive the treatment credits listed in the table in paragraph (b) of this section by meeting the conditions for microbial toolbox options described in §§ 141.716 through 141.720. Systems apply these treatment credits to meet the treatment requirements in § 141.711 or § 141.712, as applicable.
(2)
Unfiltered systems are eligible for treatment credits for the microbial toolbox options described in § 141.720 only.
(b)
The following table summarizes options in the microbial toolbox—
Notes, amendments, and revision history

Source

Source: 71 FR 769, Jan. 5, 2006, unless otherwise noted.

Authority

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.

Source

Source: 40 FR 59570, Dec. 24, 1975, unless otherwise noted.

§141.716. Source toolbox components.

40 C.F.R. § 141.716

(a)
Watershed control program. Systems receive 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit for implementing a watershed control program that meets the requirements of this section.
(1)
Systems that intend to apply for the watershed control program credit must notify the State of this intent no later than two years prior to the treatment compliance date applicable to the system in § 141.713.
(2)
Systems must submit to the State a proposed watershed control plan no later than one year before the applicable treatment compliance date in § 141.713. The State must approve the watershed control plan for the system to receive watershed control program treatment credit. The watershed control plan must include the elements in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i)
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 paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section.
(ii)
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.
(iii)
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.
(iv)
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.
(3)
Systems with existing watershed control programs (i.e., programs in place on January 5, 2006) are eligible to seek this credit. Their watershed control plans must meet the criteria in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and must specify ongoing and future actions that will reduce source water Cryptosporidium levels.
(4)
If the State does not respond to a system regarding approval of a watershed control plan submitted under this section and the system meets the other requirements of this section, the watershed control program will be considered approved and 0.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment credit will be awarded unless and until the State subsequently withdraws such approval.
(5)
Systems must complete the actions in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section to maintain the 0.5-log credit.
(i)
Submit an annual watershed control program status report to the State. 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. It must explain how the system is addressing any shortcomings in plan implementation, including those previously identified by the State or as the result of the watershed survey conducted under paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section. 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 State 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.
(ii)
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 State. The survey must be conducted according to State guidelines and by persons the State approves.
(A)
The watershed sanitary survey must meet the following criteria: encompass the region identified in the State-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.
(B)
If the State determines that significant changes may have occurred in the watershed since the previous watershed sanitary survey, systems must undergo another watershed sanitary survey by a date the State requires, which may be earlier than the regular date in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section.
(iii)
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 State may approve systems to withhold from the public portions of the annual status report, watershed control plan, and watershed sanitary survey based on water supply security considerations.
(6)
If the State determines that a system is not carrying out the approved watershed control plan, the State may withdraw the watershed control program treatment credit.
(b)
Alternative source.
(1)
A system may conduct source water monitoring that reflects a different intake location (either in the same source or for an alternate source) or a different procedure for the timing or level of withdrawal from the source (alternative source monitoring). If the State approves, a system may determine its bin classification under § 141.710 based on the alternative source monitoring results.
(2)
If systems conduct alternative source monitoring under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, systems must also monitor their current plant intake concurrently as described in § 141.701.
(3)
Alternative source monitoring under paragraph (b)(1) of this section must meet the requirements for source monitoring to determine bin classification, as described in §§ 141.701 through 141.706. Systems must report the alternative source monitoring results to the State, along with supporting information documenting the operating conditions under which the samples were collected.
(4)
If a system determines its bin classification under § 141.710 using alternative source monitoring results that reflect a different intake location or a different procedure for managing the timing or level of withdrawal from the source, the system must relocate the intake or permanently adopt the withdrawal procedure, as applicable, no later than the applicable treatment compliance date in § 141.713.
Notes, amendments, and revision history

Source

Source: 71 FR 769, Jan. 5, 2006, unless otherwise noted.

Authority

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.

Source

Source: 40 FR 59570, Dec. 24, 1975, unless otherwise noted.

§141.717. Pre-filtration treatment toolbox components.

40 C.F.R. § 141.717

(a)
Presedimentation. Systems receive 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a presedimentation basin during any month the process meets the criteria in this paragraph.
(1)
The presedimentation basin must be in continuous operation and must treat the entire plant flow taken from a surface water or GWUDI source.
(2)
The system must continuously add a coagulant to the presedimentation basin.
(3)
The presedimentation basin must achieve the performance criteria in paragraph (3)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i)
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).
(ii)
Complies with State-approved performance criteria that demonstrate at least 0.5-log mean removal of micron-sized particulate material through the presedimentation process.
(b)
Two-stage lime softening. Systems receive an additional 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a two-stage lime softening plant if chemical addition and hardness precipitation occur in two separate and sequential softening stages prior to filtration. Both softening stages must treat the entire plant flow taken from a surface water or GWUDI source.
(c)
Bank filtration. Systems receive Cryptosporidium treatment credit for bank filtration that serves as pretreatment to a filtration plant by meeting the criteria in this paragraph. Systems using bank filtration when they begin source water monitoring under § 141.701(a) must collect samples as described in § 141.703(d) and are not eligible for this credit.
(1)
Wells with a ground water flow path of at least 25 feet receive 0.5-log treatment credit; wells with a ground water flow path of at least 50 feet receive 1.0-log treatment credit. The ground water flow path must be determined as specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
(2)
Only wells in granular aquifers are eligible for treatment credit. Granular aquifers are those comprised of sand, clay, silt, rock fragments, pebbles or larger particles, and minor cement. A system must characterize the aquifer at the well site to determine aquifer properties. Systems must extract a core from the aquifer and demonstrate that in at least 90 percent of the core length, grains less than 1.0 mm in diameter constitute at least 10 percent of the core material.
(3)
Only horizontal and vertical wells are eligible for treatment credit.
(4)
For vertical wells, the ground water flow path is the measured distance from the edge of the surface water body under high flow conditions (determined by the 100 year floodplain elevation boundary or by the floodway, as defined in Federal Emergency Management Agency flood hazard maps) to the well screen. For horizontal wells, the ground water flow path is the measured distance from the bed of the river under normal flow conditions to the closest horizontal well lateral screen.
(5)
Systems must monitor each wellhead for turbidity at least once every four hours while the bank filtration process is in operation. If monthly average turbidity levels, based on daily maximum values in the well, exceed 1 NTU, the system must report this result to the State and conduct an assessment within 30 days to determine the cause of the high turbidity levels in the well. If the State determines that microbial removal has been compromised, the State may revoke treatment credit until the system implements corrective actions approved by the State to remediate the problem.
(6)
Springs and infiltration galleries are not eligible for treatment credit under this section, but are eligible for credit under § 141.718(c).
(7)
Bank filtration demonstration of performance. The State may approve Cryptosporidium treatment credit for bank filtration based on a demonstration of performance study that meets the criteria in this paragraph. This treatment credit may be greater than 1.0-log and may be awarded to bank filtration that does not meet the criteria in paragraphs (c)(1)-(5) of this section.
(i)
The study must follow a State-approved protocol and must involve the collection of data on the removal of Cryptosporidium or a surrogate for Cryptosporidium and related hydrogeologic and water quality parameters during the full range of operating conditions.
(ii)
The study must include sampling both from the production well(s) and from monitoring wells that are screened and located along the shortest flow path between the surface water source and the production well(s).
Notes, amendments, and revision history

Source

Source: 71 FR 769, Jan. 5, 2006, unless otherwise noted.

Authority

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.

Source

Source: 40 FR 59570, Dec. 24, 1975, unless otherwise noted.

§141.718. Treatment performance toolbox components.

40 C.F.R. § 141.718

(a)
Combined filter performance. Systems using conventional filtration treatment or direct filtration treatment receive an additional 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit during any month the system meets the criteria in this paragraph. Combined filter effluent (CFE) turbidity must be less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of the measurements. Turbidity must be measured as described in § 141.74(a) and (c).
(b)
Individual filter performance. Systems using conventional filtration treatment or direct filtration treatment receive 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit, which can be in addition to the 0.5-log credit under paragraph (a) of this section, during any month the system meets the criteria in this paragraph. Compliance with these criteria must be based on individual filter turbidity monitoring as described in § 141.174 or § 141.560, as applicable.
(1)
The filtered water turbidity for each individual filter must be less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of the measurements recorded each month.
(2)
No individual filter may have a measured turbidity greater than 0.3 NTU in two consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart.
(3)
Any system that has received treatment credit for individual filter performance and fails to meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section during any month does not receive a treatment technique violation under § 141.711(c) if the State determines the following:
(i)
The failure was due to unusual and short-term circumstances that could not reasonably be prevented through optimizing treatment plant design, operation, and maintenance.
(ii)
The system has experienced no more than two such failures in any calendar year.
(c)
Demonstration of performance. The State may approve Cryptosporidium treatment credit for drinking water treatment processes based on a demonstration of performance study that meets the criteria in this paragraph. This treatment credit may be greater than or less than the prescribed treatment credits in § 141.711 or §§ 141.717 through 141.720 and may be awarded to treatment processes that do not meet the criteria for the prescribed credits.
(1)
Systems cannot receive the prescribed treatment credit for any toolbox box option in §§ 141.717 through 141.720 if that toolbox option is included in a demonstration of performance study for which treatment credit is awarded under this paragraph.
(2)
The demonstration of performance study must follow a State-approved protocol and must demonstrate the level of Cryptosporidium reduction the treatment process will achieve under the full range of expected operating conditions for the system.
(3)
Approval by the State must be in writing and may include monitoring and treatment performance criteria that the system must demonstrate and report on an ongoing basis to remain eligible for the treatment credit. The State may designate such criteria where necessary to verify that the conditions under which the demonstration of performance credit was approved are maintained during routine operation.
Notes, amendments, and revision history

Source

Source: 71 FR 769, Jan. 5, 2006, unless otherwise noted.

Authority

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.

Source

Source: 40 FR 59570, Dec. 24, 1975, unless otherwise noted.

§141.719. Additional filtration toolbox components.

40 C.F.R. § 141.719

(a)
Bag and cartridge filters. Systems receive Cryptosporidium treatment credit of up to 2.0-log for individual bag or cartridge filters and up to 2.5-log for bag or cartridge filters operated in series by meeting the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) through (10) of this section. To be eligible for this credit, systems must report the results of challenge testing that meets the requirements of paragraphs (a)(2) through (9) of this section to the State. The filters must treat the entire plant flow taken from a subpart H source.
(1)
The Cryptosporidium treatment credit awarded to bag or cartridge filters must be based on the removal efficiency demonstrated during challenge testing that is conducted according to the criteria in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(9) of this section. A factor of safety equal to 1-log for individual bag or cartridge filters and 0.5-log for bag or cartridge filters in series must be applied to challenge testing results to determine removal credit. Systems may use results from challenge testing conducted prior to January 5, 2006 if the prior testing was consistent with the criteria specified in paragraphs (a)(2) through (9) of this section.
(2)
Challenge testing must be performed on full-scale bag or cartridge filters, and the associated filter housing or pressure vessel, that are identical in material and construction to the filters and housings the system will use for removal of Cryptosporidium. Bag or cartridge filters must be challenge tested in the same configuration that the system will use, either as individual filters or as a series configuration of filters.
(3)
Challenge testing must be conducted using Cryptosporidium or a surrogate that is removed no more efficiently than Cryptosporidium. The microorganism or surrogate used during challenge testing is referred to as the challenge particulate. The concentration of the challenge particulate must be determined using a method capable of discreetly quantifying the specific microorganism or surrogate used in the test; gross measurements such as turbidity may not be used.
(4)
The maximum feed water concentration that can be used during a challenge test must be based on the detection limit of the challenge particulate in the filtrate (i.e., filtrate detection limit) and must be calculated using the following equation:
(5)
Challenge testing must be conducted at the maximum design flow rate for the filter as specified by the manufacturer.
(6)
Each filter evaluated must be tested for a duration sufficient to reach 100 percent of the terminal pressure drop, which establishes the maximum pressure drop under which the filter may be used to comply with the requirements of this subpart.
(7)
Removal efficiency of a filter must be determined from the results of the challenge test and expressed in terms of log removal values using the following equation:
(8)
Each filter tested must be challenged with the challenge particulate during three periods over the filtration cycle: within two hours of start-up of a new filter; when the pressure drop is between 45 and 55 percent of the terminal pressure drop; and at the end of the cycle after the pressure drop has reached 100 percent of the terminal pressure drop. An LRV must be calculated for each of these challenge periods for each filter tested. The LRV for the filter (LRVfilter) must be assigned the value of the minimum LRV observed during the three challenge periods for that filter.
(9)
If fewer than 20 filters are tested, the overall removal efficiency for the filter product line must be set equal to the lowest LRVfilter among the filters tested. If 20 or more filters are tested, the overall removal efficiency for the filter product line must be set equal to the 10th percentile of the set of LRVfilter values for the various filters 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 10th percentile may be calculated using linear interpolation.
(10)
If a previously tested filter is modified in a manner that could change the removal efficiency of the filter product line, challenge testing to demonstrate the removal efficiency of the modified filter must be conducted and submitted to the State.
(b)
Membrane filtration.
(1)
Systems receive Cryptosporidium treatment credit for membrane filtration that meets the criteria of this paragraph. Membrane cartridge filters that meet the definition of membrane filtration in § 141.2 are eligible for this credit. The level of treatment credit a system receives is equal to the lower of the values determined under paragraph (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i)
The removal efficiency demonstrated during challenge testing conducted under the conditions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(ii)
The maximum removal efficiency that can be verified through direct integrity testing used with the membrane filtration process under the conditions in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(2)
Challenge testing. The membrane used by the system must undergo challenge testing to evaluate removal efficiency, and the system must report the results of challenge testing to the State. Challenge testing must be conducted according to the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (vii) of this section. Systems may use data from challenge testing conducted prior to January 5, 2006 if the prior testing was consistent with the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (vii) of this section.
(i)
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.
(ii)
Challenge testing must be conducted using Cryptosporidium oocysts or a surrogate that is removed no more efficiently than Cryptosporidium oocysts. The organism 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 may not be used.
(iii)
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:
(iv)
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).
(v)
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:
(vi)
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 10th 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 10th percentile may be calculated using linear interpolation.
(vii)
The challenge test must establish a quality control release value (QCRV) for a non-destructive performance test that demonstrates the Cryptosporidium removal capability of the membrane filtration module. This performance test must be applied to each production membrane module used by the system that was not directly challenge tested in order to verify Cryptosporidium removal capability. Production modules that do not meet the established QCRV are not eligible for the treatment credit demonstrated during the challenge test.
(viii)
If a previously tested membrane is modified in a manner that could change the removal efficiency of the membrane or the applicability of the non-destructive performance test and associated QCRV, additional challenge testing to demonstrate the removal efficiency of, and determine a new QCRV for, the modified membrane must be conducted and submitted to the State.
(3)
Direct integrity testing. Systems must conduct direct integrity testing in a manner that demonstrates a removal efficiency equal to or greater than the removal credit awarded to the membrane filtration process and meets the requirements described in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section. A direct integrity test is defined as a physical test applied to a membrane unit in order to identify and isolate integrity breaches (i.e., one or more leaks that could result in contamination of the filtrate).
(i)
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.
(ii)
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.
(iii)
The direct integrity test must have a sensitivity sufficient to verify the log treatment credit awarded to the membrane filtration process by the State, 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 paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section as applicable to the type of direct integrity test the system uses.
(A)
For direct integrity tests that use an applied pressure or vacuum, the direct integrity test sensitivity must be calculated according to the following equation:
(B)
For direct integrity tests that use a particulate or molecular marker, the direct integrity test sensitivity must be calculated according to the following equation:
(iv)
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 State.
(v)
If the result of a direct integrity test exceeds the control limit established under paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section, 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.
(vi)
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 State may approve less frequent testing, based on demonstrated process reliability, the use of multiple barriers effective for Cryptosporidium, or reliable process safeguards.
(4)
Indirect integrity monitoring. Systems must conduct continuous indirect integrity monitoring on each membrane unit according to the criteria in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (v) of this section. Indirect integrity monitoring is defined as monitoring some aspect of filtrate water quality that is indicative of the removal of particulate matter. A system that implements continuous direct integrity testing of membrane units in accordance with the criteria in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this section is not subject to the requirements for continuous indirect integrity monitoring. Systems must submit a monthly report to the State summarizing all continuous indirect integrity monitoring results triggering direct integrity testing and the corrective action that was taken in each case.
(i)
Unless the State approves an alternative parameter, continuous indirect integrity monitoring must include continuous filtrate turbidity monitoring.
(ii)
Continuous monitoring must be conducted at a frequency of no less than once every 15 minutes.
(iii)
Continuous monitoring must be separately conducted on each membrane unit.
(iv)
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 paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this section.
(v)
If indirect integrity monitoring includes a State-approved alternative parameter and if the alternative parameter exceeds a State-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 paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this section.
(c)
Second stage filtration. Systems receive 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a separate second stage of filtration that consists of sand, dual media, GAC, or other fine grain media following granular media filtration if the State approves. To be eligible for this credit, the first stage of filtration must be preceded by a coagulation step and both filtration stages must treat the entire plant flow taken from a surface water or GWUDI source. A cap, such as GAC, on a single stage of filtration is not eligible for this credit. The State must approve the treatment credit based on an assessment of the design characteristics of the filtration process.
(d)
Slow sand filtration (as secondary filter). Systems are eligible to receive 2.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a slow sand filtration process that follows a separate stage of filtration if both filtration stages treat entire plant flow taken from a surface water or GWUDI source and no disinfectant residual is present in the influent water to the slow sand filtration process. The State must approve the treatment credit based on an assessment of the design characteristics of the filtration process. This paragraph does not apply to treatment credit awarded to slow sand filtration used as a primary filtration process.
Notes, amendments, and revision history

Amendments

[71 FR 769, Jan. 5, 2006; 71 FR 6136, Feb. 6, 2006]

Source

Source: 71 FR 769, Jan. 5, 2006, unless otherwise noted.

Authority

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.

Source

Source: 40 FR 59570, Dec. 24, 1975, unless otherwise noted.

Amendments

[71 FR 769, Jan. 5, 2006; 71 FR 6136, Feb. 6, 2006]

§141.720. Inactivation toolbox components.

40 C.F.R. § 141.720

(a)
Calculation of CT values.
(1)
CT is the product of the disinfectant contact time (T, in minutes) and disinfectant concentration (C, in milligrams per liter). Systems with treatment credit for chlorine dioxide or ozone under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section must calculate CT at least once each day, with both C and T measured during peak hourly flow as specified in §§ 141.74(a) through (b).
(2)
Systems with several disinfection segments in sequence may calculate CT for each segment, where a disinfection segment is defined as a treatment unit process with a measurable disinfectant residual level and a liquid volume. Under this approach, systems must add the Cryptosporidium CT values in each segment to determine the total CT for the treatment plant.
(b)
CT values for chlorine dioxide and ozone.
(1)
Systems receive the Cryptosporidium treatment credit listed in this table by meeting the corresponding chlorine dioxide CT value for the applicable water temperature, as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
(2)
Systems receive the Cryptosporidium treatment credit listed in this table by meeting the corresponding ozone CT values for the applicable water temperature, as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c)
Site-specific study. The State may approve alternative chlorine dioxide or ozone CT values to those listed in paragraph (b) of this section on a site-specific basis. The State must base this approval on a site-specific study a system conducts that follows a State-approved protocol.
(d)
Ultraviolet light. Systems receive Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, and virus treatment credits for ultraviolet (UV) light reactors by achieving the corresponding UV dose values shown in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Systems must validate and monitor UV reactors as described in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section to demonstrate that they are achieving a particular UV dose value for treatment credit.
(1)
UV dose table. The treatment credits listed in this table are for UV light at a wavelength of 254 nm as produced by a low pressure mercury vapor lamp. To receive treatment credit for other lamp types, systems must demonstrate an equivalent germicidal dose through reactor validation testing, as described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. The UV dose values in this table are applicable only to post-filter applications of UV in filtered systems and to unfiltered systems.
(2)
Reactor validation testing. Systems must use UV reactors that have undergone validation testing to determine the operating conditions under which the reactor delivers the UV dose required in paragraph (d)(1) of this section (i.e., validated operating conditions). These operating conditions must include flow rate, UV intensity as measured by a UV sensor, and UV lamp status.
(i)
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.
(ii)
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.
(iii)
The State may approve an alternative approach to validation testing.
(3)
Reactor monitoring.
(i)
Systems must monitor their UV reactors to determine if the reactors are operating within validated conditions, as determined under paragraph (d)(2) of this section. This monitoring must include UV intensity as measured by a UV sensor, flow rate, lamp status, and other parameters the State designates based on UV reactor operation. Systems must verify the calibration of UV sensors and must recalibrate sensors in accordance with a protocol the State approves.
(ii)
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, as described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. Systems must demonstrate compliance with this condition by the monitoring required under paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section.
Notes, amendments, and revision history

Source

Source: 71 FR 769, Jan. 5, 2006, unless otherwise noted.

Authority

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.

Source

Source: 40 FR 59570, Dec. 24, 1975, unless otherwise noted.