Sei sulla pagina 1di 580

1

GUIDANCE MANUAL
FOR
COMPLIANCE WITHTHE
FILTRATION AND DISINFECTION REQUIREMENTS
FOR
PUBUC WATER SYStEMS
.-
.

USING
SURFACE WATER SOURCES

MARCH 1991 EDITION

SCIENCE A N 0 TECHNOLOGY BRANCH


CRmERIA A N 0 STANOAROS DIVISION
OFFICE OF DRINKING WATER
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C.
GU IOANCE MANUAL
FOR
' COMPLIANCE WITH THE
FILTRATION AND DISINFECTION REQUIREMENTS
FOR
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
USING
SURFACE UATER SOURCES

for

Science and fcchnlo y Branch


8
C r i t e r i a and Standar s Division
Office o f Drinking Water
..
U S Env imnntent a 1 Protect ion Agency
Washington, D.C.

Contract No. 68-01-6989 .

Malcolm Pirnie,Inc. HDR En ineering,Inc.


100 Eisenhower Drive 3
5175 H l l s d a l c Circle
Eldorado H i 11s , CA 95630.
.Paramus, New Jersey 07653

October, 1990
' . Acknowledgments 3
1

Preparation of thisdocument involved important contributions from


many people in two consulting engineering firms, several private
consultants, and the United Stat~o,EnvironmentalProtectionAgency
(USEPA). Malcolm .Pirnie, Inc., with technical contributions
provided by HDR Engineeting Inc., conducted the day-to-day work
under contract with the USEPA.
Principal authors from Malcolm Pirnie were David J. Hiltebrand and
Linda Averell Wancho. Personnel from HDR involved in this work
were Jerry Troyan and Perri P. Garfinkel. Additional personnel '

from Malcolm Pirnie whocontributed to either the technical content


or the preparation of the manual included: John E. Dyksen, James K.
Schaefer, Scott L. Phillips and Peter E. Galant.
. .
Private consultants who contributed to thedocument included:
Dr. Appiah Amirtharajah, Georgia Institute of T.echnology, Atlanta,
GA; Dr. Ovadia Lev, Hebrew University, J.erusalem, Israel:
Dr. Vincent Oliveri, formerly John Hopkins University, Baltimore,
MD: Dr. Phillip C. Singer, University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill, NC: Dr. Mark Wiesner, Rice University, Houston, TX.
Preparation of thedocument was overseen by Stig Regli, the USEPA
.
project officer Valuable technical review and major contributions
to the text were provided by Thomas Grubbs, Office .of Drinking
Water, USEPA, and Leigh Woodruff, Region X , USEPA.
Special thanks are givento thefollowing individuals working for
USEPA whose review and comment on numerous drafts great,ly
contributed to the evolution of this document: John Davidson,
Office of Policy, Planning andEvaluation: Edwin Geldreich,
Drinking Water Research Division, Office of Research and
Development: John Hoff, formerly with Drinking Water Research
Division, Office of Research and Development; Walt Jakubowski,
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Office of Research '

and Development; Dr. Gary Logsdon, formerly with Drinking Water


Research Division, Office of Research and Development: Kevin
Reilly, Region I: Margaret Silver, Office of General Council; and
Jim Westrick, Technical Support Division, Office of Drinking Water.
Appreciation is also expressed to state public health officials,
representatives of thedrinking water industry, academicians, and
the American public for their participation in submitting timely
and insightful comments without which this document would not.have .
been possible.

Some of theappendices have primary authors which are noted on the


corresponding cover pages.

c
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION

2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
2.1 Application
2.1.1 Types of Water Supplies
2.1.2 Determination of Applicable Sources
2.2 Treatment Requirements
2.3 Operator Personnel Qualifications

3. COMPLIANCE FOR SYSTEMS NOT FILTERING


3.1 Source Water Quality Criteria
3.1.1 Coliform Concentrations
3.1.2 TurbIdity Levels
3.2 Disinfection Criteria
3.2.1 Inactivation Requirements
3.2.2 Determination of Overall Inactivation for Residual Profile, Multiple Disinfectants and Multiple
Sources and Multiple Sources
3.2.3 Demonstration of Maintaining a Residual
3.2.4 Disinfection System Redundancy
3.3 Site-Specific Conditions
3.3.1 Watershed Control Program
3.3.2 On-site Inspection
3.3.3 No Disease Outbreaks
3.3.4 Monthly Coliform MCL
3.3.5 Total Trihalomethane (TTHM) Regulations
4. DESIGN AND OPERATING CRITERIA FOR FILTRATION AND
DISINFECTION TECHNOLOGY
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Selection of Appropriate Filtration Technology
4.2.1 General Descriptions
4.2.2 Capabilities
4.2.3 Selection
4.3 Available Filtration Technologies
4.3.1 Introduction
4.3.2 General
4.3.3 Conventional Treatment
4.3.4 Direct Filtration
4.3.5 Slow Sand Filtration
4.3.6 Diatomaceous Earth Filtration
4.3.7 Alternate Technologies
4.3.8 Nontreatment Alternatives
4.4 Disinfection
4.4.1 General
4.4.2 Recommended Removal/Inactivation
4.4.3 Total Trihalome.thane (TTHM) Regulations

5. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING IF FILTRATION AND DISINFECTION


ARE SATISFACTORILY PRACTICED
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Turbidity Monitoring Requirements
5.2.1 Sampling Location
5.2.2 Sampling Frequency
5.2.3 Additional Monitoring
5.3 Turbidity Performance Criteria
5.3.1 Conventional Treatment or Direct Filtration
5.3.2 Slow Sand Filtration
5.3.3 Diatomaceous Earth Filtration
5.3.4 Other Filtration Technologies
5.4 Disinfection Monitoring Requirements
5.5 Disinfection Performance Criteria
5.5.1 Minimum Performance Criteria Required Under the SWTR
5.5.2 Recommended Performance Criteria
5.5.3 Disinfection By-Product Considerations
5.5.4 Recommended Disinfection System Redundancy
5.5.5 Determination of Inactivation by Disinfection
5.6 Other Considerations
6. REPORTING
6.1 Reporting Requirements for Public Water Systems Not Providing Filtration
6.2 Reporting Requirements for Public Water Systems Using Filtration

7. COMPLIANCE
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Systems Using a Surface Water Source Not Ground Water Under the Direct nfluence of
Surface Water)
7.3 Compliance Transition with Current NPDWR Turbidity Requirements
7.4 Systems Using a Ground Water Source Under the Direct Influence of a Surface Water
7.5 Responses for Systems not Meeting the SWTR Criteria
7.5.1 Introduction
7.5.2 Systems Not Filtering
7.5.3 Systems Currently Filtering

8. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

9. EXEMPTIONS
9.1 Overview of Requirements
9.2 Recommended Criteria
9.3 Compelling Factors
9.4 Evaluation of Alternate Water Supply Sources
9.5 Protection of Public Health
9.6 Notification to EPA
List of Tables
Table Description
2-1 Survey Form for the Classification of Drinking Water Sources
4-1 Removal Capabilities of Filtration Processes
4-2 Generalized Capability of Filtration Systems to Accommodate Raw Water Quality Conditions
6-1 Source Water Quality Conditions for Unfiltered Systems
6-2 Long Term Source Water Quality Conditions for Unfiltered Systems
6-3 CT Determination for Unfiltered Systems Monthly Report to Primacy Agency
6-4 Disinfection Information for Unfiltered Systems Monthly Report to Primacy Agency
6-5 Distribution System Disinfectant Residual Data for Unfiltered and Filtered Systems - Monthly
Report to Primacy Agency
6-6 Monthly Report to Primacy Agency for Compliance Determination - Unfiltered Systems
6-7 Daily Data Sheet for Filtered Systems
6-8 Monthly Report to Primacy Agency for Compliance Deterimination-FiItered Systems
7-1 Requirements for Unfiltered Systems
7-2 Requirements for Filtered Systems
2-1 Steps to Source Classification
3-1 Determination of Inactivation for Multiple Disinfectant Application to a Surface Water Source
3-2 Individually Disinfected Surface Sources Combined at a Single Point
3-3 Multiple Combination Points for Individually Disinfected Surface Sources
4-1 Flow Sheet for a Typical Conventional Water Treatment Plant
4-2 Flow Sheet for Typical Softening Treatment Plants
4-3 Flow Sheet for a Typical Direct Filtration Plant
4-4 Flow Sheet for a Typical Direct Filtration Plant with Flocculation

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Description
A Use of Particulate Analysis for Source and Water Treatment Evaluation
B Institutional Control of Legionella
C Determination Of Disinfectant Contact Time D Analytical Requirements of the SWTR and a Survey of
the Current Status of Residual Disinfectant Measurement Methods for all Chlorine Species and Ozone
E Inactivation Achieved by Various Disinfectants
F Basis for CT Values
G Protocol for Demonstrating Effective Disinfection
H Sampling Frequency for Total Coliforms in the Distribution System
I Maintaining Redundant Disinfection Capability
J Watershed Control Program
K Sanitary Survey
L Small System Considerations
M Protocol for Demonstration of Effective Treatment
N Protocols for Point-of-Use Treatment Devices
0 Guidelines to Evaluate Ozone Disinfection
1. INTRODUCflON
This Guidance Manual complements t h e f i l t r a t i o n and disinfection
treatmentrequirementsforpublicwater systems usingsurfacewater
sources o r groundwaterunder the d i r e c ti n f l u e n c e o f surfacewater
promulgated i n 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart H. I n t h i s manual, these .
requirementsarereferred, t o as i nt h e Surface 'Water Treatment Rule
(SWTR) . 9
c
L

The purposeof t h i s manual i s t o provide guidance t o United States


Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Regional Offices, Primacy Agencies
and a f f e c t e d u t i l i t i e s i n t h e implementation o f t h e SWTR, and t oh e l p
assurethatimplementation i s consistent. For example, the SWTR'sets
treatmentrequirementswhichapply t o a large range o f sourcewater
. conditions. The guidance manual suggestsdesign,operating and perform-
ance c r i t e r i a for specific surface water quality conditions to provide the
optimum protection from microbiological contaminants, These,recomnenda- ,

tions are presented as advisory guidelines only; unlike the provisions of


the SWTR, these recomnendations arenot mandatoryrequirements. I n many
cases, i t w il ,be appropriate to
tailor
requirements to
specific
circumstances; the guidance manual i s designed t o g i v e t h e Primacy Agency
f l e x i b i l i t y i n establishingthe most appropriatetreatmentrequirements
f o r t h e systems w i t h i n t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n .
Throughout t h i s document, t h et e r n 'Primacy Agency" r e f e r s t o a
State with primary enforcndent responsibility for public water systems or
*primacylw or t o mean EPA i n t h e case o f a State that has notobtained
primacy
I no r d e trof a c i l i t a t et h e use o f t h i s manual, it has been
s t r u c t u r e d t o ' f o l l o w t h e framework o f the SWTR as closely as possible.
B r i e fd e s c r i p t i o n s o f thecontentsof each s e c t i o no ft h i s manual are
presented i n t h e f o l l o w i n g paragraphs.

&LtiQlu
Thissectionprovides'guidance fordeterwining whether a water
' supplysource i s subjecttotherequirements 0.f the SWTR including the
determination o f whether a ground water
source i s under t h ed i r e c t

1-1
influence of surface water,i.e. at risk for the presence of G i a r d i a cysts
or other large microorganisms. The overall treatment requirements of the
SWTR are.also presented, al.ong w i t h nComnendations for t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s
o f operator personnel

%u?fu
For systems which are subject to the requirements of the SWTR and
which do n o t c u r r e n t l y p r o v i d e f i l t r a t i o n , t h i s s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s guidance
t o t h e Primacy Agency for deterraining i f a given system:
Mtets the source water quality criteria
Meets the disinfection requirements including:
- 99.9 and 99.99 percent inactivation of Giardia cysts and
viruses and a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e CT (disinfectant residual
concentration x contacttime)concept
- Point of e n t r y t o d i s t r i b u t i o n systemrequirements
- D i s t r i b u t i o n system
requirements
- P r o v i s i o nf o rd i s i n f e c t i o n systemredundancy
Maintains an adequatewatershed c o n t r o l program
Meets the on-site inspection requiriments
t4as n o t had an identified waterborne disease outbreak
Complies with the requirements of the revised Total Coliform
Rule
Complies withTotalTrihalormthane (TTHM) Rule

This section pertains to systems which do n o t meet the requirements


t o avoid f i l t r a t i o n o u t l i n e d i n S e c t i o n 3 an,d therefore are required to
i n s t a l l f i l t r a t i o n . Guidance i s 'given for 'the selection of an appropriate
f i l t r a t i o n technology based on the source water quality and the capabil i -
t i e s o f various. technologies t o achieve the required perfonnance criteria.
I n a d d i t i o n , recomaended design and o p e r a t i n g c r i t e r i a a r e p r o v i d e d f o r
different filtration technologies.

1-2
- 5

Section 5 presentsguidance t o t h e Primacy Agency for determining


ccnnpliance with t h e t u r b i d i t y and d i s i n f e c t i o n performance nquitcments,
and i nt u r n , whether f i l t r a t i o n and d i s i n f e c t i o na r es a t i s f a c t o r i l y
practiced. Recomnendations are made f o r t h e l e v e l o f d i s i n f e c t i o n t o be
provided i n order t o m e t t h e o v e r a l l t r e a t m e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e SWTR.
This section describes how t o evaluate the adequacy o f d i s i n f e c t i o n u s i n g
CT or other methods. .I

ssaiQR4
Section 6 provides guidelines t o t h e Primacy Agency far establishing
thereportingrequirementsassociatedwiththe SWTR. The requirements
include report content and frequency, and are applicable t o b o t h f i l t e r i n g
and nonf 11t e r i n g systems .
ss€uuLz
This
section
provides an overview o f the schedule f o r Primacy -
Agencies and u t i l i t i e s t o meet therequirements o ft h e SWTR. Examples are *' _-
~ presented t o provideguidance for corrective measures which can be taken ..
by systems which are not i n compliance with the treatment requirements.
Section 8
Thissectionpresentsguidance on publicnotification.Includedare ..
examples o f eventswhichwouldrequirenotification, language f o rt h e
notices and the methods o f n o t i f i c a t i o n .

sslJQL9
Section 9 providesguidance t o t h e Primacy Agency for determining
whether a system i se l i g i b l e for an exemption. The c r i t e r i af o r
e l i g i b i l i t y f o r an exemptioninclude:
, -- Compellinfactors
% (economic or resourcelimitations)
- No avai l a l e a1ternate source
Protection o f publichealth

Thissection' also provides guidance f oerv a l u a t i ntghfei n a n c i a l


c a p a b i l i t i e s o f a water system, r e v i e w i n g t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of alternate
sources and suggests i n t e r i m medsures for protecting public health.
1-3
AQufWs
The manual alsocontains appendiceswhich provide more detailed
guidance i n s p e c i f i c areas. These include:

-
Appendix A EPA Consensus
od for Giardia cvst An-
Several procedures’are available for Giardia cyst analysis i n water.
I n 1983 the USEPA held aconference t oe s t a b l i s h a consensus on the
procedure t o be used i n the future. This consensusmethod wouidpromote
u n i f o r m i t y i n t e s t i n g and provide a basisfor.futureconparirons. The
consensusmethodand the background data used t o develop i t are presented
i n t h i s appendix.

Appendix B -
Institutional
control of Leaionel l a
F i l t r a t i o n and/or disinfection provides protection frm m a .
However, i t does notassurethatrecontamination .or regrowth w i
l not ‘ ’

occur inthehotwater or cooling systems obf u i l d i n g s within the


d i s t r i b u t i o n system. This appendixprovidesguidance forhonitoring ,and
treatmentwhich can be used by i n s t i t u t i o n a l systems ior the control of
Ltaionclla.
EDQendix c .)t e r n a t i o n ofOisinfcctqat
ntact Tw
I n many cases, thedetermination o f disinfectant c.ontacttimes
needed t o evaluate the CT of a water system w l necessitate the use o f
i
tracerstudies.This appendixprovidesguidance f o r .conductingthese
studies. I n some cases i t nay not be p r a c t i c a l t o conduct a t r a c e r study.
For such cases guidance i s given for estimating the detention time based
on the physical configuration o f t h e system.

1-4
-
Appendix 0 Analytical Re uirements
9r
of theSWTR and A Survey o the Current
, Status o f Residual DiSinfectant
Measurement Methods for all Chlorine .
5Decies and Orone
This appendix includes a listing of theanalytical methods required .X.’

under the SWTR. An executive turmrary of a report on the analytical


methods used to measure the residual concentrations of the various
disinfectants is included. The reliability and limitations of each of the
methods are presented.

-
Appendix E Inactivations Achieved
e Various Disinfectants
. This appendix presents the log inactivations o f E i a r d b cysts and
viruses which are achieved at various CT levels by chlorine, chlorine
dioxide, chloramines and ozone. Inactivations of viruses achieved by UV
absorbance are a1 so included

ix F
dfor sis
0 CT Values -~
’ This appendix provides the background and rationale utilized in
developing the CT values for the various disinfectants. Included is a ’
c1

paper by Clark and Regli, 1990, in which a mathematical model was used in.
the determination o f CT values for freechlorine.

. Appendix G Protocol for Demonstrating


Effective Disinfection
This appendix provides the reconmended protocols for demonstrating
the effectiveness of chloramines, chlorine dioxide and ozone as primary
disinfectants.

-
Appendix H Samplin Frequency for
Total Col iforms in t e Distribution W t e % .

The sampling frequency required by the revised Total Coliform Rule


54 FR 27544 (June 29, 1989) i s presented in this appendix.
-
Appendix I Maintainin
D i sni nt f e c t i o n iliu
Thisappendix details the conditions and equipmentwhich should be
maintained
by
a system using chlorine,
chlorine
dioxide, ozone or
'. chloramines t o assure t h a t cdmpliance withthe SWTR requirement for
redundant d i s i n f e c t i o n i s met.

ndix J - tershed
Control Prom . -.
This appendix provides a detailed outline o f awatershed program.
This program may be adjusted by the Primacy Agency t o serve the 'specific
needs o f a p a r t i c u l a r water system.

mendix K Survey
This appendix provides guidance f o r conducting
a comprehensive
sanitary survey o f a supply source and i t s treatment and d e l i v e r y t o t h e
consumer. Suggested elements o f an annual on-sfte inspection are included
i n Section 3.

Thisappendixdescribes d i f f i c u l t i e s which may be faced by small


systems i n complying with the SWTR along with guide1 ines f o r overcoming
these d i f f i c u l t i e s .

-
Appendix M Protocol for the
Demonstration of Effective Treatment
This appendix presents p i l o t study protocols to
evaluate
the
effectivenessof an a l t e r n a t ef i l t r a t i o n technology i n meeting * t h e
performancerequirements o ft h e SWTR. It presentsthe use o fp a r t i c l e
size analysis fordemonstrating the actual removal o f m d i a cyst
achieved by a treatment.train. Guidance for conventional and d i r e c t
f i l t r a t i o np l a n t st o demonstrate t h a t adequate f i l t r a t i o n i s being'
maintained aet f f l u e nttu r b i d i t i e s between 0.5 and 1 Nephelometric
Turbidity Unit (NTU) i s alsoincluded.

1-6
,/-"a\
i ;
-
1 A'

Appendix N Protocol for


Point of use Trwlmt Devices
0 - - s . 2

I n s o a ~1imited cases, it my be appropriate to. instali point-of-use


(POU) or point-of-entry (WE) treatment devices asan i n t e r i m measure t o
provide
protection to
the
public
health.
This appendix
provides
a
protocolforevaluating and determiningtheefficacyof POU/WE treatment -
devices . *C
4.

*-
1

-
-
Appendix 0 Guidelines t o
Evaluate Ozone Ofsinfection
-
..

The CT evaiuation used f o r o t h e r d i s i n f e c t a n t s i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r


ozone. This appendix presentsalternativewthodsforevaluatfngthe
disinfection effectiveness of ozone systems.

1-7
2.

2.1 &gJJg.auiM
The SWTR p e r t a i n s t o a, l l public water systems which u t i l i r e a surface
water source or ground water source under the direct influence of.surface
water. The SWTR defines a surfacewater as a l l waterswhichare open t o
the atmosphere and subjecttosurfacerunoff. Ground waterunder the
directinfluence of surfacewater i s defined as:any waterbeneath t h e '
surface of t h e ground w i t h (i) s i g n i f i c a n t occurrence o f i n s e c p or other
macroorganisms, algae, organic debris, or large-di.@neter pathogens such as
Giardia lamblia, or (ii)s i g n i f i c a n t and r e l a t i v e l y r a p i d s h i f t s i n water
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as t u r b i d i t y , temperature, conductivity, or pH which
closelycorrelatetoclimatological or surfacewaterconditions.Direct
' influence must be determined for each individual source i n accordance w i t h
. c r i t e r i ae s t a b l i s h e d by the Primacy Agency. The Primacy Agency c r i t e r i a .
may p r o v i d e f o r documentation of well construction and geology, with f i e l d
evaluation, or s i t e - s p e c i f i c measurements of water q u a l i t y as explained i n
Section 2.1.2.
Saline water sources such as the ocean are not generally considered
t o be subject t o t h e requirements of the SWTR because o f t h e low survival
time o f pathogens i n a s a l i n e environment(Geldreich, 1989). Pathogens
generally can only survive a few hours i n saline water andany remaining
pathogens should beremoved or inactivated during desalination. However,
i t i s up t o t h e Primacy Agency's d i s c r e t i o n t o determinewhich systems
must meet t h e SWTR requirements. I n cases where there i s sewage a
dischargelocatednearthewaterintake,. i t m y be appropriate for the
Primacy Agency t o r e q u i r e t h e system t o comply with the S U R .
.The t r a d i t i o n a l concept t h a t a l l water i n subsurface aquifers i s free
frompathogenicorganisms i s based upon soilbeing an e f f e c t i v e f i l t e r
t h a t nmOves microorganisms and o t h er e l a t i v e l yl a r g ep a r t i c l e sb y
s t r a i n i n g and antagonistic effects (Bouwer, 1978). . In most cases
pathogenicbacteriaretained i n thesoilfind'themselves i n a hostile
environment,arenotableto.multiply and eventuallydie. flowever, some
undergroundsourcesof drinking water may be subject t o contamination by
pathogenic organisms from the d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e o f nearby surface waters.
Only those subsurface sources which are a t r i s k t o contamination f r o m
Giardiacysts w l be subjectto.thcrequirements
i o f the SWTR. Giardia
2-1
T i \
cysts generally rhnge in size from 7 to 12 um. Subsurface sources which (, :,

may be at risk to contamination from bacteria and enteric viruses, but


* ' which are not at risk from u a r d h cysts will be regulated either under
the Total Coliform Rule or forthcoming disinfection treatment requirements
for ground waters. €PA intends to promulgate disinfection requjrements
for ground water systems in conjunction with regulations for disinfection L.

XI

1
by-productsby 1992. .
2.1.1 m g 3;.
3.

wfsLw€n -
Surface water supplies that are often used as sources -of' drinking
water include two major classifications, running ahd quiescent waters.
Streams, rivers and brooks are examples of running water, while lakes,
reservoirs, impoundments and ponds are examples of quiescent waters. The
exposure of surface waters to the atmosphere results in exposure to
precipitation events, surface water runoff and'contamination with micro '
and macroorganisms resulting from activities i n their surrounding ,areas.
These sources are subject to therequirements of theSWTR.
Systems with rain water catchments not subject to surface runoff
(e.g. roof catchment areas) are not considered vulnerable to contamination . .-

from animal populations which carry protozoan cysts pathogenic to humans .


T'.
. and are thus not subject to theSWTR requirements. However, such systems
should at least provide disinfection 'to treat f o r potential bacterial and
viral contamination coming from bird populations. I ' 4;'
.s.
ground Waters under Oirect Inf1 uence of Surface Water
Ground water sources which,may be subject to contamination with
pathogenic organisms from surface waters include, springs,' infiltration
galleries, wells or other collectors in subsurface aquifers. 'The
following section presents a recomnended procedure for determining whether
a source wi 1 1 be subject to the requirements of the SUR. These
determinations are to be made for each individual source. If the
determination will involve an evaluation of water quality, eg. particulate
analysis, it is important that these analyses be made on water taken

I One study (Markwell and Shortridge, 1981) indicates that a


cycle ofwaterborne transmission and maintenance of influenza
virus may exist within duck comnunities, and that it i s
conceivable for virus transmission to occur in this manner t o
other susceptible animals, ,.including humans. .
2-2
directly from the source and not on blended water or water from the
distribution system.
2.1.2 &$emination o f ADDliCablt Sourcu
The Primacy Agencyhas the responsibi 1 ity for determining which water
supplies must meet the requirements of the, SWTR. However, it i s the
responsibi 1 1 ty of thewater purveyors to provide the Primacy Agency with
the information needed to make this determination. This section provides
guidance to the Primacy Agency for determining which water supplies ire
surface waters or ground waters directly influenced by a surface water and
are thereby subject to the requirements of the SWTR. Following the
determination that the source is subject to the SWTR, the requirements
enumerated in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 must be met.
The Primacy Agency must develop a program for evaluating ground water
sources for direct influence by December 30, 1990. All comnunity ground
water systems must be evaluated by June 29, 1994, while all non-comnunity
systems must be evaluated by June 29, 1999. Primacy Agencies.with an
approved Wellhead Protection (WHP) Program, may be able to use the WHP
program's requirements which include delineation of wellhead protection
areas, assessment of. sources of contamination and implementation of
management control measures. These same requirements can be used for
meeting the requirements of thewatershed control program for ground water
under the direct influenceof a surfacewater.
A multiple step approach has beendeveloped as the recornended method
o f detennini ng whether a ground water sourceis under di rect inf 1 uence o f ,
a surface water. This .approach includes the r e v i e w of information
gathered during sanitary surveys. As defined by the USEPA, . a sanitary
survey is an on-site review o f the water source, facilities, equipment
operation and maintenance of a public water system for the purpose of
evaluating the adequacy of such source, facilities, equipment, operation
and maintenance for producing and distributing safe drinking water.
Sanitary surveys are required under the Total Coliform Rule and may be
required under the forthcoming disinfection requirements for ground water
systems as a condition for obtaining a variance or for determining the
level of disinfection required. Therefore, it is recornended that the
determination of direct influence be correlated with the sanitary surveys
conducted under these otherrequirements.

2-3
,.-.
A. lpvrcc Evaluation Protocol
As'il lustratcd on Figure 2-1, the determination o f whether a source
is subject to therequirements of theSWTR may involve one or more of the
following steps:
1. A review of the records of the system's source(s) to.detenine .
whether the source is obviously a surface water, i.e. pond,
lake, streams, etc.
2. If the source is a well, determination of whether it 1s clearly
a ground water source, or whether further analysis i s needed
to determine possible direct surface water influence.
3. complete review of the system's files followed by a field
r.
A
sanitary surve Pertinent infomation to gather in the file
review and fie d survey includes: source design and .construe-
tion; evidence of direct surface water contamination; water
quality analysis; indications of .waterbornedisease outbreaks;
operational procedures (i.e. pumping rates,etc.); and customer
complaints regarding water quality or water related infectious
illness.
4, Conducting particulate analyses and other water quality
sampling and analyses.
-_
Steo 1 Records Reviey '
A review of information pertaining to each source should be carried
out to identify those. sources which are obvious surface waters, These
would include ponds, lakes, streams, rivers, reservoirs, etc. 1.f the
'.V

source is a surfacewater, then the SWTR would apply, andcriteria in the


rule would need to be applied to determine if filtration.is necessary. I f
the source is not an obvious surface water, then further analyses, as
presented in Steps 2, 3, or 4, are needed to determine if the SWTR will
apply. If the source is a well (vertical or horizontal), go ,to Step 2. .
If the source is a spring, infiltration gallery, or any other subsurface
source, proceed to Step 3 for a more detailed analysis.

SteD 7. Review of We1 1 Sour=


While most well sources have historically been considered to be
ground water, recent evidence suggeststhat some wells, especially shallow
wells constructed near surface waters, may be directly influenced by
surface water. One approach in determining whether a well is subject to
contamination by surface water would be to evaluate the water quality o f
the well by the criteria in Step 4. However, this process is rather t i m e
2-4 '
Alt. Public Water

I
Obvious Surface
Sources:
Lakes, Reservoirs,
Streams, Creeks,

I*
U
Rivers, etc.

t
Source is Spring or
Infiltration Gallery

Review SystemFile
and Conduct
Sanitary Survey
I
I
Well is Protected from
Direct Surface Influence
Based on SIate
Criteria

b Source Directly 4

SWTR Applies Influenced by SWTR Does Not Apply


w surface Water? _i

I
1 _I

Conduct Particulate
, Analysis, Monitor
L
Changes in Water
Quality, Temperature,
etc.
1 I

Summary of Findings
indicate Source is A
' r
influenced by Surface
Water and Could
Contain'Giardia?

-
FIGURE 2-1 STEPS TO SOURCE CLASSIFICATION
consumingand labor intensive. In an attempt t o reduce t h e e f f o r t needed
t o evaluate well sources, a s e t o f c r i t e r i a hasbeen developed t o i d e n t i f y
wells I n deep, well protected aquifers which are not subject to contamina-
* t i o n from surfacewater.Whilethese.criteria arc not as d e f i n i t i v e as
waterqualityanalysis, i t i s believedthattheyprovide a repsonable
degree o f accuracy, and allow for a r e l a t i v e l y r a p i d d e t e m i n a t i o n f o r a
large number o f w e l l sources i n the U.S.
We1 1s with perforations or a we1 1 screen less than or equal t o 50
feet i n depth are considered t o be.shallow wells, and should b.e evaluated
fordirectsurfaceinfluenceaccordingtosteps 3. and/or 4; For wells
greaterthan SO f e e t i n depth,State or system f i l e s shouldbereviewed
f o r t h e c r i t e r i a l i s t e d below:

1. The well
construction
should include:
-
'

.
A surfacesanitarysealusingbentoniteclay,concrete
or other acceptable material
- A wellcasingthatpenetrates a confining bed.
- A well
casing or collector
laterals
that
are
only
perforated or screenedbelow a confining bed.
The importanceofevaluatingthehydrogeology o f wells or
c o l l e c t o r s , even those more than 200 feet from a surface water,
cannot beoverstated. The porosity and t r a n s m i s s i v i t oy f
aquifermaterials,hydrologicgradients, and c o n t i n u i t y o f
confining 1ayets above screens or perforations may need t o be
considered i n d e t a i l f o r some sources. Porous aquifer material
i s more l i k e l y t o a l l o w surfacewater t o d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e
groundwaterthanfinergrainedmaterials. I n addition,high
w e ll pumping rates may alter the existing hydrologic gradient.
Ground water flow di rection may change such that surface water
i s drawn i n t o a c o l l e c t o r , whereas undero wl pumping rates i t
may not. Evaluating pumping r a t e e f f e c t s and other hydrogeolo-
g i c i n f o r m a t i o n mustbedoneon a site specific basis.
I f information on wellconstruction or hydrogeology are
incomplete or raise questions regarding potential surface water
influence, amore detailed analysis i n steps 3 and 4 should be
cons idered .
2. The casing or nearestcollectorlateral should be locatedat
l e a s t 200 f e e t from any surfacewater.
3. The waterqualityrecords should indicate:

2-5
- No record o f t o t a l coliform or fecal C O i~fonn contamina-
t i o n i n u n t r e a t e d samples collected over the past three
(-3
years
- .No h i s t o r yo ft u r b i d i t y
source, .
problems associated with the

- No h i s t o r y o f known or suspectedoutbreak o f Eidrdi,&, or


* .
other pathogenic organism associated with surface water
@ * g * CrvDtosPor’d’W ), which has been a t t r i b u t e d t o t h a t
source
4. I f data i sa v a i l a b l ef o rp a r t i c u l a t em a t t e r i n the wellthere
should be:
- No ev’ldence ofparticulatematterassociatedwith
surface water,
Ifdata i s a v a i l a b l e f o r t u r b i d i t yor temperature from the well
and a nearby surface water there should be:
- No t u r b i d i t y or temperaturedatawhichcorrelates
t o t h a t o f a nearby surface water.

.We1 1s t h a t meeta1 1 o f t h e c r i t e r i a 1i s t e d above are not subject to


therequirements o ft h e SWTR, and no additionalevaluation i s needed.
Wells t h a t do not meet a11 the
requirements listedrequire
further .
evaluation i n accordance w i t h Steps 3 and/or 4 t d determine whether or not
they are directly influenced by surface water.

-
sten 3 . On site InsDectiotl
for sources otherthan a well source, theState or system f i l e s
should be reviewed for the source
construction and water quality
conditions as l i s t e d i n Step 2. Reviewing historical records i n State or
system f i l e s i s a valuableInformationgatherlngtool for any source.
However, t h e r e s u l t s may be inconclusive. A sanitary survey i n t h e f i e l d
may be h e l p f u l i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a more definite determination of whether
. thewatersource i sa tr i s kt o pathogens from directsurfacewafer
in f 1uence.

Information t o o b t a i n d u r i n g an on-site inspection include:

- Evidence that.surface water entersthesourcethrough defects


i n thesource such as lack of a surfaceseal on w e l l s , i n f i l -
2-6
tration gallery laterals exposed to surface water, springs open
to the atmosphere, surface runoff entering a spring or.other
collector, etc.

- Distances to obvious surface water sources.

If the survey indicates that the w e l l is subject to direct surface


water influence, the source must either be reconstructed as explained
later in this section or it must be treated in accordance with the
requirements for the SWTR. If the survey does not show conclusive
evidence of direct surface waterinfluence, the analysis outlined in Step
4 should be conducted .
The Washington State Oepartrnent of Social and Health Services has
developed a form toguide themand provide consistency in their evaluation
of sources for surface water influence (Notestine 8 Hudson, 1988). Table
2-1 provides a copy of this form as a guide for evaluating sources.

SteD 4. Particulate Analvsis and Other Indicators


a. surface Water Indicators
Particulate analysis is intended to identify organisms which ,only
occur in surface waters as opposed to ground waters, dnd whose presence in
a ground water would clearly indicate that at least some surface water has
been mixed. with it. The €PA Consensus Method in Appendix A can be used
for Eiardu cyst analysis.
In 1986 Hoffbuhr et. al. listed six parameters identifiable in a
particulate analysiswhich were believed tQ be validindicators of surface
contamination o f ground water. These were: diatoms, rotifers, coccidia,
plant debris, insect parts, and Jii’ardb cysts. Later work by Notestine
and Hudson (1988) found that microbiologists did not all define plant
debrls 4n the same way, and that deep wells known to be free of direct
surface water influence were shown by particulate analysis to contain
“plant debris” but none of theother five indicators. Their work suggests
that “plant debris” may not currently be a useful tool in determining
direct surface water influence, but may be in the future when a standard
definition of “plant debris” is developed. Therefore, it is recomended
that only the presence of the other five parameters; diatoms and certain.
other algae, rotifers, coccidia, insect parts, and Giardia, be used es
2-7
TABLE 2-1
FICATXON OF DRINKING WATFR S O U

1. U t i l i t y Name (100)
2. Uti1it y Person (s) Contacted
3. Source Type (As shownon state inventory)
-
- Spring
I n f i l t r a t i o n System
-
-Horizontal
ow
Shal
Well
l We11
-. Vertical
We1 1
4. Source Name Year constructed
5. I st h i s source
used
seasonally or i n t e n n i t t e n t l y ? Yes-
No
Ifyes, arewaterquality problems the reason? No . Yes-
6. Has there ever been a waterbornediseaseoutbreakassociated with
t h i s source? Yes No Ifyes, explain

7. Have there been t u r b i d i t y or bacteriological MCL v i o l a t i o n sw i t h i n .


the last five years associatedwiththis source? No
Ifyes, describefrequency, cause, remedialaction (5) taken
- -
Yes

0. Have there been consumer complaintswithinthepastfiveyears


associated
source?
with
this No Yes I f discuss
yes,
nature, frequency, remedial action taken

9. Is there any evidence o f surface water intrusion .(pH, temperature,


conductivity,
etc. changes) during
the
year? No
Yes
I fyes, describe

I f not,submitsupportingdata.
10. Sketch o f source i n plan v i e w (on an additional sheet)
sld&iUU
1. Does thewell meetgood sanitarypracticesregardinglocation, con-
Yes - -
struction, seal etc. to prevent the entrance of surface water?
No I f no, describe the deficiencies

2. What i s the depth of thewell?


Elevation of top of casin ?
'Elevation of land surface s - /?msl{
f t msl
3. Hydrogeology (Attach copy o f we1 1 l o g or suamarite i t pn reverse)
a. Depth t o s t a t i c water l e v e l ? (Feet)
b. Drawdown? (feet)
What
c. i tsh e depth t toh he i g h e s t screen or perforation?.
(feet)
d. 'Are there impervious layers above the
highest screen o f
perforation?
Yes No Unknown
I f y e i a s e dcscribe
4.
o ft h e well? Yes -No
etc.) and submit location map
-
Is there a permanent or i n t e r m i t t e n t surfacewater w i t h i n 200 feet
Ifyes, dcscribe(type,distance

What i s the
elvation
of normal pool? (ft msl)
Elevation of 100 yearflood
level? . (ft msl) '

Elevationofbottomoflake or river- ( f t msl)


5. Additional comnents:

-2-
1. a.What i s t h e s i t e o f the catchment area(acres)?
b. Give a generaldescriptionofthearea(terrain;vegetation;
s o i l etc.)

2. What i s t h e v e r t i c a l d i s t a n c e between the groundsurface and the


nearest point of entry to the spring collector(s) (feet)?

3. How r a p i d l y does r a i n f a l lp e r c o l a t ei n t ot h e ground


around the
spring?

-
- Percolates readily: seldom if ever any runoff.
Percolates readily but there i s some r u n o f f i n heavy rain.
- Percolatesslowly. Most l o c a l r a i n f a l l ponds or runs o f f .
'

-Other
4. Does an impervious layer prevent direct percolation of surface water
c otl hl eecttoo r ( s ) ? Yes No . Unknown

5. Is thespringproperlyconstructedtopreven'tentry o f surface
water? Yes No
6. Sediment
a.
b.
Is thespring box freeofdebris and sediment? Yes
When
was i t l a s t cleaned (Date
No f -
e. , How o f t e n does i t need t o be c caned?(month)
d.
\
How much sediment accumulates between cleaning?(estimate in
inches)

7. Additionalcomnents:

-3-
J n f i l t t a t f o R Svstemx
1. What aretheshortestdistances ( v e r t i c a l and horizontal seoaratina
t h e c o l l e c t o r from the nearest suiface water? (Feet)
.
-~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~-

2. Does t u r b i d i t y of thesourcevary 0.2 NTU or more throughoutthe


year? Yes No Not measured
I f yes, dcrcribc h m and how much (pH, temperature,
conductivity, etc.) .

3. AdditionalCoamcnts

Conducted Survey %y: Date:

Decision?
Impacted
Surface Source Yes No I f no,
further evaluation needed ( p a r t i c u l a t e a n a l y s w . )

..
i n d i c a t o r so fd i r e c ts u r f a c e contamination. I n addition, 'if otherlarge
diameter (> 7 um) organisms wtri.ch are c k a t l y Of surface water origin such
as piohilobothriymarepresent,theseshouldalso beconsidered as
indicators of direct surface water influence.
b: J n t e m r e t a t i o q .
Sincestandard methods
have not been developed s p e c i f i c a l l yf o r
particulate analysis, there has not been consistency i n the way samples
have been c o l l e c t e d and analyzed.Differences i n t h e degree o ft r a i n i n g .

and experience of the microbiologists hasadded f u r t h e r t o t h e d i f f i c u l t y


i n comparing resultsfrom sample t o sample,and system t o system. The
c u r r e n t l i m i t a t i o n s .in Sample co1lection and a n a l y t i c a l procedures must be
considered when i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e r e s u l t s . Until standardized methods are
developed, t h e €PA ConsensusMethod included i n Appendix A i s recanmended
as t h ea n a l y t i c a l method forparticulateanalysis. The following i s a
discussion of the significance of finding the six indicators identified
above
I d e n t i f i c a t i o no f a G i a r d i ac y s ti n any sourcewatershouldbe
consideredconclusiveevidenceofdirectsurfacewaterinfhence. The
repeatedpresence o f diatoms i n sourcewatershouldbeconsidered as
conclusiveevidenceofdirectsurfacewaterinfluence. However, i t i s
important that this determination bebasedon 1i.ve diatoms , and not empty
s i l i c a skeletons which may o n l yi n d i c a t et h eh i s t o r i c a l presence of.
surface water.
Bluegreen, green, or otherchloroplastcontainingalgaerequire
sunlightfortheirmetabolism asdo diatoms. For t h a t reason t h e i r
repeated presence i n source water should also be considered as conclusive
evidence of direct surface water influence.
Hoffbuhr (1986) i n d i c a t etsh ar ot t i f e r s and insect partsare
indicators of surface water. Others have pointed out though t h a t r o t i f e r s
do not require sunlight, and n o t a l l r o t i f e r s r e q u i r e a foodsource such
as algaewhich o r i g i n a t e s i n surfacewater.Theirnutritionalrequire-
ments may be s a t i s f i e d by organic matter such as bacteria, or decomposing
s o i l organicmaterial,notnecessarilyassociatedwithsurface water.
More p r e c i s e' i d e n t i f i c a t i o no fr o t i f e r s ,i . e .t ot h es p e c i e sl e v e l , is
necessary t o determine thespecific nutritional requirements o f the
rotifer(s)present.Furtherinformation on i d e n t i f y i n gr o t i f e r species
andon whichspeciesrequirefoodsourcesoriginating i n surface w a t e r ,
2-8
would be valuable, but is not readily available at this time. Without ‘.f-\
, . I
knowledge of which specie.$ is present, the finding of rotifers indicates
that the source is either a) directly influenced by surface water, or b)
it contains organic matter sufficient to support the growth o f rotifers.
It could be conservatively assumed based on this evidence alone that such
a source is directly influenced by surface water. However, it i s
recornended that this detennination be supported by other evidence, eg.
the source is near a surface water, turbidity fluctuations are signifi- .
cant, etc. -
Insects or insect parts 1 i kewise may originate in surface water, frolll
the soi 1,or they may be airborne in uncovered sources. If insects are
observed in a particulate analysis sample, it should be confinned if
possible that there is no other route by which insects could contaminate
the source other than surface water. For example, if a spring is sampled,
and the cover is not w e l l constructed, it i s possible that insects found
in a sample were airborne ratherthan waterborne. Insects which spend a
portion of their lifecycle in water are the best indicators of direct
surface water influence, for example, larvae of mayflies,’ stoneflies,
damselflies, and dragonflies. Terrestrial insects should not be ruled out .--

as -surface water indicators though, since their accidental presence in .


is surface wa’ter common . .,

Howell , (1989) has indicated that some insects may burrow and the
finding of .eggs or burrowing larvae (eg. chironomids) kay notbegood .., .

indicators o f direct surface water in’fluence. For some insects this may .
be true, but the distance which insects burrow in subsurface sediments is
expected to be small, and insect 1 arvae are generally large in comparison
to Giardia cysts. Until further research suggests otherwise, it i s
recomnded that insects or insect parts beconsidered strong evidence of
surface water influence if not direct evidence in and of themselves. The
strength of this evidencewould be increased i f the source in question is
. near.a surface water, and particulate analysis of the surface water found
similar insects.
Coccidia are intracellular parasites which occur primarily in verte-
brates, eg. .animals and fish, and live in various tissues and organs
including the intestinal tract (cg. Cryptosporidium). Though not
frequently identified by normal,particulate analysis techniques, coccidia
are good indicators of direct surface water contamination since they
2-9
require a vertebrate'host or hosts and are generally large in size (10 -
20 urn or greater). Cryptosporidium is comnonly found in surface water,
-
but due to its small size (4 6 urn) it is notnormally identified without
specific antibody staining techniques.

-
Other macroorganisms (>7 urn) which are parasitic to animals and fish
may be found and are good indicators of surface waterinfluence. Examples
include, but are not limited to, helminths (cog., tape w o
n cysts),
ascaris, and Diphyllobothrium.
.
c.
A suggested protocol for collecting samples is listed below.
- - Samples should be collected using the equipment outlined in the
€PA Consensus Method included in Appendix A,
.
I Lgcatior\
Samples should always be collected as close to thesource as
possible, and prior to any treatment. If samples must be taken
after disinfection, samples should be. noted and analyzed as
soon as possible.
-Numbct
A minimum of two samples should be collected duving the period
the source is most susceptible to surface water influence.
Such critical periods will vary from system to system and will
need to be detenined case by case.. For some systems, it may
be one or more days following a significant rainfall (eg. 2"
.in 24 hours). For other systems it may be a period of maximum
flows and stream turbidities following spring snowmelt, or
during the sumer months when water tables are elevated as a
result of irrigation. In each case, particulate samples should
be collected when the sourcein question is most effected. A
surrogate measure such as source turbidity or depth to water
table may be useful in making the decision to monitor. If
there is any ambiguity in the particulate analysis results,
additional samples should be collected when there is the
greatest 1 ikel ihood that the source wi 1 1 be contaminated by
surface water.
-Volume
Sample volume should be between 5QO and 1000 gal lons , and
should be collected over a 4 to 8 hour time period, It is
preferable to analyze a similar(+/- 10%) volume of water for
all sources, preferably a large volume, althougti this may not
always be possible due to elevated turbidity or saniplin
logistics. The volume filtered should be recorded for a1
samp 1 es. s
2-10
d. gther Indicators c"
.
A 'number of other i.ndicators could be used to provide supportive
evidence Of Surface influence. While particulate analysis probably
' provides the most direct evidence that pathogens'frm surface water could
be migrating into 'a ground water source, other parameters .such as .
turbidity, temperature, pH and conductivity could provide Supportive, but
less direct, evidence.
-
Turbidity fluctuations of greater than 0.5 1 NTU over the course .
of a year may be indicative of surface water influence. Considerable
caution should be usedwhen evaluating turbidity changes though, since the
turbidity could be Caused by very small particles (c lum) notoriginating
in a surface water or it could be that larger particles are being filtered
out and only the very smallest particles migrate into the water source.
Only ground water sources at risk to contamination from or other
large pathogens (> 7 urn) are subject to theSWTR requirements.
Temperature fluctuations may also indicate surface water 'influence.
Fortunately these are easy to obtain and if there is a surface water
within 500 feet o f the water source, measurements of both should be
recorded for comparison. Large changes in surface water temperature
closely followed by similar changes in source temperature would be
indicative of surface water influence. Also, temperature changes (in
degrees F) o f greater than 15 to 20% over the course of a year appear to '

be a characterirt.ic o f some sources influenced by surface water (Randall,


1970). Changes in other chemical parameters such as pH, conductivity, .
hardness,etc. could also be monitored. Again, these would not give a
direct indication of whether pathogens originating in surface water were
present, but could indicate whether the water chemistry was or was not
similar to a nearby surface water and/or whether source water chwgistry
changed in a similar pattern to surface waterchemistry. At this time no .. '
numerical guidelines are available to differentiate what is or is not
similar, so these comparisons are more qualitative than quantitative.

8- &&ammu=
Some sources may only be used for part of the year, for example
during the sumner months when water usage is high. These sources should
notbe excluded from evaluation and, like other sources, should be '

evaluated during their period(s) of highest susceptibility. Particular .


2-1 1
attentionshould .be g i v e n t o those sourceswhichappear t o be d i r e c t l y
influenced by surface water during part of the year. there may be times
during which these subsurface water sources are not influenced by surface
water and other times when they are part or a l l surface water. Ift h a t i s 3

the c'ase, then i t i sc r i t i c a lt h a tc a r e f u lt e s t i n g be done p r i o rt o ,


during and a t t h e end of the use o f t h e source. This should be doneOver

-
several seasons t o account for seasonal variation. I n practice, i t i s
preferable t o use sources which are less vulnerable t o contamination since
susceptible
sources w l necessitate
i ongoing monitoring and close
attention to operation.

c.
. Sources d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e d by surfacewater may be a l t e r e d i n some
cases t o e l i m i n a t e t h e surface water contamination. Primacy Agencies may
e l e c t t o a l l o w systems w i t h such sources t o modify the construction of the
. sourceand/or t h e areasurroundingthesource i n an e f f o r t t o eliminate
surfacewatercontamination.Since t h i sc o u l d be
expensive and take
considerabletime t o evaluateforeffectiveness,carefulconsideration
should be given t o t h e d e c i s i o n t o modify a source. I n deciding whether
source modificationisappropriate, systems and Primacy Agencies should .
consider the following points:
- I s t h e cause ofthesurfacewatercontamination
s p e c i f i c cause or point of surface water contamination
known? Ifthe
i s not
known, i t w l not be possibletodetermine
i an effective
controlstrategy.Further,there may beseveral reasons why
the source i s susceptible to direct surface water influence.
For examp1e,an i n f i l t r a t i o n g a l l e r y MY receive surface water
because some of i t s l a t e r a l s a r e exposed i n t h e bed o f a nearby
stream, and also because l a t e r a l s d i s t a n t from the stream are
shallow and areaffectedbysurfacerunoff. Simply modifying
or e l i m i n a t i n g one or the other set o f l a t e r a l s i n t h i s case
would notenttrelyeliminatesurfacewaterinfluence. .
- Uhat i s t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e source w
e f f e c t i v e ? Assuming that the source of contamination
l be
i
has been
i d e n t i f i e d ,t h e expected effectivenessofcontrol measures
should be evaluated. I f the cause ' i sr e l a t i v e l ye v i d e n t , a
c r a c k f n a well casing or an uncovered spring box for example;
thenthere i s a high degree ofconfidencethat an effective
solution could be developed. Should the nature of the contdmi- .' ? '

nation be more diffuse, or widespread, thenthemeritsof


spending time andmoney t o modify the source should be careful-
l y considered. I n t h e case o f the example above, eliminating
t h e use o f t h e l a t e r a l s under the stream w l solve part of the
i

2-1 2
problem. However, withoutconsiderabl amre hydrogeologic
information about the aquifer and the p actrnent of the other
laterals, i t i s not clear what, ifany, control measureswould
r
effectively eliminate direct surface water influence i n those
laterals distant from the stream.

Ifa source i s i d e n t i f i e d as beingdirectlyinfluenced bysurface


water, and i t i s decided t o attempt t o modify it, interimdisinfection
practices which w l ensure a t l e a s t 99.9% inactivation o f Giardia should
i
be considered. Methodsand l e v e l s o f d i s i n f e c t i o n whichcan-be used t o
achieve such removalscanbefound i n S141.72 (a) o ft h e 'SWTR and i n
Section 3.2 o f t h i s manual. ..
A p a r t i a l l i s t i n g of types of modifications which could be undertaken
includes:
- Oivertingsurfacerunoff frm springs by trenching,etc.
- Redeveloping springs t o capture them belowa confininglayer.
- Covering open springcollectors.
- Reconstructing w e l l s t ion s t a sl l a n i t a r sy e a l s ,
screen them' i n a confined(protected)aquifer.
and/or t o

- Repairing cracks or breaks i n any type o f source col1,ector t h a t


allows the, entry of surface contaminants.
- Discontinuethe
surface water.
use o f i n f i l t r a t i o nl a t e r a l s which intercept

An extended periodofmonitoringshouldfollowreconstruction (eg.


t o years or c r i t i c a l periods) t o evaluatewhether t h e .
through a t least w
source i s still directly influenced by surfacewater. Preferably
.
.. particulate analysis wouldbeused t o make such evaluations,but i t nay be , .,
helpful' t o use simpler measures,such as temperature and t u r b i d i t y , as
screening tools. Longer term m n i t o r i n g a t c r i t i c atimes
l may also be an
appropriate agrement between t h e system and the Primacy Agency i f there
i s s t i l l doubtabout the long tern effectiveness of the solution.
Ifmodification i s not fkasible, another alternative to avoid having
' t o cornply with the SWTR may be t o develop a new w e l l e i t h e r deeper OF a t
a disffcrent location,

2-13
s
u
f
2.2n
I
€DR
tc
az
u
m
r
_ie
s
n
t
According t o the S U R , a l l c m u n i t y and nonconmunity pub1 i c water
systems which use asurfacewatersource or a groundwaterunderthe ,

direct influence of a surface water must achieve a minimum o f 99.9 percent


(3-log)removaland/or inactivationofGiardiacysts, and a minimum of
99.99 percent (4-log) removaland/or inactivation of viruses. In the SWTR
and t h i s manual, yvirusesN means virusesoffecaloriginwhich are
i n f e c t i o ut os humans waterborne
by transmission. F i l t r a t i opnl u s '
d i s i n f e c t i o n or disinfectionalone may be u t i l i z e d' t o achievethese
performance levels, depending on the sourcewaterqual i t y and s i t e
specific conditions. The SWTR establishes these ranoval and/or inactiva-
t i o n requirements based on Giardia and viruses because t h i sl e v e l of
treatment w l alsoprovideprotection
i from heterotrophicplatecount
(HPC) bacteria and Lcafonclla* as required in the SDUA amendments.
Guidelines f o r meeting the requirements o f t h e SWTR are provided i n
theremainder o f t h i s manual as o u t l i n e d i n Section 1. A l systemsmust
w e t the operator qualifications presented i n Section 2.3.

2.3 QDeratorPersonnel Oualificatiou


The SWTR requires that a1 1 systems must be operated by qual i f i e d
personnel. It i s r e c o m n d e dt h a tt h e Primacy Agency setstandards f o r
o p e r a t o r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , i n accordance with the system type and s i z e . I n
order t o accomplish t h i s , t h e Primacy Agency shoulddevelopamethod of
evaluating an operator's competence i n operating a water'treatmnt system.
. PrimacyAgencieswhich do n o tc u r r e n t l y have ac e r t i f i c a t i o n program'are
thereby encouraged t o implement such a program. An o p e r a t o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n
program providesauniform base foroperatorqualifications and
an
organized system for evaluating these qualifications.
It i s nccnunended thatplantoperators have abasic knowledge o f
science, mathematics and chemistryinvolvedwithwatertreatment and
supply. The minimum requirements f o r a t l e a s t onekey s t a f f member should
include an understanding of:
. '

2
I nt h e SWTR and t h i s manual "m"
means a genus o f
bacteria, some species o f which have caused a type of pneumonia
called Legionnaires Disease; the etiologic dgent of most cases
o f Legionnaires Disease examined has been L m D h i l g .
2-14
The principles of water
characteristics
treatment and d i s t r i b u t i o n and t h e i r (-1
The uses of potable water and v a r i a t i o n s i n i t s demand
The importance o f water q u a l i t y t o pub1i c h e a l t h
The equipment, operation and maintenance o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n
system %?

The treatment
process
equipment u t i l i zoei pt dse, r a t i o n a l 5
parameters and maintenance '. !&

9 The principles of each process u n i t ( i n c l u d i n g ' t h e s c i e n t i f i c


basis and purpose of the operation and the mechanical compo-
nents of the unit)
Performance c r i t e r i a such as t u r b i d i t y , t o t a l c o l i f o r m , f e c a l
c o l Ifonn, disinfectant residual,. pH, ete. t o determine opera-
t i o n a l adjustments
Comnon operating problems encountered i n the system and actions
t o c o r r e c t them
The currentNationalPrimaryDrinking Water Regulations, the
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations and monitoring and
reportingrequirements I :

Methods o f sample c o l l e c t i o n and sample presewation


-
.."
Laboratory equipment and tests used.to analyze samples (where
appropriate) Tj
1
- ?.--
The use o f laboratory results to analyze ,plant efficiency
.~

Record ktepi ng .
ions
Customer re1 at
Budgeting and supewision (where appropriate)

Traini'ng i n the areas l i s t e d aboveand others i s availablethrough


the American Uater Works Association (AWA) t r a i n i n g courseseries for
water supply operations. The courseseriesincludes a setoffour
t r a i n i n g manuals andon'e reference book as follows:
- Introduction t o Water Sources and Transmission (Volume 1) ,.
- I n t r o d u c t i o nt o Water Treatment (Volume 2)
- Introduction t o Water D i s t r i b u t i o n (Volume 3)
- Introduction t o Water Qual it y Analyses (Volume 4)
2-15 '
- Reference Handbook: Basic Science Concepts and Applications
- Instructor Guide and Solutions Manual for Volumes 1, 2, 3 and
4

These manualsare availablethrough the American Water ,Works Associa-


tion, 6666 West QuincyAvenue., Oenver, Colorado80235 USA, (303) 794-7711.
The State of California also offers a series of training manuals for
water treatment plant operators prepared by the California State.
University School of Engineering in Sacramento. The laanuals .-include:
1. Water Supply System Operation. (1 Volume)
2. Water Treatment Plant Operation. (2 Volumes)
' These operator training manuals are available from California State
University, Sacramento, 6000 3 Street, Sacramento, California 95819, phone ~

(916) 454-6142.
Completion of an established training and certification program will
provide the meansof assuring that the operatorshave received training in
their respective area, and are qualified for their position. 'The
education and experience requirements for certification should be
comnensurate withthe size and the complexity of thetreatment system. At
the present time, some states have instituted a certification program
while others have not. Following is a rumnary of thebasic contents of a
certification program, which can serve as a guide to thePrimacy Agencyin
developing .a complete program.
- Board of examiners for the development and 'implementation of
the program. '
- Classification of treatment facilities by grade according to
the sizeand technology of the facilities.
- Educational and experience requirements for operators of the
various treatment faci 1 i ties accordingto grade.
- A written/oral examination to determine the knowledge, ability
and judgement of the applicants with certification obtained
upon receiving a passing grade.
- Renewal program for thelicense of certification, including the
requirement of additional coursework or participation in
workshops

The .certification program should provide technically qualified


personnel for theoperation of the plant.
2-15
The extensive responsibility which is placed on the operating (-)
. .

personnel warrants the developmentof an outline of theresponsibilities


and authority of the personnel members to aid them in the efficient
operation of the plant. The major responsibilities which should be
delegated in theoutlineof responsibilities include:the,normal
day-to-day operations, preventive maintenance, field engineering, water
' quality monitoring,troubleshooting, emergency response, cross-connection -.
-
control, Implementation of improvements, budget forawlation, response to'
-
eoraplaints and public/press contact. A reference whlch'the Primacy Agency
may utilize in developing the outline is "Water Utility Management
practices" published by AWA.

2-17 .
. .

The provisions of the Surface Water Treatment Rule ( S U R ) require


t h a t f i l t r a t i o n must be included i n the tnatlacnt train unless certain
c r i t e r i a are met. These c r i t e r i a are described i n t h i s chapter: They
include:
source Water Oualitv Condfticrns
1. Coliformconcentrations(total or fecal) .
levels. 2. Turbidity
-
. .
. -
I. Level of
disinfection.
2. Point o f entry
disinfection.
3. Distribution system disinfection.
4. Disinfection redundancy or automatic
shutoff.

2. O n 4 t e inspections.
3. No waterborne
disease
outbreaks.
4. Conrpl ieswiththetotalcoliform MCL. .

5. Complies withthe
Total *Trihalomethane (TTHM) regulation.
Currentlythisonlyappliestosystemserving aore than
10,000 people.

The purpose o f this section i s t o provide guidance t o t h e Primacy


Agency for determining compliance with these provisions.

3.1 w e Hater Oualitv Criteria


The first step i n determining i f f i l t r a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d f o r a, given
surface water supply i s t o determine whether the supply meets the source’
water q u a l i t yc r i t e r i a as specifiedinthe SUTR. I f thesupply does not ’ .
meet the sourcewater . .
q u a l i t y c r i t e r i a , changes i n operation t o meet the
s i t e - s p e c i f i c c r it e r i a may improve the water q u a l i t y so that the source-
3-1
.
c r i t e r i aW i 11 be met However, i f the Primacy Agency bel ieves that the

-
source water q u a l i t y c r i t e r i a and/or the site-specific criteria cannot be
met , or that f i1t r a t i o n i s a p p r o p r i a t eregardless, the Primacy Agencymay
requ,ire t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f f i l t r a t i o n w i t h o u t a complete evaluation t o
determinewhether the systemmeetsa11 thecriteriarequiredtoavoid .
filtration.

The SWTR requires that source water samples be collected at a loca-


tion just prior to the 'point of disinfectant application," Le., where
the water i sd i s i n f e c t e d andno longersubject t o surface6noff. For
example,a systemwhich has multiple reservoirs i n series, where each o f
thereservoirs has previously been disinfected and receivessurface
runoff, must takethe raw water sample(s) j u s t . p r i o r t o t h e p o i n t o f
disinfection or disinfection sequences used forcalculatingthe Cl
[disinfectantresidual (mg/L) x contacttime (min.)]. Disinfectedwater
i n reservoirs receiving surface runoff cannot be counted toward CT credit.
It i s also not appropriate for systems t o monitor the sourcewater after.
the"pointofdisinfectantapplication" even i f disinfection from t h i s
p o i n t i s n o t used for calculating CT credit.
3.1.1 D l i f o n n Concentrations: The SWTR statesthat,toavoid
f i l t r a t i o n , a s y s t m must demonstrate thateitherthefecalcolifom
concentration i s less than 20/100 la1 pf the total colifom concentration
i s less than 100/100 a1 i n the water p r i o r t o t h e p o i n t of disinfectant
application i n 90 percent of the samples takenduringthesixprevious .
months. Where monitoring f o r both parameters hasbeen or i s conducted,
the rule requires that only the f e c a l c o l i f o b l i
m t be met. H&ver, €PA
i
recocrmcnds that the analytical results for both total coliforms and fecal
coliforms be reported. I n addition, i f t h e t u r b i d i t y o f a surfacewater
source i s greater than 5 NTU and thesurface source i s blended with a
ground water source t o reduce the turbidity, €PA recoamends that the high
turbidity water prior to blending wet the fecal colifom source water
qual it y c r i t e r i a .
Elevated c o l i f o m l e v e l s i nsurface water indicate higher probabili-
t i e s of fecalcontamination, some, o f which could be protected from
exposure t o d i s i n f e c t i o n by embodiment i n particulate matter. Blending of
3-2
C

- 18t CUSTOMER
FIGURE 3-2 INDlVlDUAlLY DISINFECTED
SURFACE SOURCES COMBINED
AT A SINGLE POINT
the surface water with ground water to reduce colifom levels nay obscure
the indication Of such possible effects. Thus, €PA does not m c m e n d
blending to reduce coliform levelsin the source water. Furthemre, EPA
does not reconaKnd blending to reduce turbidity levels in cases where
elevated fecal contaminationmy be masked.
Ongoing monitoringis required to ensure thatthese requirements are

--
continually net. The samples may be analyzed using either the multiple
tube fennentation methodor the membrane filter test (MF) as describedin
the 16th Edition of Standard Methods.
v
Minimum sampling frequencies are as follows:

Grab samples mutt be taken on different days. In addition, one


sample mustbe taken every day during which the turbidity exceeds 1 NTU,
unless the Primacy Agency determines that the system, for logistical
reasons outside the system's control; cannot have the sample analyzed
within 30 hours of collection. If taken, these samples count towards the
weekly sampling requirclacnt. Also, underthe fatal Coliform Rule, systems
must take one colifom sample in the distribution systcra near the first
service connection within 24 hours after a source water turbidity
measurement exceeds 1 NTU. This measurementrust be includedin the total
colifom compliance determination. The purpose of these requirements is
to ensure that the monitoring occurs during worst case.conditions. .
The initial evaluationof thesource water qualityis based on the
data from the previous 6 months. After the initial evaluation, systems
must continue to conduct sampling each knth to demonstrate compliance
.
with the source water quality criteria on an ongoing basis. If the
criterion has not beenmet, the systcm must filter.
use of Historical Data Box

3-3
. .
Some systems may already monitor their sourcefor watertotal and/or
fecal colifoim concentration. The resulting historical data base maybe
sufficient for the Primacy Agency to make the initial determination of
whether the system laeats the source water quality criteria.. the
historical data base is considered sufficient for making this dttemina-
tion if:
- The raw water sampling location i s upstream of the point of .
disinfectant apglication as pnvlously defined.
- The monthly samples represent at least the minimum sampling
frequency previously mentioned.
0 The sampling period coversat least the previous six months,

3.1.2 Jurbiditv Level$: To avoid filtration, the turbidity of the


water prior to disinfection cannot exceed '5 NTU, on an ongoing basis,
. based on grab samples collected every four hours more frequently)
(or that
the system i s in operation. A system may substitute continuous turbidity
monitoring for grab sample monitoring if it validates such easurements
.-.,
for accuracy with grab sample measurements on a regular basis, as . I

specified by the Primacy Agency.' If a public water system uses conti nu-
. 'ous monitoring, it must use turbidity values recorded every four hours (or
some shorter regular time interval) to determine whether it w e t s the
turbldity limitfor raw water. A systm occasionally 'may exceed the 5 NTU
limit and still avoid filtration as long as (a) the. Primacy Agency '

determines that each event occurred because of unusual or unpredictable -


circumstances and (b) as a resultof this event, there have not been awe
than two such events i n the past twelve months the system served waterto
the public or more than five such eventsin the past 120 months.*the system

* Validation should be perfomed at least twice a week based on the


procedure outlined in Part 214A in the 16th Edition o f Standard
'Methods. Although the 17th Edition is available,the 16th Edition is
that which i s referred to i n the rule. Improper installation o f
continuous monitors may a1 l o w for air bubbles to enter the monitor
resulting in false turbidity spikes.to avoid air bubbles reaching the
turbidimeter, the sample tap shouldbe installed belowthe center line
of the pipe and an air release valve may be included onthe sample
line.
3 -4
served water tothepublic. An Yevent" i s defined as a seriesof
consecutive days i n which atleast one t u r b i d i t y measurement eachday
exceeds 5 NTU.
' It i s important t o note that everyevent, i.e. exceedance of the 5
NTU 1i tn t, regardless o f whether the system must f i l t e r as a consequence,
i
constitutes a v i o l a t i o n of a treatment technique requirement. For
example, i f t h e t u r b i d i t y exceeded 5 NTU i n a t l e a s t onerneasurcrncnteach .
day for three consecutive days, t h i s would constitute one event andone
treatment technique violation.. I f t h i s was t h e t h i r d event i n the past 12
months the system servedwater to the public, or the sixth event i n the
past 120 months the system had servedwater t o thepublic,the system
would also be r e q u i r e d t o i n s t a l l f i l t r a t i o n . I n a l l cases, the system
must infonn the Primacy Agencywhen t h e t u r b i d i t y exceeds 5 NTU assoonas
possible, but no l a t e r than the end o f the next business day.
The Primacy Agency should evaluate additional data from'the u t i l i t y
t o determine the significance o f the event with respect t o t h e p o t e n t i a l
h e a l t h r i s k t o t h e comaunity and determine whether a b o i l water n o t i c e i s
necessary. The additional data may include raw water fecalcoliform
levels, duration and magnitudeof t h e t u r b i d i t y excursion, nature o f the
turbidity(organic or inorganic) , disinfectantresidualenteringthe
system duringtheexcursion and/or coliform levels in the distribution
system following the excursion. Boil water notices are not required under
the SWTR, they may be issued at the discretion of the Primacy Agency.
I n o r d e r t o determine i f theperiodswithturbiditygreater than .
' 5 NTU areunusual or unpredictable, i t i s recomaended t h a t i n a d d i t i o n t o
t hhei s t o r i c taul r b i d i t y data, the water purveyor should c o l l e c t and .
provide to thePrimacy Agency current and h i s t o r i c a l i n f o m a t i o n on flows,
reservoir water levels, climatological conditions, andany other infoma-
t i o n t h a t t h e Primacy Agencydeems relevant. The Primacy Agency w l then
i
evaluate thisinformationto determine i f the event was unusual or
unpredictable. Examples o f unusual or unpredictable events
include
hurricanes , floods and earthquakes.High t u r b i d i t y events may be avoided
by :
- Use o f an alternate source which i s not a surface water and
does not have t o m e t the requirements of the SWTR.
- Use Of an alternate source‘which i s not a surface water and
does not have .to meet the requlremcnts of the SWTR.
- .

- Use of an alternate source which i s a.surfacewater and which


doesmeet the requirements. of the SHTR.
*- U t i l i z a t i o n o f stored water t o supplythe comnunity u n t i l t h e
source water quality meets the criteria.

3.2 4m
-
3.2.1 I n a c t i v a t i o n Reuuirgngsl& -
To avoid f i l t r a t i o n , a system m s t demonstrate that it maintains
disinfection conditions which inactivate 99.9 percent o f Gfatdla cysts and
99.99 percent o f v i ruses every day of operation except anyonedayeach
month. Ifthedisinfectionconditionsprovidelessthantheseinactiva-
tions during more than oneday of the month, the system i s i n violation o f
.. a treatmenttechniquerequirement. Ifthe system incurs such a v i o l a t i o n
during any w t o months i n the previous 12 months, the system must i n s t a l l
f i l t r a t i o n , unless‘oneoftheviolations was caused
by unusual and
unpredictablecircumstances as determined by the Primacy Agency.Systems
withthree or atore violations i n theprevious 12 monthsmust install
f i l t r a t i o n regardless otfh e cause of the
violation. To demonstrate .
adequate inactivations, the system must monitor and record the disinfec- ’

tant(s) used, disinfectant residual (5) , disinfectant contact time(s), pH.


( f o r chlorine) , and water temperature, and use these data t o determine if
i t i s m e t i n g t h e minimum total inactivation requirements i n the rule.
A number of disinfectants are available, including ozone, chlorine,
chlorinedioxide and chloramines. The SWTR prescribes CT [C, residual
disinfectantconcentration (mg/L) x T, contacttime(min)]levels for
these disinfectants which w i
l achieve different levels o f inactivation
under various conditions. The disinfcctant(s) used t o w e t t h e i n a c t i v a -
t i o n requirements i s i d e n t i f i e das the primary disinfectant throughout the
remainder o f t h i s document.
To deternine compliance with the inactivation requirements, a system
must calculate the CT value(s) for i t s disinfection conditions during peak
hourlyflow Once each day that i t i s delivering water t o i t s customers.
For the purpose of calculating CT value, T i s thetime ( i n QinUtes) i t

3-6
takesthe wdter, during peak hourly f.low, t o m v e between thepoint of
disinfectant + app1icatiOn and a point where, C, residualdisinfectant
concentration i s measured p r i ottrohfei r s t customer. Residual
disinfectantconcentration i s theconcentrationofthedisinfectant(in
mg/L) at a pointbefore or a t h ef i r s t customer. Contact time i n
pipelines must be calculated based on plug flow (i.e. , where a l l water
moves homogeneously i n time betweentwo points) by dividing the internal
volume of the pipeline by the peak hourlyo lfwrate through that pipeline.
Contact time within mixing baslns, settling basins storage reservoirs, and
any other tankage must be determined by tracer studies or an equivalent
method as determined by the Primacy Agency.The contact m ti e deterrained
from tracerstudies t o be used forcalculating CT , i s .;T, T,, i s the
detention time corresponding to the time for which 90 percent of the water
hasbeen i n contact with at least the residual concentration, C. Guidance
f o r determining contact times f o r basins i s provided i n Appendix C.
The f i r s t customer i s t h e p o i n t a t which finished water i s f i r s t
consumed. I n many cases t h i s w i
l includethetreatmentplantitself.
This d e f i n i t i o no ff i r s t customer pertainingto.thepointof first .
consumption assures t h a t t h e water has received the required disinfection
- t o provideprotectionfrom microorganisms f o r a l l consumers. Peak hourly
flow should be considered as the greatest volusn'of water passing through
the system during anyone hour i n a consecutive 24 hour period. Thus, i t
i s not meant t o be the absolute peak flow occurring at any instant during
the day.
. Systems with only one point of disinfectant application may
determine t h e t o t a l i n a c t i v a t i o n based onone point o f residual measure-
ment p r i o rt o' t h ef i r s t customer, or on a p r o f i l eo ft h er e s i d u a l
concentrationafterthepointofdisinfectantapplication. Methods of.
dis'infcction measurement are presented i n Appendix 0. The residual
p r o f i l e and t h e t o t a l i n a c t i v a t i o n i s c a l c u l a t e d as follows:
- kasurethedisinfectantresidual,
within the treatment train.
C, a t anynumber ofpoints

- Deterninethetraveltime, TI between thepoint of disinfec-


tantapplication and thepoint where C i s measured forthe
f i r s t section. For subsequent measurements o f "C," T i s the

3-7
time i t takes f o r water t o m v e from the previous "C" owkure-
nant p o i n t t o t h i s p o i n t of aeasurment.
- Calculate CT for each pointofresidual measurement (CTc,lc)*
- OeterJaine theinactivationratio
tion,
(CT~*,l,/CT,,,9) f o r each sec-

- Sum the inactivation ratios for


+ C T,/CT,, e + C,t,/Ct,,,,
each section, i.e. C,T /CT ,,
t o determine t h e t o t a l i n a c t h a t f o n
ratio. #

-
I f the total inactivation .ratio (sum (CTe,,JCT,,.,)) 4s equal t o or greater
than 1.0, the system providesgreaterthan 99.9 percent inactivation of
Giardia cysts), and the system meets thedisinfection performance re-
quirement. Further explanation of CT calculations i s presented i n Section
3.2.2.
b Systems need onlycalculate one CT (CTC,,J each day, f o r a pointat
or p r i o r t o t h e first customer; alternatively they have the option of cal-
culating numerous CTs afterthepointofdisinfectantapplicationbut.
% p r i o r t o t h e f i r s t customer t o deterninetheinactivationratio. Profil-
* ing the residual gives credit for the higher residuals which e x i s t a f t e r
the disinfectant s i applied but before the first customer. P r o f i l i n g t h e
residual may not be necessary i f one CT i s calcul-ated (CTC,,J, and t h i s
exceeds theapplicable CT,,,,. I n t h i s case, the ,system i s meeting the
disinfection perfomance requirement. for systems with a very low oxidant
demand i n t h e water and long contact times, t h i s approach may be the most
- p r a c t i c taol use.
For systcms with multiple points of 'disinfectant application,. such
as ozone followed by chlorine, or chlorine applied at w t o different points
i n thetreatmenttrain,theinactivationratio.of each disinfectant
section prior t o t h ef i r s t customer i s used t o determtne the.total
inactivation ratio. The disinfectant residual
of each disinfection

2
CT,,,, i s t h e CT value required t o achieve 99.9 percent or 3-1og E_iprdia
cyst in,activation for the conditions of' pH, temperature and residual
concentration for each section. A section i s the portion o f the system
with a measurable contacttime between two pointsofdisinfection
application or residual monitoring.
3-8
section.md the corresponding contact tine must be measured a t s&e point
p r i o r t o t h esubsequent disinfection application point($) to determine the
' i n a c t i v a t i o n r a t i o f o r each section, and whether. the t o t a l inactivation
ratio s i 1.0 or more. For example, if'the first disinfectionsection
provided an i n a c t i v a t i o n r a t i o o f 213 (or 99 percent inactivation) 'and the
second disinfection section provided an i n a c t i v a t i o n r a t i o o f 1/3 (or 90
percent inactivation), the total Inactivation ratio would equal 1.0 (2/3
+ 1/3 = 1) indicatingthat 99.9% inactivation was provided and the
disinfection requirementsare met. Further explanation o f thedetemina-
t i o n of t o t a l i n a c t i v a t i o n provided is contained i n Section 3.2.2.
s
The SWTR establishes CTs for chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ozoneand
chloramines which w l achieve 3-109 i n a c t i v a t i o n s o f a a r d b c y s t s and a t
i
least 4-100 inactivationofviruses. Appendix E presentsCfs for these
and otherloginactivations. A system must demonstratecompliance with
the inactivation requirements based on conditions occurring 'during peak
hourly flow. Since a system generally can only identify peak hourly flow
a f t e r i t has occurred,hourlyresidual measurements duringthe day are
suggested. I f the sampling points are remote, or manpower i s l i m i t e d and
collection o f hourly grab samples i s impractical, continuous monitors may.
be i n s t a l l e d .I n caseswhere continuousmonitorsareimpractical., the
- Primacy Agency may establish an acceptable monitoring program on a
case-by-case basis; where possible this should be based on h i s t o r i c a l flow
patterns. Measurements for.the hour o f peak flow can then beused in
calculating C t . ThepH ( f o r systems using chlorine) and temperature must
be determined d a i l y f o r each disinfection sequence p r i o r ' t o the f i r s t
customer.
Since the system's i n a c t i v a t i o n i s determined during peak hourly
flow, the disinfectant dosage a p p l i e d t o m e t CT requircraents may not be
necessary during lower flow conditions.Continuing t o apply a disinfec-
t a n t dosage
based
on the peak hourly flow couldpossiblyresultin
increased levels o f disinfectant by-products, including TTHMs and
increasedcosts. Under lower flow conditions, a highercontacttime is ,

available and a lower residual may providethe CT needed t o meet the


inactivation requirements. The system may therefore choose t o adjust the
3-9
f-?
disinfectant dose with changes in flow. The system should, however, t ,;

maintain a disinfectant residual which will still provide a 3-1og


inactivation o f cystsand a 4-loginactivation of virusesat
non-peak hourlyflows. The system should therefore evaluate the residual
needed to provide the requiredinactivationunderdifferentflow
conditions and set the dosage accordingly. The following provides an
example of maintaining the required inactivation.
lExamDlt
A 5q d non-filtering systm disinfecting withfree chlorine at one
point of application, has a contacttime of 165 minutes during-a'peak flow
of 5 ffi0. The flow va'ries from 1 to 5 HGD. The pH and temperatures o f
the water are7 and 5 C, respectively. At a residualof 0.9 q / L , a CT o f
148 mg/L-min is required to meet the disinfection requirements. the CT
for 0.9 mg/L residualis determined by straight line interpolation between
c . 0.8 mg/Land 1.0 mg/L residuals.Under h e r flow conditions, the
available contact time is longer and a lower residual would provide the
required disinfection. Based on existing contact time and using 'the
appropriate CT tables (in this case, Table€ 4 ) in Appendix E for a 3-109
Gtardia cyst inactivation,the required disinfectionwould be provided by
maintaining the following chlorine residuals forthe indicated flow:
Contact CT (mg/L-min) Free Chlorine
€JAu!w Iimuu Reau i red Psidual ~~

165 148 0.9


206 145 0.7
275 143 0.6
412 0.4
025 0 0.2

This table indicates the variation of residuals needed for the


system to provide the required inactivation. For chlorine, the disinfec-
tant residual cannotbe adjusted in direct proportionto theflow because
the CT needed for disinfection is dependent uponthe residual. Since i t
is not practical to continuously adjust the' residual and, s h c e a
disinfectionlevel for a &log aardia cystinactivationmust be
maintained under all flow'conditions, itis suggested that the flow .'
variation atthe utility be divided into ranges andthe residual netded at
3-10
..
the higher o
range t o ensure the required disinfection.
residuals are suggested for the system:

ElQuuum
--
1 1.9
2 3.9
4 - 5
-
lfwr a t e o f each range be maintained .for a l l flows within the
The following flow ranges and

f tee Ch 1o r i ne

0.4
0.6
0.9
.

By maintaining these residuals, the u t i l i t y i s ensuring the p-mvision of


the required disinfection while minimizing the disinfectant application,
which should r e s u l t i n lower disinfection by-pioducts and costs.
Althoughthese residuals w l meet theinactivationnquireratnts,
i
maintaining a residual i n the distribution system must also be considered.
I f no other point of disinfection exists prior to the distribution system,
the residual for disinfection mustbe maintained a t a level which w i
l
also provide a residual throughout the distribution system. The complete
range o f f lm occurring at the plant should be evaluated for determining.
the required residual. A u t i l i t y may establish the residual requirements
f o r asmany flow ranges as i s practical.
The C f s determined from the daily systtm data should becompared t o
the values i nt h et a b l e for the pH and temperature o f thewater, to
detennine i f therequired CT has been achieved.Only theanalytical
methods prescribed i n t h e SWTR, or otherwise approved by €PA, m y be used
f o r measuring disinfectant residuals. Wthods prescribed i n t h e SUTR are
- l i s t e d i n Appendix 0. The Appendix alsocontains a paperwhich describes
monitoring methods for various disinfectants and conditions.
The Primacy Agency should make periodic checks on i t s u t i l i t i e s t o
assure that they are maintaining adequate d i s i n f e c t i o n a t non-peak flow
conditions.
e t i n g t h e b t i v a t i o n R e g u i r w n t Usina Free Ch-
When f r e ec h l o r i n ei s used as a disinfectant,theefficiency of
inactivation is influenced by.the temperature and pH o f t h e water.'Thus,
the measurement of the temperature and pH for the detemination of the CT
i s required. The SWTR providesthe CT requirements for free chlorine' at

3-11
varioustefnpttaturcS and pHs which may occur i n a source water. These
f?
values a n presented i n Table € 4 through fable €07 I n Appendix E. The
* basis for these values i s discussed i n Appendix F. For free chlorine, a
340ginactivation of Giardiacysts w l
i providegreaterthan a 4.109
inactivation of viruses, thus meting the SWTR inactivation requirements.
As indicated i n Table E-2, a raw watertemperature o f 5 C, a pH of
7.0, and a residual chlorine concentration o f 1.4 m g l
/require a C f o f 155 .
mg/L-min t o provide a 340g inactivation of Giardia cysts. Therefore, t o
meet the inactivation requirement under these conditions with one p o i n t o f
residual wasureQKnt, a contact time of 111 minutes [(l% ag/L-min)/ (1.4
IIQ/L)] p r i o r t o t h e f i r s t customer would be required.
e t i u Usm
I n a c t i v a t w n t Chloramiw
Chloramines are a'much maker oxidant'than free chlorine, chlorine
di'oxidc andozone.The CT values for chloraminespresented i n Table E42
* . are basedon disinfection studies using prefomd chloramines and io y i t r q
excystationof
EJardiacysts (Rubin, 1988). No safety factor was
applied to the laboratory data on which,the CT values werebased since EPA . '

believes that chlormination, conducted i n t h e f i e l d , i s more effective .


than using preformedchloramines,
Inthelaboratorytestingusingprefomd chloramines, amnoniaand .
chlorine were reacted t o formchloraminesbeforetheadditionofthe
microorganisms, Under field conditions, chlorine is usuglly added f i r s t
followed by' m n i a additionfurther downstream. Also, even afterthe
addition of amonia, some free chlorine residual may p e r s i s t f o r a period
o f time. Therefore, free chlorine i s present f o r a period of time prior
to the formation of chloramines. Since this free chlorine contact time i s . .
not duplicated in the laboratory when testing with prefomed chloramines,
the CT values obtained by such t e s t s m y provide conservative values when
compared t o those Cfs actually obtained i n the field with chlorine applied
before anmonia. Also, other factors such as m i x i n g ' i n t h e f i e l d (versus
no mixing i n the laboratory) may contribute to disinfection effectiveness.
For these reasons, systems 'using chloraqines for disinfection may
demonstrate effective disinfection in accordance withthe .procedure i n
Appendix G i n l i e u of meeting the CT values i n Appendix E.

3-12
.
If a s y s t m uses chloramines and i s able t o achieve the CT values
f o r 99.9 percent inactivation of Giardia cysts, i t i s not always
appropriate t o assume that 99.99 percent or greaterinactivation of
viruses was .also achieved, Mm data indicate that Hepatitis A virus is
more sensitivethancyststoinactivation by preformed chloramines
> (Sobsey, 1988). The CT values required to achieve 99.99 percent
inactivation of Hepatitis A with preformed chlorminesarelowerthan
. those needed t o achieve 99.9 percent inactivation of
cysts. These
datacontrastwithotherdata which i n d i c a t et h a tr o t r v i n i 3 .i s more
resistantthan giardia cyststo prefonnedchloramines(Hoff, 1986) . I
H A v e r , r o t a v i r u s 4s very sensitivetoinactivation by freechlorine,
much more so thanHepatitis A (Hoff, 1986;' Sobsey, .1988). I f chlorine
i s a p p l i e d p r i o r t o amnonia, theshortterm presence offreechlorine
would be expected toprovideatleast 99.99 percentinactivationof
. rotaviruspriortotheaddition of anmonia and subsequent formation o f
chloramines. Thus, EPA believes i t i s appropriateto use Hepatitis A
data, i n l i e u o f rotavirus data, as a surrogate for defining minimum CT
values f o r i n a c t i v a t i o n of viruses by chloramines,'under the condition
t h a t c h l o r i n e i s added t o the water p r i o r t o t h e a d d i t i o n o f amnonia.
A systemwhichachieves a 99.9 percent or greater inactivation of
. m r d i a cysts with chloramines can be considered t o achieve a t l e a s t 99.99
percent inactivation of viruses, provided that chlorine i s added t o t h e
water p r i o r t o t h e a d d i t i o n o f m n i a , Table E-13 provides CT values f o r
achieving different levels of. virus inactivation. However, i f anmonia i s
added f i r s t t, h e CT values i nt h e SWTR for achieving 99.9 percent
inactivation of
cysts cannot be considered adequate for achieving
99.99 percent inactivation ofviruses.
Under such cases o f chloramine production, the SWTR'requires systems.
t o demonstratethrough on-sitechallengestudies,thatthe system i s

CT values I n excess o f 5,000 are required for


a 4-1og inactivation-of
rotavirus by preformedchloramines but no minimum CT values havebeen
determined.
4
CT values ranging from 0.025 t o 2.2 achieve 99 percent inactivation of
rotavirus by free chlorine a t pH = 6 .-lo and 4 5'C (Hoff, 1986) -
3-13
achieving at least a 4-109 inactivation of viruses. Guidance for
conducting such studies i s given i n Appendix G . Once conditionsfor
achieving a 4-109 inactivationofviruses hasbeen established,the
Primacy Agency should require systems toreporttheirdisinfection
operating conditions onan ongoing basis. These conditions should verify
that the SySttm IS operatingat CT values i n excess of that needed t o
achieve a 4-100 virus inactivation or 3-109 cyst
inactivation,
whichever i s higher.
t i v a t i o n m u i r e q g n t U s i u Chlorine b i o r i &
Under the SWTR, the CT values for theinactivation of cysts
usingchlorinedioxide are independent of pH. Under the SUTR theonly
parameter affectingthe CT requirements associated withthe use of
chlorinedioxideis temperature.Table €08 . i n Appendix E presentsthe
chlorine dioxide CT values required for the inactivation of E i a r d b c y s t s
I a td i f f e r e n t temperatures. The basisforthese CT values i s discussed i n
Appendix F. Systas which use chlorinedioxide a n notnquired to
measure the pH of the disinfected water for the calculation of CT. For'
. chlorinedioxide, a 3-109 inactivationof Giardia cystsowillgenerally
r e s u l t i n g r e a t e r than a 4-109 virus inactivation, and assure meeting the
SWTR inactivation requirements. However, forchlorinedioxide,uniikc .
chlorine where this relationship always holdstrue,atcertain tempera-
tures, the &log virus CTs may be higher than the 3-1og Giardia cyst CTs.
The Primacy Agencymay allow lower CT values than those specified i n .
- the SWTR f o ri n d i v i d u a l systems based on infornationprovided by the
system. Protocols for demonstrating effectivedisinfectionat lower CT
values i s provided i n Appendix G .
As indicated in Tables E-8 and €09, the C f requirements f o r c h l o r i n e
dioxide am substantially lower than those requiredforfreechlorine:
However, chlorine dioxide i s not as stable as free chlorine or chloramines
i n a watersysten and saynotbecapable ofprovidingtherequired
disinfectantresidualthroughoutthedistribution system. I n addition,,
. . out ofconcern for toxicological effects, EPA's currentguideline i s t h a t
the sum of the. chlorine dioxide, chlorate and chlorite residuals, be less
than 1.0 nrg/L a t a l l consumer taps. This guideline may be h e r e d as more
healtheffectsdata become available. These concerns further reduce the
3-14
f e a s i b i l i t y of usingchlorinedioxide as a secondary disinfectantfor

-
d i s t r i b u t i o n Systems. Therefore, the use of chlorine dioxide as a primary
disinfectant m y r e s u l t i n t h e need for the application o f a secondary
disinfectant, such as chlorine or chloramines, that w l persistinthe
i
d i s t r i b u t i o n systearand providetherequiredresidualprotection: .
c t i w c t l v a t m a u i r w US-
Another disinfect.ant t oi n a c t i v q t e cysts and viruses i s
ozone. As with chlorine dioxide, under the SWTR, the CT values f o r ozone *

are independent o f pH* Tables E-10 and E-11 presentthe CT nquirementt


for ozone a t d i f f e r e n t sourcewater t a p e r a t u n s . t h e b a s i s f o r t h e Ct ,
values for ozone i s given i n Appendix F. As for free chlorine., a 3-109
cyst inactivation with ozone w l result i n greater than a &log ’
i
v i m inactivation.Unlikechlorine, for .cases here only a 1-log or
lower &jardi,$ i n a c t i v a t i o n i s needed with ozone, the CT values f o r v i r u s ‘
inactivation MY be higherthanthe CT f o r w. The Primacy Agency .
may allowlower CT values for individual systemsbasedon infoimation
.provided by the systera t h a t demonstrates that CT values lower than those
specified i n t h e r u l e achievethe same inactivationefficiencies (see
Appendix 6) .
Ozone i s extretnely reactive and dissipates quickly after applica-
tfon. Therefore, a residual’ can only be expected t o p e r s i s t a short time

’ The r e s i d u a lm s t be maturedusingtheIndi
s o .Trisulfonate Method
(Bader I, Hoigne, 1981.) or automated methods i c h a n c a l i b r a t e d i n
reference to the rusults obtained by the Indigo Trisulfonate method, on
a regularbasis as determined by the Primacy Agency. The Indigo
Trisulfonate method i s included i nt h e 17thEdition of m d a r d
m. This method i s preferable to current standard methodsbecause
o f t h e s e l e c t i v i t y of the Indigo Trisulfonate indjcaor i n the presence
. o f most h t e r f e n n c e r found i n oronated waters. The ozone degrades an
acidicsolution o f indigo’trisulfonate i n a 1:l proportion. . T.he
d w n r s e i n absorbance i s l i n e a r w i t h i n c r e a s i n g ozone Concentrations
over .a wfde range. Halonicacld can be added t o blockinterference
from chlorine. Interference f r a penran mate, produced by the
r !
oronation o f manganese, i s corrected b runn ng a blank i n which ozone
i s destroyed p r i o r t o a d d i t i o n of the ndigo reagent. The sampleo’can
be analyzed using a spectrophotometer a t a 600 nm wavelength which can, ,

detect residuals aso wl as 2 ug/L or a visual color cbtnparison method


which can measure down t o 10 ug/L Ozone. Although currently available
monitoring probes do not use the Indigo Trisulfonate Method, they can
3-15
afterapplication. I n addition,theapplication of ozone t o water i s (-' .
dependent Qn Uss transfer. For these reasons, the method of CT
determination used for the other dislnfectants 1.s inpractical for ozone,
the CT,,,, must be' determined for the ozone contactor alone. The contactor
w i 11have SOW portions here the ozone i s applied and other portions of
the contactor whereozone i s no longer applied, which are referred t o as
the reactive flow chambers.
For many ozone contactors, the residual in the contactor w i
l vary
i n accordance with the method and rate of applicat1on;the residual w li
be nonuniform and i s l i k e l y t o be zero I n a portion of the contactor. As . '

previouslyiqdlcated,the CT value i s basedon the presence of a known.


residual during a specific contact tiae. Thus disinfection. credit is only
provided for the time when a residual i s present. Besides the nonunifonn-
i t y of the residual, monitoring the residual w i be d i f f i c u l t because o f
l
. the ozone's h i g h r e a c t i v i t y and the closed design of the contactors.
I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e d i f f i c u l t y i n determining the ozone r e s i & a l . f o r
'. the CT calculation, the contact time w l vary between basins depending
i
.on t h e i r o
lfwconfiguration. Several types o f devicesare available for
adding ozone t o waterincluding porous diffuse&, submerged turbines,
injector, packed towers and s t a t i c mixers. Each type o f device can be .
.used i n e i t h e r s i n g l e or a u l t i p l e chamber cmtactors. The flow through a
single'charaber turbine contactor w i
l approximate a corapletcly mixed u n i t , ~ c-

h i l e f l w ' t h m u g h a single chamber diffused contactor',. or a multiple


' chamber diffusedcontactor, w i mom closelyrepresentplug
l f
o
lw . This
variation i no wi n different contactors makes the use of T,,, inappropri-
lf
ate for tm 'contacton.
The diffennces betweenozone contactors and other'disinfection
s y t t m &lted i n the development o f several approaches for detemining
'

--
the inaktivation provided by ozone, including:
E v r l u a t i o no f C and 1
Segregated flow Analysis (SFA)
.
- Continuously S t i r r e d lank Reactor (CSTR)
SiteSpecificEvaluation .

be c a l i b r a t e d v l a t h i s method.
3-16
The method which i s appropriate for a paricular system wil dependon
system COnffguratiOn and therequiredlevel of inactivation, An0the.r
significmtdifference i s that ozone may be applied t o provideonly 6
portion of the overall 3-109 Eiardtpcyst and 4-logvirusinactivation'
with the remainder of the inactivation provided by another disinfectant.
Appendix' 0 providesdetaflsforselectfngtheappropriatencthod of
evaluation for specific cgnditions.
The evaluation of C and T involvesseparatedetennination of the
ozone residual concentration, C, and the contact time, T, i n the
contactor. C can be detennined forindividual chambers of a' contactor
basedon the residual ncasured a t several points throughout the chamber,
or a t t h e e x i t o f t h e chamber. The T value can be detenninedthrough a
tracerstudy or an equivalent method as approved by thePrindcy Agency
w i t h a i r or oxygen applied during testing, using the same feed gas r a t e as
used during operation. Appendix 0 provides d e t a i l s for the CT approach.
$FA i s based on the results of .a tracer study used i n conjunction
with the measuredozone residual to determine the survival of ricroorgan-
isms exiting the contactor. The survival corresponds t o a certain
inactivation.Guidelines for t h i s approach are included fn Appendix 0.
The CSTR approach i s applicable for contactotsnhich have a high
degree o f mixing. Experience has shown that for contactorf, such as
turbineunits,the ozone residual i s generallyuniformthroughoutthe
contactor. The ozone residual measured a t t h e e x i t i f thecontactor i s
. used i n an equation for CSfRs t o determine theinactivation provided. .
- Appendix 0 provides details for conductfng CSTR anklysis.
Site specific evaluations may include:
. -- Measurement o f an observable parameter t o c o r r e l a t e w i t h C
- Mathematical model f o rd i s i n f e c t i o ne f f i c i e n c y
Microbialindicatorstudiesfordisinfectioneffici.ency

t o amre closely determine thefnactivationprovided tn a p a r t i c u l a r


system. Appendix 0 providesdetails for applying s i t e s p e c i f i c evalua-
tions.

3-1 7
3Lmmarv
r'
. ,
mny SYttcrPs which do not provide filtration wi have d i f f i c u l t y ' i n
l
. providingthe
cpntacttime necessary t os a t i s f tyh ei n a c t i v a t i o i
requi-nts Priortothefirstcuttkr. For example, a s y s t m using
free chiorine at 1 urter tclnpcratun of 5 C, a pH of 7.0 m d 4 chlorine
residual of 1.4 mg/L would r q u i r e 111 minutes of contact time t o meet the
inactivationnquirement.Potentialoptions for these systeas include:
- I n s t a l l a t i o n o f storage f a c i l i t i e st o providetherequired
contact time under maximum flow conditions. -
- Use of an alternateprimarydisinfectant suchas
ozone or
chlorinq dioxide which has CT values lower than those required
. -

f o r free chlorine. for the required inactivation.


-
. For so10 Systems, t hdei f f i c u l t y i n obtaining
the
required
inactivation may only be a seasonal pmblm. A system that has raw water
temperatures which reach 20 C during the s m r months a t a pH o f 7.0, may
have sufficient contact time to neet the CT o f 56 mg/L-min (fable E-5) a t
a chlorineconcentration of 1 ag/L. However,assuming the same pH and
chlorine concentration, It may not have sufficlent contact t h e t o m e t *
the CT requirement a t 5 C, 149 ag/L-min (fable E-Z), or a t 0.5 C,
210 mg/L-ain (Table E-1). Under thoseconditions, a systm could choose.
t o use ozone or chlorinedioxide on a reasorril basis,sfnce they are
stronger disinfectants requiring a shorter contact ti,-. '

As indicated i n Table € 4 2 , the Cl values for chlorarints may be


impractical to attain for most system. Systems which c u r r e n t l y u t i l i z e
chlormines as a primary disinfectant MY need t o use either free chlor-
ine, chlorlne dioxtde or!otone i n order t o provide the raquind disin-
fcctim. m v e r , systems using chloramines as a pri+ry disinfectant nay
chose t o d m n s t r a t et h e adequacy o f the disinfection. Appendix. G
presents a wethod for 8aking t h i s demonstration.
the fapgtivation k a i t ~ l using~ t AltSCmOate D m
For s y s t m using disinfectants other, than chlorine, ch1ormineS,
chlorine dioxide, or ozone, the effectiveness of the disinfectant Can be
dmnsttytcd using the protocol contained in Appendix 6. The P ~ O C O il n
Appendix 6.3. for batch testing should be followedfor any dfsinfcctant
which can be prepared i n anaqueous solution and w i be stable throughout
l
thetesting.' for disinfectants which are notstable,thepilotstudy
protocol outlined ,in. Appendix G.4 should be f o l l w d .

3.2.2 DttemIinatiOn o f Overall Inactivation for Residual Profile,


f l u w R h D f s i n f c c t a n t J l t i d e Sources
For systems whichapply disinfectant(s) at mre than one point, or
choose t o profile the residual from one point of application, the total
i n a c t i v a t i o n i s t h e sum of the inactivation ratios betweeneach of the
points o f d i s i n f e c t i o n or betweeneach of the residual monitoring points,
respectively. The portion o f the system with a neasurablecontact tian
between tw points of disinfection application or residual monitoring w i
l
be r e f e r r e d t o as a section. The calculated CT (CTC,,J f o r each section
i s detemined daily.
. The CT needed t o f u l f i l l t h e d i s i n f e c t i o n requirements i s CT9,,),
. corresponding t o a 3-109 inactivatfon of Glatdia cysts and greater than or
equal t o a 4-109 inactivation ofviruses(except for chloramines and
sometimes chlorine dioxide as explained i n Section 3.2.1). The inactiva-
t i o n r a t i o f o r each section i s represented by CTe,,c/Cf99,9, as explained i n
. Section 3.2,1, and indicatestheportion o f therequiredfnactivation
provided by thesection. The sum oftheinactivationratios from each
section can be used t o determine theoveralllevel o f d4sinfectio.n
provided. Assuming inactivation i s a first orderieaction,theinac-
t i v a t i o n r a t i o corresponds t o log and percent inactivations as follows:
&I.cUO. 9

0.17 8 0.5 log a 60%

0 .33 (I 1 log I 908

0.50 I 1.5 log I 96 .&


0.67 S 2 log I 99%

0.83 m 2.5 log 8 99.7%

1.oo .
I 3 log I . 99.9%

1.33 I ' 4 log I 99.9%

3-19
Ct,,, +an be detennined for each sectionby referring to Tables E-1
through 4-13 in Appendix E, using the pH (when chlorine i s the disinfec-
r).
tant) and temperatures of the water for the respective sections. These
tables presentthe log inactivationof a r d i a cysts and virusesachieved'
by CTs at various water tcmptratuns and pHs.
Log inactivations are additive,so:
0.5 Log + 1.0 Log = 1.5 Log or
,..
0.17CT,,., + 0.33CT,,,, O.SCT,,., ._
- ._

If the sum of the inactivation ratios i s greater than or equal to


one,therequired3-109inactivation of cystshasbeenachieved.
An inactivation ratioo f at least 1.0 is needed to demonstrate compliance
with the Giardia cyst inactivation rquirenents for unfiltered systkr.
The total log inactivation can be determined by multiplying the sum
of 'tho 'inactivation ratios (sum (CTeJ,JCT,,.,)), by three. The total log
inactivation canbe datemined in this way becauseCT,,,, is equivalentto
c.
a 3-100 inactivation. The total percent inactivation can be determined as
- foll~:
y-lQQ-lQQ Equation ' (1)
10'
when: y 4 Inactivation
x 8 log inactivation
For example:
X = 3.0 l o g inactivation

Y = l o O - # L 99.9 Q inactivation

As explained in Section 3.2.1, the CTcJlc detemlned for each disin-


fection section i s the product o f the disinfectant residual i n ag/L and
the detcntlon time in minutes through the section at peak hourly flow.
However, for many water systems, peak hourly,flow will not necessarily
. c
. occur sirrultaheously in all sections. The extent to which the occurrtnce
o f peak hourly flow will vary between sections of the system depends on

3-20
thecharacteristics Of an individual system including i t s size,storage
capacity within t h ed i s t r i b u t i o n system, the number of sources, and
hydraulic Capacities between different sections. I n order to silpplffy the’
determination Of peak hourly flow f o r ‘ t h e system, i t should be taken as
peak hourlyflow i n the last sectlon of the system p r i o r t o t h e f i r s t
customer.
The CT values for $11 the sections should be calculated for the flow
and theresidualsoccurringduringthe hour of peak olf
w i n t h el a s t
section. The most accurate way t o deterninethe flow i n a$articular
section i s through the use of ao lfwmeter. However., some sections o f the
, systea may not have e f l o w meter. The following guidelines can be used t o
determine the flow t o be used i n c a l c u l a t i n g CT:
- for sections which do not have meters, the o
astuned t o be thehigherofthe
lf
w should be
t o flowsoccurring i n the
w
closest upstream and downstrear sections with meters.
- I n cases where a section contains a pipeline and a basin with
the f l o w meterlocated p r i o r t o t h e basin, the metered flow
does notrepresentthedischargerate o f thebasin, The
difference i n i n l e t and dischargerates frm a. basin w i
l
impact the water level i n t h e basin. As explained i n Appendix
C, f a l l i n g water levels wli r e s u l t i n lower T,, values.
- To assure thatthedetentiontime o f abasin i s not.
overestimated, the discharge flow f m a basin should be
used i n l i e u of the influent flow, unless the influent.
flow i s higher.
- To estilrate the discharge flow fm a basin the closest
flow metap downstream of the basin should be used.

The following example presentsthedetemination‘ofthetotal


percent i n a c t i v a t b n for multiple points o f disinfection, with variation
i n flow between sections.
UmElS
A c a a u n i t y o f 6,000 peopleobtains i t s watersupply fm alake
’ which ’ i s 10 r i l e s froe the c i t yl i m i t s . Two 0.2 MG storage‘tanksare
locatedalongthe12-inchtransmissionline t ot h ec i t y . The water s
i
disinfected with c h l o r i n ed i o x i d ea tt h ee x i t fnw thelake and with
chlorineatthedischarge frm the first andsecond storagetanks. The

3-21

. ... .
average water demand of the connunity i s 1 MGD with a peak hourly demand r?. .
o f approximately 2 ffiD. For thecalculationsof theoverall percent
inactivation, the supply systemis divided into three sections as shown
Figure 3 4
-
Section 1 frOQI the lake to the discharge frm t h e f i r s t btorage
tank ,
Section 2 - frm the discharge t h e f i r s t storagetank
from to the.
discharge froa the second tank
* ' Section 3 - ftom the dlscharge o f the second storagetank to the
first custmr

The o v e r a l l i n a c t i v a t i o n i s computed d a i l y f o r t h e peak hourly fl& condi-


tions.Sections 1 dnd 3 contain flow meters t o monitorthe waterbeing
withdrawn from the lake and the water being delivered t o t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n
system as shown on Figure 3-1. On the dayof. t h i s example calculation,
the peak hourly flow i n section 3 was 2 HGD. During t h i s hour, water .was
beingwithdraw from thelakeat a r a t e o f i . 5 mgd. Considering the
'

placetaent o f flow meters, the flow o f 2 mgd llaasured i n section 3 should


be used for calculating CT for thatsection. Since section 2 does not
have a flow meter, the meter i n section 3 serves as a measure o f the
discharge from storage tank 2 and should be the flow used i n the
calculation o f CT for section 2. The flow meter i n section 1 records the
flow through the transmission main which should be used i n t h e c a l c u l a t i o n
of Cf forthepipeline. Hauevet, t h i s meter does notrepresentthe
discharge frola storagetank' 1. Since thewater i s being pumped t o t h e
d i s t r i b u t i o n s y s t m a t 4 higher rate than the flow entering storage tank . .

1, the o lfwof 2 q d measured i n section 3 should be used for calculating


the CT for storage tank 1.
T b pH, temperature and disinfectantresidualofthe water were
m a s u d a tt h e end of 8ach s e c t i o nj u s tp r i o r t o thenextpoint of
disinfection and t h e f i r s t customer duringthehour Of peak o f
lw . The
watertravelsthrough the 12-inchtransmissionRain a t '177 ftjmin a t

3-22
1.5 ffi0.' The detention times of thestorage tankswre read off theTi,
VS. 0 plots generated frola tracer studies conducted onthe storage tanks
(see Appendix C). The data f o r the inactivation calculition are as'
follows:
hi!xu %uL2 asuuL2
length of pipe (ft) 15,840 26,400 10,560
flow (wd)
Pipe 1.5 2ao 2.0
tank 2.0 2.0
contact time (lain)
Pipe
tank
total
disinfectant -...-. .I...

dioxldt-
residual (IDQ/L 0.1 oa2 0.4
temperature (C 5 5 5
PH 8 8 8

This information is then used in conjunction with the CT,,., values In


Appendix E to deternine the (CT,,,,/CTgg,,) i n each section asfollows:
action 1 - Chlorine dioxide
-
CTCrlr 0.1 mg/L x 105 dinutes .
I 20.5 mg/L-ain

3-23
. .
- setion 1, - Chlorine .
CT,,,, 0.4 sg/L-ain x 45 nin = 18 mg/L-min
. ,is 198 mg/L-min
Frm table E-2 at a temperature o f 5 C m d pH
CT,9,
0,

The sm of Cl,,,,/CT,,.9 i s equal to 1.11, which is greater than 1,


therefore, the system meets the requirements o f providing a 3 4 o g
inactivation o f E j a t d b cysts. The log inactivation provided is:
x 3 x &,,( = 3 x 1.11 3.33
Cf99.9

1.
The percent inactivation can be determined using equation

The system meets the requirement of providing a 99.9 percent inactivation


of cysts.
The SWTR also requires that the public be provided with protection
from u c l l p as w e 1 1 as Gtrrdip cysts and vivyes. ,Inactivation levels ..
have not been set for j
& gm
because the required inactivation o f
cysts will provide protection f r o l , ~ e l l p . ’ However, this
. level of disinfection
cannot rsture that all will be inacti- c

. . vated and that no recontaaination or r q n m t h in recirculating.hot water


. systems o f bufldings or cooling systems will occur. Appendix 6 provides
a

’ .
W h t 8 et rl (1983) +eportad a maxm
99’ pcrrcent inactivation of
i CT requinrwnt of 22.5 for ‘a
i n a 21 C tap water at. a PH o f
7.64.0 when usin free chl ng first order kinetics, a 99.9
P
percent inactivaton requires a CT o f 33.8. Table A-5 presents the C f s
needed for free chlorine to.achieve 8 99.9 percent Inactivation o f
. . Eiardb cysts at 20 C. This table indicates that the CT required for
a 3-log inactivation of at the twperature and pH of the
# test
ranges from 67 108
to depending on chlorine residual.
These CT’s are t w to three tines higher than that which is needed to
, achieve a 3 log inactivation of -.
. .
3-24
guidance for mitoring and treatment to control -ella in institu-
tional systems.
The 8bove discussion pertains to a systea with one source with.
sequential disinfection. Another system my blend more than one source,
and disinfectone or more of the sources independently priort o bl'ending.
Systtm conditions which nay exist include:
- All the sources are combined at one point prior to supplying
the conmunity but one or more of thesources are disinfected '

prior to being colabined, as shown on Figure 3-2.


-
- Each source is disinfectedindividually m d 'antem the
distribution systcm'at a different point, as shown on Fig-
ure 3-3.
-
For all systems combining sources, the'fint step in detemining the
Cf should be to determine the CT,,,, provided f r w the point o f blending
. closest to the first customer using the contact time and residual at peak -
hourly flow forthat portionof the distribution system. This corresponds
to section 0 on Figure 3-2 and section E on Figure 3-3. If the CT,,,, for
section 0 or E provides the required inactivation,no additional CT credit
is needed and nofurther evaluation is rquired. However, if the CT for
section 0 or E is not sufficient to achieve the required inactivation,
then theinactivdtion ratio (CTcJIc)/(CT,,,,) should be detamined f o r each
section to deternine the overall inactivation provided for each source.
The total inactivation must be greater than or qual to one for all
' 'sources in order tocoaply withthe requirements for 3-109 inactivation of
UardQ cysts.
On Figure 3-2, sections A, '8,C and 0 contain sampling points a, b,
c and d, respectively. The tun of the inactivation ratios for sections
A+D, . 8 + 0 and C+D =st each be greater than or equal to one for the
disinfection r e q u i m n t s to be met.
The total inactivation for each sou'rce on Figure 3-2 should be
dctemined as follows:
SQUSLL
- Deterwine CT,,, for sections A and 0 based on 'the residual
measurements a f . sample points a and d, and the travel time

,3-25 .
through each section under peak hourly flon fconditions
o r the
r"
.respecti ve sect ion.
- Oetemine Ct,,, for the pH and temperature conditions i n eacti
section using the tables in Appendix E
- Calculate the inactivation ratios (CT,,,,/CT,,.9)
A and 0.
for sections

- Calculate the sm of the inactivation ratios for sections A .


and 0 to determine the total inactivation for source 1.
. ~

- If the sum of the inactivation ratiosi s greater thanor equal


to 1.0, the systen has provided the required 3-109
cyst inactivation.
sausLu - . .
- Determine CT, for section B based on the residual measured
at sample poht b and the travel time through the section
under peak hourly flow Conditions.
- Determine CT,,, for section 8 for the .pH and tecnperature
conditions in \he section using the appropriate tables' in
Appendix E
- Calculate the inactivation ratio(CTg,,e]CTs,.,). for section B. a

- Add the inactivation ratios for sections 8 and 0 to detennint


the total inactivation for source I f .
.

- If the sua of theinactivation ratiosis greater thanor equal


.to 1.0, the syttea has provided the required 3-109 Gidrdia .
cyst inactivation for the source.
suKLu
' - ,,
Deternine CT, for'section C based on the residual measured
,rt r a p l a p o b t c and the travel time through the section
wider peak hourly flow conditions.
:- ' Deternine CT,,, for section C for the 'pH and tclnperatun
conditions in \he section using the appropriate tables in
Appendix E.
. - Calculate the inactivation ratio (CT+,,,/CT,,.,) for section C.

- - Add the inactivation ratios for sections C and D to determine


the total
inactivation for Source 111.

3-26
- If the sum ofthe inactivation ratiosis greater thanor equal
to 1.0, the system has provided the required 3-109
cyst inactivation for the source.

The determination of the total inactivation for each source may


. require more cakulations for system such as that on Figure3-3 than on
Figure 3-2. On Figure 3-3 sections A, 8,' C, 0, and E contain sampling
points a, b, c, d, and e respectively. In order to minimize the
calculations needed, the determination of the total inactivation should
begin with the sourceclosest to the firstcustomer. -
The total inactivation for each source on Figure 3-3 .should be
determined as follovit:
3QuKuu
- Oetennine CT, for sections C and E based on the residual
measurement at sample polnts c and e and the detentiontime in
each section under peak hourly .flow conditions for the
respect ive section.
- Oetemine Cf,, for the pH and temperature conditions in each
section using !he tables in Appendix E. . .

- Calculate the inactivation ratios (Clc,,c/CTg,,;)


C and E.
for sections

- Calculate the sua of the inactivatisn ratios for sections C


and E to deterwine the total inactivation for source111.
- If the sua of the inactivation ratios is qkater than or equal
to 1.0, the system has provided the required 3-log Efardiq
cyst inactivation for source 111.

- Deternine Cf for section 0 based on the residual measured


at sarple p o h d d and the detention timtthrough the section
under peak hourly flow conditions.
- Deternine Cl,,. for section 0 for the pH and temperature
conditions in \he section using the appropriate tables in
.
Append i x E
- Calculate the inactivation ratio'(Cf,,,,/Cf,,.,) for section 0.
- Add the inactivation ratios for sections 0 and E to detenine
the overall inactivation.
3-27
- 'If the sum of the inactivation ratios is greater than orequal
to 1.0, the system has provided the required 3-109 EiarQlP
f ?.
cyst inactivationfor source 11, as wellas source I since the
water f m each o f these sources are combined prior to
sections 0 and E.
- If the total inactivation ratio for sections0 and E Is less
than 1.0, additional calculations are needed. Proceed as
follows for source 11.
- hternine Cf for section 8 based on the residual measured
rt sample p o h f b and the detention time throughthe section
under
peak
hourly flow conditions. -
- ' Determine Cf,, for section 8 for the .pH and temperature
conditions in \he section using the appropriate tables in
Append 1x E.
- Calculate the'inactivation ratio.(CTcJ,JCT,,.,) for section 8.
' - Add the inactivation ratios for sections 8, 0 and E to
determine the total inactivation for source I t .
- If the sum o f the inactivation ratiosis greater thanor equal
to 1.0, the systea has provided the required 3-109
cyst inactivation for thesource.
slussJ
As noted in the determination o f the inactivation provided. for
source 11, i f th4 sum of the inactivation ratips for sections 0 and E is
greater than or equal to l .OO the system has providedthe required 3-109 -z

Eiardlp cystinactivation. ~ ~this sua isless than 1.0


H O W I V ~ if
additional calculations will be needed to determine the overall inaCtiv8-
a tion provided for source I. The calculations are as follows:
. W c a I'
- Daternine C t J, for section A based on the nsidual measured
a t SarQte p i n 8 a and the detention time
in the section under
peak hourly flow conditions.
- ..
... .
.

.&temine cT,, for section A for 'the. pHand thaQeratutt


.
conditions in \he section using the appropriate. tables in
Append i x E
'

- ' Calculate theinactivation ratio (CTeJ,JCT9,.,) for section A.


- Add the inactivation ratios for sections A, 0, and ' E to
determine thetotal inactivation for source I.
3-20
-
- If the sum o f the inactivation ratiosis greater than or equal
to 1.0, the systm has provided the required 3-109
. cyst inactivation forthe source.

*
3,2.3 m i a n o f Mar- a R c s m
The SWTR establishes two requirements concerning the maintenance of
a residual. The first requirement i s to mintdin 1 lainbn residual of
0.2 q / L entering the distribution system. The second is to maintain a
detectable residual throughout the distribution system. The disinfectant
used to met these requircmcnts i5 identified as the secondary disinfec-
tant throughout the remainder of this document. These requirements are
further explained i n the following sections.
a -1 m e Distribution qv-
. To avoid filtration,the disinfectant residual in water enteringthe
distribution system cannot be less than 0.2 mg/l for more than four hours,
with one exception noted below, Systems serving more than 3,300 persons
must monitor continuously. If there i s a failure in the continuous
monitoring equipment, the system .may substitute grab sampling every four
hours for up to five working days followingthe fai'lure ofthe equipment.
Systems serving 3,300 or fewer people may monitor continuously or take
grab samples at the frequenciesprescribed below:

do0 1
501-1,OOO 2
,OO1-2,500 1 3
2,501-3,300 4
*Samples cannot be taken at the s a w time.
the sm ling intervals are subject 'to Priaacy Agency review and
approva f*
. .
If at any time the residual disinfectant concentration falls below 0.2
q/lin a system using grabsample monitoring, the systm must continue to
take a grab sample every four hours until the residual disinfectant
concentration i s q u a l to or greater than 0.2 q / l . For a11 system, if
the residual concentration i s not restored to at least 0.2 wg/1 within ,

four hours after a value of less than 0.2 q/l i s observed, the system i s

3-29
ivni o l a t i o n of 'a treatment technique
nquirement, and m si tn s t a l l (-3
. ..
i
fiI t r a t i o n * H w V e r , ifthe PFiUCy Agency finds that the exceedance was
Caused by an ~ ~ s and u unpredfctable
~ l circunstance,thePrjmcy Agency.
may choose not to require fiItration. €PA expects PrfIRAcy Agencies t o use
this Provision Sparingly; it i s fntended t o encocapass catastrophic events,
notinfrequentlarge t t o m events. I n iddjtion, my tima theresfdual
0'.
concentration f a l l s below 0.2 mg/l, the systcla rust notify the Primacy
Agency. Notification &st occur as soon as pofsible, but no l a t e r than '
:.;.-
the end o f the next business day.The systtq also must notify the Primacy
Agency by the end o f the next business day whether or not the r&dur\ was
restored within four hours.
Failure of a monitoring or reporting requinnnnt does not trigger a
requirement t o f i l t e r although they are violations.
inina a R o s w Uithin tho S v s t w
l o avoid filtration, the disinfectant residual in the distribution
s y s t m .cannot be undetectable i n more than ffve percent of the s*leS; fn
a month, for any w t o consecutive months that the system sewer water. t o
thepubllc. Systcms nay measure HPC insteadofdisinfectantresidual.
Siteswith HPC concentrationsoflessthan or q u a lt o 500/ml are
considered equivalent to sites with detectable residuals for the purpose
o f determining compliance. Public water systcaas rustmonitor for the
presence o f a disinfectant residual ('or HPC levels)' at the sane frequency
and locations as t o t a l c o l i f o r m measurements takenpursuant to the Total
Colifom Rule. Hobever, i f the Primacy Agency deterrines, based on s i t e - .~
specific considerations, t h i t a systemhas no mans f o r having a sample
transported and analyzed f o r HPC by a certifiedlaboratorywithinthe
requisite time and temperatureconditions(Wthod 907, APHA, 1985), but
that the system i.s providing adquate disinfection i n .the distribution
system, thlr requirements docs not apply t o t h a t systcs.
For systms which use bothsurface and ground water sources, the
Pri-cy Agency m y allow the system to take .disinfectant residual or HPC
samples a t points other 'than the total cO1ifO~'SuDpiing 1ocationS i f it.
deterninesthat such points are mre representative Of treated(disin-
? fected)water quality within the distribution SyStclll.
Disinfectant residual can be natured as total chlorine,. free
chlorine, combined chlorineor chlorine dioxide(or HPC level). The SWTR
lists the approved analytical mthods for these analyses. For example,'
several test methods can be used to test for chlorine residual in the .
water, including m p e r m t t i c titration, OPO colorimetric, DPD ferrous
titrimetric methodand iodoarttrlcncthod, as described in the 16th Edition
o f ftandard Methpslr.' Appendix 0 provides a revicw and sumary of
available techniquesto measure disinfectant residuals.
If a system fails tomaintain a detectable disinfectant residualor
an HPC levelo f less than or equal to 500/1111 in more than 5 percent o f the '

samples during'a month,for any two consecutive monthsthe system serves '

water to the public, the system is in violation o f a treatment technique


requirement. In addition, this systcrn must install filtration unlessthe
Prflaacy Agency determines that the violation was not toduea deficiency
in treatmant of the source water (e.g., the violation was due to a
deficiency in the distribution system, such as cross-connection contamina-
tion or failure in the pipeline) .
the absence of a,detectable disinfectant residual in the distribu- .
tion systemmay be dueto anumber of factors,including: .
- Insufficient chlorine applied at the treatment plant
- Interruption of chlorination
- A chan e
1 in chlorine demand in either the source water or the
distri ution system
- . .
tong standing times and/or, long translaission distances

Available O p t l M S t o correct the problem of low disinfectant


residuals i n distribution systems. include:
- Routine flushing

' Also, portable test kits are available which can beused in the field
to detect residual upon-the approval of the Primacy Agency. Thesek i t r
MY employ titration or colorimetric test methods. The colorimetric
kits employ either avisual detection of aresidual throughthe use o f
. a color wheel, or the detection o f the residual through the use o f a
hand held spcctrophotomcter.
3-31
- -Increasing disinfectant d w s at the plant

.
- 'Cleanin of the pipes (either mechanically by pi ging or'by
1 f
the add tion of chemicals to dissolve the depos tt) in thC
distribution systemto m o v e accumulated debris which may be
exerting a disinfectant demand;
- Flushin and disinfection of the portions of the distribution
1
system n which a residual is not maintained; or
. Installation o f satellite disinfection feed facilities within
the distribution
system. -.
* gI
3-
. If-

For systems unable to maintain a residual, the Primacy hgency MY


deternine thatit is notfeaslblc for the system to monitor HPC and judge'
that
disinfection is adequate based on
site-specific
condttiont.' , .
Additional information on maintaining a residual in the systam is,
available in the AUUA Manual of Water Supply Practices and
' Water
'Chlorination Principles and Practices.
3.2.4 Disinfection f u t m
Anotherrequirement for unfilteredwatersupply . systems is .
disinfection facility redundancy. A system providing disinfectionas the .
only treatmtnt is required to assure that the water delivered to the
distribution rystcm i s continuously disinfecttd. The SWTR requires either *

redundantdisinfectionequipmentwithauxiliary power and automatic x-


start-up and alarm; or an rutmatic shutoff of delivery .of 'water to the Q

distribution syrtea h e n the disinfectant residual 1eve.l drops below 0.2 ,)..
4
-

ag/L. In order to fulfilltherequirementofprovidingredundant


disinfection facilitles, the following system is mcoaarcnded:
-
All ctmpontnts have backup units with capacities equalto or .
greater than the largest unito n 4 ine.
.---. . A m i n i m o f tm.storage units o f disinfectant which can be '

used alternate1 e.g., two cylinders of chlorine gas, two


.,:.
.(
f 0

tanks o f hypoch orite solution


0 Where the disinfectant is generattd &-site, such as ozone,
backup units with capacity
a qual to or greater than that o f
the largest unit on-line.
Automatic twitchovcr q u i #nt to change the feed from one.
, i noperabl e
1
.storage unitto theother efore the first emptiesor becomes

3*32
- Feed systems with backup units with capacities equal t o
greater than the largest unit on-line.
or

- An alternate power supply suchas a standby generator with the


capability o f running a l l theelectrical equipment atthe
disinfection,station. The generatorshould be on-site and
functionalwiththecapabilityof automatic start-up onpower '

failure
i

Systems providing disinfection may have several different configura-


tions for typo and locationofdisinfectantapplication. The following
guidelines are provided t oa s s i s t Primacy Agencies and: U t i J i t i e si n
datemining the need for redundancy. Possible disinfection configurations
include:
-
one disinfectant used f o r primary and Secondary di'sinfection
-- one point of application
multiplepoints of application
- two differentdisinfectants
disinfection
used for primary and secondary

Inamany cases one disinfectant w il be used t o f u l f i l l boththe


t o t a li n a c t i v a t i o n and residual requirements. One or more application
points nay be used to accmpl ish this. When one.application point i s used
t o meet boththeprimary and secondary disinfection requirements., the
s y s t t a i s r e q u i r e d t o i n c l u d e redundant disinfection.facilities.
Hhen multiple points of
application an used, redundancy i s
ncocnnended for t h e d i s i n f e c t i o n f a c i l i t i e s a t each point of applicatibn
which i es s s e n t i a l t o met thetotalinactivation requirements. In
addition, t o assure the maintenance o f a residual entering and throughout
t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n system, either:
- the l a s t p o i n t o f a p p l i c a t i o n p r i o r t o t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n system
should have redundancy, or
- thepoint o f a p p l i c a t i o ni m e d i a t e l yp r i o tr ot h i sp o i n t
should have redundancy and sufficientcapacityto assure a
residual entering the distribution systm.

Systems nay also use tw different disinfectants, one t o f u l f i l l ' t h c .


inactivation'requirements and the second t o maintain a residual. An
3-33
example of this would include a system usingas aozone primary disinfec- Tt
, . -
tant and chloraminesas a secondary disinfectant. €?A reconrncnds that:
the disinfection
facilities at each
point o f disinfectant
application in the primary system essential in providingthe
overall Inactivation requirements Include redundancy,and
- the secondary disinfection facilities include redundancy,
unless the disinfectant used for primary disinfection can
.x
provide a residual for the distribution system as well. If
the primary disinfectant can be for used
residual maintenance,
4
--
JT
.

the last point o f primary disinfectant application should


include redundancy and sufficient capacity . to. assure a
residual entering the distribution systea.

Appendix I contains amre specific inforartionto assist the Prikcy


Agency in establishing requirementsfor providing k u n d a n t disinfection
facilities.
. Providing automatic shutoffo f .water delivery requires approvalby
the Primacy Agency. The Primcy Agency must deternine that this action,
will not result in anunreasonable riskto health or interfere withfire'
protection. This determination should include the evaluation o f the
systta configurationto protect against negative pressures in the system,
and providing for high demand periods including fireflow requirements.
Automaticshutoffshouldbeallowedonlyifsystemshave'adequate 5%;.

distribution system storage to maintain positive pressure for continued =u'


.rf,

water use.
.' 'M

3-34
3.3 UfE-sPKIFIC coyplTIONZ
In'addition t o m e t i n g source water q u a l i t y c r i t e r i a and disinfec-
t i o n c r i t e r i a , n o n f i l t e r i n g systems using surface water supplies must meet .

--
the following criteria:
Maintain a watershed controlpro ram
3
-- Conduct a yearly on-site inspect on
Determine that no waterbornediseaseoutbreaks
Comply with the
revised annual total
coliform
have occurred
MCL
i

- c m p l yw i t h TTHM re ulations(currentlyappliesto
serving >10,000 peop e) 9 systems

Guidelines f o r meeting these other criteria'are presented in the following


sections.
3.3.1 W C o n t
o ~lt ~ a t
a m
A watershed control program i s a surveiilance and monitoring program
which i s conducted to protect the quality of a surfacewater source. An
aggressive and detailed watershed control program i s desirable to
' effectively l i
m it or eliminate potential contamination by human viruses.
A watershed program may impact parameters such as t u r b i d i t yc, e r t a i n ,

organic compounds, viruses, total and fecal col ifoms, and areas of wild-
l i f e habitation. However, the program i s expected t o have l i t t l e or no
impact on parameters such as naturallyoccurringinorganic chemicals.
Limiting human a c t i v i t y i n t h e watershed may reduce thelikelihoodof
animals becoming infected with pathogens and thereby reduce the ttansmis-
sion of pathogens by w i l d l i f e . Preventing animal a c t i v i t y near the source
waterintake p r i o r t od i s i n . f e c t i o n may also reduce thelikelihoodof
pathogen occurrence a t the intake.
The e f f e c t of a watershed p r o g r m i s d i f f i c u l t t o q u a n t i f y since
many variablesthatinfluence water q u a l i t y are beyond thecontrol or
knowledgo of the water suppl ier. As a resul t , the btnefd t o f a watershed
control program or specific control measuresmust i n many cases bebased
on accuaulated cause and effect data andon the general knowledge of the
impactof control measures ratherthan on actualquantification. The
effectiveness of a program t o l i
m t or eliminate potential contamination
i
by human viruses ni 11 be determined based on: the -conrprehensivencss of
the watershed &view; t h e a b i l i t y o f the water system to effectively carry

3-35
out and monitor the management decisions regarding control o f detr.imcnta1 . .
activities dccurring in the watershed; and thepotential for the water
i systmtoaaxilrizeland ownership and/or control o f land use withinthe
watershed. According t ot h e SUR, a watershed control prograclshould
include as a minimum:
-
A description Of the watershed including i t s hydrology and
1and m e r ship
- Identification, monitoring and control of watershed character-
i s t i c s and a c t i v i t i e s i n the Watershed which aay have an
adverse effect on the source .water q u a l i t y
- A progrm to gain ownership or control o f the land within the
watershed through wri tten agreemnts with land Owners, f o r t h e
purpose o f c o n t r o l l i n g a c t i v i t i o s which wi adversely a f f e c t
l
the microbiological quality of the water

.
- An annual report which identifiesspecial concerns i nt h e
watershed and how theyarebeing handled, i d e n t i f i e sa c t i v j -
t i e s i n the.watershed, projects adverse a c t i v i t i e s expected t o
occur i n t h e f u t u r e andhow t h e u t i l i t y expects t o address
them.

Appendix 3 contains a more detailedguide t o a' comprehensive


*. watershed program.
I n preparing awatershed control 'program, surfacewater systems
should draw upon the State watershed assessments and nonpoint source (NPS)
p o l l u t i o n management programs requitad by S319 o f t h e Ciean UaterAct.
Infomation on these programs i s available from S t i t e water q u a l i t y
agencies or EPA's regionaloffices. Assesswnts i d e n t i f y IPS pollutants
i n water and assess the urger q u a l i t yU. t i l i t i e s should use the
assessments when evaluating pollutants i n t h e i r watershed- Surface water
quality rssessmnts can also be obtained fma t h e l i s t s o f waters prepared
under $304(1) of the Clean Water Act, and Statebiennially prepared
5305(b) nports
, State NPS rcrnagement programs identify best management p r a c t i c i s
(BMPS) t o bo craployed i n reducing UPS pollution. . These management
programs can be incorporated i n t h e watershed progrm to protect against
a dqradation of the source'waterquality.

. 3-36
for systmsusing ground water sources under theinfluence of
surface water, the control measures delineated i n the Wel1.head Protection
(WHP) program encompass the requirements of the watershed control progrm,
andcan be used t o f u l f i l l t h e requirements ofthe watershed control
program. Guidance on thecontent of State Wellhead Protection Progrms
- and thedelineation of mllheddprotection areas i s givenin: "Guidance
for Applicants for State Wellhead Protection Program Assistance Funds
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act," June, 1987, and "Guidelines f o r
Oelineation o f Wellhead Protection Areas,"June, 1987, available from the
€PA off i c e o f Ground-Water Protect ion (WH-SSOG) .
As a minimum, the WHP program must:
- Specify the
duties of State agencies, local governacntal
e n t i t i e s and public water supply systems with respect t o the
development and impleaentation o f Programs;
- Determine the wellhead
wellhead as defined i n
reasonabl available
i
flow, rec arge and discharge an
deems necessary t o adequately determine t h e WHPA;
- Identifywithin each WHPA a l l p o t e n t i a l anthropenic
of contminants which my haveany adverse e f e e t on the 7 sources
health o f persons;
- ,Describe a program thatcontains, as appropriate,technical
assistance,financialassistance,iwlementationofcontrol
m a s u n s , education, t r a i n i n g and demonstration p r o j e c t s t o
protect the water supply within WHPAs 1f m such contaminants; .

lans for locating and p p v i d i n g a l t e r n a t e


ies for each public water sys.tcm i n t h e
contamination by such contaminants;
Consider a l l o t e n t i a l sources o f such contminants within the
1 P
ex ected we] head area of a new water well which serves a
pu l i e water supply system; and
'

- Provide for publicparticipation.

3.3.2 ' -fnsptctw


The watershed control program and on-siteinspectionareinter-
relatedpreventivestrategies.On-siteinspection i s actually a program
which includes and surpasses therequirements o f awatershed program.
3-37
f-"l

Whi le the watershed program i S min)y concerned with the water source,
c ;

on-site inspection includes 9- addltional mqui-nts for so&ce water


quality control ?nd is also concerned. with the disinfection facilities:
AS deflvd bY the EPA, an.on4te inspection includesrwiew'of the water
source, disinfection facilities and operation and maintenance of 4 public
water SyStm for the purpose of evaluating the adquacy of such systms
for producing safe drinkingwater.
The SWTR requires an annual on-site inspection to evaluate the
watershed control prograra and disinfection facilitles. The-inspection
bust be p e r f o m d by a party approvedby the Primacy Agency. The inspec-
tion should be conductedby competent individuals such bs sanitary and
civil engineers, sanitarians, and technlcians who. have 'experience and
knowledge in the operation, maintenance,and design of water systems, and
who have a sound undetstanding.of public health principles and waterborne
.
dlseases. Guidance forthe contents of an inspection are included in the ,
following paragraphs. Appendix K presents guidelines for a sanitaty
1 survey which includes and surpasses the requirements of an on-site
/.

inspection.
As the first step in detemining whlch SUTR r e q u i k n t s , if any, a
source is subject to, €PA recamends that utilities conduct a detailed,. *

coarprehenslve sanitary survey. Appendix K presents a colllprehensive list


of water system features thatthe person conductingthe survey shouldbe
aware of and revim as appropriate. . This inltial investigatlon estab- '

1 ishes the quality of thewater source,its treatment and delivery the 'to
consuer. €PA recomaends thatthis colrprehensive evaluation be repeated
every thisa years for rystas serving 4,100 people or less and everyfive
years for systems serving more than 4,100 people. Also, under the Total
Collfonr fila, ground water systems which. take l h s than 5 colifona
supler"pr w n t h m sconduct
t such sanitary surveys within 5every or 10
years d w d i a g upon.whether th8 .sourc8 1s protected and disinfected..
The annual on-site inspection to fulfill the SUTR WulrcrPcnts
' should include as a m i n i m : .

3-38
1 a! CUSTOMER
..

CWCORJWE CHLORIWE
OIOXJDE I I

FIGURE 3- l*DETERMlWATlON OF'INACTIVATION FOR


MULTIPLE OIStWF@CTANt APPLICATION
TO A SURFACE WATER SOURCE

L
1. Source Eva1uation
. a. Review 'the
effectiveness
. program (Appendix
of
the
J).
watershed control-

b. Review .thephysicalcondition and protection'ofthe


sourceintake.
c. Reviek
the maintenance program toinsure t h a at l l '

disinfection equipment i s appropriate andhas received


regular maintenance and r e p a i r t o assure a high operat-
ing reliability.
.I

2. Treatment Evaluation
a. Review improvements and/or additions u d e t od i s i n f e c -
t i o n prdcesses during
the
revious
year t oc o r r e c t
P
deficiencies detected i n ear i e r surveys.
b. .Review theconditionofdisinfection equipment.
Review
c. operating procedures.
d. Review datarecords t o assure t h a ta l lr e q u i r e dt e s t s
are being conducted and tecorded and d i s i n f e c t i o n i s
effectively practiced (CT calcutationsshould be spot .
checked t o ensure that they were done correctly)
e. Identify any
needed
improvements i n the equipment,
systcla maintenance and operation, or data collection.

I n a d d i t i o n t o theserequirements, a periodic.sani.tary survey i s


. recoamnended for a l l systems, including those with f i l t e r e d and u n f i l t e r e d
supplies. The sanitary surveyshould include the items listed i n 1 and 2
above aswe1 1 as:
3. D i s t r i b u t i o n Systea
Evaluation
a. Review thecondition o f storage f a c i l i t i e s .
b. Otternine
that
the system has s u f f i c i e n t pressure
throughout the year.
e. V e r i tf hy a t systea equipment has received
regular
maintenance.
d. Review additions/improvements
incorporated
during
the
year tocorrectdeficienciesdetected in theinitial
inspection.

3-39
e. Revi& cross
connection
prevention programb inclydfng If-\'
annual testing of backflow prevention devices. .
f. Review routineflushing program f o r effectiveness.

. , g. Evaluatethecorrosioncontrol
d i s t r i b u t i o n water quality.
program and i t s impact on .

h. Review the adequacy of the prograa for periodic storage


reservoir flushing.
i. Review practices i n repairing water nuin breaks t o
assure
include
they
disinfection. .

4. 13anagcl#nt/Operation Evaluation
a. Review theoperations t o assure that any d i f f i c u l t i e s
experienced during the
year have
been adequately
addressed.
b. Review s t a f f i n gt o assure adequate numbers ofroperly
trained and/or c e r t i f i e d personnel are rvailab e. P
c. Verifythat a regular maintenance schedule i s followed.
.. ,. d. Audit Systems n c ~ r d st o v e r i f y t h a t theyareadequately
aaintained.
e. Review bacteriological data frola t h e d i s t f i b u t i o n system
f o rc o l i f o m occurrence, repeat sanples and action
. response.

3.3.3 b m
Under the provisions of the SWTR, a surface water system which.does
. not filter must not have been identified as a ' source of
waterborne
disease, or i f i t has been SO identified,thesystm w s t have bten
modified sufficiently t o prevent another such occurrence, a t datemined by
the Priucy Agency. I f 8 waterborne disease outbreak has occurred and the
'outbrerk was or Is a t t r i b u t e d t o a treatment deficiency, then the system
must i n t t a 1 . lf i l t r a t i o n unlessthe systemhas upgraded i t s treatment
system t o &dy the deficiency which led t o . t h e outbreak and the Primacy
Agency has deterained that the system i s s a t i s f y i n g t h i s requirement. I f
the Primacy Agency has detemined the disease outbreak was t h e r e s u l t of
a d i s t r i b u t i o n system p r o b l mr a t h e r than a sourcewater
treatment
deficiency, the system i s not required t o i n s t a l l f i l t r a t i o n .
3-40
In order to deternine whether theabove requir-nt is being met,
the responsible federal, state and 'local health agencies should be
surveyed.to obtain the current and historical information onwaterborne.
disease outbreaks which may have occurred withinigiven system. Whether
conducted by the Primacy Agency or subaitted by the water purveyor, this .
infomation should include:
\ 1. Source of the Infowation:
a. Name of agency
b. Name and phone number of person contacted
e. Date o f inquiry
2. Outbreak Data
a. Known or suspectedincidents o f . waterbornedisease

..
outbreaks
b Oate( I) of occurrence s)
c
d. Number of cases
1
Type or identi tyo f i lness

3. Status of Disease Reporting:


a. Changes in regulations;
reportable diseaseuntil 198 "'9., giardiasis was not a

. 4. If a Disease Outbreak has Occurred:


a. Uas the reason for the- outbreak identified; e.g., '

inadequate disinfection?
b. Did the outbreak occur while the 'system was in its
current configuratlan?
e. Wasremedialactiontaken?
d. Have there been any further outbreaks
sincc the remedial
action was taken?

If 8 nview o f the availabh! infomation indicates that the system


' or network for disease reporting is inadequate within the Primacy Agency's
a n a o f responsibility, efforts shouldbe aade to encourage the appropti-
ate agencies to upgrade the disease reporting capabilities within the
area.

3 -41
r-+,
I ;
3.3.4 W l v Coliforn a . .
5. TO avoid filtration, a s y s t m must comply withthe MCL fortotal
colifor#, established in the Total Colifom Rule, f o r at least 11 out 0;
the previous 12 months the system served water to the public on an ongoing
basis,.unlessthe Primacy Agency deterninesthatfailuretometthis
requirement was not causedby a deficiency i n treatment of the source
water. I f the Prirracy Agencymakes such a detemination,the system i s ,
n o tr e q u i r e dt oi n s t a l lf i l t r a t i o n . The TotalColifora Rule requires
systems using surface water or ground water under the inf1uence %f surface
water which do not f i l t e r t o c o l l e c t a sropleat or near , t h e f i r s t
curtomar, each"day that the turbidity level exceeds 1 NTU within.24 hours *

of learning of the result and t o analyze the sample for the presence o f
totalcoliforms. (If the Primacy Agency deternines that i t i sn o t .
pos.sible f o r t h e system t o have such a sample analyzed within 24 hours,
. this time l i
m i
t ray be extended on a case-by-case basis.) This sample may
,be used t o f u l f i l l the routine compliance monitoring requirements o f .the
TotalColiform Rule. The resultsoftherdditional sanple must be
included i nd a t e m i n i n g whether the system i s i n compliance with the
. monthly WL f o rt o t a cl o l i f o m .
3.3.5 JotalTrihahg$hw - T !
For the system t o continue . t o use disinfection as t h e .o n l y
treatment, i t must comply w i t ht h et o t atlr i h a l m t h a n e (TTHM) HCL
regulation. The current regulation established an WL for t o t a l TTHM of
0.10 mg/L for systems serving a population greater than 10,OOO. l o t h the
KLand the system population covered ray be reduced i n the future, and
this-should be cdnsidered'&en planning disinfectant application.
One a l t e m r t i v et o& e tt h e CT n q u i n w n t s o f t h e SWTR i s t o
i n c n r s e ' tho disinf&tant dose. f o r many systems, a higher chlorine'dose
w i diTt f n ' increased'forrationof
l TTHnt. Changes i n disinfection
' pr&& sbm1d m i n t a i n TTHn 1,evels o f lessthan 0.10 q / L . f n l i e u of
incmasing chlorine dose, use o f an alternate disinfectant which Produces
f-r nws could be considered. Alternate disinfectants include the US@
'of ozone Or chlorinedioxide as primarydisinfectants with chlorine Or . .

chloramines as secondary (residual)disinfectants. It i s important t o


notethat €PA also w i 11 promulgate regulations f o r disinfectants and
3-42
disinfection by-products which ray limit appllcrtion o f some of there
disinfeCtmtS* €PA recotmends that Primacy Agencies keep inforacd through
conmunicrtion with €PA on interim guidance on haw to avoid conflict for -
systems to comply with both the SWTR and the forthcoming regulations on
disinfectants and disinfectionby-products. Any changes which appear to
n o t meet the by-product regulations should not be implemented.

3-43
4.1 rntroductton
TO c m l y with the SWTR, public water systems nust include. fittra-
tion, or sow other approved particulate removal technology, in their
' treatment process unless they are able to satisfy certain conditions.
Those conditions include compliance with source water quality criteriaand
site-specific criteria. Guidance for detennining whether tbese conditions
are act is provided In Section 3 of this manual. Systehs 'unable to
sati.sfy these conditions rmst provide partlculate rmoval . and met
criterla pertaining to operation, designand perfomance. these criteria
a n specified in part in the definitions of technologies in the SWTR and
more specifically as detemined by the Primacy Agency.
. Tbis section provides guidanceboth for those water systemsM . c h
. currently do not have fi lttation equipment and must add it, and, for
systems which have existing filtration processes. Guidance on additional
alternatives for small systems is presented in Appendix L.
this section includes guidanceon the following topics:
.a. FiltrationTechnology:Oescriptions,capabilities,design
criteria and operating requirementsfor each technology, and
a listing o f major factors to be considered in . their
selection, including raw water quality considerations.
b. Disinfection: Descriptions o f the most .applicable disin-
fection techno1 ies used with filtration systems, and a
7
presentation of't a relative effectivenessof these disinfec-
.tion t8chnOlopieS with respect to inactivation of bacteria,
cysts and viruses.
e. Alternate Technologies:
Descriptions of some currently
available alternate filtration technologies.
d. Other Alternatives: Includes a description o f s o w nontteat-
rant alternatives including ngionaliration and use of an
a1 ternate source.

4.2 &leetion o f A b w r i a t e FiltrALion T W


Filtration is generally provided by passing water through a bed of .'
. sand, a layer of diatomaceous earth or a combination bed of coarse anthta-

4-1
citecoiloverhyingfiner sand. F i l t e r s areclassified and n a k d i n a
number o f ways. For example,based on application rate, sand f i l t e r s CM
be classified as either slow or rapid;yet these two types of f i l t e r s
d i f f e r i n many Iorecharacteristics than justapplicationrate. they
differintheir removal process, bed material, method of cleaning, and
operation. Easedon the type of bed m a t e r i a l , f i l t e r s can be Classified
as sand,diatocaaceous earth,dual-wdia (coal-sand) or even nulti-media
i n which a t h i r d l a y e r of high density sand i s used.
-
4.2.1 wu-
Current technologies specified by the SWtR are:
a. Conventionat treatment: A series of processes including
coagulation,flocculation,sedimentation and f i l t r a t i o n . .
b. D i r e c tF i l t r a t i o n : A series o f processes including coagula-
' t i o n (and perhaps flocculation) and filtration,butexcludlng
sedimntation.
c. o
S
wl Sand F i l t r a t i o n : A processwhich involves passage o f ran . -_
waterthrough a bed o f rand a t low velocity,enerally less
than 0.4 naters/hour (1.2 ft/hr), resulting -?
n substantial
p a r t i c u l a t e rrmoval by physical and biological mechanisms.
)I
--

d. Di8tOaIaC80US Earth
Filtration: A process t h a t 'meets the
following conditions:
'

'
- A precoat cake o f diatoarceousearth f i1t a r media is
deposited on a support membrane (septum)
- The w r t e r ' i s f i l t e r e d b assing it throughthe cake on
!!
the scptm; additional I t a r media, k n o w as body feed,
i s continuously added t o t h e feedwater i n order t o
maintain the perwabi l i t y o f the fi.?tercake.

4-2
e.
. those r
Alternate Technologies: An f i l t r a t i o n process other than
l i s t e d above. Availab e a l t e r n a t e f i l t r a t i o n technolo-
gies include, but w e not limited to:
- ' Package Plants'
- CartridgeFilters

4.2.2 W # U
F l l t r a t i o n processes provide various levels of
turbidity and
microbial contaminant mboval. When properly designed and .operated and
when treating sourcewatersof suitablequality,the above f i l t r a t i o n
processes. are capable achieving
of a 2-109 (99 percent) removal
of GiarQin cysts and a tl e a s t a 1-log (90 percent) removal ofviruses
withoutdisinfection (Logsdon, 1987b; USEPA, 1988b; Rocbeck, 1962). The
exception i s ' c a r t r i d g ef i l t e r s which u y notprovideeffectivevirus
removal. A sumnary of the removal c a p a b i l i t i e s o f t h e v a r i o u s f i l t r a t i o n
processes i s presented i n Table 4-1.
As indicated i n fable 4-1, conventionaltreatmentwithoutdisinfec- .
t i o n i s capable of achieving up t o a 3-log maoval of Ejardlp cysts and
up t o a 3-109 teaovalofviruses.Ofrect f i l t r a t i o n can achieve up t o a
' 3-109 m v a lo f cysts and
up t o a &log m v a ol f viruses. '

Achieving the maximum nroval efficiencies with these treatment processes


requires the raw water t o be properlycoagulated and f i ltered.Factors
which can r d v e n e l y rffecy removal efficiencies include:' .
- Rm waterturbiditieslessthan 1 NTU
- Coldwaterconditions
- Non-optimal or no coagulation
- Improper f i l t e r operationincluding:

Depending upon t h et y p eotfr e a t a e n&t i t si np l a c eh, i s t o r i c a l


p w f o m a n c e r n d / o r p i l o t p l a n t work, these plants could be categorized
8s one of the technologies i n a-d above a t the discretion o f the State.
Several studies have alreadyindicatedthat some packa e plants
effectively m v e cysts. i f such plants
d i s i n f e c t i o n so that the coaplete tnataent train
provide 8 adquate
achieves a t l e a s t a
3-log rmoval/inactivation of Giardl_a c sts and a 4-109 m m v a l / i n a c t i -
treatment requifcQnnt s . f
vation of viruses, use of t h i s techno ogy would s a t i s f y t h e minimum

4-3
r-*
to -- No filter
Internittent’
waste
operation
i
* .

-- . Poor
Sudden rate changes
housekeeping
9 Operatingthe f i l t e r s a f t e r t u r b i d i t y breakthrough
Studies Of S l o w sand f i l t r a t i o n l a v e s h m t h a t t h i s technology
(withoutdisinfection) i s capable o f providinggreaterthM a 3-109
removal of W Cysts and greaterthan a 3-100 IWW)V~I .
of viruses

--
factors which can adversely affect m v a l efficiencies include:
Poor source water q u a l i t y

-- Cold water conditions


Increases i n f i l t r a t i o nr a t e s

-- Oeereases i n bed depth


Improper sand size
Inadequate ripening ...>..
Diatoraaceous earth (DE) f i l t r a t i o n CUI achieve greater than a 3-log
m v a f of Eiardin cysts when sufficient ptscoat and body feed a n used.
However, t u r b i d i t y and t o t a l c o l i f o r m removals an.strongly influenced by-
the grade o f DE eaployed. Conversely, DE f i l t r a t i o n i s not very effective
’ for removing virusesunlessthesurfaceproperties o f the diatomaceous
earth have been altered by p n t n r t m e n t o f the body feed with alum or a
s u i t a b l ep o l y # r .I n general, DE f i l t r a t i o n i s assumed. t o achieve only
a 1-log ratoval o f viruses unless demonstrated otherwise. . Factors which
can affect the removal o f cysts and viruses include:
- Precoat thickness
- h u n t of body‘ feed
’. * -+ f’
6f8dr! Of DE
frproper conditioning of s e p t u
-. trpropii p n t n a t w n t i f ttw body fwd
* p ~ k a g eptmts can be used t o t r e a t water supplies for c-nities
* as ~ 1 8%1 for n c n a t i o n a l a n r s , pahs, constmetion CWS, s k i m 0 t - t ~
’ B i l i t a tiyn s t a l l a t i o n s and o t h efrr c i l i t i c pk o t a l e water i s not
r v a i l a l e f r a a rrnicipr’l supply. Operator mufmnts ~Wfi-
cantly with specific situations. Under unfavorable raw water conditionst

4-4
TA0LE 4-1

, .
‘ 2 z s K s S

Conventional Treatment
Direct Filtration
Slow Srnd Filtration
Dirtmaceour Earth
Filtration

Note:
1. Uithout disinfection.
2. Logsdon, 19876.
3.
4..
Roebeck $& a 1962.
Poynter and Slade, 1977.
5. These technologies generally achieve greater than a 3-109 removal.
package plants could dmand full-timattention. Package plants aremst
,
widely ut8d to t n a t Surfrce suppliesfor tenoval of turbidity, Color and
colifom organisms prior to disinfection. They are currently available
in capacities up to 6 ngda
Colorado State University conducteda series of tests on oni package
plant over a 5-month period during the winter o f 1985-86 (Horn and
Hendricks, 1986). fiisting installationsin Colorado had proveneffective
for turbidity removal , and the tests at the university were designed to
evaluate the systsm's effectiveness in removing colifom bactetta and
cysts frm low turbidity, tow teapetaturn source waters.The test
'

results showid that the filtration systea could rewve greater than
99 percent'of Eiardb Cysts for waters whichhad lessthan 1 WTU turbidity
and less than 5 C tarrperatures, as long as proper chemical treatmentwas .
applied, and.the filter rate was 10 gp/ft* or less. I n addition, an
- alternate water source having a turbidity ranging f m 3.9 to 4.5, NTU was
used in 12 test runs with coagulant doses ranging fm 15 to 45 ql.. The
effluent turbidities ftoo these runs were consistently less than 0.5 NTU.
Surveys of existing facilities indicatethat while package plants.
ray be capable of achieving effective treatment, have aany not consistent-
ly met the interim ClCL for turbidity, and in s a cases, col ifonns were *

.
detected in the fi ltered water (brand et a1 , 1980; brand and Young,
.
1983) The perfomnee diff icultieswere primarlly the result of the
short detention time inherent in the design o f the treatment units, the
lack o f skilled operators with sufficienttime to devote to operating the -
treatment facilities,m d the wide-ranging variabilityin quality of the
raw water source. for instance, raw water turbidity was reported to often
exceed 100 W T U rt one site. I a p W v e m t S in operational techniques and
methods at this slte resulted fn a substantial improvement in effluent
quality. After adjustments w a
n aade, the plant was capable o f producing
a filtered water with turbidities lest than 1 WTU, even when influent
' turbidities increased f r a 17 to 100 MlU within 8 2-hour period, as iong
as propercoagulation was provideda
One of 'the maor conclusions o f these surveys w8s that package water
treatment plants manned by competent operators can COnSiStently remove
(-1
turbidity and bacteria from surface watersof a fairly unifom quality.
Plckr9e Plants aPPlid where raw water turbidities are vari&le require
i
4 high d W @ e of OPmt!Onal ski1 1 and nearly -constant attention by the
Operatof. Regardlest of the quality o f the raw water sOuEe, 411 package
plants requim at least a rinimua level of wintenance and opirational
skill and p r o w chmical treataent if they are to produce satisfactory
wrter qual i ty.
Cartridge filters using microporous filter elements (ceramic, paper
or fiber) with pore Sitesas sull as 0.2 UR my be suitablefor producing
potable w t e r from raw water supplies containing moderate levels of
.turbidity, d g a e and microbiological contaminants.The advmtrge tosAl.1
systems of these cartridge filters is that, with the exception of
disinfectant, no other chemicals are nquimd. the process is one of
strictly physical IYIIK)val of mall particles by straining as the water
. passes through a porous cartridge. Other than occasi.onr1 cleaning or
cartridge reptac-nt, operational requirementsa n not complex and do not
require ski 1 led personnel However, the SUTR does require each surface
water systea to be operatedby a qualified operator,4s detemined by the
Priaacy Agency. Such a systea ray be suitable for s o w small systems
where, generally, only maintenance personnelare avpilable for operating
water supply facilities. However, the use o f cartridge filters shouldbe
1 imited to low turbldity source waters because o f their susceptibi1 i ty to
rapid headloss buildup. For example,manufacturer'sguidelinesfor
achieving reasonable filter run lengths with certain polypropylene' filter
.
element,$are that the raw water turbidity 2beNTU or less (USEPA, 1988b)
Long (1983) malyted the efticacy o f 8 variety o f cartridge f i 1 tars
,using turbidity measurements, particle site analysis,andscanning
electror, .nicroscope analysis.. . The filters were *challenged with a
S~rp&a ot microspheres averaging 5.7 UI in diameter which is saaller
than cyst. The ricrosphcns Mm 8ppli8d at 8 COnC8nttatiOn Of
40 ,m.t o 65,000 spheres per 11. Ten o f 17 cartridge f 11 tars ta#ved over
.
99.9 percent o f the microspheres
L
In tests using live Infectious cysts fm a human source, CaflridV
filtcn w+m found to be highly efficient in reQoving w'cysts

-
4-6
(Hibler, 1986). Each test involved challenging a filter with 300,000
cysts at 1 concentration of 10,OOO cySts/ml. The average m v a l for five
test,swas 99.86 percent, with removal efficiencies ranging froa 99.5 per-
cent to 99.99 percent.
The application of 'cartridge fi I t w S to saal 1 water systrlas using
either cleanable ceramic or disposable polypropylene cartridges appears
to be a feasible .athod for removing turbidity and most microbiological
contaminants. However, data regarding the ability o f cartridge fllters
to m o v e viruses are not available. Since disinfection by Uself could
' achieve a 4-1og inacthation of.viruses, if the cartridge filterm v e s
greater than of equal to 3 logs of Glrrdlr, then the fi lter plus
disinfection would achievethe overall minima requirements, -regardless
o f whether only negliglbla inactivation is achieved (e.9. , less
than O S log). However, consideration should be given to the feasibility
of providing multiple barriers of treatment for each target organism,
i.e. , s o w Glardla and virus removal by each barrier ( L e . , so(# removal
by filtration andso(bc inactivation by disinfection) as protection i n case
one o f the barriers fails. The efficiency and mnmics of' the process.
must be closely evaluated for each situation. Pretreatment i n the fom
of 'roughing filters (rapid sand or rulti-mdia) or fine mesh screensmay
be needed to m w v e larger suspended solids which, if not removed, could
cause the rapid buildup o f haadloss acrossthe cartridges (USEPA, 1988a);
In general, conventional tnataent, direct fi'ltration, slow sand
' filtration m d diataacaous earth filtration CUI be designed and operated '

to achieve the m ax
m
i a removal o f the water quality parmeten indicated
' i n Table 4-1. Ik@V8F, for the purpose o f the appropriate
filtration and disinfection technologies and for detemining design
criteria, .these filtration processes shouldbe attum&l to achieve a 2-log
m v a l of- cysts and a 1-log removal of viruses. Thls conserva-
tive ,approrch nil 1 assure that the trea'tnent f a d l ity has adequ,atc 1

capabi 1ity t o respond to non-optimum perforranee due to changes in raw


water quality, plant upsets, etc. The balance of the required ranovals
and/or inactivation of cysts and viruses would be achieved through
.the applicatlon of appropriate disinfection.

4-7
(- .\

The PerforrClmce of alternate technologies suchas cartridge fil ters , '

and possibly package plants, depending upon the unit under consideration
cannot be stated with certaintyat this time. Ckcause of these perform-
ance uncertainties, pilot studies should be used to demonstrate their
efficacy for a given water supply.

4.2.3
For m y specific site and situation, a number o f factors wilt
detenine which filtration technologyi s most appropriate. .-Amongthese
are: raw water qua1 ity conditions, spaceand personnel avaiiabr
1 1 ty, and
econooic constraints. A discussion of the impact o f raw water quality on
the technology selectioni s presented hen. The impact o f site-specific
factors and economic COnStr8intS i s presented i n the USEPA document
%chnologies and Costs for the Removal of Uicrobial Contaminants frm
Potable Water Suppl i W (USEPA, 1988b) .
* The number o f treatment barriers provided 'should be coarmcnsutatc
with the degree of contamination in the source water. The four technolo-
gies specifiedi n the SUTR vary i n their abilityto meet the performance
criteria when a wide range of raw water qualityi s considered. Uhije the
numerical values of rm water quality that CUI be a c c d a t e d by each o f
the four technologies will vay f r a site to site, general guidance can
be provided. Ganeral guidelinesfor selecting filtrrtion processes, based
on total colifom count, turbidjty,and color an presented i n Table 4-2.
It i s not recamended that filtration systems other than those listed i n ' -

Table 4-2 be used when the general tau water qual ity conditions exceed
the values listed,unless it has been denonstratedthmugh pilot testi.ng
that tlw tachnology can meet the perfoflance criteria under the raw water
quality conditions expected to occur at the site.
The filtration processes listed i n Table 4-1 are capable of
achieving the required performance criteria when properly designed and
operated i f they a n treating a source water o f suitable quality (i:.e., ..
.
generally within the ranges indicated in Table 4-2) One of the causes '

4-8
TABLE 1-2
GENERALIZED CAPABILITY O f FILTRATION SYSTEM
Ty COND1TIONS

tal u i e t b
Total Grnc
Col i f o m s Turbidity . Color
Ttcatnnnt 4umlU --uYIlL (CUI
Conventional with
predisinfaction QO,OOO(J) No . - <7S2)
Conventional without
predisinfcction &,OOO(’) No restrictions(]) <75‘2’
Direct filtration
with flocculation &OO(’) <7-14.(’)
In-line filtration <500‘J) <7-14‘”
. Slow sand filtration CBOO(’) 4 1 )

Diatmaceous earth
filtration 40”) 45‘1’

1.
coagulation --
Depends on algae population, alum or cationic polymer
(Clcasby et & l o t1984.)
2. USEPA, 1971.
3 Letterman, 1986.
of tilttation failuresis the use of inappropriate technology fora given
raw w r t w quality (Logsdon, 1987b). These criteria r n general guide-
tines. Periodic occurrences of raw water coliform, turbidity or color
levels in excess o f the V a b S presented in table 4-2 should notpreclude
the selection of use of a particular filtration technology. For';xuple,
the following alternatives are available for responding to occasional raw
%. water turbidity spikes:
a. Direct
Filtration
--
Continuous monitoring and coagu.lant dose adjustment
More frequent backwasho f fi 1 tart

b.
-
Use o f prasedimentation
Slow Sandfiltration
-
Use of a roughing filter
9 - Use of an infiltration gallery
e. Oiat#aCeOuS Earth Fi ltrrtion .
-
Use o f II roughing filter
-
Use o f excess body feed
For the above alternatives, EPA r e c w n d s that pilot testing be
. . conducted to dawnstrat8the efficacy ofthe treatmnt alternative.
The characteristics of each filtration technology are major factor
in the selection process. Significant characteristics include perfomnce
capabilities (contuinant removal efficiencies) design and construction
requirements, and operation 'and maintenance requimmnts. Details
regarding each of the four filtration technologiesam presented in the
following section.

4.3 U l r b l e Flltration -t
40301.
As fndkrted i n tho preamble to the SWfR, the historical nrponsi-
bility o f the States to establish designand operating criterii for pub1 ic
drinklng water plants will continue. The p.urpose o f .the.following
sections is ,toprovide guidance on how the design and operating criteria
way need to be changed in order to assure that the perfo*nce criteria
in the SUTR rn met.

4-9

.. .
{#-

The d w i g n c r i t e r i a for thevarious f i l t r a t i o n technologies found


i n the 1987 e d i t i o n of - 6 1 - Work (6reat Cakes,
1987) a n themininundesign c r i t e r i at h a t a rrajority o f states are
currently
following.' These standards are referredto 4s ten States .
I Standards I nt h e remainder of t h i s manual. The design c r i t e r i a contained
i n the Ten StatesStmdardshivenot been duplicated here. Rather, the
reader i s referred t o t h e Ten States Standards directly. €PA nconmcnds
the following additions and/or changes t o t h e Ten State Standards i n order
U ~ f ance with the performance c r i t e r i a o f the SUTR.
t o ~ S S cotppl

4.3.2
The following .recotmuendations apply t o a l l f i l t r a t i o n p l a n t s :
a. A l f i l t r a t i o np l a n t s shouldprovidecontinuous 'turbidit
..
monitoring of theeffluentturbidity
filter.'.' If continuous monitoring
f r a each individua
i s impractical,
routine
Y
monitoring o f i n d i v i d u a l f i l t e r s i s ncoantnded as a ainiutun. '

b. A ll f i l t r a t i o n systeas should be concerned with the


perk
t u r b i d i t yl e v e l s in the filtered water a f t e r backwashing and '

r
Based upon theresults o f a surve conducted for the American Water
Works Association Research Foundat on (AWARF), son18 38 states use the
Ten States Standards e n t i r e l y or i n modified fora (AUUARF, 1986).
.
..

' Although t h i s it not a n q u i m n t of the S'CITR, it +s recOn@nended


because o f t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t n o t a l l f i l t e r s i t 1 (I treatment plant
wil1'pFoduC8 th8 tm effluent turbidity. This MY be due t o a variety
o f conditions that include bed upsets, f a i l u r e o f m d i a support or
underdrain systems, etc.Althoughthe combined cffluent from a l the
filt$n'my ae8t the,t u r b i d i t y m q u l r m n t s o f the SWR, t h e t u r b i d i t y
level fm UI i n d i v i d u a l f i l t e r MY substantially exceed the limits.
.This my n t u l ti nt h e passage ofcysts or other pathogens.
' Validationshould be performed a t leasttwice, a week based on the
procedure o u t l i n e d i n P a r t214A i n the 16th Edition o f Standard b k t b d s .
I t should be noted t h a t improper i n s t a l l a t i o n o f continuousmonitors
$ mayl l o w for a i r bubbles t o enter the
monitor
turbidity spikes. lo avoid a i r bubbles reaching the turbi iracter the
. sample t a should be i n s t a l l e d below the. center llne of the pipe and
B
n s u l t i n in false '

!
an a i r .re ease valve r a y be included on the s8fJrple line.
* 4-10
aake every attempt to operate the fi hers to mi,nimize the
.Mgnitude and duration of these turbidityspi kes .
Individual' filters should be monitored as discussed in Section
4.3.2.a and when excessive turbidity spikes are found, corrective actions
. taken. During these turbidity peaks, E j a r d l a cysts and other pathogens
MY be passed into the finished water. There is evidence that a 0.2 to
0.3 WTU increase in the turbidity during the first period of the filter
run can be associated with in Gfardia cyst concentrations by factors
rises
.
of twenty to forty (Logtdon, 1985) Special studies should'be conducted
to determine the extent of theturbidity spikeprobldas.
There are basically four approaches available for' correcting
problrms with turbidity spikes after backwashing. These are as follows
(Bucklin, et rl 1988):
-Proper chcmical conditioning of the influent water to the
filter can miniaire the na nitude and'duration of these
8
turbidity spikes. This coul include proper control o f . the
primry coagulant chemicals such as alum or iron compounds. .
In some cases filter aids using polymers may .be needed to
control the turbidity spikes.
Gradually increasing the filtration rate in increments when
placing the filter in operation. Starting the filter at a low
flow rate and then increasing the flow i n small increments
over 10 to 15 ainutes has been shown to reduce the turbidity
spi kes in sone cases (Logtdon, 1987).
- Addition of coagulants to the backwash water has also been
'

s h o w to reduce the extent of turbidity spikesafter backwash.


Typically the same primary coagulant used in the plant i s
added to the backwash water. Polymers aloneor in combination
. with the primary coagulant may also beused.
filter-to-uaste MY be practiced where a portion of t h e
filtered water irmcdiately after startin the filter is
P
. warted. This is only possible where the ilter system has
1

' For most high rate granular 'bed filters, there is a period of
conditioning, or break-in iamcdiately following backwashing, during
which turbidity and particle removal is at a mini~num, referredto as
, the break-in period. The turbidity peaks are thought to be caused by
manants of backwash water within the pores of and above the mcdi a
'

passing through the filter, and/or floc breakup during t h e f 1 1 t c t


ripening period before it can adequately remove influent turbidity.
. providedthe necessary valves and pipingtoallow this
procedure. There i s some concern whether or not this practice
. i s beneficfal. The extravalveerationt needed for f i l t e r -
7
to-waste can d i s r u p t t h e f i l t e r o wl rate to the extent that
they create their own t u r b i d i t y spikes. S a w knowledge of the
tiam actually needed for filter-to-waste I s also needgd before
i t can be detstmined t h a t t h i s i s m effective prochdure f o r
c o n t r o l l i n gt u r b i d i t y spikes. If thelength of ti
rn the
f ilter-to-wasteispracticed i s lessthanthatbeforethe
turbidityspike parses, thedisruption caused b thevalve
operation MY actually Increase the turbidity sp ke. !
Different plants and t h e i n d i v f d u a l f i l t e r s w $ t h i n . t h plant m y
have d i f k r e nt u r b i d i t ys p i k ec h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The four approaches
presented above, therefore, nust be evaluated on 'a case-by-case basis.
Specialstudies w li be m q u f m d t o i d e n t i f y those f i l t e r sw i t ht h e
t u r b f d i t y spdke probl-s and assistinselecting which of thefour
approaches i s best for correctingtheproblea. It has been generally
found t h a t t u r b i d i t y spikes can be ainimited through one or a conbination
o f the f i r s t t h r e e approaches.
In ordertoestablishfilter-to-uasteoperitingguidelines,the
following procedure i s suggested:
- Review the effluent turbidlty data for each f i l t e r and detcr-
mine which filter h i s t o r i c a l l y has the highest effluent t u r -
bidity.
- followin backwashing o f the f i l t e r w i t h t h e . poorestperfor-
1
mance, p ace t h a t f i l t e r i n t o s e r v i c eand collect rub s q l p
every 5 t o 10 minutes for a period o f a t least. minutes. a8
'- Analyze the grab samples for t u r b f d i t y and determine how long
t h e f i l t e r must be i n operation before the effluent turbidity
drops

. ..
- t o lessthanor equal t o 0.5 WTU ,

or 1 WTU i n cases when a f i l t e r e d water t u r b i d i t y of


less than or equal t o 1 #TU i s allowad.

b
J. ' ' Continuous turbiditymonitoring can
be used i n place o f grab sampling.

4- 12
Limited informtion exists on the typical magnitude and duration o f
peak tuf'bidity h v e b after backwashing and what levels are considered
. acceptrbh t o assure that these turbidity spikes. are not rssoclated with
passage of G_tatdfa cysts. Information from plant scale tests, showing
the typical magnitude m d duration of these turbidity spikes is available
froa two plants (BucklinWal;, 1988). Studies conductedat these plants
over a year showed that these peaks occurred within the first few minutes
after the filter was placed back in operation, their effectslasted for
several hours, and varied in magnitude fm 0.08 to 0.35 NTU o n average.
For existing plants without pmvislons f o r filter-to-waste, the
decision t o add the necessary piping to provide this capability should'bc.
M d e only after Carefully evaluatingthe other three approaches. If the
results o f special studies show that the other three options are not.
cffectiv8 in riniaiting the turbidity spikes thenthe expense o f adding
the filter-to-waste capabilitiesaay be justified.
For new plants the Capability of filter-to-waste naybe tequibd by
the Prirarcy Agency or should be considered. 8y having this capability,
additional flexibility will be available for turbidity splke control.
This flexibility may also be usefulfor other filter naintenance functions
such as after media replacement or when heavy chlorinationof the filter
is neededafter maintenance.

4.3.3 1 - -T
Conventional treatment is the most widely used technology for
. removing turbidity m d aickbial contaminants froa surface water supplies.
Conventional treatment includes the pretreatment steps o f chemical
coagulation, rapid mixing, flocculation md sedimentation followed by
filtrrtfon.. These conventional treatment plants typically use alwinum
and ml n w o u n d s In the coagulation processes. Polymers may also be
' used to mhmce the coagulation and filtration processes. A flow sheet
for a conventional treatment planti s presented on Figure 4-1.
L i m softening is a treatment process used to runova hardness and
turbidity froa surface waters. Treatment is typically accomplished with
conventional process units. The l i m e softening process m o v e s the

4-13
' calcim and M g n e s i m from the water'by precipitating than as calcium
Carbonate andW g n e S i m hydroxide. Turbidity levelsin the water are also
reduced bY this process. and possibly soda ash is added to the raw
water t o raise its p~ to a point at which.these precipitates am f o m d
and thenr e w e d fm the'water during sediaentationand fi1tratfon. 'Lim
Softening M y be used for the removal of carbonate hardness..in the PH
range of 9 to 10 through a single stageprocess. lwo-stage lime/soda ash
softening at a pH of 10 to 12 e m be urd for the nnoval of non-carbonate
hardness and rrgnesiun. Two-stage softening includes recafbonation to
neutralize the caustic alkalinity, reducingthe pH.to the range of 8.5 to
9.5. A flow. sheet;for typical one- and two-stage softening plants is'
ptdsented on Figure 4-2.
Each of these three conventional trertnent processes uses filtration
fol.lowing sedimentation. Three different types of filters w e used. Sand
A
filters, nonaally found in older plants, use a single aedia of sand to
. fom a filter bed, and a n generally designedwith a filtration rate of
'2gpc/tt'. Newer plants nonnally usedual-aedh or aixed aedia filters.
Dual media f i 1 tars use a coobination of mthracite coal aloni with a sand

-
to f o t a the filter bed. H i m d media filters use coal, sand, and a third
iaterial to form the filter bed. Dual and mixed media filters can be
designed to operate at hightr filtration rates..than sand filters, i.e.,
4 to 6 gpa/ft2.

The m i n i m a design criteria in the Ten State Standards for


,

conventional treatment are considered


e'
sufficlent for the purposes of
complying with tho SWlR with the following rddltion:
. fh8 criteria for sediwntation should be expanded to include
other methods o f solids m v a l including dissolved air
. . flotation. plate separationandupflow-solidscontact
clrrffierr included .in the 1987 ten State Standards should
also be considered.

ratiu -R
e
In addltion to the operatingrequirements in the Ten State
Standards, a Coagulant should beused at all times the treatment
plant i s
4-14
in operation.' Conventional and dinct filtration plants rust be monitored
canful1y b=ause failur'e to uintaln optimum C04gU18tiOn can resultin
poor filter performance and breakthrough of cysts and viruses.* A1 though
the detention time ppvided by the settllng basins results in some margin
of Safety, the 1oSS Of coagulation controt at the chemical feed'br rapid
alx points my not be noticed until the poorly corgulat~water reaches
the filters, afterthe process hrs tailed. Failure to effectively monitor
and control filter operation can result in undetected poor filter
perfomance (Logsdon, 1987a;
Logsdon,
1987b) . .
Effective operation of a conventional t r e a m n t p l h t requires
careful monitoring and control of:

Mix
--Chanical Feed
Rapid ..
-
- Flotculatlon
- Sediwntation
- Fi 1 trat ion
For the purposes of the SHTR, the requitcllants for ettectlve
. operation of a conventionil water treatment plant can be stmatized as
follom:
a. The application of a coagulant and.,the maintenance o f
effective coagulation and flocculation at all t i m when a
e .

treatment plant is in operation.' Proper process control


~-

' bpendrble removal of cysts can not be guaranteedif 'a water


is filt8red without being properly coagulated
(Logsdon, 1987b; -AI-Ani
et at., 1985). This is tiwe even if the raw water turbidity is less
than 1 W T U ,

* & indicated in the pnamble to the proposed SWTR, 33 percent o f the


mrtid cases o f giardiasis In waterborne disease outbw.aks were
attributed to laproperly operated flltratlon plants.

' Some conventional water t m a t m n t plants which treat low turbidity


source waters (4 NTU reportedly discontinue the rpplitation of
1 r
coagulant($) during perods o f low turbldity since the raw water ahead
meets the turbidity WL. Houever, studies have shown that cyst rcmOva
for lowturbidlty waters is the most difficultto rchfeve and requires
. optima pretreatwntincluding coagulationto achieve effectiveremovals
4-15
/-:
\
(. *

p W 8 d u n s should be used at the plant t o assure t h a t c h m i c a l


feeds a n adjustedrndmaintained i n nsponse to variations
. i n raw watertee~porrture and t u r b i d i t y .
b. h i n t e n a n coeff f e c t i vfei l t r a t i o n w i
l t a q u i n proper
operation procedures t o meet t h e t u r b i d i t y requirements of the

-
SUTR. Proper operation shouldinclude:
Proper cheder1 conditioning of
the water 'ahead of the
f i l t e r t o assureadequrte t u r b i d i t y removal throughthe '
-j.

:&
filter.
- .
Control o f ,the flow rates and e l i r i n r t i o no fr a p i d
changes i nowrate applied t o t h e f i l t e r .
lf
-

- Backwashing of f i l t e r s before the f i l t e r e d water qual it y


i s degraded t o t h e p o i n t t h a t thb l a n t f a i 1s t o m e t
the turbidity requlremnts of tho
on which t o base I n i t i a t i o n o f backwash w
9 UTR. Tho c r i t e r i a
i have t o be
l
deteminedfof each plant. Experience with operation 0

cycles including iun times and headlors data may serve


as t h e b a s i s f o r t h i s s i t e s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a .
A f t e r backwash bringing the clean filters. back on l i n e .

L
discusses these
Sect on r
so that excessive t u r b i d i t spikes I n t h e f i l t e r e d water
am notcreated. 4.3.2.8
t u r b i d i tsyp i
o ft h i s manual
kes and rpproaches
a v a i l a b l e t o minimize thee.

c. F i l t e r s m o v e d from sewicegenerally should be backwashed


. upon start-up. However, i n some cases, i t m y be illpractical
t o backwash f i l t e r s each time they a n m v e d frocr service.
Accordingly, the Prlracy Agency may choose t o allow start-up
without backwashlng under certain conditions on a site-by-site
basis. I n m k i n gt h i s decision,thefollowingshould be
cons1dared:
.
,-' -.
- the l e n g t h o f t i m e t h e f i l t e r
was o f f - l i n e
perfomnceofthefilterwhilebeingputon-line
The f i l t e r , should be brought 'bac,k o n - l i n e i n such 8 way t h a t
no t u d f d i t y spikes t h a t could be associated with passage of
__
( A l - A n i e t a1 ., 1985) 1

4-16
Qfrrdfa cysts and other pathogens occur. If problems wlth
turbidity spikes an found when starting up dirty filters,
- special studies should be used to 8valuate if any o f the
approaches discussed in Section 4.3.2.8 of this .manual are
effective in rlnimiting the turbidity spikes.

4.3.4 Direct W t r a t i u
direct filtration plant can include several different pretreatment
A
unit processes depending upon the application. I n its simplest foru,the
process includes only in-line filters preceded by chemical coagulant*

application and aixi'ng. The mixingstep,particularly in pressure


fllten, can be satisfied by Influent pipeline turbulence. In larger
plants with gravity filters, UI open rapid-mix basin with aechanical
aixers typically is used. Figure 4-3 illustrates the unit processes o f
a typical direct filtration plant.
' Another variation of the direct filtration process consists
* o f the

-
addition o f a coagulant to the raw water followed by rapid aixing and
flocculation, as illustrated on Figure 4-4. The chemically condftioncd
and flocculated water is then applied directlyto a dual- or mltl-media
filter (USEPA, 1988b) .
the 1987 edition of the Ten State Standards recolllwnds pilot studies
to datemine#st design criteria. For the purposes of implementatton .of
the SUR this raquiment i s considered sirtficient with the following
exception:
a
8. A coagulant mist he used at a11 t i w s when the treatment plant
i s i n operation.

lo @ t i M coa ulation is critical for effective turbidity and aicrobiolog-.'


9
ical r e w v a s with direct filtration (AI-Ani al.,
et 1985).

4-17
-
Operating considerationsfor direct filtration plants are e&ential-
ly identical to those for Convent~Onal treatment plants. The w o r
dlffemnce is that a direct filtration plant will not havea clarifier,
and mayor M y not have a ftoccuhtfon or Contact basin. In addityon, EPA
f?

reconncnds that a11 direct filtration plants, both newand existing, be


required to makc provlsions to rinirlte the break-In tiw of a filter
being put on-1ine.l'
As with Conventional treatment, the inltlatlon o f backwrshlng a
filter should flrst be based fllter
on e#fluent turbldity valies, then by
headloss and run time. Effluentturbidity mnitorlng q u l p m n t should be
set to lnltiate filter backwash at an effluent valueo f 0.5 NTU or less,
in order to meet fittend water qualfty pquinwnts. Also, my filters
ranoved ft# service should be backwashed upon start-up. Insome cases,
It ray ,not be practicalto backwash filters everyt h e they are removed
f r a sewlce. This declslon should be made by the Primacy Agency on a
case-by-case basis,based on the same conslderations as for conventional
systems .
4.3.5 $l&&mFll l t r a t i ~
Slow sand fllters dtfferfron slngle-aadla rapid-rate filtersI n a
. number of inportant characterlstlct. In addjtion to the difference.of ,*
.-
flow rate, sldw sand filters:
a. Function using blological mechanisms8s w e l l as physical-che-'
rical m e h a n i u r
b. Use mal ler sand particles
e. A r e not backwashed, but rather am clemed by m v l n g the
surface media
d.
-Have u c h longer run times between cleanlng

As with a relatively
conventionaltreatannt;direct filtratlon produces
poor quality flltemd . water at the beginning o f filter runs and *

therefore a filter-to-waste period is ncorcnded. In sane cases, the


additton. of a filter aid or brln ing filten on-line slowly will be
' appropri-ate (Clearby et .,
a1 19841.
f l W R E 4-I-FLOW SHEET OF A TYPICAL CONVENTlONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
TWO STAGE SOfTfNlNG 11 1

AtCAROONATlON

I J

FILTRATION
b b

I
$Of TfNCO WATER

FIGURE 4-2-FLOW SHEET OF TYPICAL SOFTENING TREATMENT PLANTS

\
COAGULANTS

INFLUENT 1
FIGURE 4 - 3 FLOW SHEET FOR A TYPICAL
DIRECT FILTRATION PLANT

COAGULANTS

FIGURE 4-4-FLOW SHEET FOR A TYPICALDIRECT


FILTRATION PLANT WITH FLOCCULATION
e. Require a ripeningperiodatthebeginningof each run

Although r a p i d r a t e f i l t r a t i o n i s t h e watertreatmenttechnology
used most ;xtensively i n theUnitedStates, it s use has oftea proved
inappropriateforsmallcomnunitiessincerapid-ratefiltration is a
8
technology thatrequires'ski1ledoperation by trainedoperators. o
Swl
sand f i l t r a t i o n requires very l i t t l e c o n t r o l by an operator. Consequent-
ly, use o f t h i s technology nay be more appropriate for small systems where
source water q u a l i t y i s withintheguidelines recotmended i n Section
4.2.3.
As indicated i n thissection, slow sand f i l t r a t i o na l s o may be
applicable to other source water quality conditions with the addition of
pretreatment such as a roughing f i l t e r or pratedimentation.

s&muu=h
Theminimum design c r i t e r i a presented i n t h e Ten State Standards for
slow sand f i l t e r s are considered sufficient for the purposes of implemen-
t a t i o n o f the SWTR with the following exceptions:
a. Raw water q u a l i t y l i m i t a t i o n s should bechanged t o r e f l e c t t h e
valuesgiven i n Table 4-2."
b.
The effective sand size should bebetween Q;15m and 0.35m
rather than the current 0.30 IUIIt o 0.45 m.

Additionalguidance- on thedesign o f slow sand f i l t r a t i o n i s


available i n t h e design manual e n t i t l e d w n d F i l t r d g n f o r C w
)later Syoplies t- P a w 74. 1 9a publishedbytheInternational

l2 . WIthoutpretreatment, 1i m i t a t i o n s e x i s t i n t h e u a l i t y o f water that


$s
i s s u i t a b l e f o r slow sand f i l t r a t i o n (Lo sdon, 1 7b; Cleasby et al.,
.,
1984; Bellaay et a1 1985; Fox e t al., f983).

'' Significant decreases i n t o t a l c o l i f o n aremovals were shown a t e f f e c t i v e


sand sizes less than 0.35 m (Bellany e t al,, 1985) As defined .in the .
AWA Standard f o r F i l t e r i n g M a t e r i a l , e f f e c t i v e s i t e i s t h e size opening
,
that wil pass 30 percent by weight o f a .sample o f f i l t e r m a t e t i a i .
4-19
Reference Centre for Conmunity
Water
Supply
and Sanitation (IRC) ,
(-'
.
,~
I

p.0, Box 5500, 2280 HM Riijswijk, the Netherlands.

Wrati
Mbintenance of a slbn sand f i l t e r involves two periodic tasks:
Removal
a. of thetop 2 t o 3 an (0.8 t o 1.2 inches) o f the
_-
surface of the sandbed when the headloss exceeds 1 t o 1.5 me1' *-*.. .

..
b. Replacement of the sand when repeated scrapings have reduced ''

.(
depth (Bellmy et a1 198 ). s
the depth of the sand t o ap r o x i u t e l y one-half o f i t s design

Fol lowing schping , slow sand f i1ters produce 'poorer qual it y


f i l t r a t e a t t h e beginning of a run, and a filter-to-waste or ripening
period . . o f one t o two days i s recomMnded before use t o supply the system.
The r i p e n i n g p e r i o d i s an i n t e r v a l oftimeiamcdiatalyafter a scraped
filter i s put back on-line, d e n t h e t u r b i d i t y or p a r t i c l e count results
are significantly higher than the correspondingvalues for the operating
filter, During t h i s time, the microorganisms multiply. and a t t a i n
e q u i l i b r i u mi nt h e mschmuttdecke.m F i l t e r effluentmonitoringresults
should beused t o determine the end o f the ripeningperiod.For example,
a 'turbidimeter could be set at 1.0 NTU or lest ti on i t i a tset a r t o f the &
-.
f i1t e r run , I",
?

When repeatedscrapings of the sand have rtduc.ed the depth o f the izz
sand bed t o approximatelyone-half of, i t s design depth, the sand should --
be replaced, Ff 1t e r bed depthsof less than 0.3 t o 0.5 I (12 t o 20
inches) have been shown t o r e s u l t i n poor f i 1t a r performance (Bel lamy e t
. .
a l . , 1985) The replaccnnntprocedure
should
includerauoval
of
the
remaining sand down to the gravel support, the addition o f new sand t o one
h a l f o f the design depth and placcmcnt of the sand previously removed o n
top of the new sand."

'' Removal o f t h i st o p layer of the OSchautrdeckanshould


f i l t e r t o i t s operational, capacity and i n i t i a l haadlost.
restore t h e

z This
procedure r e s u l t isn clean sand being
placed i tnh e bottom h a l f
o f t h e f i l t e r bedand biologically active sand i n the top half reducing
the w u n t . o f timerequired for thecuringperiod. It also prov:des
-
4-20
The amountof tian for the biological populationto mature in a new
sand filter (also called curing) to andprovide stableand full treatment
varies. The World Health Organization (1980) reported that curing
.
*

requires a fen weeks to a few months. Fox et a1 , (1983) found that


"about 30 days" were required to bring particle and bacterialeffluents
down to a stable level. All researchers agree thata curing tian for a
new filter is required before the filter operatesat itsfullest potential
. .
I

(Bel lq et a1 , 198s)

4.3.6 Filtru
Diatomaceous earth (DE) fi 1tration, a1 so known as precoat or
diatomite filtration, is appropriate for direct treatment of surface
. waters f o r naroval of relatively l o w levels o f turbidity and microorgan-
' isms.
.
1 Diatomitefiltersconsist of a layer of DE about 3 un (118 inch)
thick supportedon a septum or fi 1 tar element. The thin precoat layer of
DE must be supplemented by a continuous body iced ofdiatomite, whichis
.
used to maintain the porosity of the filter cake. If no body feed is
added, the particles filtered out will build up on the surface of the'
filter cake and cause rapid increases in headloss. The problems inherent .
in maintaining the proper film o f DE on the reptun have restricted the use
o f diatomitefilters for municipalpurposes,exceptundercertain
favorable raw water quality conditions, Le., low turbddity and good
bacteriological quality. Specific upper 1 iaits o f ran 'water qual i ty ,
parameters are not well-defined because diataaceous earth filtration
performance depends on the nature, as w e l l as the concentration, of the
raw water particles m d the grades of diatomite employed. Logsdon (1987b)
' , reported that filtered water turbidities above 1 NTU and short filter runs
were observed for several diatomaceous earth plants having maxilbum raw
water turbidities above 20 NTU.

.s
for a Complete exchan e of sand over tire, alleviating potential
problems of excessive s It accumulation and cloggingo f the f i l t e r bed
(Bellmy et al., 1985)

4-2 1
c

c
-
the minimum design c r i t e r i a presented i n the Ten State Standards f o r
diat008CeOUS e a r t hf i l t r a t i o n r n considered sufficientforthe
of compliance with the SWTR with the following exceptions:
The
a. ret-nded quantity of precoat i s 1 kg/$ (0.2 pounds per
purposes

-
--.
-.

square foot) of f i l t e r area, and the minimum thickness of the


precoat f i l t e r cake i s 3nn t o SOIR (1/8 t o 1/5-inch).i6 Y

b. treatmentplants should beencouraged toprovide a cpfgulant


-. ~

coating (alum or suitable polymer) of the bodyfr'ed.

. Operatlngrequirements s p e c i f i ct o DE f i l t e r s include:
-Preparation o f bodyfeedand precoat
- V e r i f i c a t i o n t h a t dosages areproper
- Periodic backwashing and disposal o f spent f i I t e r cake
- Periodic inspection of the septtm(s) for cleanliness or damage
- Verificationthatthe filter i s roducing a ' f i l t e r e d water
that meets the performance c r i t e t a P ..
4-

4.3.7 b l t e - o l o w
*
The SWTR allows the use o f f i l t r a t i o n technologies other than those
specified above provided that
thesystea dunonstrates t ot h e Primacy .*
IC

Agency usingpilotstudies or other#antthatthefiltration technology -


* when combined w i t hd i s i n f e c t i o n achieves a tl e a s t 3-109 -5 cyst and
&logvirusrewval/inactivation. Such technologies must a l s o m e t t h e
t u r b i d i t y performance c r i t e r i a f o r slow sand f i l t r a t i o n . Guidance . . for

" Studies have shown that a pncoat thickness of 1 k g / d (0.2 l b s j f t f ) was


most e f f e c t i viecny s t removal and that the
pruoat
thickness
1984;Logsdon e t a11981; Beltamy e t a1 , 1984) . .
was atore important than the grade s i z e i n c y s t rcnoval (DeWallc et at.,

'' Although enhancement o f t h e DE i s not nqulred for Giardia cyst removal,


coagulant coating o f the body feed hasbeen found tosigni.ficant1y
.

i rovemnovalsofviruses,bacteria and t u r b i d i t y . .(Brown et al.,


7
19 4; Bel lamy e t a1 * , 1984)
4-22
conducting pilotstudies to demonstrate this effectiveness is provided in
Appendix W o f this manual.
Revhrse osmosis is a membrane filtrationmethod which is .used for
' desalination and/or the ranoval o f organic contkinants. The treatment
process'is effective'for the noloval of Eiardb cysts and viruses andno
demonstration is necessary.
Alternate filtration technologies which are currently available

--
include, but are not limited to:
Package Plants
Cartridge Filters
.

Package plantsin principle a m not a separate technologyf m the


preceding technologies. However, in many cases they are different enough
in design criteria, and operation and maintenance requirements that they
should be considered as an alternate technology. The package plant is
designed asa factory-assembled, skid-mounted unit generally incorporating
a single, or at nost, a few process units. A complete treatmentprocess
typically consists of chemical coagulation, flocculation, settling and
filtration. Package plants generally can be applied to flows rangingfrom.
.
about 25,000 gpd to approximately 6 llgd (USEPA, 1988b) In cases where
the.Primacy Agency believes that the design criteriao f the package plant
corresponds to thedesign criteria of the processes establ ishedearlier
in this section (i.e., that the package plant qualifies.as conventional
or direct filtration), the requirement o f pilot testingmay be waived.
The application of cartridge filters using eithercleanable ceramic .
or disposable polypropylene cartridges to small water systems my be a
feasible method for removing turbidityand some microbiological contami-
nants,such as cysts although no data are availableregarding
their ability to m v e viruses. Pilot studies a m rquired to demon-
strate the efficacy 'of this technology for a given supply. However, if
the technology was demonstrated to be effective through pilot plant
studies at one site, then the technology ,could be considered to be
effective a t . another site which had similar source water quality
conditions. Therefore, pilot piant testing at the new site might not be
necessary.

4-23
It i s ilaportant t o notethatthe demonstration o f achievingthe 3- r. .*

log Glrrdla Cyst and 4-10g virustarroval/inactivation requi-nts


includesdlsinfection. Thus, i f a cartridge filter i s demonstrated t o
achieve a 3-log removal o f Gtardfa cysts and i t i s datemined by CTs that
thedisinfection achieves al et a s t a 4-109 virus inactivation, the .
effectiveness of the technology would be. demonstrated. The technology
must alsomaintainturbiditieslessthan 1 NTU i n 95 percentofthe
monthly samples. Wteting t h i st u r b i d i t y requirement
assures a high
p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t u r b i d i t y w i 11 not interfere with disinfectipn and that .
the inactivation efficiencies predicted by the CTs are reliable.

Cri t e r i a
After any necessary pilot studies are conducted and a successful

-
demonstration ofperformance hasbeen made, design c r i t e r i a should be
established and approved by the Primacy Agency. Eventually, a s u f f i c i e n t -
l y l a r g e d a t a base wl b e c m available, making i t easier t o appiythe
i
alternate technologies t o other water supplies o f similar quality.

. A f t e r any necessary p i l o st t u d i e s are conducted and a successful


demonstration o f performance hasbeenmade, operating requirements should
* be established and approved by the Primacy Agency.

4.3.0 m t AltctutivU
Under c e r t a i n circumstances, some systems may have other altema-
tives
available. These alternatives include
regionalizarion and the use .
o f a1ternate sources.
for m a l 1 water systms which must provide filtration, a feasible
option may be to Join with other small or large systems t o fora a region-
a l watersupplysystm. Inaddition,alternative water sources located
within a kasonablt distance o f a colrmunitywhich would allow the system
t o meet the requirements o f t h e SWTR and other applicable drinking water
regulations, may be developed t o provide a satisfactorysolutionto a
comnunity waterquality problem. The a v a i l a b i l i t yo fa l t e r n a t i v e ground .' '

4-24 -
water sources nil 1 dependupon the size and location of the system and
the costs Involved.

4.4 u u e
4.4.1 Gcnctal
The SWTR requires that disinfection be included as p a r t o f the
treatment of
surface water for
potable use. As noted e a r l i e r , €PA
rocomends that tho number o f t r e a t m n t b a r r i e r s bo c m n s u r a t e w i t h t h e
degree o f contamination i n t h e source water i n accordance with Table 4-2.
For example,as indicated in Table 4-2, when t h e t o t a l c o l i f o m s i n t h e
sourcewateraregreaterthan 5,000/100 nl, conventionaltreatment with
p r e d i s i n f e c t i o ni s recorwnded. However, theselectionofappropriate
disinfection requires consideration o f other factors in addition to than
those included i n Table 4-2.These considerations include:
a. Source water q u a l i t y and theoveralltslnoval/inactivation of
GIatdrr cysts and viruses desired.
b. L i k e l ihood o f TTHM formation.
e. Potential need for an oxidant
for purposes other than
disinfection
including
control
taste;
manganese, color , etc
of
. odor, iron,

4.4.2 ~ d t d v a l / ~ a t i a n
The SWTR requires a mini- 34og r m o v a l / i n a c t i v a t i o n o f Giardia
cysts and a mini- 4-109 rmoval/inactivation o f viruses:
a. Well-operatedconventionaltreatmentplants which have been
optimized for t u r b i d i t y removal can be expected t o achieve a t
l e a s t a 2.5-log removal o f Giardia cysts.
b. Well-operated diatomaceous earth, slow sand f i l t r a t i o n and
direct f i l t r a t i o n p l a n t s can be expected t o achieve a t l e a s t
S l o g removal of Wardiq cysts.

EPA ncomnands that:


a. Conventional f i l t r a t i o n systems w i d es u f f i c i e n dt i r i n f e c -
t i o nt o achieve a nrinirurm o f 0. -logcyst
virusinactivation.
1. and 2-log

4-25
b. Slow sand f i l t r a t i o n systems provide sufficient disinfection
t o achieve a miniwm of 2-109 m d i q cyst and 2-lo9virus
inactivation.'
C. Systems using diatomaceous earth and d i r e c tf i l t r a t i o n , or
o t h e r f i l t r a t i o n methods, should provide sufficient disinfec-
t i otno achieve a minimurn o f l-log cyst add
3-109
virus inactivation.

Further guidance on thedisinfectionlevel t o be provided i s


contained i n Section 5. CT values f o r achievingthese'inactivationsare
presented i n Appendix E. As indicated i nt h i s Appendix: -
a. A comparison of Tables €01 through E-6 with Table E-7
indicates that systcrat whichachieve a 0.5-log inactivation
of Giardia cysts, using free chlorine, 'will achievegreater
than a 4-log inactivation of viruses.
b.
Ozoneand chlorinedioxidearegenerally more e f f e c t i v ea t
inactivating
cysts.
viruses
than However, as
i n d i c a t eidn Tables E-8 through E-11, there are sme
conditions under which the disinfection needed t b provide the
recomncnded virus inactivation is higher than that needed for
I.

t h e recomended inactivation.
cyst Therefore, a
system using ozone or chlorine dioxide for disinfection must
check the CT values needed t o provide the' recwnended
. inactivationofbothcysts and viruses and providethe
. higherofthe two disinfectionlevels. Systems may demon-
s t r a t e t h e i r e f f i c i e n c y f o roveral.1 nmoval/inactivation using
t h e p r o t o c o l i n Appendices G and M.
e. As l n d l c r t e dI n fables €112 and € 4 3 , chloraminesare much
less effectiveforinactivatingcysts and viruses than
. the other disinfectants. Also,chloramines cay be applied to
t h e system i n several ways, either with chlorine added p r i o r
t o aamonia,amnoniaadded p r i o r t o c h l o r i n e or preformed. For
systems applying chlorine ahead o f &nia, the required level
o f d i s i n f e c t i o n may be determined as follows: .
- determine.
inactivation o f
the CT needed t o provide the
required
and viruses and provide the
higher of the two levels or
,4026
- follow the ptotocol in Appendix 6 to demonstrate
effectivelnactivatlon to allow lower levels of
disinfection. .

'For systems applying aaraonia ahead of chlorine o r phformcd


chloramines, the EPA ncaaaends that the system demonstrate
effective virus inactivation according t o the protocol in
Appendix 6, since the Cf values for virus inactivation in'
Table €113 only apply to the additton of chlorine prior to
aaraonia.
Although the SUTR requires a ainimun of a 3 4 0 g moval/inactivation
of EiatdLp cysts and a minimum of a 4-log removal/fnactivationof viruses,
it may beappropriate for the Primacy Agencyto require greater removals/-
inactivations .depending upon the degree o f contamination withln the source
. water.
Rose (1988) conducteda survey o f water sourcesto characterize the
level of Giardia cyst occurrence for 'polluted' and "pristine" waters.
Polluted waters are defined as waters in the vfcinity of sewage and
agricultural wastes, while pristine waters are those originating ,from
protected watersheds with no significant sources of microbiological
. contamination frola human activities. EPA believes that treatment should
be provided to assure less than one case of microbiologically-caused
illness per year per 10,000 people. In order to provide this level of
protection, 3, 4 or 5-log Grardra cyst rmval/inactivation should .be
provided for thefollowing source water qualities:
Giardia Cyst Rmoval/Inactivation Required Bdsed18, 19
on M e Uatcr Cvst -on
Giardia Inactivation Llai
_. .-
At lowable daily avg
cyst concentration/100 L
(geometric man)

Rose, 1988.
lo 10'' annual risk per person based on consumption of 2 liters of water
daily.
4-27
if - 'j
\ :

According t o these guide1 ines, systems with sewageand agricultural


discharges t o t h e sourcewatershould providetreatment t o achieve an
overall 5-100 r ~ v a l / i n a c t i v a t i o nof E i a r d u cysts,whilethe ninimm
required3-logrcraoval/inactivation i s s u f f i c i e n t for sources"kith no
significant aicrobiological contamination fm human a c t i v i t i e s . A 4-109
1

refnoval/inactivation of cysts should be provided f o r sourcewaters whose


level of microbiological contamination Is between these tm, extremes. The
location o f discharges or other activities polluting the water-tupply with
respect tothelocationoftheintake should also be considered i n
determining the level of reInoval/lnactivation needed. for instance,.long
t r a v e lt i m s and substantialdilution of a discharge w l lessen the
i
impact of the discharge on the intake water quality, i n which case less
of an increase i n theoveralltreatment recamended above, would be
< warranted. It i s important t o note thatthese levels of treatment for
different generalized source water characterizations are presented only
as guidelines. The Primacy Agency coulddevelop disinfection requirements .
based on these or otherguidelines. It couldalsorequire systems with
available resources t o conduct raw watermonitoringfor E l a t d i p cyst
concentrations to establish the appropriate level of overall treatment and
disinfection needed.
The Primacy Agency may alsoreviewthenatureof occurrence o f
--sized p a r t i c l e s i n the raw water supply and the association with
t u r b i d i t y occurrence. I f i t canbe demonstrated that a higher degree o f
ranoval opfa r t i c l eitsnhsei z e range oifs accomplished when
t u r b i d i t y l e v e l s and associatedGiardialevelsareelevated,thenalog
removal credit higherthan could
3 be allowed for thatparticular
trea-ntplant,during such occurrences. This c r e d i t shouldcorrespond
t o t h e log p i r t i c l e removal e f f i c i t n c i e s accoarplishcd, as determined by
particle counting data, or turbidity data i f properly qualified. In all
. cases, a minimum of0.5 log reduction o f &jardln should be achieved by
d i s i n f e c t i o ni na d d i t i o nt o' t h e removal c r e d i t allowed for by other
c t reatmnt
Until a r i s k a n a l y s i s f o r exposure t o viruses i s developed, a rough
guideline for virus rsRoval/inactivrtion, can be considered as follows:
For a 4-109 Giardiacysttcrnoval/inactivation,
1. .
nmoral /inact ivat ion is recomnended . a 5-10g virus

b. for 5-109 Giardia


remval/inactivrtion, a 6.100 vifus
r m v a l / i n a c t i v r t i o n i s recomrnanded.

These guidelines assume that virus occurrence i n the sourcewater'


i s roughly
proportional to cyst occurrence, and that
-
v i r k occur athigherconcentrations i n sourcewaters, or
- are more infectiousthanEiardbcysts and
- infections from viruses may have amre health risk signiflcance
than Giardia cysts.

- Basedon these assumptions, higher levels of protection are warra.nted.


To m e tt h el e v e l s of inactivation recommnded here, significant
changes i n t h e system may be required. To avoid changes i n t h e system
which may result in conflicts with future regulations, the Primacy Agency.
way wish t o e s t a b l i s h i n t e r i m d i s i n f e c t i o n l e v e l s t o p r o v i d e p r o t e c t i o n
ofthepublichealth prior t ot h e promulgation of thedisinfection
by-product regulations and then reconsider whether these levels are still
appropriate after the disinfectionby-product regulations .arc'promulgated.
Guidance for establishinginterimdisinfectionnquircncnts i s provided '

i n Section 5.5.

4.4.3 Jotal Trih-e ! T T ~ l a t i ~


I n a d d i t i o n t o complying w i t hd i s i n f e c t i o n requirements, systems
must meet therequirements o ft h e TTHM regulations.Currently,this
ngulatfon. includes an )9cL f o r TTtiMs o f 0.10 r g / L f o r systeas which serve
greater than 10,000 people. €PA expects ,to issue new regulations with a
lower MCL i n thenearfuture. These regulati,ons m y alsopertain t o
systems servinglessthan 10,000 people.Therefore, theselection of an
appropriatedisinfectant or disinfectionstrategy must includeconsid-
eration o f current and futu& regulations.

.. 4-29
5. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING I F FILTRATION
FECTION ARE SATISFACTQgLLY PRqull;fp

5.1 lnjroductiop
Under the SWTR, new and e x i s t i n gf i l t r a t i g np l a n t s aust m e t .
specifiedmonitoring and performance c r i t e r i a i n o r d e r t o assure t h a t
f i l t r a t i o n and disinfection are satisfactorily practiced. These c r i t e r i a
in c l ude:
- Turbiditymonitoringrequirements
- T u r b i d i t y performance c r i t e r i a
.

- Disinfectionmonitoringrequirements
- D i s i n f e c t i o n performance c r i t e r i a

The overall objective ofthese c r i t e r i a i s t o provide control of:


Giardia cysts; viruses; turbidity: HPC; and w l l g by assuring a high
probabi 1it y that:
a. Filtrationplants arewell-operated .and achieve maximum
r m v a l e f f i c i e n c i e s of the above parameters.
b. Disinfection w l provide adequate i n a c t i v a t i o no f
i Giardia
cysts,viruses, HPC and ~ a i o n e l l ~ .

5.2 TurbiditvMQajtorina - R
5.2.1 Location
The purpose of theturbidityrequirements.for systems which use .
filtration is to indicate:
a. Giardiacyst and generalparticulate removal for conventional
treatment and d i r e c t f i l t r a t i o n
b. General p a r t i c u l a t e removal f o r diatomaceous earth f i1t r a t ion
m d slow sand f i l t r a t i o n
c. Possible
interference
with d i s i n f e c t i o nf o ra l lf i l t r a t i o n
processes

To accomplish the purposes o f t h e t u r b i d i t y requirements, the SWTR


r e q u i r e st h a tt h et u r b i d i t y samples be representativeofthe system! s

5- 1
f i l t e r e d water. The sampling locations which would s a t i s ft yh i s
r)
requirementinclude:
a. . Combined f i l t e r e f f l u e n t p r i o r t o e n t r y i n t o aclearwell',
b. Clearwell
effluent;
c. Planteffluent or i m n e d i a t e l y p r i o r t o e n t r y i n t o t h e d i s t r i -
bution system; or
d. Averageof me!asuremcntr frola each f i l t e re f f l u e n t .
-
The selection ofsamplinglocationsfordemonstratingcompliance
w i t ht h et u r b i d i t y performance c r i t e r i a i s l e f t t o t h e system or, t h e
preference o f t h e Primacy Agency.

5.2.2 a m d i n a F r e a w
The t u r b i d i t y o f t h e f i l t e r e d water mustbe determined:
d. A t l e a s t once every'fourhoursthatthe system i s i n opera-
4. t i o n , or
b. . The Primacy Agency may reduce the samplingfrequency t o once
per day f o r systems using slow sand f i l t r a t i o n or f i l t r a t i o n
treatment pther than conventional treatment, direct filtration
or diatomaceous e a r t h f i l t r a t i o n , i f i t determines that less
frequent monitoring i s u f f i c i e nttoi . n d i c a t e' e f f e c t i r e
f i l t r a t i o n performance. For systems serving 500 or fewer
people,the Primacy Agencymay reduce thesamplinfrequency
*
t o once per day regardless o f t h e t y p e o f f i l t r a t on used i f
it determines that less frequent nonitoring is Sufficient to
? .
i n d i c a t e e f f e c t i v e f i l t r a t i o n performance,

A systtrn may s u b s t i t u t e continuous turbiditymonitoringforgrab


sample monitoring i f i t validates the continuous measurement for accuracy
on a regular basis using aprotocol approved by t h e Primacy Agency. EPA
recomaends t h a t h ec a l i b r a t i o no f continuous turbiditymonitors be
v e r i f i e d a t least twice per week according t o t h e procedures established
i n Method 214A o f t h e 1 6 t h E d i t i o n o f Standard Me#&.'
5.2.3 Additional hnitoriqg
As Indicated in Section 4.3.2, EPA recommends that systems equip
each filter with a continuous turbidity neonitor. This recomnendation is
not part of the requirtmentr of the SWTR and i s not requfred for
establishing compliance. Rather, it. i s reconmcnded as a tool for'systems
to use to better monitor their treatmnt efficiency and to provide a
method for detecting adeterioration in filter perfonnance.
If continuousmonitoring of each filter effluent cannot be
implemented, then EPA r e c m e n d s that at least the following be conducted
on a quarterly basis:
a. Monitor each filter, either by grab samples or continuous
monitors, through the coursea routine of cycle of operation,
i .e.: from restart to backwash
b. Visually inspect each filter where appropriate for indications
of physical deterioration of the filter

These are generalsuggestions. The Primacy Agencies are encouraged


to work with the systems to determine the best overall monitoring
program(s) for their particularfiltration plants .in order to assess the'
status of the filter units. Each filter within a system should be
* ' maintained so that each filter effluent N e t s the turbidity performance
criteria for the combined filter effluent (i.e.( .the turbidity limits
specified in the SWTR).

5.3 m i t v P e r f o w c e Cri-
The SWTR establishes turbidityperfomance criteria for eacho f the
.
filtration technologies. As previously indicated, these criteria provide
an indication of:
a. Effective particle and aicrobial removal
-
b. Potential for interference with disinfection

In filtration, effective particle removal'depends


on both physital
and chemical factors. The particles tobe removed must be transported to
the surface ,of the media and they must attach to the media. When
efficient particle removal does not occur, the deterioration o f filter
/---;
performance ,can be due toeitherphysical problems w i t ht h ef i l t e r s Or i ;
problems with the treatment chcnrisfry.
Physical problemswhichcan r e s u l t i n a deterioration of f i l t e r
perfonnance include:
a. Media loss ..
b. Media deterioration
Mud
c. ball
formation
d. Channeling or surface
cracking
e. Underdrain f a i l u r e
f . Cross-connect ions

Inaddition,thetreatmentchemistry has a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on


f i l t r a t i o n .S p e c i f i c a l l y ,e f f e c t i v ep a r t i c l e removal i s a functionof
the:
Raw
a. waterchemistry and the changes induced by the chemicals
added
?

b. Surfacechemistry o ft h ep a r t i c l e st o be remored
c. Surface
chemistry ofthe media

Consequently, when a f i l t e r experiences p a r t i c l e or t u r b i d i t y breakthrough


p r i o r t o the development o f t e m i n a l headloss, the search fer alternatives ..
t co o r r e ctth e problem must include not
only an evaluation of
the .
potential physical causes but the treatment chemistry as well. Centrally
this involves an evaluation o f one or more of the following:
a. A1 ternatecoagulanttypeand/or dose
b. Alternatecoagulantaid or flocculantaidtype and/or dose .
e. Need f o r an alternateoxidanttype and/or dose
.d. Need f o r a f i l t e r a i d or alternate dose

5-4
5.3.1 -1 TreatlpCat or Direct Filtratin
The .inimurn t u r b i d i t y performance c r i t e r i af osr y s t m su s i n g
conventional treatment or ' d i r c c tf i 1t r a t i o n are:
t a. F i l t e r e d water t u r b i d i t y must be less-than or equal t o 0.5 NTU

-
f n 95 percent, o f t h e measurements taken every month,
b. F i l t e r e d water t u r b i d i t y l e v e l s o f less than or equal t o 1 NTU
i n 95 percent of theReasumnentttakenevery month may be
p a m it t e d on acase-by-case basis i f the Primacy Agency
determines thatthe system ( f i l t r a t i o nw i t hd i s i n f e c t i o n )i s .
capable o f achievlng the minimum overall perfomance require-
ments o f 99.9 percent rcmoval/inactivatlon o f cysts a t
thehigherturbiditylevel. Such a determinationcould be
based upon an analysis o f e x i s t i n g 'design and operating
conditions 8nd/or performance r e l a t i v e t o c e r t a i nwater quali-
t y characteristics. The design and operating conditions to be
rcvimed include:

.
-- the adequacy oftreatment p r i o r t o f i l t r a t i o n ,
the percent turbldity removal across .thetreatment
- t r a i n , and
levelofdisinfection.
Water quality analysis which may also be used to evaluate the
treatment effectiveness include particle size counting before
and after the filter. Pilot plant challenge studies simulat- t ,

s
i n f u l l scaleoperation
ef ectivetreatment. r
ma also be used t o demonstrate
Depend ng on thesourcewater
and system size, the Primacy Agenc w l
quality
i determine the extent.
-
1

needed.
T
of the analysis and whethera p i o t p l a n t demonstration i s
For t h i s demonstration, . systems are allowed t o
includedisinfectioninthedetermination o f theoverall'
performance by the system.
c. . F i l t e r e d water t u r b i d i t y may not exceed 5 NTU a t any time.
The Primacy Agency can assume thatconventionaltreatmentplants
I t h a t are meeting t h e ainimumperformance criteriaareachievingatleast
a 2.5-log removal o f Gfatdia cysts and a t l e a s t a 2-log removal of viruses
prior t o disf.pfe~tion.~

' Recoamended protocol for thisdemnstrat'ion i s presented i n Appendix M. '

' The l i t e r a t u r ei n d i c a t e st h awt e l l operated


conventional
plants can achieve up t o 3-1og reduction o f u d i a cysts and viruses
treatment
Logsdson, 1987b and
Roebeck e t at., 1962). L i m i t i nt h ec r e d i t to
b.5-logs f o rc y s t s
safety by requiring more disinfection.This
?
and 2-100s for virusesprov des a margin o f
i s consistent w i t h t h e
5-5
The Primacy Agency can assume t h a t d i r e c t f i l t r a t i o n p l a n t s t h a t a r e
m e t i n g t h e minimum perfonnance criteria are achieving at least a2-109
removal of cysts and a 1-log removal o f viruses.'
Although the minimum turbidity .perfomance criterion a1lows for a
maximum f i l t e r e d w a t e r t u r b i d i t y o f 0.5 NTU, treatment f a c i l i t i - u s i n g
conventional treatment or d i r e c t f i l t r a t i o n , whose raw water supplies have
' t u r b i d i t yl e v e l so f 1 NTU or less, should
be encouraged t o achieve
filtered water turbidity levels of less than 0.2 NTUDs
PrimacyAgencies nay allow systems which believethattheyare
actually achieving greater than a2- or 2.5-log G i a r d b c y s t ' removal t o
demonstrate theactual removal achievedusingtheprotocoloutlfned'in
Appendix M., It i s 'reasonable t o expect t h a t systems usingconventional
treatment f o r h i g h t u r b i d i t y source water (e.g., t u r b i d i t i e s i n excess o f
100 NTU), and whichoptimizechemicaltreatment p r i o r t o f i l t r a t i o n , may
c be achieving a 3-1og or greater Giardiacyst removal i f t h e i rf i l t e r
e f f l u e n ti ss u b s t a n t i a l l y below the 0.5 NTU t u r b i d i t y limit. Softening
t plants using conventional processes and 2-stagetreatment processes may
J alsoachieve a 3-109 Giardiacystremoval/inactivation. The high pH o f
softening may r e s u l t i n i n a c t i v a t i o n o f m d i a cysts and viruses which
canbe demonstratedaccording t ot h ep r o t o c o lo u t l i n e di n Appendix G ,
Appendix M can beused t o demonstrate the GiardlQ cyst removalachieved.

mu1t ip le b a r r i er concept .
' L i t e r a t u r ei n d i c a t e st h a tw e l lo p e r a t e dd i r e c tf i l t r a t i o np l a n t s - can
achieve. up t o a 3-log removal ofGiardiacysts and up t o a 2-log
rcaoval o f v i r u s e s (Logsdon, 1987b;Roebeck e t a1 , 1962) *Limiting
t h e c r e d i t t o 2 - l o g for Giardia cysts and1-109 for viruses provides a .
.
mar i n o f s a f e t
if r byrequiring more disinfection.This
wit t h e m u l t i p e b a r r i e r concept. .
i s consistent

Research has demonstrated'that f i l t e re f f l u e n tt u r b i d i t i e ss u b s t a n t i a l -


- '

l y .lower
than 0.5 NTU are needed t o obtain effective removals of
Giardia cysts and viruses with o w l t u r b i d i t y sourcewaters (Logrdon,
1987b; A1-Ani e t a1 , 1985). .
5-6
5.3.2 Slow
For systems usingslow sand f i l t r a t i o n , t h e t u r b i d i t y p e r f o m a n c e
requirementsare:
t
a.
The fil t e r e dw a t e rt u r b i d i t y must be less than o r equalto.
1 NTU i n 95 percent of the lcasunmcnts for each mon,th.
b. A t thediscretion o f the Primacy Agency, a higher f i l t e r
e f f l u e n t t u r b i d i t y m y be allowed for well o eratedplants
I Section 4.3.5) on acase-by-case P
basis, i there i s no
nterference with disinfection and t h e t u r b i d i t y l e v e l never
exceeds 5 NTU. Noninterferencewithdisinfectioncould be
assumed i f the finished water entering the distribution system
i s meeting the coliform MCL and HPC levels are less than O lm / l
during times of highest turbidity.
c. F i l tered water turbidity may not exceed 5 NTU a t any time.

Slow sand f i l t r a t i o n p l a n t s , w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e
design and operating
conditions and which meet the minimum t u r b i d i t y performance c r i t e r i a can
be considered t o be well operated and achieving at least a &log removal
coyfs t s 2-109
and removal of viruses without
disinfection.'
PrimacyAgencies may allow systemswhich believe 'that they are actually
achievinggreaterthan a 2-109 Gfardia cyst removal t o demonstrate the
actual removal achieved using the protocol outlined i n Appendix M.

5.3.3 QiatomqCpOus Earth Filtram


For systems using diatomaceous e a r t hf i l t r a t i o n t, h et u r b i d i t y
performance c r i t e IIr i are:
a.
The f i l t e r e dw a t e rt u r b i d i t y mustbe lessthan or equal, ' t o
1 NTU i n 95 percent o f t h e measurements f o r eachmonth.
The
b. t u r b i d i t yl e v e l o f representative samples of f i l t e r e d
water must a t no time exceed 5 NTU.

Diatomaceous earth systems, withappropriatedesign and operating


Conditions and which meet t h e minimum t u r b i d i t y performance c r i t e r i o n can

' As i n d i c a t e di nS e c t i o n 4, p i l o ts t u d i e s have shown thatwithproper


nurturing of the schmutsdecke, operation a t a maximum loadin . r a t e of
.

0.2 m/hr w l provide optimum removal o f Giardia cysts an viruses


i
(Logsdon, 1987b; 8 e l l amy e t a1 , 1985). . 8
5-7
be considered t o be well operated and achieving at least 2-log removal of
w d i a cysts and at least 1-log removal of viruses without disinfection.
Systems which believe that they are actually achieving greater than a 2-
l o g Giardia cyst removal my demonstrate the actual mnoval achieved using
in
outlined
protocol
the Appendix M, ..
5.3.4 U r F i l t r a t i o ~ o l o p i U
The t u r b i d i t y p t r f o m a n c e c r i t e r i a f o r f i l t r a t i o n t e c h n o l o g i e s o t h e r
than those presented above, are the same as for slow sand f i l t r a t i o n . The
Giardia cyst removal achieved by these systems m s t be demonstrated t o t h e
Primacy Agency.The protocolout1ined i n Appendix M may be used as a
. b a s i s f o r t h i s demonstration,
Reverse osmosis i s a ncmbrane f i l t r a t i o n method used t o remove
dissolvedsolidsfromwatersuppties.Desalination i s a t y p i c a l useof
the process. Application to
potable water treatment i sl i m i t e dt o
extremelyhighquality raw watersupplies ofo w l t u r b i d i t y (1 NTU or
less) , or following pretreatment to' produce a supply o f low. t u r b i d i t y . .
Themembrane excludes particleslargerthan 0.001 t o 0.0001 um
range,thereby e f f e c t i v e l y removing bacteria, Giardia cysts and viruses.
Credit can be given f o r a t least a 3-log giardia cyst and 4-logvirus
L removal, w i t h no demonstration. It should be noted t h a tt h i s removal
c r e d i t assumes the membranes are i n t a c t w i t h no holes i n t h e membranes
allowing the passage oforganisms.

5.4. O i s i n f s t i o nM o n i t o r i w R r a u i r m
Each system must continuously monitor the disinfectant residual of
thewater as i t e n t e r st h ed i s t r i b u t i o n system and recordthelowest
disinfectant residual each day. Ift h e r e i s a f a i l u r e i n t h e continuous
monitorlng equipment, t h e system may substitute grab sample monitoring
every 4hour's for up t o 5 working days following the quipmcnt failure.
Systems serving 3300 people or fewer may take. grab samples i n l i e u o f
continuousmonitoring a t frequencies as follows:
-
~500
5014,000
‘1,001 - 2,500
s4luuRu
1
2
3 .
2,501 - 3,300 4

The grab samplesmust be taken a t d i f f e r e n t times during the day,


with t h e sampling i n t e r v a l s s u b j e c t t o P r h c yAgency review’and . approval
.
If the residual concentration falls below 0.2 mg/L, the systemmust take ’

another sample w i t h i n 4-hours and n o t i f y t h e Primacy Agencyas soon as


possible, but no l a t e r than the end of the next business day,even ifthe
r e s i d u a il sr e s t o r e dt o 0.2 mg/L or greaterwithin 4 hours. Ifthe
r e s i d u a l i s n o t r e s t o r e d t o 0.2 mg/L or greater within 4 hours, the system
f s i n v i o l a t i o n o f a treatmenttechniquerequirement. Each system must
also measure t h e d i s i n f e c t a n t r e s i d u a l i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n system a t t h e
same frequency and locations a t which t o t a l c o l i f o m measurements are made
pursuant t o t h e requirements intherevisedTotalColiform Rule (54 FR
27544; June 29, 1989) For systems which use bothsurface and ground
watersources,thePrimacy Agency may a1 owl substitute sampldng ‘sites
I which are more representative of the .treated surface water supply.

5.5 Disinfection P r r f o w C r i t e r i a
5.5.1 5
For systems which provide ftltration, the disinfection requirements
o f t h e SWTR are:
a. D l s i n f e c t i o n must be
provided t o ensure t h at ht teo t a l
treatment processes otfh e system ( i n c l u d i n gf i l t r a t l o n )
achieves a t l e a s t a % l o g r m v a l / i n a c t i v a t i o n of Giatdia cyst
and a .4-logremoval/inactivationofviruses. The Primacy
Agency nust determine what l e v e l o f d i s i n f e c t i o n i s r e q u i r e d
for each system t o meet t h i s c r i t e r i o n .
be
cr
The s stem ‘nust demonstrate by continuous m n i t o t i n g and.
recor i n g t h a t a d i s i n f e c t a n t r e s i d u a l i n t h e water entering
t h ed i s t r i b u t i o n system i s neverlessthan 0.2 mg/L for more ’

than 4 hours. I f a t any t i m et h er e s i d u afl a l l s below 0.2 ’

mg/L f o r more than 4 hours the system i s i n v i o l a t i o n . The

5-9
tystcin must n o t i f y t h e Primacy Agenc whenever the residual
r".
*
t
f a l l s below 0.2 mg/L before the end o the next business day.
. e. . The Systemmust demonstrate detectable disinfectant residuals
or HPC l e v e l so f
500 or fewer colonies/ml i na tl e a s t 95
,. , percentofthe samples from the distribution systtm each m n t h .
f o r any two consecutive months.
-%
-A

C r i 5.5.2
teria Perfmce ."

Disinfection must be applied t o assure that the overall treatment


provided achieves al et a s t 3-109
a removat/inactivation o f cyst
anda4-109 rcoKlval/inactivation of 'viruses. As- outlined in Section 5.3,
w e l l operated f i l t e r p l a n t s achieve a t l e a s t a 2 t o 2.5-109 reatoval o f
Giardia cysts andbetween a. 1 t o 2-109 removal o f viruses.. EPA therefore
recomnends that the Primacy Agencies adopt additional disinfection perfor-
mance c r i t e r i a t h a t include:
a. As minimum,
a primary
disinfection rquirunents that
are
4 consistentwiththeoveralltreatment requirements o f t h e
% * ~ C SWTR, or preferably;
* b. Primary disinfection
requirements as a . f u n c t i oonf raw water
. .- .
q u a l i t y as outlinedinSection 4.4. .

.
f?

Disinfection
The required minimum primary.disinfection i s t h ed i s i n f e c t i o n
needed fortheentiretreatment process t o m e t t h e o v e r a l l treatment -.
requirement o f 3-109 Jiiprdiq and 4-logvirusrunoval/inactivation. The '

followingtableprovides a .sumnary o ft h e expected minimum l e v e l of


treatarent performance i n we1 1 operated f i l t e r systems and the recomnended
level of disinfection.
Expect ed Rcconmcnded D i s i ecn ft ion
LO Val s l-tivationtl .
F i l t r a t i ~ a .. w-
yr
v
ir
er Giardia Yhws
Conventional 2.5 2.0 0.5 2.0
Direct 2.0 ' 1.o . 1.0 3 .o
Slow Sand 2.0 2.0 1.o 2.0
D i atomaceous
Earth 2 .o 1.o 1.o 3 .O

5- 10
In cases where the system believes that the tnattnent processes are
achieving. greater removals than those listed above, the actual removal
provided by the processes can be demonstrated through the procedures
outlined in Appendix M. However, €PAreconmcndt that, despite the
removals demonstrated, systemsshould provide a minimum o f 0.5 log Giardia
cyst inactivation to supplement filtration and maintain a second treatment,
barrier f o r microorganisms.
ed Disinfection as a F w i o n of W- aert Ouatity
Although the SWTR requires the overall treatment to provide a
minimurn o f a 3-109 &iardia cyst and a 4-109 virus mval/.fnactivation, it
may be appropriate for thePrimacy Agency to nquiry greater removals/-
inactivations dependingon the degreeof contamination in the source water
as presented in Section 4.4. Following is a surrraary o f the ncoaxnended
overall treatment which should be provided based on an estirnate.of the
Giardia cyst concentration in the sourcewater:
A1 lowable daily avg
cyst conccntration/100 L
1
aardia cyst Removal/Inactivation 3-109 4-109 5-1 Og
Virus Removal/Inactivation 4-10g * 5-109 6-109

If a slowsand filtration plant must achieve a 401og removal/inacti-


vation o f Ejardia cysts and a S l o g &val/inactivation of viruses, and
credit for 2-log GiarpLn cyst and 2-109 virus removal by filtration is
granted,disinfection for a 2-logcyst inactivation and 3-109 ,

virus inactivation would be needed to neet the overall renoval/inacti-


vation, However, Primacy Agencies may allow systems which use particle
size analysis. outlined i n Appendix M to demonstrate greaterthan a 2-log
Ejardip cyst nmoval to provlde less than &log giardia cyst inactivation
through disinfection.

5-1 1
P.,
6 :
5.5.3 Disinfection BV Product C o w r a t i o p f
0

Although the EPA suggests increased levels of disinfection for


various source water conditions, a utility should not implement such a
change without consideringthe potential conflict with the requirements of
existing or future disinfection by-product regulations. EPA idtends to
promulgate National Primary Drinking Water Regulations to regulate levels
of disinfectantsanddisinfectionby-productswhen it promulgates
disinfection requirements for ground water systeas (anticipated in1992).
€PA is concerned that changes . required in utilities' disinfection
practices to m e t the recormranded inactivations for the SWiR night be
inconsistent with treatment changes needed to.comply with the forthcoming
regulations for disinfectants and disinfection by-products. For this
reason,EPArecornendsthatPrimacyAgenciesexercisediscretion, .
sensitive to .potential disinfection by-product concerns,in determining
. the level of disinfection needed for filtered systems to m e t the.overal1
treatment requirements specified in the rule or reconmended based. on
source waterqual i ty.
Until the promulgation o f the disinfection by-product regulation,
€PA reconmends thatthe Primacy Agencyallow more credit foruardia cyst
and virus removal by filtration than otherwise recoamended if a) the
Primacy Agencydetermines that a system is not currently at a significant
riskfrommicrobiologicalcontamination at the existinglevel of
disinfection and b) less stringent interim disinfection conditions are
necessary for thesystem to modify its disinfection processto optimally
. achieve compliance with the SWTR as well as the forthcoming disinfection
by-product regulations. The following paragraphsoutline thencomnended
disinfection levels forsystems meeting the above conditions.
. For mll-operated conventional filtration plants that w e t the
minimua turbidity requirements at a1 1 times, the Primacy Agency may
consider givingthe systers credit for 3-log Giardia cyst removal (in lieu
of the generally recomnended 2.5-log &dit) . Also, for well-operated
direct filtration plants, the Primacy Agency m y consider giving the
system credit for 2.5-log Giardia cyst removal in lieu of the generally

.
5-12
mcorrannded 2.0-log c r e d i t . €PA recoaracnds t h a t these additional credits
be given for conventional or d i r e c t f i l t r a t i o n o n l y if:
The
a. t o t a l treatment t r a i n achieves 1) alte a s t 99 percent
t u r b i d i t y removal, or f i l t e n d water turbid1 t i p are consis-
t e n t l y less than 0.5 NTU, whichever i s lower, p~ 2) a 99.9
percent removal o f p a r t i c l e s i n t h e s i z e r n e o f 5 t o 15 urn
i s demonstrated as outlined i n Appendix M;! i n d
b.
The level af heterotrophicplate count (HPC) b a c t e r i ai nt h e
finished (disinfected) water entering the distribution systm
i s c o n s i s t e n t l y less than lO/m1.
-
Systems using slow sand f i l t r a t i o n or diatoaaceous e a r t h f i l t r a t i o n
may be giveninterimcreditfor up t o 3-109 Siatdia cyst removal i f the .
system ateets the recamended c o n d i t i o n sl i s t e d above for conventional
systems. P i l o t p l a n t s t u d i e s havedemonstrated thatthesetechnologies,
when w e 1 1 operated,general \ y achieve a t l e a s t 3 . 0 4 o g removals (USEPA,
1988a) .
The EPA believes that interim level of disinfecti6n requirements may
be appropriate i n some cases depending upon source water quality,
r e l i a b i l i t y o f system operation and potential increased health risks from
disinfection by-products. EPA intends to regulate
disinfectants and
disinfectionby-products i n 1992. A t t h i st i m e i t w l become apparent
i
how systems w i t h d i s i n f e c t i o n by-product problemscan optimally meet the
disinfectionrequirementsofthe SWTR and thedisinfectionby-products
regulations,concurrently.

' For example, asystem with 9 raw water t u r b i d i t y averaging 20 NTU


maintain ng a f i l t e r e d water t u r b i d i t y l e s s than 0.2 NTU can be granted
3-109 Eiarm cyst removal c r e d i t w i t h no f u r t h e r demonstration.
* I n cases where t h e Primacy Agency has a data base
which .shows a
c o r r e l a t i o n between t u r b i d i t y and Giardia cysts removal, t u r b t d i t y may
be used i n l i e u o f p a r t i c l e size analysis. Turbidity removal require-
nrents shouldbeset t o assure 99.9 percentGiardiacyst removal. A
. correlation between t u r b i d i t y and U r d i q cyst removal was shown i n a
studyreported,byHendricks e t a1 (1984).
5-13
5.5.4
The SWTR does notrequire redundant
a d i s i n f e c t i o n system f o r
filtered supplies. However, i n order t o assure thecontinuousprovision
of d i s i n f e c t i o n t o m e t t h e o v e r a l l m a o v a l / i n a c t i v a t i o n requirements and
t o maintain a residual entering the distribution system, EPA kcomnends
t h a t redundant disinfection equipment be provided. As contained i n t h e
1987 e d i t i o n o f Ten State Standarb, where d i s i n f e c t i o n i s r e q u i r e d f o r .-
4?.*

protection of
the
supply, standby equipment i s required. Automatic
switchover should be provided as needed, t o assure continuous disinfectant
application.
Recommendations for providing redundant disinfection are outlined in
Section 3.2.4 and d e t a i l e d i n Appendix 1.

5.5.5 petermiuption of U c t i v a t w bv D i s i n f c c t i w
The desired level of inactivation can be achieved by disinfection . . at
any pointinthetreatment or d i s t r i b u t i o n system p r i o rt ot h e first
customer. D i s i n f e c t i o np r o v i d e dp r i o rt of i l t r a t i o ni sr e f e r r e dt o as
pre-disinfectionwhile,disinfectionafterfiltrationisreferredto as
post-disinfection. As presented i n Section 3.2, theinactivation of
Giarm cysts and virusesprovided by disinfectionareindicated by CT
values
The SWTR defines C f as the residual disinfectant concentration(s) in
mgjL m u l t i p l i e d by thecontacttime(s) i n minutes. The contacttime s i
measured from t h ep o i n to fd i s i n f e c t a n ta p p l i c a t i o nt ot h ep o i n t of
residual measurement or between pointsofresidual measureqent. The
inactivation efficiency can be determinedby calculating CT a t any point
alongtheprocess a f t e rd i s i n f e c t a n ta p p l i c a t i o np r i o rt ot h ef i r s t
cus t m r .
A system may determinetheinactivationefficiency based onone
p o i n t of residual measurement p r i o r t o t h e f i r s t customer, or on a p r o f i l e
of the residual concentration after the point of disinfectant application.
The residual profile i s generated by monitoringtheresidualatseveral
points between thepoint(s) of disinfectantapplication and the f i r s t
customer. The system can then use the method described i n Section 3.2 for
deteimining the total, inactivation credit. Profiling the residual allows
5- 14
f o r c r e d i t Of significantly higher residuals which may e x i s t before the
water reaches t h ef i r s t customer. Methods f o r determining vario,us
disinfectant' residuals are described i n Appendix 0.
Inpipelines,thecontacttime canbe assumed equivalent t o t h e
hydraulic detention time and i s c a l c u l a t e d by dividing the intema? volume
o f t h e p i p e l i n e by t h e peak hourly flow r a t e throughthepipeline. In
mixing basins and storage reservoirs,the hydraulic detention time
generally does not represent the actual disinfectant contact tim because
o f short circuiting. The contact time i n such chambers . should be
determined by tracerstudies or an equivalentdemonstration; The time
determined from t h e t r a c e r study t o beused for calculating CT i s Tlo.T,,
4
representsthe time t h a t 90 percent o ft h e water (andmicroorganisms
within the water) w l be exposed t o d i s i n f e c t i o n w i t h i n t h e d i s i n f e c t a n t
i
contact chamber. Guidance f o r deteminingdetentiontimeincontact
chambers i s provided i n Appendix C.
The residual disinfectant concentration should be measured d a i l y ,
during peak hourly f olw ,for each d i s i n f e c t a n t s e c t i o n p r i o r t o t h e f i r s t
customer i tnh de i s t r i b u t i o n system, Unless a ' system knows from
experience when peak flow w l occur, a system cdn o n l y ,i d e n t i f y peak
i
hourly f l o w a f t e r it has occurred.Therefore, €PA suggests thatresidual .
masurements be takeneveryhour. I f i t i s n o tp r a c t i c a lt ot a k e grab
sampleseach hour, the system may take grab samples during the period peak
f l o wi s expected t o occur, or continuousmonitors may 'be used. The
measurements takenduringthehourof peak flow can then be used t o
deterninethe C f f o r each section (CTCtlc). The determinationof CTs s i
explained i n Section 3.2.1.
Although theinactivationmaintained i n the system i s determined
during peak hourly flow, the disinfectant dosage applied to maintain this.
i n a c t i v a t i o n may not be necessaryunder lower flow conditions. Under
lower flow conditions, a higher contact time i s generally available and
, t h e CT needed t o meet the required inactivation may be met with a lower
residualconcentration.Continuingtoapply a d i s i n f e c t a n t dosage based
on the peak hourly flow may 'provide more d i s i n f e c t i o n t h a n i s needed,
Increasing costs and possibly resulting in increased levels of disinfec-
t a n t .by-products. However, the system shouldalsomaintaintherequired
5-15
i"
inactivation levels at non-peak hourlyflows. The syst& should therefore . .
evaluate the doseneeded to provide the CT necessary for maintainingthe
required .inactivation under different flow conditions and setthe dosage
accordingly. The following example provides guide1 inesfor determining
flow ranges and disinfection levelsto maintain the requ'ired disinfection.
ExamPle
.....
A 20-argd direct filtration plant applying free chlorine as - a . .

disinfectant has a contact time of 27.5 minutes under peak flow condi-
tions. As noted in Section 5.3, well-operated direct filtration plants
achieve 2-log Eiardiq cyst removal and 1-109 virus removal. Therefore, I

disinfection for 1-109 U r d i p cyst inactivationand3-1ogvirus


inactivation is recommended. The pH and temperature of the water are 7
and 5 C, respectively. Using Table €02, a CT of is 55 required to achieve
1-10g Giardia cyst inactivation at a residual of 2 mg/L. This level of
treatment is more than adequate for 3-109 inactivation of viruses
requiring a CT of6, as indicated in Table E-7. However, under low flow
conditions the available contact time is longer, and lower residualsare
. needed to provide the same level of inactivation. Based on the calculated
contact time under various flow rates and the CT values in Table E-2,
adequate disinfection would be provided by maintaining the following .X

chlorine residuals for ,theindicated flows: "..


-.
s.
CT90 - I,

Contact Free Ch 1 ori ne -/.

uLlwu lkimu
20 27.5 55 2.0
15 36 52.5 1.5
10 54 50 1 .o
5 108 47 0.5

CT,, corresponds to a 1-log inactivation. If a different level 'of


inactivation were needed, CT values for that inactivation would be read
from the tables corresponding to thepH and temperature of thewater.
- Section 3.2.2 lists the percent inactivations correspondingto
log inactivations, i.e., 0.5-log equals 68 percent requiring
CT6'
5-16
.. Sn cases where the residual , pH or teapcrature of the water i s
T an i n t e m drvienapoltueot er t e d i ntables,
the
linear
(straight-line) interpolation may be used.
>
- For example, i n t h e above. l i s t i n g , 0.5 mg/L residuals are not
included in-. the Appendix E tables. The CT value was ,,
* detcnainedbyinterpolating between the a.4 ag/t value of 46
ag/L-min and the 0.6 mg/L value o f 48 q/L-min. ,

..
- CT values for intermediate pH and temperaturevalues nay also
be interpolated; or
- The C f values for the higher pH or lower tcnperatuye l i s t e d i n
the table amy be used instead o f interpolation.

- 1 t a b l e si nt h e SWTR canbeused
CT9,. t o calculatethe
requ re t o achieve any log inactivation by:
CT

loginactivation
CTrequi red
reau ired x Cf,,. 9.
3.0 l o g

The v a r i a t i o ni n CT requiredwithrespecttotheresidualfor
chlorine makes i t i m p r a c t i c a l f o r t h e u t i l i t y t o c o n t i n u a l l y change the
disinfectant dose as the flow changes. Therefore, EPA .suggests t h a t t h e
f l o wv a r i a t i o na tt h eu t i l i t y be d i v i d e di n t o ranges and theresidual
needed at the higher flow o f t h e range be maint.ained for a l l flows w i t h i n
t h e range t o assure adequate disinfection. The'folloning flow ranges and
residuals a t the given pH and temperatureare suggested f o r t h i s p l a n t :
f r e e Ch 1o r i ne
€lauwuw ' -

5-10 1.0
10-15 1.5
15-20 2.0
I

In t h i s way, t h e u t i l i t y i s assuring the provision o f the required


disinfection while minimizing the disinfectant costs and possibly lowering .
d i s i n f e c t i o n by-products, *

Althoughtheseresiduals w l meet therequired CT, maintaining a


i
r e s i d u a l i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n system must also be considered. I f there i s
no otherpoint o f d i s i n f e c t i o np r i o rt ot h ed i s t r i b u t i o n system, the
residual for d i s i n f e c t i o n must be maintainedat a level which wil also
a
provide a residual .throughout the distribution system. The complete range
of ,flows OCCurting a t t h e p l a n t should be evaluated for d e t e d n i n g t h e
.
required rasidual The u t i l i t i e s may establish the residual needs for as
many flaw ranges as i s p r a c t i c a l .
fhe Primacy Agency *should make periodic checks t o assure that the
u t i l i t y i s maintaining adequate disinfectionatboth peakand non-peak
flow conditions.
In contrast to this close control o f disinfectant addition and CT
monitoring, f o rf i l t e r e d systems which have longdetention.times and
regularly exceed the CT requirements for the inact.ivation needed, i t may
be unnecessary f o r t h e system t o c a l c u l a t e CTs eachday ofoperation.
Unlikeunfiltered systems where CTs r u s t be calculated each day, f o r .
fil t e r e d systems, monitoring the residual at, the end o f the contact time
may be s u f f i c i e n t t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e q u i r e d d i s i n f e c t i o n i s provided.
However, t h i s r e s u l t s i n much higher CTs i n t h e s u m e r than i s needed,
which adds t o costs and possibly unnecessary increasedproductionof
d i s i n f e c t i o n by-products. The following example outlines one scenario f o r
whichapply. t h i s would . .
ExamPle
' A u t i l i t yd i s i n f e c t sw i t hc h l o r i n e ahead o f a. r e s e r v o i rp r i o rt o
d i r e c tf i l t r a t i o n . The Primacy Agency may give a well-operateddirect n..
A
,

filtrationplantcredit for 2-109 Gfardfa cyst removal and 1-logvirus


removal. Therefore, 1-log Eiarm cyst and 3-109' v i r u si n a c t i v a t i o n
throughdisinfection i s needed. For freechlorine,the CTs f o r1 - l o g
Giardiacystinactivation exceed the CTs for3-logvirusinactivation.
Therefore, CTs for Eiardia cyst inactivation are the controlling CTs. The
following water quality conditions occur i n t h e r e s e r v o i r d u r i n g t h eyear:
PH
temperature ( O C)
7
5
-- 7.5
20
Chlorine
residual (q/L) 0.2 0.8-
The required CT for chlorine increases with:,
-
increasi ng n s i dual ,
.- - increasing pH, and
- decreasing
temperature

5- 18
RH
7.5
7
-
Thus, f o r a residual of 0.8 mg/L the CT needed for a 1-109 g i a r d i a
c y s t i n a c t i v a t i o n i s as follows:

5
20
CT90
ma/Llmin *.
58 (Table € 4 )
18 (Table € 4 )

Tracerstudies conducted on thereservoirindicated a'-T,o of 150


minutes a t t h e system's maximum flow. For the, maximum CT of 58 mg/L-min
required,the minimum residual needed t o meet t h i sr a q u i m n e n ti s 0.4
q / L , calculated as:
m i
m8LL-
5815 rnin = 0 * 4 laoiL

A t a residual of 0.4 mg/L, CT,, i s 55 arg/L-min.Thus,any residual s.4


mg/L w i
l providethe needed disinfectionthroughouttheyear and the'
Primacy Agency may requirethe system t o repo'rtonlytheresidual
maintained,reducingtheeffort needed t o determine e f f e c t i v e d i s i n f e c -
tion.Maintainingthisresidualinthe suamer, however, provides much
higher CTs than needed, possiblyresulting.in unnecessary costs and
increased disinfection by-products.
e t m t h e R e c w n d e d I n a c t i v a t i o n UsQa f r e e C h l o r a
As previously indicated in Section 3.2.1, the effectiveness o f f r e e
* chlorine as a d i s i n f e c t a n t i s influenced by both the temperature and pH o f
thewater and bytheconcentrationofchlorine. The h ' a c t i v a t i o no f
m r d i g cysts by freechlorineatvarious temperatures and pHs.. are
presented i n Appendix E (Table E-1 through Table €06). 'The C f values f o r
the inactivat.ion of vlruses by f r e e chlorine are presented i n Table. €07.
. To determine whether a system i s meeting these inactivations, the
free chlorine residual, pH and temperature must be measured, a t one point
or severalpoints prior t o t h e first customer, where contacttime(s) i s
measured. The contact time should be determined from thepoint of
application o f t h ed i s i n f e c t a n tt ot h e point(s) where theresidual is
measured f o r determining CTs p r i o rt o the first customer. The CTs .
5-19
actually achieved in the system should then be compared to the values in r"
the table for the pH and temperature of the water at the point(s) of
residual llcasurment. Guidance on calculating the Cf for chlorine is
presented in Section 3.2.1.
e t b the R e c m c t i v a t i o n Usirlg Chlorine DfoxiQp
CT Values for the inactivation o f cysts by chlorine dioxide
are presented in fable E-8 and the CT values for the inactivation of
viruses are presented in fable E-9. As shown in fables € 4 and E-9, the *

only parameter affecting the CT requirements for chlorine dioxide is


temperature. However, the disinfection efficiencyof cblorine'dioxide may
be significantly 'increased at higher pHs. Since the CT values in fables
E-8 and E-9 were based on dataat pH 7 and 6, respectively, and chlorine
dioxide appears to be more effective at higher pHs, systems with high pHs
may wish to demonstrate that Cf values lower than those presented in
Tables €08 and E-9 may achievethe desired level of inactivation.
Chlorine dioxide residualsare short-lived. Therefore, sampling and
residual analysis at various points in the treatment process downstream of.
the point o f application may be necessarytcr establish the last point at
which a residual is present. Subsequent sampling and resjdual analyses
conducted upstream ofthis point can be used to determine the CT credit by
using the demonstrated detentiontime between the point of application and
the sampling location. Methods for calculating CT values are presentedin
Section 3.2; Systems using chlorine dioxide may conduct pilotstudies to
demonstrate effective disinfection in lieu o f calculating C f , o f for
determining that lower Cf values than those in Appendix E are appropriate.
Gui'delines for conducting these studies arepresented in Appendix G.
u s i w
CT values for the inactivation of Giardia cysts by ozone are.
presented i n Table E-10 for various temperatures and inactivation rates.
As indicated ,in this table,the CTs required for inactivation with ozone
are substantially lower than those required for free chlorine. Th'iS
reflects the fact that ozone is a more pwerfu.1 disinfectant. The CT
c requirements for inactivation of viruses using ozone are presented i n
fable E-11. In cases where'only a 1-log or lower G i b cyst inactiva-
tion 1s needed, the CT values for virus inactivation may be higher t h a n
5-20
the C f s f o r s x b cysts. Because o ft h er e a c t i v i t y of ozone, i t i s
). u n l i k e l yt h a t a residual nil 1 e x i s tf o r more than a fw minutes. As a
r e s u l t , the application of a persistent disinfectant such as chlorine or
chloramines i s needed t o maintaintherequireddisinfectantresidual in
t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n system. Guidance f o r c a l c u l a t i n g CT values for &ne are
presented i n Section 3.2.1 and' Appendix 0. I n l i e u of calculating the cf
for an ozone contactor or demonstrating t h a t lower CTs are effective, the
disinfectionefficiency can be demonstratedthrough p i l o ts t u d i e s as
presented i n Appendix G . . .
R e c w In(LI2flvation R e a u i m t s u s f w C h l m
CT values for theinactivation of
cysts by chloramines are
presented i n Table E-12. The high CT valuesassociatedwiththe useof
chloramines may be unachievablc f o r some systems. I n these cases,
chlorine, ozone, or chlorine dioxide should be used for primary disinfec-
tion, and chloramines for residual disinfection, as necessary.Table E-13
presents CT values for the inactivation o f viruses with chloramines. This
table i s only applicable for indicating virus inactivation efficiencies if
c h l o r i n e i s added p r i o r t o amnonia.Systems which addamnonia p r i o r t o
chlorine or amnonia and chlorine.concurrently, can determine v i r a l
inactivationefficienciesusingtheprotocolgivenin Appendix G. F o r '
systems applying chloramines t o meet the virus inactivation requirements,
EPA recomnends that they also monitor for HPC i n t h e f i n i s h e d water, as
presented i n Section 5.6. Systems also aay demonstrate e f f e c t i v e
d i s i n f e c t i o n w i t h chloramines i n l i e u o f c a l c u l a t i n g Cf, or t o determine
t h a t lower CT values than those indicated i n Appendix E are appropriate.
The protocolsoutlined in Appendix G can be used f o rt h i s demonstration. .
Further guidance on chloramines i s given i n Section 3.2.1.
. .
Meeting t h e I n a c t i v a t i o n Requirement
U l t r a v i o l e t fUVWRadtatlon
U l t r a v i o l e tr a d i a t i o ni s a method o fd i s i n f e c t i o n whichcan be
a p p l i e d t o meet t h e v i r u s i n a c t i v a t i o n requirements o f the SWTR.
UV d i s i n f e c t a n t dose, expressed i n terms of UV i n t e n s i t y and
exposure time/unit area (aW-s&cm*) incorporatesthe elements of t h e CT
concept and therefore can be considered as analogous or equivalent t o a CT . '

value. UV d3sinfection usually employs commercially available units

5-21
i
designed t o d e l i w doses Of 25 t o 35 nW-rec/cd. The dose can be
c increasedbyreducingwaterflowrateand/or by adding additionalunits i n
series. UV disinfection efficiency differs from thatof chemical
disinfectants in' t h a t I t i s not affected bywater temperature. uv
radiation does not effectively penetrate solids and i s absorbed by"certain
' dissolved substances. Therefore, t u r b i d i t y and other ,water
quality
factors are important determinants of UV disinfection efficiency, and uv
should be a p p l i e d a f t e r ' t u r b i d i t y removal.
CT values f tohirnea c t i v a t i o n of cysts by UV arenot
included i n Appendix E. The r e s u l t s o f tw studies (Ric'aand' Hoff, 1981;
Carlson a l l 1985) indicatethatGiardiacystsareextremelyresistant
t o i n a c t i v a t i o n by UV with doses greater than- 60 Rlw-sec/cd causing less
than 80% inactivation. Because UV appears t o be veryineffectivefor
cyst inactivation and i n the absence o f s u f f i c i e n t d a t a showing
.*
the dosesneeded t o i n a c t i v a t e 0.5 t o 3.0 logs of cysts, UV must be used
4
i n combination with other disinfectants to provide evidence of effective
cyst inactivation.
CT values f o r t h e i n a c t i v a t i o n o f v i r u s e s by UV arepresented i n .
Table E-14. Units used f o r UV disinfection should beequipped w i t h f a i l -
safedevices t h a t w l provideautomatic shutdown o f water flow i f UV dose
i +
_.
.&.
decreases t o l e v e l s lower than those specified i n Table E-14.
etina the I nu t i v a t i o n R e w n t U s u Alternate Disinfectants I.

"-
For system usingdisinfectantsotherthanchlorine,
chlorine dioxide, or ozone, the effectiveness of the disinfectant
chloramines,
can be I
-
demonstrated using the protocol contained i n Appendix G. The protocol i n
Appendix 6.3 f o r b a t c h t e s t i n g should. be followed for any. disinfectant
which can be prepared i n anaqueous solution and w l be stable throughout
i
thetesting. For disinfectants which arenotstable,.thepilot study.
protocol outlined i n Appendix 6.4 shouldbefollowed.

ICs for Determinina the D i s i n f e a o n t o be Provided

.. 1) .
Becommended 0.5 109 G iardia. 2-loa
Virus
Inactivation
A comnunity o f 70,000 uses a r i v e r as i t sd r i n k i n g watersource. .' '

Oronation p r i o r t o a conventionaltreatmentplant i s used t o t r e a t t h e


5-22
water. The source has a protected watershed with limited human activity
and no sewage discharge. .The river water has the fol lowing water qual i ty
characterfrtics:
Turbidi ty
Total estimated Giardia cyst level
-
10 200 NTU
<1/100 /L
-
0 .

7.0 7.5 .
PH
Temperature -
5 15
The treatment plant has a design capacity of 15 .mgd and treats an
average flow of 10 mgd. A three chamber ozone contactor precedes the
rapid mix. Alum and polymer are added as a coagulant and coagulant aid,
respectively. The 'finfshed waterturbidity at .the plant i s maintained
within the range of 0.1 to 0.2 NTU. Chloramines are applied after the
filters, but prior tothe clearwells, to maintain a residual entering and
throughout the distributionsystem.
Based on the raw water quality and source water protection, an
overall 3-109 Eiardin cyst and4-log virus remval/inactivation.'is
appropriate for this water source. However, as noted in Section 5.3,
Primacy Agencies may credit well operated conventional filtration plants
with 2.5-109 Giardia cyst removal and 2-109 virus removal. Therefore,
disinfection for 0.5-1og Eiardb cysts and 2-log viruses is recommended to
meet the overall treatment requirements o f the SWTR.
On the day of this example cdlculation, the peak hourly'flow rate of
the plant was 13 mgd. The contact t i e o f the ozone basin, f,, determined
from tracer study data is 6 minutes for thisflow. The waterhad a pH of
7 and a temperatureo f 5 C on the day of the calculation. For ozone under
these conditions ofpH and temperature, the following CTs are needed for .
the required inactivation (Tables € 4 0 , E-11):
- Gi a r d b vi r u
CT 0.3 0.6

The C f values indicate that viruses are the controlling paramkter for
disinfection and the overall inactivation provided will be calculated
based on viruses. The overall virus inactivation provided'by the ozone
contactor is determined as follows:
Average
5-23
1 ' 0.1 2 0.2 0.9 0.22
2 0.2 2 0.4 0.9 0.44
3 0.2 2 0.4 0.9 .
'0 44
'6-
-\*
Thesum o f CT,,/CT,, i s 1.1. This corresponds t o w r ethan a3-109 virus
i n a c t i v a t i o n determined as3 X CTC,,,/CTg9,, 3 X 1.1 0 3.3-109. Therefore, *

the systemexceeds the reconmended inactivation.


2) 0 d i a Cvst.
2-loa
Virus Ippttivattm
A 2 MGD slow sand f i l t r a t i o n p l a n t t r e a t i n g r e s e r v o i r water, fed by
mountainstreams w i t h no nearby wastewater discharges, provides drinking
water for a comnunityof 8,000 people. The water q u a l i t y a t t h e i n t a k e
has the following water quality characteristics:
Turbidity 5 10 NTU -
rc Total
col iforms Not measured
Total
estimatedGiardia
cystlevel <1/100 L
-
'

PH 6.5 7.5 .
Temperature 5-15C

-
The f i l t e r e d water turbidity ranges from 0.6 0 . 3 NTU. Considering
./..-
the sourcewater q u a l i t y and p l a n t p e r f m a n c e , an overall 3-log Giardia
cyst and +logvirusrcmoval/inactivation i s consideredsufficient for
t h i s system. As noted i n Section 5.3, the Primacy Agencymay c r e d i t slow
sand plants with 2-log a a r d i q c y s t and2-109 virusranoval.Therefore
' d i s i n f e c t i o fno1r - l o g a r d i cg y s t and 2-109 v i r u isn a c t i v a t i o ni s
recomnended f o rt h e system t o m e t t h e o v e r a l l t r e a t m e n t requirements. .
Chlorine i s added p r i o r t o t h e c l e a r w e l l s t o p r o v i d e d i s i n f e c t i o n .
The c'learwells have a capacityof 80,000 gallons. A one mile,16-inch
transmistion'iaintransportsthewater frm the treatment plant to the
f i r s t customer. Ttie inactivationprovided i s detennined d a i l yf o rt h e
peak hourly o lf
w conditionsrTracerstudies.have been conducted t o
determinethe T, for t h e c l e a r w e l l s f o r d i f f e r e n t flow rates. For the
purposes of calculating the inactivation thesystem i s divided into huo sections.
-
Section 1 clearwell

5-24
-
Section 2 transmission main
The flowrate at peak hourly o fwfrom the c l e a k l l was 1.5 mgdon
l
the day o f t h i s example. A t this flowrate, the T,, o f t h e c l e a r w e l l i s 67
minutes, as detenninedfromtheresults of thetracerstudies. A t this
flowrate,watertravelsthroughthetransmission main a t 99 f t / m h . The
. data f o r t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e i n a c t i v a t i o n i s as follows:
sasmLl SssmLZ
0 5280
length of pipe ft)
contact time (la n)
P i PC
1 0 53 -
..

bas in 67 0
total 67 55 .
disinfectant ch o1r i ne chlorine
residual (mg/L) 1.o 0.6
temperature C 5 5
PH 7.5 7.5

For free chlorine, a 1-log Giardia cyst inactivation provides greater' than
a 4-log virus inactivation; therefore, Giardia cyst inactivation is the
c o n t r o l l i n g parameter, and the inactivation provided' i s determined based
on Giardia cysts.The'calculation i s as follows:
-
Section 1
CTCaIc - Chlorine
1.0mg/L x 67 minutes (I 67 mg/L-min

CT,, IJCf99.9 -
ction 7 - Chlorine
CT,,,, = 0.6 ag/L X 53 minutes = 32 mg/l-rain .
From Table E-2, a t a temperatureof 5 C and a pH of 7.5, CT,,,, is
171 ag/L-nin

Thesum o f CT,,,,/CTQQe, i s equal t o 0.56. This i s equivalent to a 1.7-log


a a r d i q c y s t i n a c t i v a t i o n determined as 3-log x. CT,,,/CT,,., 3 x 0.56 =
(I

5-25
. 1.7-logs. Therefore, the system exceeds the disinfection reconmended t o
w e t the overalltreatment requinments.
-
i

3) . d-ai Qst.' 4 loa Virus Inactivatiqp


0

A C m n i t y of 30,000 people uses a reservoir treated by d i r e c t


f i l t r a t i o n f o r i t s watersupply. The reservoir i s fedby a r i v e r which
receives the discharge from a wastewater treatmcnt plant 10 miles upstream
of the reservoir. The reservoir water quality i s as follows:
turbidity -
5 15 NTU
Total col iforms -
100 looo/loo m l -
Total estimated Giardia cyst level 5/100 L
PH 6 - 7
Temperature 5-15c
Basedon the sourcewater q u a l i t y , an overall rcmoval/inactivation
o f 4-109 Giardiacyst and
5-109 v i r u si s tccomacnded as o u t l i n e di n
s Section 4.4.
The source water flows by gravi t y t o a 3 l#istorage reservoir prior
t o pumping t o t h e watertreatmentplant. Chloraminesare,producedby
f i r s t adding chlorine .then amnonia t o t h e water w i t h i n t h e i n l e t of the
storage reservoir. Chlorine dioxide i s added t o t h e f i l t e r e d w a t e r p r i o r
t o theclearwells. Chloramines areappliedaftertheclearwells .to
maintain a residual i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n system. The system design flow 'is .. .
8 mgd with an average flow of 5 mgd. For the calculation of the overall
inactivation,the system i s d i v i d e d i n t o 2 sections. .
-
Section 1 the storage reservoir and the transmission t o t h e
treatment p l ant
Section 2 t h ec l e a r m l l s

The o v e r a l l i n a c t i v a t i o n f o r t h e system i s computed d a i l y a t t h e


peak hourly flow
conditions. The pH, temperature, and disinfectant
residual i s measured a t the end o f each section prior to the next point of
disinfectant application and t h e f i r s t customer.. Theo lfw i s measured i.n
thetransmission main entering the plant and exiting the cleatwells. On
t h e day of t h i s example calculation, the peak hourly flow was 6 ragd i n t h e
transmission mains entering and leaving the plant. Ifthe flowrates were
. different, the f,, corresponding totherespectiveflowrate would be used
5-26
i n thecalculation. Guidance for detemining CTS when flowratesvary
w i t h i n asystem i s given i n Section 3.2. The water velocity through the
20-inchtransmission main i s 256 ft/min 8 t a o lfw of 6 mgd. Tracer
studies were conducted on thestoragereservoir and clearwells. As
determined from the testing the detention times, TL0, o f the basfns at a
flow o f 6 rngd are 380 'and 130 minutes forthestoragereservoir and
clearwells, respectively. The d a t a f o r t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f i n a c t i v a t i o n i s
as follows:

length of pipe ft)


contact time (m n)
P i PC
I 4500
la 0
0

basin 380 130


total 398 130
disinfectant chl otami nes chlorine dioxide
residual (mg/L) 1.5 0.2
temperature C 5 5
PH 7 7

For each of the disinfectants used, the following CTs are needed for
2-logGiardia 8nd 4-logvirusinactivation for the pH and temperature
. conditions o f the system.
CT f o r 4 - l o g
Virus
chloramines 1430 . 1988

dioxide chlorine 17 33.4

The CT requiredforthevirusinactivation i s hrgherthanthat


- . needed for Wardiq i n a c t i v a t i o n f o r each o f the disinfectants. Since the

viruses are the controlling parameter, the inactivation calculation w i


l
be based on the viruses. The c a l c u l a t i o n i s as follows:
-ion 1 -
Chloramines
CT,, = 1.5 q / L x 398 minutes = 597 ag/L-min
From f a b l e E-13, a t a temperature o f 5 C and a pH o f 7, CT,,, 99 is
1988 rag/L-min

5-27
.
1988 arg/L-min
- Chlorine Dioxide
*tion,
CTctlc = 0.2 mg/L x 130 minutes = 26 nrg/L-min
From Table E-9, a t a temperature o f 5 C and ap~of 7, CT,
i,
s.,,
33.4 mg/L-mi n
CTcr,c/CT99,99 = 26 ma/L-min 0.78
33.4mg/L-min

The sum of CTc,,c/CT99,99 i s equal t o 1.08, which i s equivalent to 8 4.3-109


inactivation o f viruses, determined as follows:
x 4-log x. CTcaIc 4x 1.08 = 4.3-logs
CT99.99
-
Therefore, the system p r o v i d e s s u f f i c i e n t d i s i n f e c t i o n t o m e t t h e o v e r a l l
* recomnended treatment performance.

+ 5.6
g t h r r C-ationt
Monitoringforheterotrophicplate count (SIPC) b a c t e r i ai sn o t ..
requiredunderthe SWTR. However, such monitoringnay"provide.a good
l . operational
-
-'

Measuringbreakthrough
microbial 7":
i S-

- Evaluating process modifications .,> 1,

- Detecting loss o f water main i n t e g r i t y


- Detectingbacterialregrowthconditionswithinthedistribu-
t i o n system
- Detennining interference with the coliform measurtrafnts ( A H A ,
1987)

Therefore, EPA recoamends routine monitoring for HPC i n t h e p l a n t


effluent and withinthedistributionsystea whenever theanalytical
capabi1 i t y i s a v a i l a b l e in-house or nearby. Systems which. do nut have
t h i s c a p a b i l i t y should consider using a semi-'quantitative bacterial water
sampler k i t , although t h i s s i notacceptable f o r compliance monitoring.

. 5-28
.

As discussed In the preamble to 'the SWTR, €PA believes that it is


inappropriate to include HPC as a treatment performance criterionin the
rule sincesmatl systems would not have in-house analytical capability to
' conduct the acasurcrpent, and they would need to send the rmples to a
private' laboratory. Unless the analysis i s conducted rapidly, .HPC may
multiply and the results may not be representative.
8 €PAreconnrcnds an HPC level of lessthan 10/mlin the finished water
entering the distribution systela and levels of less than SOO/rnl throughout
1
'

system.the distribution .I

uionellq is another organism whichis not i.ncludedas- a treatment


performance criterion. Inactivation information uone l l q is limited.
€PA bel ieves that treatment which compl its with the SWTR will r a v e
and/orinactivate substantial levels o f which might occur in
source waters, thereby reducing chances that &ionrllq will be trans-
ported through the system and reducing the possibility that growth might
occur in the distribution systm or hot water systems within homes and
institutions. Since w e l l p are similarin size to coliform organisms,
removals by filtration should .be similar to those reported for total
coliforms. In addition, the available disinfection infomation indicates
that the C t requirements for inactivation o f JSQionellq are lower than
those required for the inactivation of m r d i & cysts. EPA recognizes,
that regardless of the treatment provided, $'me w n e l l a may enter
plumbing and air conditioningsystems and subsequently multiply (Muraca et
al., 1986) * EPA believes that theseconcerns are best addressed through
guidance contained in Appendix B.

5-29
6.1 Reportin! Requirements for Public Water Systems
t Prov dina Filtration

The SWTR requires unfilteredsystms to prepare monthly reports for


the Primacy Agencyto determine compliance with the requirements for:
---source water fecal and/or total colifona levels
source water turbidity levels .

--
disinfection level
disinfectant residual entering the distribution -system .
disinfectant residuals throughout.the distribution system.

The monthly reports mustbe prepared and submitted to the Primacy


Agency within 10 days after the end of the month. The utility must
maintain a daily or monthly data log used to prepare the monthly reports.
Tables 6-1 through 6-5 are examples of daily data sheets which the
utilities may find usefulfor 'logging the data needed to prepare reports
. for the Primacy Agency.
Table 6-6 presents a concise format which can be used by the system'
for the monthly reports to the Primacy Agency. Tab1,es 6-3 and 6-4 must
also be submitted with the lnonthly report. After the initial 12 months
of reporting, the Primacy Agencyslay nmove the requirementfor reporting
the information containedin Table 6-3 if it is satisfied' .thatthe system
iscomputing compliance with the CTrequirementscorrectly. . The
. indfvidual sample results sumnariredin the monthly reports shouldbe kept
on file at the utility for a minimum o f 5 years. . .

In addition to the monthly reporting requirementsfor source water


qualfty conditions and disinfection iniormation, systems with unfiltered '

supplies are also required t o submit annual reports for the watershed
control program andthe on-site inspection, within10 days after the end
of the federal fiscal year.
The Primacy Agencywill review the reports'to determine whether the
system is in 'compliance. A possible report format for the watershed
control program is:

6-1
1. Sunmarite a l l a c t i v i t i e s i n the watershed(s) for the previous
year.
2. *

concern i n the watershed(s) .


I d e n t i f ya c t i v i t i e s or situations of actual and p o t e n t i a l

3. Describe how t h e u t i l i t y i s proceeding t o address a c t i v i t i e s


creating potent ia1 health concerns .
EPA reconmcnds t h a t t h e Primacy Agency submits the annual watershed -..-I

*
r e p o r t s t o t h e S t a t e Water Qual i t y Managers. The reports ni 11
.- be'useful
i n updatingstatewide assessmentsandmanagementprograms. -
the SWTR requires each system t o provide the Primacy Agency witti a
report o f the on-site inspection unless the inspection i s conducted by the
Primacy Agency. €PA suggests that:
1. A reportoftheinspectioncontainingthefindings, suggested
improvements and datesbywhich t o complete improvements i s
: t oprepared
be f o l l o wti hni nei t i a l system review. When and
B
how system has resolve problems i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s
report should also beincluded.
2. t o lessentheburden on u t i l i t i e s , a reportcontainingresults ,-.

ofthegeneralsurveyshould be submitted i n subsequent years. ..d

I n a d d i t i o n t o these reporting requirements, the SWTR r e q u i r e s ' t h a t


thereportingrequirementsoftheTotal Trihalorrrethane Regulation and the -
.
c

Col i f o m Rule also be met


Records o f waterbornediseaseoutbreaksalso must be maintained. -.-I<

I n t h e event o f awaterbornediseaseoutbreak, as defined i n p a r t 141.2


o ft h e SWTR, t h e Primacy Agency must be n o t i f i e d by t h e end ofthenext
.
'

business day
t h e .r e-p o r t o f the outbreak should contain:
1. Oate o f occurrence
2. '.. Type o f i l l n e s s
3. Number o f cases
4. System c o n d i t i o n astth e ti e otfh e
m outbreak,
including
disinfectant residuals, pH, temperature, t u r b i d i t y , and
bacteriologicalresults.

The records of an outbreak should be maintained permanently or u n t i l


filtrationisinstalled.
6.2 morfina R
-e for Public Water Svstm Usina F i l t r a t b

The SWTR requires f i1tered water systems t o submit mnthly reports


t o t h e Primacy Agency for determination o f compliance with the .require-
ments for:.
-- treated water t u r b i d i t y
- disinfectantresidualcnterinthedistribution system
51
disinfectant residuals throug out the distribution system
. -
Tables 6-7 and 6-8 present a fonaat which t h e u t i l i t y can use as a d a i l y
'data log and t o submitmonthly reports to the.Priaracy Agency.
a Not Rcauired bv the S U R
The Primacy Agency may a1so want fi1tered water systems t o r e p o r t
some information associated with reconmendations made i n t h i s manual which
are notrequirements of the SWTR. €PA recomnends t h a t .f i l t e r e d water
sys t ms :

1. Report theloginactivationof w r d i q cysts and viruses,


required by the Primacy Agency.
2. Report point of a p p l i c a t i o nf o ra l ld i s i n f e c t a n t s used.
3. Reportthedaily CT(s) used t o calculatetheloginactivation
cysts
of and viruses.
4. I f more than one d i s i n f e c t a n ti s used, reportthe CT(s)
and
inactivation(s) achieved for each disinfectant and t h e t o t a l
percent inactivation achieved.
5. Note any difference between the measured .CT(s) and the CT
r e q u i r e dt om e tt h eo v e r a l l minimum treatment perfomance
.-. .requirement specified by the Primacy Agency.

Tables 6-3 and 6-4 can beused t o maintaintherecords necessary for


numbers 2 through 5.
This i n f o m t . i o n .canbe used to deternine the disinfection level
maintained by the system t o assure that the overall rernoval/inactivation
required i s maintained.
,-..

The Primacy Agencymay make provisions to minimize .the reporting


requirements for systems w i t h r e r e w o i r s , l a r g e amounts o f storage or long
transmission mains h i c h provide a long disinfectant contact time. Since
these systcpls t y p i c a l l y p r o v i d e i n a c t i v a t i o n i n excess o f t h a t needed, the
Primacy Agency may require the system only to report the riniauim daily
residual at the end of the diiinfectant contact time. The CT malntained
can then be estimated based on t h i s r e s i d u a l and the contact time under
the system design flow. t h i s method o f Ct determination w l
i eliminate
the need for t h e system t o determine the contact time under w i m u m f l o w
conditions each day.

. .-

6-4
TADWE bl
I I
. .
I 6. From Tlrblu 1.1 - 1.6.2.1. and 3.1.40CFR 141.74bx3).
TABLE 6.6
! MONTHLY REPORT TO P W Y AOWCY FOR
>isinfation Performance Criteria
4. Pointof-Entry Minimum Disinfectant Rod4Criteria
7.

7.1 W-B
This section provides guidanceon'when and how the requirements o f
t h e SWTR w l go intoeffect,includingdeterminations
i made by*Primacy
Agenc ies .
7.2 SYSTEMS USING A SURFACE WATER SOURCE (NOT GROUND WATER
THE DIRECT INFLUENCE OF SURFACE WATER)
The SOWA requires, within 18 months followingtheprdmulgation of
a rule,that PrimacyAgenciespromulgate any regulations necessary t o
implement thatrule. Under 51413, these rules must be alte a s t as
stringent as those required by EPA. Thus, Primacy Agencies awst
promulgateregulationswhichare a tl e a s t as stringent as the SWTR by
December 30, 1990. By Oecember 30, 1991, each Primacy Agency must
determinewhich systems w i
l be r e q u i r e dt of i l t e r . I f f i l t r a t i o ni s
required, i t must be i n s t a l l e d w i t h i n 18 months following the determina-
t i o n o r byJune 29, 1993, whichever i s l a t e r . I n . cases where it i s n o t .
f e a s i b l ef o r asystem t oi n s t a l lf i l t r a t i o ni nt h i st i m ep e r i o d ,t h e
Primacy Agency cay allow an exemption t o extendthetimeperiod(see
Section 9) .
I f a Primacy Agency f a i l s t o comply with this.schedule for adopting
t h ec r i t e r i a and applying them t o determine who m u s t ' f i l t e r , systems must
comply withthenobjective" or self-implementingcriteria (i.e., the
requirements t h a t a r e c l e a r on the face o f t h e r u l e anddo not require the
e x e r c i s e o f P r i m c y Agency discretion). Unfiltered supplies must comply
beginning December 30, 1991 and filtered supplies beginning June 29, 1993.
Monitoring requirements for unfiltered systems must be, act beginning
December 30, 1990 unlessthe Primacy Agency has alreadydeterminedthat
f i l t r a t i o n i s necessary. This coincides with the Agency's requirement t o
. promulgate regulations 'for making f i l t r a t i o n d e c i s i o n s by that date under
the SOWA. PrimacyAgencies may specify which systems shouldconductthe
monitoringnecessary t o demonstratecompliance w i t ht h ec r i t e r i a for
a v o i d i n gf i l t r a t i o n . For some systems where an h i s t o r i c adl a t a base
exists, and where i t i s apparent that the systemwould exceed thesource

7 - 1
.
(-3
water q u a l i t y C r f t e r i d (or t h a t some o t h e r c r i t e r i a would not be met, such
as an adequate watershed control program) , no monitoring may be necess.ary
f o rt h e Primacy Agency t o determine t h a t f i l t r a t i o n i s required. Ifa
p a r t i c u l a r system(and/or the Primacy Agency)knows t h a t i t cannot meet
t h e c r i t e r i a for a v o i d i n g f i l t r a t i o n , ' t h e r e i s no reason t o r e q u i r e t h a t
system t o conduct the source water monitoring prior t o t h e formal decision
by the Primacy Agency t h a t f i l t r a t i o n i s required.This i s t r u e because
the only purpose of that monftoring would be t o demonstrate whether or not
t hc rei t e r i a t o a v of i ldt r a t iaobrneei n g met. .
I n reviewing the data for detennining which systems must f i l t e r , t h e
. Primacy Agency w l have t o decide on acase-by-case basis the conditions
i
which w l r e q u i r ef i l t r a t i o n .F o r
i example, a system may n o t m e t t h e
specified CT requirements f o r t h e f i r s t few months ofwonitoring and
upgrades i t sd i s i n f e c t i o nt o meet the CT requirements i n subsequent
months. I n t h i s case, the Primacy Agency couldconcludethatthe system
w i
l be a b l et o meet t h i sc r i t e r i o nf o ra v o i d i n gf i l t r a t i o n . The time
p e r i o d ss p e c i f i e df o ri nt h ec r i t e r i at oa v o i df i l t r a t i o n (e.g., s i x
months for total coliforms, one year and t e n y e a r s f o r t u r b i d i t y andone
year for CT requirements) do n o t b e g i n u n t i l December 30, 11991 unless the *

Primacy Agf-cy specifies an e a r l i e r date.


Beginning December 30, 1991 the requirements f o r a v o i d i n g f i l t r a t i o n
specified i n 5141.71(a) and (b) and therequirements o f S141.71(c) and '

S141.72(a) go i n t o e f f e c t unless the Primacy Agency already has determined .


t h a ft i l t r a t i o ni sr e q u i r e d B. eginning December 30, 1991, . i f system a .
. f a i l s t o meetanyone o f t h e c r i t e r i a f o r a v o i d i n g f i l t r a t i o n , even ifthe
system were m e t i n g a l l t h e c r i t e r i a up t o t h a t p o i n t , i t must i n s t a l l
f i l t r a t i o n and comply w i t h t h e requirements f o r f i l t e r e d systems includ-
ing the general requirements i n 5141.73and the disinfection requirements
i n S141.72(b), w i t h i n 18 months o f t h e f a i l u r e . Whenever aPrimacy Agency
d e t e r n i n e st h a tf i l t r a t i o ni sr e q u i r e d , i t may Specify interim requite-
. MntS,fortheperiodpriortoinstallationoffiltration'treatment. '

F o l l o w i n g t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t f i l t r a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d , t h e system
c must develop a p l a nt o implement i t si n s t a l l a t i o n . The plan must include
consideration for the following:

7 - 2
0 Providing
uninterrupted water service throughout the
transition period

. - . Siting for the future facility


0 Financing optjons andopportunities
. - Scheduling of design and construction

Systems which are unable to install filtration within the specified time
frame may apply for an exemption t o extend the period for. installing
filtration,
Table 7-1 sumnarizes the requirements for theSWTR. for unfiltered
systems noting conditions which require the installation of filtration.
It is important to note thatonly treatment technique violations trigger
the' requirement to install filtration while violations of monitoring,
reporting or analytical requirements do not. The monitoring requirements
for unfiltered supplies are presented in Section 3 and the reporting
requirements are presented in Section 6.
All systems with filtration in place must meet the treatment
technique requirements specified in 5143.73 (filtration criteria) and
' S141.72(b) (disinfectioncriteria),and the monitoringandreporting,
requirements specified in S141.74(c)andS141.75(b) , 'respectively,
beginning June 29, 1993. Table 7-2 sumnarites 'the SWTR requirements for
filtered systems,including conditions needed for compliance with
treatment requirements. Monitoring requirements for filtered supplies are
enumerated in Section 5 and reporting requirements are presented in
Section 6.

7.3 liance Transition with Curent NPDWR Turbiditv m u i r e m w .


The current (interim) NPDWR for turbidity under 5141.13 (MCL
requirements)and 5141.22 (monitoringrequirements) will apply for
unfi 1 tered systems until December 30, 1991. unless the Primacy Agency
determines that filtration is required. In cases where filtration is re'-
. quired, the interim NPDWR applies until June 29, 1993 or until filtration
is installed, whichever islater.Unfiltered supplies will also be

7 - 3
f-3
(.
subject to the turbidity monitoring requirements of $141.74(b) (2) :

beginning OeCembtt 30, 1990 coincidently with the Interim requirements.


Beginning June 29, 1993, the turbidity performance criteriafor filtered
systems (S141.73), and the monitoring requirements under 5141.74 will
apply* .

7.4 Systems Using a Ground Water Source


der theDirect Influence of Surface Water
t Part of the Primacy Agency's programrevisions to adoet the SWTR
must include proceduresfor determining, for each.system in' the Primacy
Agency served by a ground water source, whether thatsource is under the
direct influence of surface water. 0y June 29, 1994 and June 29, 1999,
each Primacy Agency must determine which coamunify and non-comnunity
public water supplies, respectively, use ground water which is underthe
direct influence of surface water. EPA recomnrends that these determina-
tions be made in conjunction with related activities required by other
regulations (e.g., sanitary surveys pursuant to the final coliform rule,
vulnerability assessments pursuant to thevolatile organicchkicals rule,
the forthcoming disinfection requirements for ground water systems) In
* add.ition, €PA-approved wellhead protection programs required under the
Safe Drinking Water Act Section 1428 may contain methods and criteria for
deteming zones of contribution, assessments o f potential contamination,.
and management of sources of contamination. These programs may be used
as a partial basis for the vulnerability assessment and for making the .
determination of (a) whether a system i s under the direct influence of
surface water and (b) if direct influence is determined, whether thereis
adequate watershed controlto avoid filtration. Guidelinesfor developing
and implementing a wellhead protection program are foundin "Guidelines
for Applicants for State Wellhead Protection Program Assistance Funds
under the SafeDrinking Water Act" (U.S. EPA, 1987a).
A system using a ground water source under the influence of Surface
. .
water that does not have filtration in place must begin Inonitorin9 and
reporting in accordance with S141.74(b) and S141.75(a), respectively, to
determine whether it meets thecriteria for avoiding filtration beginning
. December 30, 1990 or six months after the Primacy Agency determines t h a t .

.7. -4
W c
U 8
n-
*.
Y

I
3
;
.

I - m
0 0 0
m - -
'
I

8 c
n
Y

.
.
0
I
..
A
0

I
L
L

i 4
m 0 c
m
cc 0
Y Y

I
e
i

n
0

'E in

e
(L
o
P
:
w
rluNuml
fillrrrd trppllra (S141.73)

r) Crmrrrllrrrl r~ D l r a c t
flllrrtlrr

1 IIU
P
N

rr

.L
m
I
m

m
m
'
a
-
the ground water source i s under the influence of surface water, whichever
i s l a t e r . W h i n 18 months followingthedeterminationthata system i s
. .
under thq influence of surface water, the Primacy Agency must determine,
using the tam. c r i t e r i at h a ta p p l y t o systems usingasurface water‘
source,whether t h e tys.tem wst provide filtration treatment e;. As for
systems using a surface water source, the Priaacy Agency must evaluate the
data on a case-by-case b a s i s t o determineconditionswhich w i
l trigger
the need f o r f i l t r a t i o n .
Beginning Oeccaaber 30,1991 or 18 months after the determination that
a system i s under t h ed i r e c ti n f l u e n c eo fs u r f a c e water,-whichever i s
l a t e r , t h e c r i t e r i a f o r a v o i d i n g f i l t r a t i o n i n Sl41,71(a) and (b) and the
requirements f o r u n f i l t e r e d systems i n Sl41.7l(c) andS141.72(a) go i n t o
effect,unlessthe Primacy Agency has determined t h a tf i l t r a t i o n ’ is
. required. As with systems using a surface water source, subsequent
f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h anyone of t h e c r i t e r i a f o r a v o i d i n g f i l t r a t i o n
requires theinstallation of
filtration treatment. Thus, beginning
December 30, 1991 or 18 months a f t e r t h e Primacy Agency determines t h a t
a system i s usingagroundwatersourceunderthe d i r e c t. i n f l u e n c eo f
surfacewater,whichever i s l a t e r , a systemwhich’ f a i l s t o meetanyone
o ft h ec r i t e r i at oa v o i df i l t r a t i o nm s ti n s t a l lf i l t r a t i o n and comply .
. with the requirements for fi1tered system withi0 18 months o f t h e f a i l u r e
or byJune 29, 1993, whichever i s later. As f o ru n f i l t e r e d systems,
systems underthedirectinfluence o f surfacewater may apply for an
exemption t o e x t e n d t h e t i m e p e r i o d f o r i n s t a l l i n g f i l t r a t i o n .
Any system using a groundwatersource t h a tt h e Primacy Agency
deternines i s under the direct influence of surface water and that already
has f i l t r a t i o n i n place at the time o f the Primacy Agency determination
must meet the treatment technique, monitoring and reporting requirements
for f i t t e n x i systems beginning June 29,1993 or 18 months a f t e rt h e
Primacy Agency determination, whichever i s later.

. 7 - 5
7.5 RSSWSS for SvrtcRls not SWTR C r i t e r i a r"
7.5.1 I p t r o m
L
Systks which presently fai 1 t o meet the SWfR c r i t e r i a may be able
.t t o upgrade the system'sdesignand/oroperation and maintenance i n order
. t o achieve compliance. The purpose of this section i s to pnsent'options
which may be followed to achieve compliance.

7.5.2 &&@Not-
0 Systems n foi tl t e r i nngu s t meet t hcer i t e r itaaov o if di l t r a t i o n
beginning December 30, 1991 and on a continuingbasisthereafter or
i n s t a lfli l t r a t i o n . Systems n ofti l t e r i n g can be dividedinto two
categories:
A. Thosesystems not currently meting the SWTR c r i t e r i a b u t w i t h

-
t h e a b i l i t y t o upgrade t o w e t them.
8. Those systems notable t o !neet the SWTR c r i t e r i a by December
30, 1991. I f t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f f i l t r a t i o n i s n o t p o s s i b l e
by June 29, 1993 the system m y request an exemption and take
interim measures t o provide safe water t o avoid violation of
a treatment technique requi reutent .

le A - rise Situatipn

W ~ Q System
: i s not meet i n t h e source water fecal andf or
t o t a l c o l i f o m concentrations but !las not received judgment on the '

adequacy o f i t s watershed control.

- Uonitor for fecalcoliformsratherthantotal.coliforms


t h i si sn o t already done. fecalcoliforms
if
are a d i r e c t
i n d i c a t o ro ff e c a l contamination where .totalcoliformsare
not. I f t o t a l c o l i f o m l e v e l s are exceeded but fecal levels
are not, the systew w e t s t h e c r i t e r i a .
- Take appropriateaction i n the watershed t o assure fecal and
total coliform concentrations are below the criteria, such as
elimination o f animal a c t i v i t y near the source water intake.

7 - 6
Candltlon: S y s t k lbeets the source water q u a l i tcyr i t e r i a ,
urtarthed control requirements, and i s Iraintaining a disinfectant
residual within the distribution system, but i s n o t a b l e t o m e t t h e
CT requirements due t ol a c ko fc o n t a c tt i m ep r i o r t o t h ef i r s t
customer.

- Increase the application of disinfectant while monitoring


below the MCL.
l e v e l st o ensurethey remain .-
THM

- Add additional
adequate C t ,
contact
time
through
storage t oo b t a i n an

- Apply a more effectivedisinfectant suchas ozone.


. .

le A -w s e S-i
-
: Systemmeets the source water turbiditybutnotthe
fecalcoliformrequirements. A sewage treatment p l a n t discharges
i n t ot h e sourcewater. A determination has
been made thatthe
system does not have adequate watershed control

- Purchase water from a nearb surveyor or use an alternate


1
source such as ground water f avai lable.

. - Take steps t oi n s t a l lf i i t r a t i o n , applying f o r an exemption


(tiate delay) aspresented i n Section 9 where appropriate.

m i t i o n : The sourcewater exceeds a t u r b i d i t y o f 5 NTU f o r more


thantwoperiods f n a year under noma1 weather and operating
conditions,

- Purchase waterfrorn a nearbpurveyor


r
or use an alternate
source such as ground water f available.
- Take s t e s t oi n s t a l lf i l t r a t i o n ,a p p l y i n gf o r
P
(time de ay) as presented i n Section 9 where appropriate.
an exemption

7 - 7
b

In the interim prior to adoption of either of the above options,


certain protective' measures may be appropriate. 'One protective
+ measure which can beused would be the issuance o f a public notice
5 to boilall water for consumptionduringperiodswhen the turbidity
exceeds 5 NTU. if such a notice is issued, the utility should
continue sampling the distribution system for chlorine residual and
total coliforms, and initiate measurementof HPCs in the distribu:
tion system. These data and the rawwater turbidity shouldbe used
to determine when to lift the boil water notice. .-
The notice could be lifted when:
- The historical (priorto high turbidity) disinfectant residual
concentration is reestablished in the distribution system;
- The total colifonn requirements are met;
- The HPC count is less than 500/ml; and
- The turbidity of the raw water is'less than 5 NTU.

Systems which are currently filtering must meet the SWTR criteria . .
within 48 months of theSWTR to be in compliance, after which the criteria
must be continually met for thesystem to be in compliance.
. .
le A 0

S o n d i m : A direct filtration plant is treating'a surface water


which is not compatible with this treatment process.The system is
not achieving its required turbidity petfonnance or disinfection
criteria.

- Optimize coagulant dose.


- Reduce filter loading rates.
- Evaluate the effect on perfomance of installing flocculation
and sedimentation ahead of the filters.

7 - 8
le B - R w c Sit-
m:A filtration plant is using surface water which is
disinfection performance criter a
rchievo 8 1-109 inactivationof
cysts;
r
coapatible with its treatment s stem. The system is not achieving
uired by the Primacy Agency to
however, is
it
rmting the requirements of the Total Coliform Rule.
RtsDonze:
- Increase disinfectant dosagets)
- Install storage facilities to increase disinfectant contact
tima.
- Ensure optimum filtration efficiency by:
- Use of a filter aid.
- Reduction'in filter loading rates.
- More frequent backwashing of fi 1 ters.
The Primacy Agency may grant additionalremoval credit for optimum
. filtration.
EPA intends to promulgate National Primary Drinking Water Regula-
tions to regulate levels of disinfectants and disinfectant by-productwhen
it promulgates disinfection requirements for ground water systems
(antfcipated in 1992). €PA isconcerned that changes required in
utilities' disinfection practices t o meet the required inactivations for
the SWTR might be inconsistent with treatment changes needed to 'comply
with the forthcoming regulations for disinfectants and disinfection
by-products. For this reason, the €PA. is allowing Primacy Agencies
discretion tn detemining thelevel of disinfection requiredfor fi1.tered
systaas to #st the overall treatment performance requirements specified
in the rule or reconanended based on source water quality.
Durtng the interim period,prior to promulgation of the disinfection
by-product regulation, €PA recotmends that the Primacy Agency a1 1 ow more
credit for fiiprdiq cyst and virus ranoval than generally recaanended.
This interim level is recoimnended in cases where the Primacy Agency
detennines that a system i s not -currently at a significant risk from
microbiological concerns at the existing level of disinfection and t h a t
7 - 9
(---
a deferral i s necessary for the system to upgrade i t s disinfection.process
t o optimally achieve compliance with the SWTR as mll as the forthcoming
disinfection by-product regulations. Section S A 3 presents s m
? guidelines for establishinginterim
disinfection requirements.

7 - 10
.

The SWTR s p e c i f i e s t h a t t h e p u b l i c n o t i f i c a t i o n requirements o f the


Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the implementing regulations of 40 CFR
Paragraph 141.32 must be followed.
' These regulationsdividepublic
n o t i f i c a t i o n requirements i n t o w t o tiers. These t i e r s are defined as
follows:
1. T i e r 1:
a. F a i l u r et o comply with HCL
b. F a i l u r et o cornply with prescribedtreatkfl.technique
c. F a i l u r e t o cornply with a variance or exemptionschedule
2. Tier 2:
a. F a i l u r et o comply withmonitoringrequirements
b. F a i l u r et o comply w i t h a t e s t i n g procedureprescribed
* by a NPDWR
c. Operating under a variance/exemption. This i s not
considered a v i o l a t i o nb upt u b l i .cn o t i f i c a t i o ni s
requi red.

The SWTR c l a s s i f i e vs i o l a t i o n s o f Sections 141.7O1 141.71(c),


141.72 and 141.73 (i.e.l treatment technique requirements as s p e c i f i e d i n
Section 141.76) as T i e r 1 v i o l a t i o n s and violations of Section 141.74 as
Tier 2 v i o l a t i o n s . V i o l a t i o n s o f 141.75 (reportingrequirements) do not
require public notification.
There a r e c e r t a i n general requirements which a1 1 publ i c n o t i c e s must
met. A1 1 notices must provide a c l e a r and r e a d i l y understandable
explanation of the violation, any p o t e n t i a l adverse healtheffects,the
populationatrisk,thestepsthe system i s taking t o correctthe
violation, the necessity o f seeking alternate water supplies ( i f any) and
any preventative measures the consumer shouldtake. .The notice must be
. conspicuous, not contain any unduly technical language, unduly small p r i n t
o r s i m i l a r problems. The notice must include the telephone number o f t h e
owner or operator or designee o f t h e p u b l i c water s y s t k ,as a source of
additionalinfomation'concerningtheviolation where appropriate. The
notice must be b i - or m u l t i l i n g u a l i f appropriate.
Inaddition, thepublic notlfication rule
requires that when .
providing information on potential adverse h e a l t h e f f e c t s i n T i e r 1 public

8 - 1
notices and i n m t i c e s on the.granting and continuedexistence ofa r:'
variance or e x a p t i o n , t h a m e r or operator of a public water system must
includecertain mandatory healtheffects language. For violations of
treatmenttechniquerequirements f o rf i l t r a t i o n and disinfection, the
a.
mandatory healtheffects' language i s : .
s
The UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtection A ency (EPA) setsdrinking
3
water standards and has determined t h a t microb ological eontaminants are
a healthconcern a t c e r t a i n l e v e l s o f exposure. I f water i s inadequately
treated,microbiological contaminants i n t h a t water may cause disease.
Disease symptoms may includediarrhea, nausea, and possibly
jaundice and any associated headaches, and crm!s,atigue. These
symptoms,
however, a r en o*t j u s t associated with
disease-causing organisms i n
d r i n k i n water, but also may becausedbya number of factors other than
3
your dr nking water.
d r i n k i n gw a t e rt o
EPA has set enforceable requirements f o r t r e a t i n g
reduce t h er i s ko f these
adverse healtheffects.
Treatment such as f i l t e r i n g and disinfecting the water removes or destroys
microbiological contaminants. Drinking water which i s t r e a t e d t omeet EPA
requirements i s associated with l i t t l e t o none o f t h i s r i s k and should be
considered safe.

further, the owner or operator of a comnunity water system must give


acopy o f t h e most recentnoticefor any T i e r 1 v i o l a t i o n s t o al new
b i l l i n g u n i t s or hookups p r i o r t o or a t the tm i e service begins.
The
medium f o r performingpublicnotification and the time period . -_
..i

i n which n o t i f i c a t i o n mustbe sent varies with the type of violation and


i s p e c i f i e d i n Section 141.32. .for .Tier 1 violations (i.e. , v i o l a t i o n s ".
of Sections 141.70,141.71, .141.72 and 141.73), the Owner or operator'of
a. public water system must give notice:
1. By p u b l i c a t i o n i n a l o c a l d a i l y newspaper as soon as possible
but i n nocase l a t e r than 14 days a f t e rt h ev i o l a t i o n or
failure. If the area does not havea d a i l y newspaper, then
n o t i c e s h a l l be given by p u b l i c a t i o n i n a weekly newspaper of
g e n e r a l c i r c u l a t i o n i n t h e area, and
2. By e i t h e r d i r e c t m a i l d e l i v e r y or hand delivery of the notice,
e i t h e r by i t s e l f or with the water b i l l not later than 45. days
a f t e r t h e v i o l a t i o n or f a i l u r e . The Primacy Agency may waive
t h i s requirement i f i t deternines that the Owner or operatoi
has corrected the violation within the 45 days.

8 - 2
Although the SWTR does not specify any acute violations, the Primacy
Agency may Specify some Tier 1 violations as posing an acute r i s k t o human
health; .tor example these violations ray include:
1. A waterbornediseaseoutbreak i n an u n f i l t e r e d supply.
2. Turbidity of the water p r i o r t o d i s i n f e c t i o n o f an u n f i l t e r e d
supply or t h e t u r b i d i t y o f f i l t e r e d water exceeds 5 NTU a t any
time.
3. F a i l u r e t o maintain a disinfectantresidual of a tl e a s t 0.2
a r
g li i n t h e water being delivered t o t h e d i s t r i b u t.-i o n system.
.
For these v i o l a t i o n s or any othersdefined by the Primacy Agency as
"acute" violations, the system must furnish a copy of the notice to the
radio and television stations serving the area assoonas possible but i n
no case later. than 72 hours after the violation. Depending upon circum-
, stances p a r t i c u l a r t o t h e system, as determined by the Primacy Agency, the
notice may i n s t r u c t t h a t a l l water should be b o i l e d p r i o r t o consumption.
Following the .initial notice, the owner or operator must give notice .
a t l e a s t once everythree months by mail delivery (either by i t s e l f or.
withthewaterbill), or byhand d e l i v e r y , f o r as long as the violation
or failure exists.
There are two variations on theserequirements. F i r s t ,t h e owner
or operator of acomnunitywatersysttm i n an area not s.erved by a d a i l y
or weekly newspaper must give notice within '14 days a f t e r t h e v i o l a t i o n
by hand delivery or continuous posting o f a n o t i c e o f t h e v i o l a t i o n . The
notice must be i n a conspicuous place i n t h e area served by the systea and
must continue for as long as theviolationexists.Notice by hand
delivery must be repeated a t l e a s t every three months for the duration o f
theviolation. .
Secondly, the m e r or operatorof a - i t v m r sv-
( L e * , one serving a transitorypopulation) may, givenotfce by hand
delivery or continuous posting o f the not'ice i n conspicuous places i n t h e
areaservedby the system. Notice must be given within 14 days after the
violation. I f n o t i c e i s given by posting,then i t must continue as long

8 - 3
as the violation exists. Notice given by hand delivery mustbe repeated
at leaft every three months f o r as long as the violation exists.
F o r t i e r 2 violations (i.e, , v i o l a t i o n s o f 40 CFR 141.74, analytical
*x and monitoring requirements)
notice must be given withinthree months
.. a f t et rh ev'i o l a t i o n by p u b l i c a t i oinn a d a i l y newspaper of,.general
c i r c u l a t i o n , or i f there i s no d a i l y newspaper, then i n a weekly
' newspaper. In addition, the Owner or operatorshallgivenotice by mail
( e i t h e r by i t s e l f or w i t h t h e w a t e r b i l l ) or byhand d e l i v e r y a t l e a s t -
once everythree months f o r as long as theviolationexists.Noticeof
a variance or exemption must be given every three aonths from'the date It
i s granted f o r as long as i t remains i n e f f e c t .
I f the area i s not served bya d a i l y or weekly newspaper,' the owner
or operator o f a comnunitywater systemmust give notice bycontinuous
posting i n conspicuous places i n t h e area served by the system, t h i s must
continue as long as t h ev i o l a t i o n does or thevariance or exemption
remains i ne f f e c t .N o t i c eb y hand delivery must be repeated ax l e a s t
every three months f o r t h e d u r a t i o n o f t h e v i o l a t i o n or the variance of
exemption
. For noncomunitywater systems, the Owner or operator may give
notice by hand delivery or continuousposting i n conspicuousplaces;
beginning within 3 months o f t h e v i o l a t i o n or the variance or exemption.
' &.
Posting must continue for the duration of the violation or variance or
exemption and n o t i c e by hand delivery mustbe repeated atleastevery
3 months during this period.
The Primacy Agency nay a llw f o r Owner or operator'to provide less
o
frequentnotice for minormonitoringviolations (as defined,bythe
Prilnacy Agency if EPA has approved the Primacy Agency's s u b s t i t u t e .
requirements contained i n a program revision application).
fo provide further assistance in preparing public notices, several
examples have been provided, However,each s i t u a t i o n f s different and
may callfordifferencesinthecontent and tone of thenotice. A1 1
notices must comply w i t h t h e general requirements specified above.

8 - 4
-
l e 1 m c r 1 Viblatron Unfiltered zupolv
Following i s an example o f a T i e r 1 v i o l a t i o n which may be
considered by the Primacy Agency t o pose an acute r i s k t o human health.
A systcln which does n o t a p p l y f i l t r a t i o n experiences a breakdown i n
the chlorine feed system and the switchover system f a i l s t o a c t i v a t e t h e
backup systems. A number of hBurs pass before the operator discovers the
malfunction. The operator, upon discovery ofthemalfunction,contacts
t h e l o c a l t e l e v i s i o n and radio stations andannounces t h a t t h e p u b l i c i s
receivinguntreatedwater. Theannouncement may read as follows:
We have justreceived word from the Aswan Water Board t h a t a
malfunction of the disinfection system has allowed untreated water .
t o pass i n t o t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n system.Thus, t h i s system prov.iding
d r i n k i n water i s i n v i o l a t i o no f a treatment technique requircnient.
f
The Un ted States
r
Environmental Protection Agenc (EPA sets
drinking water standards and has determined t h a t rn crobio ogical 1
contaminants are a health concern a tc e r t a i nl e v e l s of exposure.
I f water i s inadequatelytreated,aicrobiodogicalcontaminants in
that water may cause d i tease. Disease symptoms may include
diarrhea, cramps, nausea, and possiblyjaundice andany associated
headaches , and fatigue. These symptoms , however, arenotJust
associatedwithdisease-causing organisms i n drinking water, but
also may becausedbya number of factors other than your drinking
. -. water. EPA h a s m t enforceablerequirements f o r t r e a t i n g d r i n k i n g
water t o reduce the r i s k o f these adverse health effects. Treatment
such as , f i l t e r i n g and disinfecting the water removes or destroys
microbiologicalcontamlnantr.Drinkingwater'which i st r e a t e d t o
meet EPA requirements i s associated with l i t t l e t o none of t h i s r i s k
and should be consideredsafe.
The temporary breakdown i nd i s i n f e c t i o n may have allowed micro-
organfsms t o pass i n t ot h ed i s t r i b u t i o n system. The operationof'
t h e s y s t m has been restored SO t h a t no furthercontaminationof
t h ed i s t r i b u t i o n system wl occur. Any f u r t h e r changes w
i l be
i
announced
Additional
information
is
available
at
the
following number:
235-WATER.
A directmailingof the notice i s provided within 45 days o f t h e
occurrence.

-
a m d t 2 Tier 1 Violation-Unfiltered S u p p l v
Following i s an example o f a T i e r 1 v i o l a t i o n which may b e
considered by. the Primacy Agency t o pose an acute r i s k t o human health.
A system supplies an unfiltered surface water t oi t s customers. r>
During a period of unusually heavy rains caused by a hurricane i n t h e
area, t h e t u r b i d i t y of the water exceeds 5 NTU. the turbidity data during
.i which the heavy rains occur i s as follows:

0.4 0.8- 0.7 0.7 7.6


0.4 0.5 Oe4 7.6 3.1
0.5 0.5 0.4 11.3 2.7
Oe7 Oe4 0.5 9.6 0.7
1.1 0.4 0.4 7.2 0.8
0.9 0.6 , . 0.6 5.0 . 0.5

The following public notice was prepared and submitted t o t h e ' local
newspaper, t e l e v i s i o n and radiostationswithin 72 hours o ft h e f ir s t
t u r b i d i t y exceedence of 5 NTU.
The occurrence o f heavy rains i n our watershed i s causing a r i s e i n
t h et u r b i d i t y of thedrinkingwatersupplied by Fai.rfax. Water
Company .
:' T u r b i d i t yi s ameasurement o fp a r t i c u l a t em a t t e ri n water. It i s
,

of sni i f i c a n c e i n drinking
water because i r r e g u l a r l y shaped
3
p a r t i c es can both harbor microorganisms and i n t e r f e r e d i r e c t l y w i t h
disinfection which destroys microorganisms.While theparticles
causingtheturbidity may not be harmful or even visi,bleatthe
concentrations measured, theneteffect of a t u r b i d water i s . t o
increase the survival rate ofmicroorganisms contained i n t h ewater.
This i s o f concern because severaldiseasesareassociatedwith 7.

waterborne microorganisms.
.x.
Because o ft h eh i g ht u r b i d i t yl e v e l s ,t h eF a i r f a x system i s i n
v i o l a t i o no f a treatment requirement set by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)
.
The United
States
Environmental Protection Agenc (EPA sets
drinkingwater standards andhas determined t h a t m crobioogical
contaminantsare a health concern a t c e r t a i n l e v e l s o f
r 1
exposure.
,

If water i s inadequatelytreated,microbiologicalcontaminants in
that
water may cause disease. Disease symptoms
may include
diarrhea, cramps,nausea,and possibly jaundice andany associated
headaches,
and fatigue. These
symptoms, however, arenotjust
associated with disease-causing organisms i n drinking water, but
also may be caused by anumber of factors other than your drinking
water. EPA has set en'forceablerequirements for treating drinking
water t o reduce t h e r i s k o f these adverse health effects. Treatment
such as f i1 t e r i n g and disinfecting the water removes or d e s t ' W s
I microbiological contaminants. Drinkingwater which i st r e a t e dt o

8 - 6
.---
. meet EPA requirements i s associated with l i t t l e t onone of t h i s r i s k . .
' and should be consideredsafe.
' In order t o protectyourself from i l l n e s s ,a l l water from the
Fafrfax system used for drinking, cooking and washing dishes should
be b o i l e d a t a t o 1 l i n g b o i l f o r one minute.
The system i s being closely monitored and a notice w l
i be issued
when the water returns t o an acceptable q u a l i t y and no longer needs
t o be boiled.

The u t i l i t y continues sampling the distribution systcla.for chlorine


residual and total colfforms, and i n i t i a t e s measurement of the HPCs i n the
d i s t r i b u t i o n system. The n o t i c e i s l i f t e d when a l l t h e f o l l o w i n g a r e met:
- The h i s t o r i c a l ( p r i o r t o h i g h t u r b i d i t y ) d i s i n f e c t a n t r e s i d u a l
concentration i s reestablished i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n system.
- The t o t a l c o l i f o n n requirementsare met .
- The HPC count i s <5OO/m1
- The t u r b i d i t y o f the raw water i s lessthan 5 NTU.

The Primacy Agency most decide whether the t u r b i d i t y event was unusual or
unpredictable and whether f i l t r a t i o n should be installed,

le 3 0 cr 1 Violation - F i l t e r e d Q&y
A conventionaltreatmentplant i st r e a t i n g asuiface water. A
malfunctioning alum feed system r e s u l t e di n an fncrease-ofthe filter
e f f l u e n t t u r b i d i t i e s . The e f f l u e n t t u r b i d i t y was between 0.5 and 1.0 NTU
i n '20 percent of the samples f o r t h e month.The utility.fssued a notice
which was published fn a local daily newspaper w i t h i n 14 days after the
violation. The notfceread as follows:
Ourin the previous month, t hBe a l t i c Water Treatment Plant
ex er enced d i f f i c u l t i e sw i t ht h e chemical feed s stem. The
* P P
ma functions caused an e f f l u e n t t u r b i d i t y l e v e l above .5 NTU i n 20
percent otfh e samples for the month. The
I
c u r r e nttr c a t m n t
standards require that the turbidity
' must be lessthan 0.5 NTU i n
r
95 percent of the month1 samples. The B a l t i c d r i n k i n g water system
has thus been f n v i o l a t on of a treatment technique requirement.
The UnitedStates
Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA sets
drinking water standards andhas determined that slcrobio ogical 1 .
contaminants are a health concern atcertainlevels exposure.
of
r" .. .i
. I

Ifwater i s inadequatelytreated,microbiological contaminants, i n


.that
'water may cause disease. Disease symptoms nay include
diarrhea, cramps,nausea,and possibly jaundice andany associated
headaches ,- and fatigue. These symptoms, however, arenotjust
associatedwithdisease-causingorganism i n d r i n k i n g water, but
also may be caused'by a number of factors other than your drinking
'. water. €PA has enforceable
set requirements ft or er a t idnrgi n k i n g
water t o reduce t h er i s k of these adverse healtheffects..treatment .g
such as f i l t e r i n g and disinfectingthewater removes or destroys --
_>.

microbiological contaminants. Drinkingwater which i st r e a t e dt o .


meet €PA requirements i s associated with l i t t l e t o none o f t h i s r i s k "-

and should be considered safe. "

The chemical, feed and switchover components o f t h e system have been


repaired and w e i n workin order and t u r b i d i t y l e v e l s a r e m e t i n g
thestandard. 1
It i s u n l i e l y t h a t i l l n e s s
t u r b i d i t y axceedences previously mentioned
wi r e s u l t from the
l
because continuous
stringent disinfection conditions were i n e f f e c t and the system was
i n compliance with other microbiological drinking waterstandards
pertaining t o microbiological contamination. However, a doctor
should be contacted i nt h e event oifl l n e s s . For additional
informationcall 1-800-726-WATER.

.
9. EXEMPTIONS
. 9.1 Q y e w i w of Rcautrrments
Section 1416 o f the Safe Drinking Water Act allows a Primacy Agency
. t o e x k t any public watersystan w i t h i ni t sj u r i s d i c t i o n Frola any
treatmenttechniquerequirement imposed by a nationalprimarydrinking
water regulation upon a finding that:
1. Due t o compellingfactors
r
(which ma include . economic
factors) , the public water system i s unab e t o cowply with the
treatmenttechniquerequirement;
2. The public water system was i n operation on the effective date
o f the treatment technique requirement or, f o r a system t h a t
was not i n operation by t h a t date,only i f no reasonable
a l t e r n a t i v e source o f drinking water i s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e new
system;and
3. The granting of the exemption wl not result ‘in an unreason-
i
able r i s k t o health.

I f aPrimacy Agency grants a public water system an exemption, the


Agency must prescribe, at the i e the exemption i s granted, aschedule
tm
for:
1. Compliance (includingincreamto o f progress) by thepublic
water system with each treatmenttechniquerequirement with
respect t o which the exemption was granted; and
2.
r
Implementation by the s stem o f such control measuresas the
Primacy Agency may requ re during the period the exemption i s
in effect.

.. Before
prescribing schedule,
a the Primacy Agency mutt provide
notice and opportunity for a public hearing on the schedule. The schedule
prescribed must require complianceby the public water r y s t m w i t h t h e
treatmenttechniquerequirement as expeditiously as practicable,but in .
no case l a t e r than one year after the exemption i s issued(except that,
i f the systcrn meets certain requirements, the final date for compliance
may be extended for a period not to exceed three years from the date t h e
exemption i s granted). For systems serving less
than 500 service

9 - 1
connections, and meeting certain additional requirements,
the Primacy (--
'?

Agency l a y renew the exemption for one o r anre additional two-year


periods.
Under the SWTR, no exemptions areallowed frm the requirement t o
providedisinfectionforsurface water
system,
but
cxunptfons are
available t o reduce the degree of disinfection required. Exemptions from
, t h ef i l t r a t i o n requirements
are available. The following
sections
present "L

guidelines for evaluating conditions under which exemptions are appropri-


ate.

9.2 W d e d Criteria
I n order t o o b t a i n an exemption from the SUTR, a system must meet
certain minimum c r i t e r i a t o assure no unreasonable Fisk to health. These
should be appliedbeforelookingatotherfactors such as economics..
Reconmrendedminimum c r i t e r i a f o r assuring no unreasonable, r i s k t o h e a l t h
exists are listed below.

- Practice disinfection to achieve at least a 2-log inactivation


of m r d i a cysts; or comply with the disinfection'requirements
f o r t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n system as defined i n Section 141.72(b)
o f t h e SWTR .
- Comply with the monthly c o l i f o n MCL; or provide bottled water
or another alternate water source) or p o i n t o f use treatment
devices f o rt h e i r customers i n which representive samples
comply w i t ha l tl h e MCL National PrimaryDrinking
Regula t ions . Water

EPA recomacnds t h a t i n order to obtain an extension t o t h e i n i t i a l


1 year exemption period i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r e q u i r e d e l a m t s i n S e c t i o n
1416, the system would need t o be i n compliance with'the monthly coliform
MCL, s a t i s f y t h e above d i s i n f e c t i o n c r i t e r i a and not haveany evidence o'f
waterborne disease outbreaks a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h esy$tcm a t the end o f t h a t
f i r s t exemption period. I f a t any pointduringthe extended exemption
period the system d i d n o t m e t these conditions, the exemption should 'be
c withdrawn and the system should be subject t o an e n f o r c e n ta c t i o n .
*

9 - 2
- Practice disinfection to achieve a t l e a s t a 0.5 lo inactiva-
t i o no f uardiq cysts; ?
l y w i t h t h e d sinfection
. requirements for ' t h ed i s t r iOr
Section 141.72 of the rule.
but '7
on system as defined i n

- Comply with the monthly coliform MCL;' or provide bottl'ed water


or another alternate water source) o r p o i n t o f use treatment
6evices f o rt h e i r customers i n which representive samples
comply w i t ha l tl h e MCL National
PrimaryDrinking Water
Regulations.
- fake a l lp r a c t i c a l steps t o improve t h ep e r f o w n e eo fi t s
f i l t r a t i o n system,

I n order t o o b t a i n an extension t o t h e i n i t i a l exemption period, i n


. additiontotherequiredelmtentsinSection 1416, thesystenshould be
i n compliance with thecolifonn MCL, s a t i s f y the above disinfection
. c r i t e r i a and not have any evidence o f waterborne disease outbreaks
attributable to the treatment system a t t h e end o f t h a t f i r s t exemption
period, I f a t any point during the extendedexemption period the system
d i d n o t m e t these conditions, the exemptionshould be withdrawn and the
system shouldbesubJect t o an enforcement action. In addition,the
system must continue t o be taking steps to improve the performance o f i t s
f i l t r a t i o n system t o achievethecriteriaspecified 'in the SWTR. .
Once these minimum requirementsareapplied,the Primacy Agency
should look at the other factors as described i n Sections 9.3, 9.4, and
9.5.

9.3 -11- F a c w
Compel 1 ingfactorsareoftenassoclatedwithsmall systems. The
major c a p e l l i n fga c t o r tends t o be economic. I n some cases the
compelllng factor may not be solely economic, but rather the contractual
and physfcal, i n f e a s i b i l i t y o f h a v i n g a r q u i r c d treatment .installed within
the tm i e period specified in the regulation. For example, i t may not be
f e a s i b l e f o r a verylarge system t o i n s t a l l f i l t r a t i o n by June 1993 i f
required. In such cases exemptions are alsoappropriate;Additional
considerations for small systems arepresented i n Appendix L.

9-3
IfSYstm i~provements nuessary'tocomply with the SWTR,incur costs
which the Primacy Agency .determines pose an economic barrier to acquisi-
t i o n o f . necessary treatment,
the system f u l f i l l st h ec r i t e r i a of
U
demonstrating a compellinghardship which makes it unable t o m e t the
treatmentrequirements.'In such cases, the €PA believes i t i s reasonable

. t o grant an exemption i f the system a l s o w e t s t h e c r i t e r i a , i n


9.5.
9.4 and

The USEPA document, "Technologies and Costs forthe Removal of


Microbial Contaminants from Potable Water Supplies," conhinscosts
associated withavailable treatment alternatives (USEPA, 1988b). Costs
found i nt h i s document, or those
generated from mre site-specific
. conditions, can be used as thebasisfordeterminingtheability ofa
system t o a f f o r d treatment. The t o t a l annual waterproductioncostsper
household f o r a system can be estimated based on the household water usage
and the production costs per thousand gallons. As estimated i n t h e above
c i t e d USEPA document,each cent per thousand gallons o f treated water i s
approximately equivalent t o $1 per year per household i f a household water
usage o f 100,000 gallons per year i s assumed.' This e s t i n a t e ' w i l l need t o
be adjusted' according t o water usage f o r caseswhere the .household usage
differs from 100,000 gal Ions per year.
The following examples are presented ' t o provide guidance i n
estimating costs for a system t o upgrade i t s system or i n s t a l l f i l t r a t i o n .
This cost information could be used f o r determining whether a system might
be e l i g i b l e f o r an exemption.
WnulLl
A water system which supplies an average d a i l y flow o f 0.05 ngd t o
a small urbanconmunity receives i t s water supply f m a lake. The system
currentlyprovidesdisinfectionwithchlorinebut does notprovide
f i l t r a t i o n . The system reviewed i t s sourcewater q u a l i t y and found the
characteristics to be as follows:

:P
9 ' This i s the
-
national average residential househOld consumption.reported
in: Final Descriptive Sumnary 1986 Surve o f C m u n i t y Water Systems.
October 23, 1987. USEPA: Office of Drin ing Water. 5:
9 - 4
Total colifonns
Turbidi t y
. Color
-
1,000/100 fa1
10 13 NTU
6-9CU
Bdsed upon.the c r i t e r i a i n t h eSWTR, t h i s source r e q u i r e s f i l t r a t i o n
and a rev,icw otfh e water q u a l i t yc r i t e r i a presented i nt t b l e 4-2 .
indicatesthatthetreatmenttechniquebestsuited t o these source
conditions i s conventionaltreatment. A conventional package treatment
plant with a capacity of 0.068 1360 way be purchased and put on 1i n e a t
a costof $277/household-year notincludingrealestate,piping or raw
water pumping costswhich naybe significant dependingon-.the plant
location.? €PA has estimatedthat, on average, thesecostsmight add
another 50% depending on sitespecificfactors (USEPA, 1989) '

Thus thecostestimate f o r implementing f i l t r a t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t


the i n c r u i n the average annualhousehold water b i l l would be
approximately $277 plusthecost of realestate,piping, and raw water
pumping as needed.Theincomes o f people i n t h e c m u nty i and the current
water b i 11s can be reviewed by the Primacy Agency alongwiththese
estimated costs t o determine ifanundueeconomic hardship i s incurred by
thesetreatment methods. Upon determination that an economic hardship i s '
incurred,the Primacy Agency may grant an exemption from f i l t r a t i o n ,
provided that the systemcan assuretheprotection o f the health of the
. comnunity .
However, if the watersupply system for a nearby c m u n i t y
meets the drinking water standards a there i s t h e a b i l i t y t o hook up t o
that system, an exemption generallyshouldnot be grantedunless such
costs also presented an economic hardship.
' -
..
A 1arge urban coamuni t y , with a lnedi an annual ine- o f $25,000 per
family, i s supplied with water from lakes and reservoirs.. . The comnunity
places an average d a i l y demand o f 3 q d on thesupply system. The '

watershed o f t h e system i s moderately populated and used f o r fanning and

* Table VI-3 ("Technolo i e s and Costs for the Removal o f Microbial


3
Contaminants from Potab e Water Supplies, USEPA, 1988b) l i s t s t h e t o t a l
costs as 277.4 cents/1000 gal. Estimated costs for real estate,'piping.' '

and raw water pumping as a function of site specific conditions are


available i n Table E-1, E-2, and E-3 o f t h i s same document.
9 - 5
grazing. The system currently. provides filtration using diatomaceous
earth filtration and disinfection wlth chloramines.
A review of the source and finished water quality was conducted
to
evaluate the plant's performance. The source water quality was determined
t o be: . .
Totalcol iforms
Turbidity
Color
--
30 40/100 ml
2 3 NTU
1-2cu
Diatomaceous earth is therefore an acceptable filtration wethodO3
- . in the
However, review of the finished water showed that a residual
distribution system is only maintained percent of the time. In
' 8 0

.addition to this, coliforms were detected in 10 percent of the samples


taken over the twelve month period. Inspection of the chlorination
equipment showed the equipment is deteriorated. Review of the monthly
reports showed that the coliforms appeared in the distribution system
shortly after the chlorinators malfunctioned. This observation ledto the
conclusion that new disinfection facilitieswere needed.
The source water qualityand available contacttime'after disinfec-
tion were then used to deternine the most appropriate disinfectant
for the
system. As described in Section 5.5, ozone, chlorine or chlorine dioxide c

can be used as primary disinfectants giventhese conditions. A prelimi-


naryreview of costs for applying the variousdisinfectants.showed ' ,.7

chlorine to be the most economical at a cost of $2.8/household/year4


(USEPA, 1988b). This cost does.not includebackupequipment;however, ...5 .
even with providingduplicate equipment doublingthis cost to $5.6/house-
hold/ year, the improvement incurs lainiml cost and the Primacy Agency
should not grantthe system an exemption based oneconomic hardship.

As detennined from Table 4-2 of Section 4.


' Table VI-12 (USEPA, 1988b) listsa total cost of 2.8 cents/1000 gal for . .
a plant capacity of 5.05 mgd.
JSl/household-vearl = $2.8/household-year
(cents/1000 gal)
9 - 6
9.4 W u a t i o n of Alternate Water Sypglv SOU
Systems which would incur very high costs for i n s t a l l i n g a required
treatment t o comply withthe SWTR, shouldevaluatethepossibility of
using an alternate source. These alternate sources include: .

---
The use o f ground water
Connection t o a nearby waterpurveyor
Use o f an alternatesurfacewatersupply

When considering the use o f groundwater, the purveyor must


determine the capacity of the underlying aquifer for supplying-the demand.
The water quality characteristics of the aquifer nust be evaluated . t o
determine what treatment may beneeded t o meet existing standards. The
costofthewellconstruction and treatnient f a c i l i t i e s must then be
determined and converted i n t o a yearly cost 'per household.
The connection t o a nearby purveyor involves contacting the purveyor
t o determine their capacity and w lingness t o supply the water. Once. i t
i
has
been determined thatthealternate source meets a l l appl icable .
drinking water standards, the cost o f the transmission lines,'distribution
system, and o t h e rf a c i l i t i e s (e.9. disinfection, npumping,etc.) must
then be determined and amortized i n t o a yearly cost per household.
I f the cost for using an alternate source i s found by the Primacy
Agency t o present an economic hardship, and the purveyor can demonstrate
that there w i I 1 be no unreasonable r i s k t o h e a l t h , t h e Primacy Agency may
grant an exemption t o t h e SWTR f o r the purveyor and develop a schedule o f
compl i ance .
9.5
. Systems which apply for an exemption f m the SWTR must demonstrate
t o t h e P r i m c y Agency t h a t t h e h e a l t h o f t h e c m u n i t y n i l 1 not be put a t
r i s k by thegrantingof such an exemption. A system should be able t o
provide adequate protection f o r the public health by meeting the minimum
suggested €PA requirements i n Section 9.2. However, a Primacy Agency may
specifyadditional measures or c r i t e r i a a system must meet t o p r o t e c t
pub1i c health, depending on' theparticular circumstances. Systems w i t h
. currently unfiltered surface water supplies which f a i l t o meet the source

9 - 7
water q u a l i t y c r i t e r i a wl be r e q u i r e d t o i n s t a l l f i l t r a t i o n as p a r t o f
i
t h e i r treatment process. However, It may take 3 t o 5 years or more before
t h e f i l t r a t i o n systemcan be designed, constructed and beginoperation,
't thereby Justifying
thegranting
of an exemption. Ouring this' period,
possible interim Rcasures which the systcln could take t o f u r t t i e p s a t i s f y
the PrimacyAgency's concern {nclude one or more of the following:
a. Use of higher disinfectant dosages without exceeding the TTHM
MCL (even f o r systems notcurrentlysubjecttothis MCL) .
b. I n s t a l l a t i o n of a replacanent or additional disinfection
systemwhich providesgreaterdisinfectionefficiency and
which can be integrated into the new f i l t r a t i o n p l a n t
c. Increasingthemonitoring and reportingtothe Primacy Agency
d. Increasingprotectionofthe watershed
e. Increasingthe frequencyof sanitary surveys
f. Temporarilypurchasingwater from a nearby water system
g. For small systems,
temporary i n s t a l l a t i oonf a ='bile
f i l t r a t i o n (package) plant
h. Increasingcontact time by reroutingwaterthroughreservoirs

I n some cases systems may be abletoincreasetheirdisinfection


dosages during the interim period to provide additional protection against
pathogenic- organisms. This
alternative should be coupled with a
requirement f o r increased monitoring for coliforms, HPC and disinfectant
residualwithinthedistribution system. However, disinfectant dosage.
shouldnot be increased i f t h i s would r e s u l t i n a violation of the TTHM
MCL, even for systems not currently subject to this MCL.
. Systems whichareplanning t oi n s t a l lf i l t r a t i o n may be able t.0
u t i l i z e a more e f f i c i e n t d i s i n f e c t a n t t h a t can l a t e r be integrated into
the filter plant. Currently ozoneand chlorine dioxide are considered to
be the most efficient disinfectants.
For a1 1 systems which do not meet the source water q u a l i t y c r i t e r i a
'. . pari most i n s t a l l f i l t r a t i o n , €PA recomnends thatduringtheinterimperiod
the Primacy Agency increase i t s surveillance o f the system and require

9 - 8
increased mnitoring and reportingrequirements to assure adequate
protection of the public health.
Any required increases in watershedcontrol and/or on-site
inspections will not alleviate the need for amre stringent disinfection
requirclncnts and increased monitoring of theeffectiveness of'the system
employed. Their purpose would be to identify and control all sources o f
contaatination SO that the existing systea will provide water of the best
posti ble iqual .
ty
For tome systems, it nay be possible to purchase water from a nearby
system on a temporary basis. This may involve no more than the use of
existing interconnections or it nay requirethe installation of tmporary
connect ions.
Trailer mounted filtration units (package plants) are sometimes
available fram state dgencies for emergencies or may be rentedor leased
from equipment manufacturers.
Systems may also be required to supply bottled water or install
point-of-entry (ME) treatment devices. For the reasons listed below,
these alternatives should only be utilized if the'previou'sly mentioned
a1ternat i ves are not feasi bl e:
- In many states bottled water is subject only to the water
quality requirements of the FDA as a beverage and 'notto the
requirements o f the Safe Drinking Water Act.
- . perfonnance
Point-of-entry treatment devices are not currentlycovered by
or certification requirements which would assure
their effectiveness or perfonnance. .

If the installation of POE devices is required, the selection of the


appropriate treatment device should be based upon 1 laboratory or field
scale evaluation o f the devices. A guide for testing the effectiveness
of PO€ units in the microbiological purification of contaminated water is
provided in Appendix W.
Several issues arise with the use of ME devices. These include
establishing who or what agency (1) has the responsibility for ensuring
compliance with standards; ,(2) retains ownership of the treatment units;
(3) performs monitoring, analysts and maintenance; and (4) manages 'the

9 - 9
treatment program and maintainsinsurance coverage for damage and l i a b i l - F'..
i t y . It shouldalso be
considered thatthere i sn o ' s i g n i f i c a n t increase E
i n r i s k over centrally treated water.
Thase issuesshould be borne i n mind when PO€ as a treatment
a l t e r n a t i v e i s b e i n g con$idered.
Systems with currently unfiltered surface water supplies which m e t
t h e sourcewater q u a l i t y c r i t e r i a , b u t do not meetone or mre o f t h e
other requirements f o r watershed control e sanitary survey, compliance with
annual coliform MCL or disinfection by-productregulation(,), w l be
i
r e q u i r e d t o i n s t a l l f i l t r a t i o n unless the deficiencies can .be corrected
w i t h i n 48 months o f promulgation o f t h e SUTR. Interim protection measures
include those previously listed.
Systems with currently unfiltered surface water supplies which meet
the source water q u a l i t y c r i t e r i a and t h e s i t e s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a b u twhich
do n o t m e t t h e d i s i n f e c t i o n requirements, w l be required t o i n s t a l l
i
f i l t r a t i o n unless the disinfection requirements (adequate CT and/or
disinfection system redundancy) can be met. Ouringtheinterimperiod,
available options include:
a. Temporary i n s t a l l a t i o no f a mobiletreatmentplant
b. Temporary purchaseof water frm a nearby purveyor .

e. Increased
monitoring o tf h e system'
d. I n s t a l l a t i o no f temporary storagefacilitiestoincreasethe
disinfectant contact time

Currentlyfilteredsupplies which f a i l t o meet thetu.rbidity or


d i s i n f e c t i o n performance c r i t e r i a presented i n Section 5 w l be required
i
t o evaluate and' upgrade t h e i rt r e a t l n e n tf a c i l i t i e s i n order t oa t t a i n .

compliance. During the interim period available options for improving the
finishedwaterqualityinclude: ,'
a. Use of a f i l t e r a i d t o improve f i l t e r e f f l u e n t t u r b i d i t i e s
b. Increased disinfectant dosages
e. The addition o f an a l t e r n a t ed i s i n f e c t a n ti s an o p t i o na f t e r
the disinfection by-products r u l e i s promulgated

9 - 10
d. Reduction in filter loading rates with subsequent reduction
in plant capacity
e. , ' Installationo f temporary storage fact litits to increase
disinfectant contact time

The SOUR requires that each Primacy Agency which angrants exemption
notify €PA of the granting of this exemption. The notification must
contain the reasons for theexemption, includingthe b a s h f o h e findfng
that the exemption will not result in an unreasonable r i s k to public
health and document the need for the examption.

9 - 11
REFERENCES
American Water Works Association. Manual of Uater Supply Practices and
Water Chlorination Principles and Practices, 1973.
American Water Works Association Research Foundation AUUARF). A Sumnary
of State Drinking Water Regulations and Plan Review Gu dance. June, 1986. I
Bader, H.; Hoigne, 3. Determination of Ozone i n Water by theIndigo
Method, Water Research 15; 449-454,1981.
Bellamy, W. 0.; Lange, K. P.; Hendricks, 0. W. F i l t r a t i o n of Giardia Cysts
and Other Substances. Volume 1: ceous EFairl t hr a t i o n .
EPA-600/2-84-114, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1984.
Bellamy, W. 0.; Silverman, 6. P.; Hendricks, 0; W; F i l t r a t i o n o f Giardia
Cysts and Other Substances. Volume2: slow Spnd F i l t r a t i o n . EPA-600/2-
. -85-026, UsS. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, MERL, Cincinnati , Ohio,
Apri 1, 1985.
Bishop, S.; Craft, T. F.; Fisher, 0. R.; Ghosh, M.; Prendiville, P.M.;
* Roberts, K. J.; Steimle, S.; Thompson,3. The Status o f D i r e c t F i l t r a t i o n ,
e ReD-. J.AWWA, 72(7):405-411, 1980.
Boumr, H. Water Hvdrology. McGraw Hill Book Co., N e w York,

Bucklin, K.; Amirtharajah, A.; Cranston, K.


C h a r a c t e r i s t i c so fI n i t i a l
Effluent Qual i t y and I t s I m p l i c a t i o n s for the Filter-to-Waste Procedure.
AUWA Research Foundation Report. November, 1988.
.
\

Carfson, D.A.; Seabloom, A.M.; DcWalle, F A . ; Wetrler, T.F.; EV efet, 3.;


Butler, R.; Wangsuthachart, S.; Hang, 5. U l t r a v i o l e tD i s i n ection of
Water for Small Water Systems. EPA/600/2-85-092, U.S. Environmental
P
Proteetion A ency,Water .Engineering Reserach Laboratory, Drinking Water
P
Research Div sion, Cincinnati, Ohio, September,1985.
Clark, R.M.; Re 11, S. -A Mathematical and S t a t i s t i c a lA n a l y s i s - f o rt h e
Inactivation o? Giardia 1- byFreeChlorine.Submitted t ot h e
Journal o f EnvironmentalScienceEngineering, 1989.
Clark, R.; Regli, 5.; Black, 0. Inactivation o f Giardia mlia byFree
.. Chlorine: A Mathematical
Model*Presented a t AWWA Water Q u a l i t y
Technology
Conference. S t . Louis, Mo., November
1988. -
Cleasby, 3. 1.; Hilmoe, 0. J . : Dimitracopoulos, C. J. Slow-Sandand Direct
In-Line Filtration.of a Surface Water. L A U U A , 76(12):44-55,1984.
DeWalle, F. B.; Engeset, J . ; Lawrence, W. Removal oifa r d i al a m b l i
Cysts
by Drinking Water Plants. EPA-600/S2-84-069, UnftedStates En!
vironmentalProtection
. . Agency, HERL, Cincinnati, Ohio, May 1984.
FOX, K. R.; Miltner, R. 3 . ; Logsdon, 6. S.; Dicks, 0. L.; Drolet, L. F.
PilotPlantExploration of Slow Rate F i l t r a t i o n . Presented a t t h e AWWA
Annual ConferenceSeminar, Las Vegas , Nevada, June 1903.

-Heterotrophic
Fujioka, R.; Kungskulniti,
Absence Test forColifonns
Bacteria.
Nakasone, S. Evaluationof.the Presence
N.;
and the Membrane F i l t r a t i o n for
Technology Conference Proceedings, November,
AUUA
Method
1906 .
Gtldreich, E. Personalcomnunication t o LindaAverell,MalcolmPirnie
Engineers, Paramus, New Jersey,July 1989. *

Great Lakes-Upper MississippiRiver Board ofStatePublicHealth and


Environmental ’Managers Comnittee. S-atndadrs f o r Water Works,
1987 Edition.
Hendricks, 0.; A1-Ani, M.; Bellam , W.; Hibler, C.; McElroy, 3. Surro ate
7
I n d i c a t o r sf o r Assessin Remova o fG i a r d i a Cysts, AUUA Water Qua i t y
TechnologyConference, 1 84. \ 4
. .
Hoff, J . C. n a c t i v a t i o no M
f icrobial Autnts bv C calOfsinfectanttS
EPA-600/52-8J-067, U.S. Environmental Protection
r
, Water En ineer-
i n Research Laboratory, Drinking Water Research D i v sion, Cine ilnati,
Ohyo, September 1986.
?
Hoffbuhr, 3. W.; B l a i r , 3.; Bartleson, M.; Karlin, R. Use o f P a r t i c u l a t e
Analysisfor Source andWater Treatment Evaluation. AUUA Water Quality
Technology ConferenceProceedings, November1986.
Horn, 3 . 6.; Hendricks, D. W. Removals oGf iardia Cysts and other
Particles from Low T u r b i d i t y Waters Using the Culligan Multi-Tech F i 1t r a -
-2-
Joost, A; 0.; Long, 8. W.; Jackson, L.
s
Usin Ozone as a . Primary
Disinfectant for the Tucson CAP Water Treatment P ant, presented at the
IOA/PAC Ozone Conference, Monroe, MI, 1988.
Kuchta, 3. M.; States, 5. 3.; HcNmara, A. M.; Wadowsky, R, M.; Yee, R.8.
.
S u s c e p t i b i l i t y of w o n e l l a - h i l a t o C h l o r i n e i n
b v i r o n . M i t r o b i o l , 46(5): 1134-1139, 1983.
Tap Water. Appl.

Letternan, R. 0. The F i l t r a t i o n Requirement i n t h e Safe Drinking Water


Act Amendments of 1986. .U.S. EPA/AAAS Report,August 1986.

Logsdon, 6. S. Com arisonof Some F i l t r a t i o n Processes Appropriate for


Cyst R m v a P.
USEPA Drinking Water Research Division; Presented.
a t Calgary Giardia Conference,Calgary; Alberta, Canada,' February 23-25,
1987b.

Markwell, 0. D., and Shortridge, K. F. Possible WaterborneTransmission


and Maintenance ofInfluenzaVirusesin Domestic Ducks. Applied and
EnvironmentalMicrobiology,Vole 43, pp. 110-116, January, 1981.

TreatmentPlants,Vol .
Morand, J . , M.; C. R. Cobb; R. M. Clark;Richard,
1, A perfomanceEvaluation.
USEPA, HERL, Cincinnati, Ohio, J u l y 1980.
G. S. 'Packae Water
EPA-600/2-b-O08a,

Morand,3. U,; Young, M. 3. Performance Characteristics of Package Water


Treatment Plants , Project Sunrmary. EPA-600/52-82-101 , USEPA, MERL,
Cincinnati,Ohio, March,. 1983.
Muraca, P.; Stout, 3. E.; Vu, V. L. Comparative Assessment ofChlorine,
Heat, Ozone, and UV L i g h tf o rK i l l i n g Lg&nellp m i l a Within a
Mode1 Plumbing System. Appl Environ. Microbiol. , 53(2):447-453, 1987.
Notestine, T., Hudson, 3. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f Drinking WaterSources as
,Surface or GrbundWaters. FinalProject Report.OfficeofEnvironmental
-3 -
HealthPro Washington Department ofSocial and Health'Services,
August' 1 d fami

Po nter,. S. F. B.; Slade, J. S. The Removal ofVirusesby Slow Sand


* F d t r a t i o n , Prog. Wat.,
Tech. Vol. 9, pp. 75-88, Pergamon Press, 1977.
Printed i n Great Britain.
Randall, A.D. Movement of Bacteria From a River t o a Municipal Uell
Case History. Atnerican Water Works AssociationJournal. Vol. 62, No. 11,
A -
p. 716-720. ,' November 1970.
c s t s by
Rice, E.W.; Hoff, J.C. I n a c t i v a t oi of n Giardia
Ultraviolet Radiation. Appl. Environ. Microbfol. 42: 546447, 1 81. t
Robtck, 6. e.; Clarke, N. A.; Dostal, K. A. Effectiveness o f Water
.
:.Treatment Processes i n Virus Removal 3. AUWA, 54( 10) :1275-1290, 1962.
Robson, C.; Rice, R.; FuJikawa, E.; Farver, B. . Status o f U.S. Drinking
Water TreatmentOzonation Systems, presentedat IOA Conference, Myrtle
Beach, SC, December 1988.
Rose, 3 . $ r v D t o s D o r i d i ui n Water; Riskof Protozoan Waterborne lrans-
mission.Reportprepared for theOfficeofDrinking Water, U.S. €PA,
S u m r , 1988.
Rubin, A. FactorsAffectingtheInactivation ., o f Giardia
Cysts
by
Monochloramine and Comparison with other Disinfectants. Water Engineering
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati , OH, March 1988a.
Rubin, A. "CT Products f o r t h e I n a c t i v a t i o n of Giardia Cysts by Chlorine,
Chloramine, Iodine, Ozoneand Chlorine Dioxiden submitted for publi,catfon
i n 3. AWWA, December 1988b.
Slezak, L.; Sims, R. The Application and Effectivenessof Slow Sand
F i l t r a t i o n i n the United States.' J.AUUA, 76(12):38-43, 1984.
Sobsey, M. Detection and Chlorine Disinfection of Hepatitus A i n Water.
CR-813-024. €PA Quarterly Report. Oecembcr 1988. * .

Stolarik, 6.; Christie, D. Projection o f Ozone, C-T ValuesLor Angeles


Aqueduct F i l t r a t i o n P l a n t , 1988.

Suppl ies, 1971 .


and Standards Division. Manua s
U. S. Environmental Protection A ency, Office of Drinking Water, C r i t e r i a
forEvaluatingPublicDrinking Water

U. S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, O f f i c e o f D r i n k i n g Water. . Pub1i.c


N o t i f i c a t i o n Handbook for Drinking Water Suppliers, May 1978.
, .
U. S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, O f f i c e o f Ground Water Protection. .
Guidelines for Applicants for State Wellhead Protection Program Assistance
Funds Under the SDWA, June 1987a.
-4- --.
U. 5. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Uater Protection.
Guidelines f o r Delineation of Wellhead Protection Area,June 1987b.
U. S. €nvironemtal Protection A ency, Officeof Drinking Water. Workshop
P
on Emerging Technologiesfor Dr nking Water Treatment, April, 1988a.
U. S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Office of Drinking Water.
Technologies and Costs for the Removal o f Microbial Contaminants from
Potable Water Supplies, October, 1988b.
World Health Organization CollaboratingCenter. Slow Sand Filtration o f
Supplies in Developin Countries. Report o f .an Interna-
!!I
raiser Meeting, Nagpur, In ia, Bulletin Series 16, September

.
-.

APPENDIX A
EPA CONSENSUS METHOD
FOR WADI4 CYST ANALYSIS

. .
Nethods of Testin; for Cisrdia i n Water
(George (Jay:. ;sccncelos, k g i m s ;
Nicrobiologis:, Region 10 L;1bcr3tcrl.*,
Nanchester, hbhington)
.-
Background:
Although recent development of an excystation technique by Drs. Bingham,
jkyer, Riceand Schaefercould in future lead to developing cultural rethois,
a t this tire no reliable methods exist for culturing Giardia', cysts from u t e r
samples. At present,theonly.practica1 method for deteminingthe presence
of cyst; i n water is by direct microscopicexamination of s a q f e concentrates.
Microscopic detection in water-sample concentrates i s n ' t an ideal process.
Finding and identifying the cysts relies almost entirely on the training,
skill, experience and persistence of the examiner. (And it is a skill not
widespread m,ong water- sqply laboratories. ) But despite i t s limitations ,
microscopic identification is currently the best method;<e have.
Years ago,the basic a s s q t i o n was made that in order t o find GiarBia c::st;
, i n water, some form of sample concentration was necessav. xs m s ~ 3 5 ; > ..,
'labs were u i n g membrane f i l t e r s h'ith a porosity of 0.45 p . with f e t es:?;tions,
these atternpts\\.ere unsuccessful. The center for DiseaseControl has trie3
particulate filtration, w i t h diatomceousearthasthe !licdiUm. This rezcvec!
the cysts irom the water, but the cysts couldn't be separated fron the
particles of diatomaceous earth.
Mth therecentincrease i n theincidence of uaterborne giardiasis, iur=!er
efforts, have been made t o improve the detection method. An ideal method \ml<
beone that recovers a l l c y s t s i n a water s q l e rapidly, cheaply and s i T 1 y ;
al1ok.s rapid detection, identification and quantification; and provides
. infomation on the viability of and/or infectivity potential of cysts derexe2.

Unfortunately, no such method exists. The nethods presentlyavailable


can be broadly separated into two generalstages: primary concentration ani
processing (see Table 1 on next page), and detection and identificatim .
(see Table 2 on next page)
. .-
hkthods of Testing for Giardia in Water (Continwd.. .)
. .

crlluloric Cnrn9 I Krolrr Crnrrtlly unsucrssful


(41m-O.45r) USPnS, 1956
Polyccroinrtr
(29ln-Sd)
PIprr, Oufrcin I Henry En9
1982, (unoualirnra) - Pairin9 1 9cllarn
10 PSI. 15-183 9rl
total.
,

nolncn 211, 1983


Owls, brsnlngton

Weurr. wrlght Srttr UA. Cenerr~ly unsucrssful


(unouallsnra)

1. Prlliean Ccssr?tr System Millrporr Cero.


(unpublisnrd)

8. Flltrrarsnlnp A o o c r m s Duwcllr. u. of Ycsh., 1982 C l e m 75: recovery


(unouolrsntdl . frwflltrrt
orlon

TAOCf 2: DETECTfON RETHOOS

.. -
-
METHOD

1. lmunofluorrscen
mA

IFA Seucn,
LPA-Cfncinnctl ' Still
unatr stuoy
R l qgs , CSDS

.131
Copies of Table 1 and Table 2 are also sham i n Appendix C, along w i t h
further detail about the methods.
EP.4 Consensus Nethod:
In 'September, 1980, the EPA convened a workshop on Giardia methodology i n
Cincinnati. Its main purpose was t o identify the best available methodolog;,
and t o agree on a reference nethod. 7he five labs i n attendancerecognized '

that any proposed method would be based in large part on opinions and perscna:
preferencesrather than on hard data, but that agreeing on aconsensus r?edi:~i .
would promote unifoxmity and provide a basis for future comparisons. Cur
lab has modified the EPA consensus method slightly for our w e . This rc.!!ci
is outlined below.

Filter unwound into quarters


I
JI
Rinsed i n d i s t i l l e d water with polysorbate 20
3.
Settled overnight, or centrifuged
.
1
Collecz sediment andadd 3 Formaldehyde .in PBS

Settledovernight,
.1 or centrifuged .

J f .
Collect sediment

1
7 1 8. 41Lg.
4
Sucrose or
Percoll-sucrose
.1 5-
ZnSOd Flotation
gradient
Nicroscopic obsenation of the entire
concentrate (Brigktfield/Phase-contrast)
APPENDIX 8
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLOF
APPENDIX 8
JNSTITUTIONAL CONTROLOF

l&gjonellq i s a genus name forbacteria coaaonly found in lake and


,river waters. Soate Species of this genus have been identified as the
cause o f the disease 1eg.iOnelloSiS. In particular, w o n e l l a pneumoohila
has been identified as the cause of Legionnaires disease, the pneumonia .

form of legionellosir and with Pontiac Fever, a nonpneumonia disease.


Outbreaks of legionellosir are primarily associat.ed with fnhalation of
water aerosols or, less cOmmOnly, with drinking watercontaining
-ne114 bacteria with specific virulence factors not yet identified.
Foodborne outbreaks have not been reported (USEPA, i985).
. As discussed in this document, treatment requirements for disinfec-
tion o f a municipal water supply arc thought to provide at least a 3 log
reduction of w l l q bacteria (see Section 3.2.2). However, some
recontamination may occur in the distribut.ion systcm due to cross
connections and during installation and repair of water mains. It has
been hypothesized that the low concentrations o f j&gjonellp entering
bui.ldings due to these sources may colonize and regrow in hot water
systems (USEPA, 1985). Although all of the criteria required f o r
colonization arenot known, largeinstitutions, such as hospitals, hotels,.
and public buildings with recirculating hot water systems seea to be the
most susceptible. The control of W o n c l l p in health care institutions,
. such as hospitals, i s particularly important due tothe increased
susceptibility o f many of the patients. 'The colonization and growth of
*. Lcaionclta in drinking water primarily occurs within the consumer's
plumbing systems afterthewater leaves the distribution system..
Therefore, the control o f these organisms must be the consumer's
responsibility. This appendix i s intended to provide guidance to these .
institutions for the detection and control o f the J&g&mlla bacteria.

8.1 MONITORING

It is sug.gested that hospitals, and other institutions with


potential for the growth o f U e l h , conduct routine monitorin.9 o f

B- 1
r'
-~ .

t h e i rh o t water systems atleastquarterly.' The analytical procedures


forthe'detectionofthese organisms can befound i n Section 012.1
"-" o f t h e 1 6 t h e d i t i o n o f Standard'-. Samples should
be taken at, or closely folhying, the hot waterstoragereservoir and
from a number o f showerheads. I t i s r e c b e n d e d t h a t showers with the
least frequent usage be included i n the sampling program. follow-up -__.
t e s t i n gi s suggested f o ra l lp o s i t i v ei n d i c a t i o n sp r i o rt ot h ei n i t i a t i o n f '::,
of any remedial masures. I f the the presence o f -el las i confirmed,
thenremedial measures should be taken. .Although the regrowth of
k a i o n e l l p i s comonlyassociatedwithhot water systems, hot and cold
water interconnections may provide a pathway for cross contamination. For
t h i s reason, systems detecting j.ggione11q i n h o t water systems should also
monitor t h e i r c o l d water systems.

B .2 TREATMENT

t
Because the primaryroute o f exposure t o w e l l 4 i s probably
inhalation,ratherthaningestion, i t i s recomaended t h a td i s i n f e c t i o n
procedures include an i n i t i a l shock treatment p e r i o d ' t o d i s i n f e c t shower "4-. e&
4 X".

headsand hotwatertaps where thebacteria may colonize and l a t e r become - ..,


, *-

._
airborne. The shock treatment period should also include disinfection of *
1

hotwater tanks'. A f t e rt h i s time,a point-ofentrytreatment system can '*


- .

be i n s t a l l e d t o p r o v i d e c o n t i n u a l d i s i n f e c t i o n o f ' t h e h o t water system.

6.2.1 l & j j b
The most applicable method f o r t h e i n i t i a l d i s i n f e c t i o n of stiower
heads and water taps i s heat eradication. The f i t t i n g s canbe removedand
held at temperatures greater than 60 C f o r a t l e a s t 24 hours. Disinfec-
t i o n of f i t t i n g s can also be achieved by soaking or r i n s i n g w i t h a strong
chlorine solution. When soaking t h e f i t t i n g s , a minimum chlorine strength
of 50 m g / ~should be used f o r a period o f no lessthan 3 hours. Rinsing

' Monitoringfrequency based on thereportedrate o f Legionellaregrowth observed


during disinfection studies (USEPA, 1985)
0

with chlorine should beperformed with more concentrated solutions. Care


must be takennot t o corrodethefinishedsurface on thefittings.,
Comnercially available bleaches, f o r example, are typically 5.25 ..percent
chlorine by weight.

8.2.2 -Term Disinfection


-
&& Numerous studies have shown thatincrearlngthehotwater
-
t q e r a t u r e t o 50 70 C Over a perlod of several hours may h e l p t o reduce
and i n h i b i t m i o n e l l a populations. However, .soate instances o f regrowth
a f t e r 3 t o 6 months have been reported. I n these cases, the authors have
concluded t h a t a periodic schedule of short-term temperature elevation I n
thehotwater. may be an effective control against legionellosis (USEPA,
1985; Muraca, 1986). Disinfection by t h i s method alsorequiresperiodic
flushingoffaucets and
showerheads withhot water.
Although heat
eradication i s e a s i l y implemented and r e l a t i v e i y inexpensive, a disadvan-
tage i s the potential need forperiodicdisinfection. The potential for
scalding from the unusually hot water a l s o exists (USEPA, 1985; Muraca, e t
al. 1986)
-
c h l o r i n a t i q n Several studies have suggested t h a t a free chlorine
residual o f 4 mg/L w l e r a d i c a t e m i o n e l Lp growth.There
i i s , however,
a p o s s i b i l j t y for recontamination i n areas o f the system where the
chlorine residual dropsbelow t h i s l e v e l . A stringent monitoring program
i s thereforerequiredto ensure thattheproperresidual i s maintained
throughoutthesystea and under varying flow condttions. It may also be
necessary t o apply a l a r g e i n i t i a l c h l o r i n e dose to maintain the 4 mg/L
residual.This may cause problem o f pipecorrosion and, depending an-
water quality, high levels of trihalmthanes (THMs).
-
Oronc Ozone istheaostpowerfuloxidant used i nt h ep o t a b l e
water' i n d u s t j . One study indicated that an ozone'dosage o f 1 t o 2 mg/L
was sufficient t o provide 8 5 log reduction of (Muraca, eatl .
.
1986) Ozone i s generated by passing a high voltage current .of e l e c t r f c i -
t y through a stream o fd r ya i r or oxygen. The use o f h i g h voll tage
. e l e c t r i c irteyq u i r e s proper handling t o avoid creating hazardous
conditions. The ozone i s applied by bubblingthe ozone containing gas
throughthewater i n a chamber called a contactor,

8-3
One of the disadvantagesof t h i s system i s i t s complexity. It
requires a d r y a i r or oxygen source, a generator, and a contactor sized t o
provide 2 t o 5 minutes of contact time andan ambient ozone monitor. ~ 1 1
materials n i contact with'the ozonemust be constructed of s p e c i i l Ozone
resistant materials to prevent leakage. Leak detection i s alsorequired
because of the toxic nature of ozoneand possible explosive conditions i f '
pure oxygen i s used f o r generation.
Anotherdisadvantage o f ozonation i st h er a p i d decomposition of
ozone residuals. The h a l f - l i f e of ozone i n drinkingwater i s t y p i c a l l y
around 10 minutes. * This makes i t d i f f i c u l t , i f notimpossible, to
maintain a residual throughout the water system andmay require the use of
a supplementary disinfectant suchas chlorine or heat. For these reasons
i t i s not thought that ozonation i s v i a b l e for institutional applications.
-
y l t r a v i o l eItr r a d i a t i o n U l t r a v i o l e t (UV) l i g h t , i n the 254
nanometer wavelengthrange can be used asa disinfettant. UV systems
typically contain low-pressuremercury vapor lamps t o maximize o u t p u t ' i n
the 254 nm range. Water entering the unit passes through a clear cylinder
while the lamp i s on, exposing b a c t e r i a t o t h e UV l i g h t . Because UV l i g h t
can not pass throughordinary window glass,specialglass or quartz
sleevesare used t o assure adequate exposure. '
The i n t e n s i t y o f UV i r r a d i a t i o n i smeasured i n microwatt-seconds per
square centimeter (uW=s/cm2) . Severalstudies have shown a 90 percent
-
reduction of u n o 11a with .a UV dosage o f 1000 3000 uW-s/cm2, compared
t o 2000 t o 5000 uW=s/cm2 for E. col 1, Iplmonella andpseudomonas (USEPA,
1985). I n anotherstudy, a 5 log reduction of -ella was achieved a t
30,000 uW=t/cm2; and the reduction was atore rapid than with both ozone and
chlorine disinfection (Muraca, e t a l . 1986) .
The major advantage o f UV d i s i n f e c t i o n i s t h a t i t does not require
the addition of chemicals. This eliminates the storage andfeed problems
associated with the use of chlorine, chlorine.dioxide and chloramines. I n
addition, the only maintenance required is periodic cleaning of the quartz'
sleeve and replacement of bulbs. UV monitors arc available which measure
the light intensity reaching the water and provides a signal to the user
when maintenance i s required. These monitorsareStrongly suggested for
any application of Uv i r r a d i a t i o n f o r d i s i n f e c t i o n . It Should be noted,
however, thht these M n i t o r S measure l i g h ti n t e n s i t y which may not be
d i r e c t lrye l a t etdoi s i n f e c t i oenf f i c i e n c y . The UV lamps should
therefore not be operatedpastthemanufacturers use r a t i n g even w i t h a
continuous UV Isonitor installed.
Another disadvantage of UV disinfection, as with otonation, i s t h a t
a residual i s not provided. A supplementary disinfectant my' therefore be
requiredtoprovideprotectionthroughoutthesystm. . I n addition,
t u r b i d i t y may i n t e r f e r e with UV disinfection by blockingthe'passageof
l i g h t t o t h e microorganisms.

8.3 OTHER CONTROL METHODS

I na d d i t i o nt o chemical and heatdisinfection,thereare system


modifications which can be made t oi n h i b i t w e t l a growth. Many
i n s t i t u t i o n s have large hot water tanks heated by coils located midway i n
the tank. This type o f design may r e s u l t i n areas near the bottom of the
tank which arenothot enough t o k i l l Ltaiontlla; Designingtanks for '

more even d i s t r i b u t i o n o f heat may help limit bacterial colonization. In


addition, sediment b u i l d - u pi nt h e bottom o f storagetanksprovides a
* surface .for colonization.Periodic'draining and cleaning may therefore
helpcontrol growth. Additionally,otherstudies have'found t h a th o t
water systems w i t h stand-by hot water tanks used for m e t i n g peak demands,
s t i l l tested positive for j.ggjgnellq despite using elevated temperature
(55.C) and chlorination (2 ppm) (Fisher-Hoch, e at l . 1984,) Stringent
procedures for the cleaning, disinfection and monitoring o f these stagnant
tanksshould be set upand followed on a regular basis..
I n anotherstudy, i t was reportedthatblackrubber washers and
gasketssupported Leaionella growth by providing habitats protected from
heat and chlorine. It was found, a f t e r replacement oftheblackrubber
washers withProteus 80' compound washers, t h a t it was notpossible t a
detect Leaionellg from any o f t h e f i x t u r e s (Colbourne, e t a l . 1984).
. .

8.4 CONCLUSIONS

bacteria have been i d e n t i f i e d as the cause of the disease


l e g i o n c l l o s i s , o f whichthe-stserious fom i s LegionnairesQisease,
Although conventional water treatment practices are sufficient t o provide
disinfection of w o n e l l $ , regrowth i n buildingswithlargehotwater,
heaters, m de s p e c i a l l yw i t hr e c i r c u l a t i n gh o t water systems, i s a
s i g n i f i c a n t problem. This problem i s o f p a r t i c u l a rconcern t o h e a l t h c a r e
i n s t i t u t i o n s , such as hospitals, where patients may be owre susceptible to
the disease.
Thisguideline suggests a program of’quarterlymonitoringfor
J,ggioneUp. I f the monitoring programsuggests a potential problem w i t h
these organisms, a w t o stage disinfection program i s suggested consisting
of an i n i t i a l p e r i o d o f shock treatmentfollowed by longtermdisinfec-
tion.
Four nethods o f d i s infectionforthecontrolof Lcaionella were .
presented i n t h i s appendix; heat, chlorination, ozonation, and u l t r a v i o l e t
irradiation. A ll f o u or f the methodshave proven e f f e c t i v e i n k i l l i n g
’ m nUe l tl rqa. v i o l e t i r r a d i a t i o n and heat eradication are
the
suggested methods odf i s i n f e c t i o n due, p r i m a r i l yt,o advantages i n
monitoring and maintenance. However, s i t es p e c i f i cf a c t o r s ’ may
make
chlorinatian or otonation more f e a s i b l ef o rc e r t a i n‘ a p p l i c a t i o n s .I n
addition, i t i s reconmended t h a t a l l o u t l e t s , f i x t u r e s andshowerheadsbe
inspected and a1 1 black rubber washers and gaskets replaced with materials
which do not support the growth of wllq organisms. ’ ’

One problemassociatedwiththeapplicationofpoint-of-entry
treatment systems i st h el a c ko f an approved progrim f o rc e r t i f y i n g
performance claims. However, theNationalSanitationFoundation (NU)
Ann Arbor, H I an unofficial, non-profit organization, doeshavea t e s t i n g
program t o v e r i f y d i s i n f e c t i o n e f f i c i e n c i e sand materials of const.ruction.
C e r t i f i c a t i o n by the NSF, or other equivalent organizations, i s desirable
when selecting a treatment ‘system.

8-6
APPENDIXC
DETERMINATION OF DISINFECTANT
CONTACT TIME
APPENDIX C
TION OF D I S I N F W N T CONTACT T M

As indicated i n Section 3, for pipelines, rill f l u i d passing through


the pipe i s assurncd t o have a detention time q u a l t o the theoretlcal or
mean residence time a t a p a r t i c u l a r flow rate. However, i n mixing basins,
storagereservoirs, and othertreatmentplant process u n i t s , u t i l i t i e s
w l be required to determine the contact tm
i i e for the calculation of C f
through tracer studies or other methods approved by the Primaw Agency.
For the purposeof determining compliance withthedisinfection
requirements o f the SWTR, the contact time o f mixingbasins and storage
reservoirs used i n c a l c u l a t i n g Cf should be the detention ti.# a t which 90
percent o f the waterpassingthrough 'the'unit i s retainedwithinthe
basin. This detention time was designated as T,, according t o the
convention adopted by Thirumurthi (1969). A p r o f i l e o f t h e flow through
thebasinover time can be generated by tracerstudies.Information
provided by these studies i s used for estimating the detention time, Tlo,
for the purpose of calculating CT.
This appendix i sd i v i d e di n t o t o sections;
w The. f i r s ts e c t i o n '

* presents a b r i e f synopsis of tracer study methods, procedures, and data


evaluation. Inaddition, examples are presented f o r conducting hypo-
t h e t i c a l t r a c e r studies t o deterwine the T,, contact .time i n a clearwell.
Thesecond section presents a method o f determining T,, frpar theoretical
detention times I ns y s t e m where i t i s impracticalto conduct tracer
studies.
.
c.1 TraccJl S t W
C.l.lo l
fwc m d i t i o n z
Although detention tian i s proportional to flow, i t i s not generally
a linearfunction. Therefore, tracerstudies are needed t o establ i s h
.detentiontimesfor the range o f flow rates experienced within each
disinfectant section.
As discussed i n Section 3.2, a single flow rate my not Characterize
the flow through t h e n t i r e system. With a series
of
reservoirs,
. .
c l e a ~ l l s ,and Storage tanks flow will.vary between each portion of the r'
system.
I nf i l t e rp l a n t s ,t h ep l a n t flow i s r e l a t i v e l y u n i f o m from the
intake through t h ef i l t e r s . An increase or d u c t i o n i n theintake
pumping capacity w l iqart a proportional change i n flowthrough each
i
process u n i t p r i o r t o and including the filters. Therefore, a t a constant
intake pumping rate o lfw variations between disinfectant sections within
a treatmentplant,excludingclearwells,arelikelyto be small , and the * .
the designcapacity o f the plant, or plant flow, canbe considered the
nominal flow r a t e through each individual process u n i t w i t h i n t h e p l a n t .
Clearwells may operate a t a different flow rate than therest of the
plant, depending on the pumping 'capacity.
Ideally,tracertests should be perfonned f o r a t l e a s t four olfw
rates that span the entire rangeof flow for the section beingtested.
The flowrates should be separated by approximatelyequal i n t e r v a l s t o
span the range o f operation, with one near average flow, two greater than
average, and one less than average flow. theflows should also be
selected so that the highest test flow r a t e i s a t l e a s t e 91 percent of the
highest flow rate expected t o everoccur i nt h a t section. Four data
- points w l assure a good definitionofthesection'shydraulicprofile.
i
the results of the tracer tests performed .for different flow rates
should be used t o generate p l o t s o f T,, V S . Q f o r each section i n the.
system. A smooth l i n e i s drawn through the points on each graph to create
a curve fm which T,, nay be read for t h e corresponding'Q a t peak hourly . .

o
lfwconditions. This procedure i s presented i n Section C.1.8.
It way not be p r a c t i c a l f o r a l l systems t o conduct studies at four
lfwrates. Thenumber of tracer tests that are p r a c t i c a l t o conduct i s
o
dependenton site-specific restrictions and resources available to the.
SYSfm. S Y ~ with ~ S 1ilaited resources can conduct a minimum of one
tracer test for each disinfectant section at ao lfw rate of not less than
91 percentof the highest o l
fwrate experienced at that section. IfOnly
one t r a c e r t e s t i s performed, the detention m t i determined by t h e t e s t
i
may be used t o provide a conservative estimate i n C t calculatlons for that
s e c t i o nf o ra l l o lfw rates.lessthan or equal to the tracer test flow
rate. T,, i s UverstIy proportionalto flow r a t e , therefore,the at a
c-2
..

flow rate 0 t h than that which the tracer study was conducted (T,os) can
be determinedby multiplytng the f,, frm the tracer study (TIOT) by the
r a t i o of the tracer study flow rate to the desired flow rate, i.e.,
..
fiat ~ I O T X ff,/QO where
TtQS= t,, a t system flow rate
.'
flOl T,, a t t r a c e r f l o w r a t e ..
Ql 9 tracerstudy flow rate
QD = s y s t m flow r a t e

The g o s t accuratetracer t e s t resultsareobtained whim flow i s


constantthroughthesectionduringthe course of 'the test. Therefore,
thetracer study'should be conducted a t a constant 'o lf
w whenever
practical, For a treatmentplantconsistingof two or amre equivalent
process trains, a constant flow tracer test canbe performed on a section
of the plant by holding the flow through one of the trains constant while
operatingthepara'lleltrain(s)to absorb any flow variations. Flow
variations during tracer tests in systems without parallel trains or with
single clearwells and storage reservoirs are more d i f f i c u l t to avoid. I n
these i,nstances, T,, should be recorded at the average flow r a t e over the
course of the test.

C.1.2 Q$&r Tracer St-atiou


I n a d d i t i o n t oflow conditions, detention times -detemined by tracer
studiesare dependent on the water levelinthecontact basin.This is
particularly pertinent to storage tanks, reservoirs, and clearwells which,
i n additiofi to being contact basins for dtsinfection are also often used
as equalization storage for
distribution system demands. I n such
instances, thewaterlevels i n thereservoirsvary t o meet the syste!
demands.The actual detention tint o f these contact basins w i
l also vary
depending on 'whether they are emptying or f i11 ing .
For so1116 process units, especially sedimentationbasinswhichare
operated a t a near constant level, that is, 'flow i n equals flow out, the
detention time detemined by tracer tests i s v a l i d f o r c a l c u l a t i n g CT when
the basin i s operating at water levels greater than or q u a l t o t h e l e v e l
a t which thetest was performed. I f thewaterlevelduringtesting is

c-3
higherthan the noma1operatinglevel,theresultingconcentpation
profile W lliPredict an erroneously highdetentiontime. Conversely, *

e x t m m 1 y ' ~ o wwater levels during testing may lead t o an overly COnserVa-


tivedetention time.
Therefore, when conducting a tracer study t o '
determine the detention ti-, a water l e v e l a t or s l i g h t l y below, *but not
above, the normal minimum operating level i s recomended.
For many plants,the water l e v e l i n a clearwell or storagetank
varies between high and o wl l e v e l s i n response t od i s t r i b u t i o n system
demands. I n such instances, i n order t o o b t a i n a conservative.estiMte of
thecontact time, the tracer studyshould be conducted during a period
when thetanklevel i s f a l l i n g (flow outgreaterthan olfw in).This
procedure w i
l provide a detention ti= forthecontactbasin which i s
also valid when the water level i s r i s i n g (flow outlessthan flow in)
from a level which i s a t or above the level when the T,, was determined by
thetracer study. Whether the water l e v e l i s constant or variable,the
tracer study f o r each section should be repeated for several different
flows, as descrjbed i n t h e previoussection.
For clearwells which are operated with extreme v a r i a t i o n s i n water .
level, maintaining a CT t o comply with inactivation requtrunents may be
impractical. Undersuch operatingconditions, a reli.abledetentiontime
1s not provided for disinfection. However, the system may i n s t a l l a weir
t o ensure a minimum water level and provide a reliable detention time.
Systems comprised o f storagereservoirsthat experience seasonal
variations i n water levels may perfom tracer studies durihg the various
seasonal conditions. For these systems, tracer tests should be conducted
a t several flow rates and representative water levels that occur for each
seasonal condition. The r e s u l t s o f these tests can be used t o develop
hydraulic profiles of the reservoir for each water level. These profiles'
can be plotted on the same a x i s o f T,, VS. Q andmay be used for calculat-
ing C t for different water levels ando lf
wrates.
Detention fim m y also be influenced by differences i n water
temperature withinthe system. For plants.withpotentialfor thermal
stratification, additional tracer studies are suggested under the various
seasonal conditions which are l i k e l yt o occur. The Contact times
detemined by thetracerstudies under thevarious seasonal Conditions
c-4
should remain v a l i d as long as no physical changes are aade t o the.mixing
basin(s) or storage nservoir(s).
As. defined i n Section 3.2.2, theportionofthe system with a
measurable contacttime between two points o f disfnfection or residual.
monitoring i rse f e r r e tdo as a section. For systems which apply
disinfectant(s) at more than one point, or choose t o p r o f i l e t h e r e s i d u a l
from one point of application,tracerstudies should be conducted t o
determine TI, f o r each section containing process unit(+ The Tlo for a
section aay or nay not include a length of pipe and i s used along with the
residual disinfectant concentration prior t o the next disinfectant appli..
cation or monitoring point t o determine the CTC,,, f o r t h a t section. The
i n a c t i v a t i o rna t i o for thesection i s then determined. The t o t a l
inactivation and loginactivation achieved i n the system can then be
determined by
sunning theinactivatfonratiosforallsections as
explained i n Section 3.2.2.
For systems that have two or more u n i t s o f identicalsize and .
configuration,tracerstudiesonly need t o be conducted onone o f t h e
units. The resulting graph of TI, vs. o wcan be used t o determine T,,
lf
for a1 1 identical units.
Systems with a w e than one section i nt h e treatmentplant 'may
determine Tl0 for each section
-- by individualtracerstudies through each section, or
by one tracer studyacross the system

I f possible, tracer studies should be conducted oneach s e c t i o n t o


deternine the TI, f o r each section. I n order? t o minimize the t h e needed
t o conduct studies on each section, the tracer studies should be started
a t t h e l a s t s e c t i o n o f the treatment t r a i n p r i o r t o t h e f i r s tcustomer'and -
completed with t h e f i r s t s e c t i o n o f the system. Conducting thetracer
studies i n thisorder w i preventtheinterference
l o f residualtracer
material with' subsequent studies.
However, i t may not always be p r a c t i c a lf o r systems t o conduct.
tracer studies for each section because of time andmanpower constraints.
I n these cases, one tracer study may be used t o determine the TI0 values

c-5
for a l l of thesections a t one flow rate.Thisprocedureinvolvesthe
following steps:
1. Add tracer at the beginning o f the furthest upstream disinfec-
t i o n section.
2. . Measure the tracer concentration at the end o f each dtsinfec-
, t i o n section.
3. Determine the T,, t o each monitoring point as o u t l i n e d i n t h e
data evaluation examples presented i n Section C.1.7.
4, Subtract T,, values o f each o f the upstream sections frola the
overall T,, value t o deterninethe T,, o f edch *d.ownstream
section.

This approach i s v a l i d f o r a series of w t o or more consecutive


sections as long as a l l process units within ,the sections experience the
same flow condition.This approach i s i l l u s t r a t e d by Hudson (1975) i n
whichstep-dose tracertests wereemployed t o evaluatethebaffling
characteristics of flocculators and s e t t l i n g basins a t s i x water treatment
plants. A t one plant, tracer chemical wasadded to the rapid mix, which.
represented the beginning of the furthest upstream disinfection section in
the system.Samples were collected frotn theflocculator and s e t t l i n g
basin outlets and analyzed t o determine the residence-tire characteristics
for each section. Tracer measurements at the flocculator outlet indicated
' an approximate T,, o f 5 minutesthroughtherapid mix, interbasin piping
and flocculator. Basedon tracer concentration monitoring at the settling
basinoutlet, an approximate T, o f 70 ainutes was determined for the
- conrbined sections, including
the
rapid
mix,
interbasin piping, floccu-
lator, and s e t t l i n g basin. The flocculator'l,, o f 5 minutes was subtracted
from the combined sections' T,, o f 70 minutes, t o determine the T,, f o r t h e
settling basin alone, 65 minutes.
This approach may also be applied i n cases where disinfectant
application and/or residualmonitoring i s discontinued a t any poi,nt
between tm, or more sections with known T,, values. These T,, values may
' be s w m d t o o b t a i n an equivalent f,, f o r t h e combined sections.
For Ozone contactors, flocculators or any basin containing mixingl
tracerstudies shouldbe conducted f o rt h e range of mixing used i n the '

C-6
process. I n OzoneCOntaCtOrS, a i r or oxygen should be added i n l i e u of
ozone t o preventdegradation ofthetracer. The ow r a t e of a i r or
lf
oxygen used for thecontactorshould be appliedduringthestudy to
simulateactualoperation.Tracerstudies shouldthen be conducted a t
several airloxygen t o water ratios to provide data for the cotnplett range
of r a t i o s used at the plant. For flocculators,tracerstudiesshould be
conducted for various mixing intensities to provide data for the complete
range o f operat ions
.I

C.1.3 fraccr -tS


Thissectiondiscussesthe two amst c0rmK)n methods of tracer
addition employed i n water treatment evahations, the step-dose method and
the slug-dose method. Tracerstudy Isathods involvetheapplicationof
chemical dosages t o a system and tracking the
resulting effluent
concentration as a function of time. The effluent Concentration p r o f i l e
i s evaluated t o determine the detention time, T,,.
While both tracer test methods can use the same tracer materials and
involve measuring the c.oncentration o f tracer with time, each has d i s t i n c t
advantages and disadvantages with respect to tracer addition procedures
and analysis of results.
The step-dose method e n t a i l s i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a tracer chemical a t a
constant dosage until the concentration at the desired end point reaches
a steady-state level. Step-dose tracer studies are frequently employed i n
drinking water applications for tho following reasons:
- t h er e s u l t i n
8 normalizedconcentration
d i r e c t l y use t o deternine, Tto, the detention tm
VS. t i m ep r o f i l e
i e required
is
..
for calculating CT
- very often, the necessary feed equipment i s availableto.
provide a constant rate of application of the tracer chemical

One other advantage of the step-dose method i s t h a t t h e data may be


. v e r i f i e d by comparing th,e concentration versus elapsed time p r o f i l e for
samples c o l l e c t e d a t t h e s t a r t o f dosing with the profile obtained when.
the tracer feed i s discontinued.

c-7
I

I
I

Alternatively, with the slug-dose method, a large instantaneous dose


of tracer i t added t o t h e incoming water and samples are taken a t t h e e x i t
o f t h e u n i t over time as the tracer passes through the unit. A disadvan-
tage o f t h i s technique i s t h a t very concentrated solutions are needed f o r
the dose i n order t o adequately definetheconcentration versus tiae
profile,Intensivemixing i s thereforerequiredto minimize potential
density-currenteffects and t oo b t a i n a uniformdistribution o f the
instantaneous tracer dose across the basin. This i s inherently difficult '*

underwater flow conditionsoftenexistingatinletsto basins.Other


disadvantages of using the slug-doseaethod include:
- the concentration and volume of the instantaneous tracer dose
must
be carefully computed t o provide an adequate tracer
profile at the effluent of the basin
- the resulting concentration vs. time profile cannot beused t o
d i r e c t l y determine TI, without further manipulation
- a aass balance on the treatment
section i s required
determine whether thetracer was cqcnpletelyrecovered
to
..

One advantage o ft h i sr n t h o di st h a t i t may be applfed where


chemical feed equipment i s not available at the desired point of addition,
or where the equipment avai lable does not have the capacity t o provide the
necessary concentration ofthe chosen tracer chemical. Although, in . ..

general, the step-doseprocedure offersthegreatestsimplicity,both


methodsare.. theoretically equivalent for determining TIq. Either method *

i s acceptable f o r conducting drinking water tracer ttudles, and the choice


o f the method may be determined by site-specificconstraints or the
system'sexperience.
C.1.4 fraccr Sel-
. An important step i n any tracer study i s the selection of a chemical.
t o be used as'the tracer. Ideally, the selected tracer chemicalshould be
readily available, conservative (that is, not consumed or ranoved during
treatment), easily monitored, and acceptable for use i n potable water sup-
. p l i e s . H i s t o r i c a l l y , many chemicals have been used in tracer studies that
do n o t s a t i s f y a l l of these criteria, .including potassium permanganate,
alum, chlorine, and sodium carbonate. However, chloride and fluoride are

c-a
. .
the most Comon tracer chmicals employed i n drinking water plants that
are nontoxic and approved for potable water use. Rhodamine UT can be used
as a fluerescenttracer 'in water flow studies i n accordance with the
following guide1 ines:
-Raw waterconcentrationsshould
concentration o f 10 q / L .
be limited t o a .haximum

- Drinking waterconcentationsshouldnot exceed 0.1' Ug/L.

- Studieswhichresults
requent
c f b r i and inf . i n human exposure t o the dye w s t be
.-

- Concentrations aso
wl as 2 ug/L can be used in tracer studies
because,of the low detection level i n the range o f 0.1 t o 0.2
WL-

The use o f Rhodamine 8 as a tracer i n water flow studies i s not recom-


mended by the EPA.
The choice o f a tracer chemical can be made based, i n p a r t , . on the
selecteddosing method and also on t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f chemical feeding
equipment. For example, thehighdensityof concentrated saltsolutions .
and t h e i rp o t e n t i a l for inducingdensitycurrents,usuallyprecludes
chloride and f l u o r i d e as the selected chemical f o r slug-dose tracer tests.
Fluoride can be a convenient tracer chemical f o r step-dose tracer
t e s t s of clearwells because i t i s frequently applied for finished water
treatment. However,when f l u o r i d e i s used i n t r a c e r t e s t s on c l a r i f i e r s ,
allowances'should be made f o r fluor.ide t h a ti s absorbed on f l o c and
s e t t l e s out o f water (Hudson, 1975). Additional considerations when using
f l u o r i d e i n tracer studies include:
- it i s d i f f i c u l t t o d i t e c t a t owl levels
- many states impose a finished water l i m i t a t i o n o f 1 mg/L
the
federal
r
secondar and primary drinking water
standards (MCLs) f o r f uoride are 2 and 4 q / L , rcspcc-
tively

The use o f f l u o r i d e i s o n l y recomnended i n caseswhere the feed quipment


i s a1ready i n place for safety reasons

c-9
I n instances where only one of w t o or more parallel units is tested,
o
lfwfm the other units would dilute the tracer concentration prior.to
leavingtbeplant and enteringthedistribution system. Therefore,the
impact o f drinking water standards on the use of fluoride and other tracer
chemicals canbe a l l e v i a t e d i n somc cases.

C.1.5 -ition
The tracer chemicalshould beadded atthe same point(s)inthe
treatment t r a i n as the disinfectant to be used i n t h e C t calculations.
C.1.5.1 gteo dose Mcthpd
0

The duration of tracer addi'tion i s dependenton the volume of. the


basin, andhence, its theoretical detention time. I n order t o approach a
,steady-state concentration i n the water exiting the basin, tracer addition
and samplingshould usually be continued f o r a periodof two to three
timesthetheoreticaldetentiontime (Hudson, 1981). It i s not necessary
t o reach a steady state concentration i n the exiting water t o dete'rmine
Tlol however, i t i s necessary t o determine tracer recovery. It i s
reconmended that the tracer recovery be determined .to identify hydraulic .
characteristics or density problems'. Generally, a 90 percentrecovery i s
considered t o provide reliable results for the evaluation o f Tl4.
I n a l l cases, thetracer chemicalshould bedosed i ns u f f i c i e n t
concentration to easily monitor a residual a t the basin outlet throughout
the t e s t . The required tracer chemical concentration, i s generally depen- '

. dent upon the natureof


the chosen tracer chemical, including i t s
background concentration, and the nixing characterittics o f the basin t o
be 'tested. Recomnended chloride doseson the order o f 20 mg/L (Hudson,
1975) should beused for step-method tracer studies where the background
chloride level i s less than 10 mg/L. Also, fluoride concentrations as 10lJ
as 1.0 t o 1.5 ng/L are practical when the raw water fluoride level is not
significant (Hudson, 1975). However, tracer studies conducted onSystems
suffering from serious shortcircuiting of flow nay require substantially
.
larger step-doses This would be necessary to detect the tracer chemical
and t o adequately define the effluent tracer COnCentratiOn profile.

c-10
C.1.5.2 e M
w
e
The duration of tracer neasurcrscnts using the slug-doseacthod is
also dependenton the volume ofthe basin, andhence, i t st h e o r e t i c a l
detentiontime. I n general, samples should be collected for a tl e a s t
twice the basin's theoretical detention time, or u n t i l t r a c e r concentra-
tions aredetectednear background levels. I n order t og e tr e l i a b l e
' r e s u l t s f o r TI, values using the slug-dose method, i t i s recommended that
t h e t o t a l mass o f tracer recovered be approximately 90 percent of the mass
applied.Thisguidelinepresentsthe need t o sample u n t i lt h et r a c e r
concentration recedes t o t h e background level. The t o t a l mass recovered
duringtesting w il not be known u n t i l completion ofthetesting and
analysis of the data collected. The sampling period needed I s very ' s i t e
specific. Therefore, i t nay be h e l p f u l t o conduct a f i r s t run tracer test
as'a screen to identify the appropriate sampllng period for gathering data
t o determine T,,.
Tracer a d d i t i o n f o r slug-dose lnethod tests should be instantaneous
and provide unifonnly mixed distribution of the chemical Tracer addition .
i s considered instantaneous i f the dosingtime does 'not exceed 2 percent
ofthebasin'stheoreticaldetention i e (Marskeand Boyle, 1973). One
tm
recoamcnded procedure f o r achievinginstantaneoustracerdosing i s to
applythechemical by g r a v i t y flow through a funnel and hose apparatus.
This method i s a l s o b e n e f i c i a l because i t provides a means of standardita-
tion, which i s necessary to obtain reproducible results.
The mass o f t r a c e r chemical t o be added i s determined by the desired .

theoreticalconcentration -and basinsire. The mss o ft r a c e r added i n


slug-dose t r a c e rt e s t s should be the minimum massneeded 'toobtain
detectable residual measurements t o generate a concentration profile. As
a guideline, the theoretical concentration for the slug-dose method should.
be comparable' t o theconstant dose applied i n step-dose tracertests,
i.e., 10 t o 20 q / L and 1 t o 2 q / L for chloride and fluoride, nspective-
ly. The
maximum mss ot fr a c e r chemical needed i s calculated by
multiplying the theoretical concentration by the total basin volume. Thi.s
i s appropriate for systems Mithhighdispersion and/or mixing. This
quantity i sd i l u t e d as requiredto apply an instantaneous dose, and
minimize density effects. It should be noted that the mass applied i s n o t
c-11
l i k e l y t o g e t cocnpleteiy mixed throughout t h e t o t a l volume of the basin.
1f . ,!

a .

Therefore, the detected concentration might exceed theoretical concentra-


tions based on t h e t o t a l volume of the basin. for these cases, the mass
of c h m i c a l t o be addedcanbe determined by multiplying the theoretical
concentration by only a portion of the basin volume. An example**of t h i s
i s shown i n Section C.1.7.2 for a slug-dose tracer study. I n cases where
thetracerconcentration i n theeffluentaust be maintained below a
specifiedlevel, i t may be necessary t o conduct a preliminarytestrun
with a minimum tracer dose to identify the appropriate dose for detemin-
ing T,, without exceeding this level.

C.1.6 , f c s t P r o c c d u r c

I n preparation for beginning a tracer study, ,the raw water


background concentration o f the chosen tracer chemical must be estab-
lished. The background concentration i s essential, not only for aiding in
theselectionofthetracer dosage, b u at l s ot of a c i l i t a t e proper w

evaluation of the data.


The background tracer concentrationshould be detennined by .
monitoringforthetracer chcraical p r i o rt o beginningthetest. The
SaRlpling point(s) for the pre-tracer 'study monitoring should be the same
as the points to be used for residual monitoring to determine CT values.
The monitoring procedure i s outlined. in the following steps:
If thetracer chemical i s normally added f o r treatment ,
discontinue i t s addition to the water i n s u f f i c i e n t time t o
e m i t t h e t r a c e r concentration t o recede t o i t s background
P
eve1 before the test is begun.
. .
Priortothestartofthetest,regardlessof whether the
chosen tracermaterialis a treatmentchemical,thetracer
concentration i n the water i s monitored a t t h e sampling point.
here thedisinfectantresidual w i be measured for CT
l
calculations.
Ifa background tracer concentration i s detected, monitor .it
u n t i l a constantconcentration, a t or below the raw water
back round l e v e l i s achieved. This measured Concentration i s
1
the asel ine tracer concentration.

c-i2
Followingthedetermination of thetracer dosage,feedand monitoring
point(s), and a baseline tracer concentration, tracer testing can begin.
Equal sampling Intervals, as could be obtained from autoaratic
sampling, are not'required for either tracer study method.However, using
equal sample I n t e r v a l s f o r t h e slug-dose method can simplify the analysis
o f the data.Duringtesting,thetime and tracerresidual of each
. measurement shouldalso be recorded on adata sheet. I n addition,the
water level , flow, and temperature should be recorded during the test.
C.1.6.1 -
lftrp dose Mp
m .-
A t time zero, the tracer chemicalfeed wl be started and l e f t a t
i
aconstant r a t e f o r t h e d u r a t i o n o f t h e t e s t . Over the course 'of the
test,thetracerresidual should be mnitoredattherequired sampling .
point(s) at a frequency deterrained by the overall detention time and s i t e
specific considerations. As a general guideline, sampling a t intervals of
2 t o 5 minutesshould providedata for awell-definedplot of tracer
concentration vs. time. I f on-siteanalysis i s available,lessfrequent
residual monitoring MY be possible until a change i n residual concentra-
t i o n i s f i r s t detected. As a guideline, i n systems with a theoretical de- .
tentiontimegreaterthan 4 hours,sampling may be conducted every 10
8 . . minutes f o tr h ef i r s t 30 minutes, or u n t i l tracer
a concentration above .
t h eb a s e l i n el e v eilsf i r s t detected. I n general,
shorter
sampling
intervals enable better characterization o f concentration changes;
therefore, samplingshould be conducted a t 2 t o 5-minute {ntewals from .
thetimethataconcentration change i s f i r s t observed until' the residual .
concentration reaches steady-state a value. A reasonable sampling
i n t e r v a l should be chosen based on the overall detention time o f t h e u n i t
being tested.
I f v e r i f i c a t i o n o f t h e t e s t i s desired,thetracerfeed should be.
discontinued,. and the receding tracer concentration at the effluent should
be monitored a t t h e same frequency u n t i l tracer concentrations correspond-
. i n g t o t h e background level are detected. The time at which tracer feed
i s stopped i s tiate 2er0 for the receding .tracer' test andmustbe noted.
The receding racer test w l
i provide a rep1icate set of measuretnents which
can becompared with dataderived frm therisingtracerconcentration
versustimecurve. For systems which currently feed the tracer chemical,
C-13
thereceding Curve may be generated frm the ti= thefeed i s turnedoff TZ
t o deternine the background concentration level.

C.1.6.2 I dose Methpp.


A t tilac zero f o r t h e slug-dose method, a large instdntaneous'dose of
tracer w l beadded
i totheinfluentoftheunit. The same sampling f

locations and fraquencies described for step-dose aethod tests also apply .:

t o slug-dose method tracerstudies. One exception with t h i s method i s


that the tracer concentration profile w i not equilibrate t o asteady
l
stateconcentration. Because ofthis,thetracer should be monitored
frequently enough t o ensure acquisition o f data needed t o identify the
peak tracer concentration.
Slug-dose method tests should becheckedby performinga material
balance t o ensure t h a t a11 'of thetracerfed i s recovered, or,. mass
. applied q u a l s mass. discharged.

C.1.7 Data Evaluation


Data from tracer studies should be runmarired in tables.of time and
residualconcentration. These dataarethen analyzed t o determine the
detention time, TlO, t o be used i n c a l c u l a t i n g CT. Tracer test data from
. either
the
step or slug-dose anthod can evaluated
be graphically, ' r:

ora by
numerically,combination o f these techniques. . .

'C.l.7.1 - dose M r t h a r

The graphical method o f evaluating step-dose testdatainvolves .


p1,ottinga graph o f dimensionlessconcentration versus time and reading
the value for T,, d i r e c t l y f m the graph at the appropriate dimensionless
concentration. Aiternativdy, the data frm step-dose tracer studies may
be evaluatednumerically by developingasemi-logarithmic p l o t o f the.
dimensionlessdata. The semi-logarithmic plot allows a straight line to
be drawn through the data. The resulting equation of t h e l i n e i s used t o
calculatethe T,, value, assuming thatthecorrelationcoefficient
indicatesa good s t a t i s t i c a l f i t (0.9 or above). Scattereddatapoints
from step-dose tracertestsarediscredited by drawing assmoothcurve
through the data.

C-14
An i l l u s t r a t i o n o f t h e T,, detemination w i 11 be presented i n an
example of the data evaluation required for a clearwell tracer study.
C.1.7.2 0

Data from slug-dose tracer tests ,is analyzed by converting i t t o t h e


mathematical ly equiva'lent 'step-dose data and using techniques discussed i n
Section C.1.7.1 t o determine Tlo. A graph ofdimensionless concentration
versus time should be drawn which represents t h e r e s u l t s o f a slug-dose
tracertest. The key t o converting between the data forms i s obtaining ,.
t h et o t a l areaunder the slug-dosedata curve. Thisarea is foundby
graphically or numericallyintergratingthe curve. The conversion t o
step-dose data i s thencoopleted i n several mathematical steps involving
t h e t o t a l area.
A graphicaltechnique for convertingthe slug-dose datainvolves
physically measuring theareausing aplanimeter. The planimeter i s an
instrument used t o measure the area o f a plane closed curve by tracing i t s
boundary. C a l i b r a t i o n o f t h i s instrument t o t h e scale o f the graph i s
required t o obtain meaningfulreadings.
The r e c t a n g l e r u l e i s asimplenumerical intergration inthod which
approximates t h e t o t a l area under the curve as the sum of the areasof
individual rectangles. These rectangles have heights and widthsequal t o
theresidualconcentration and sampling interVal (time) f o r each data
point on the curve, respectively. Once thedata hasbeen converted, f,;
may be determined i n the same manner as data fm step-dose tracer tests.
Slug-dose concentrationprofi1es"can have many shapes, depending on I

the hydraulics of the basin. Therefore, slug-dosedata points should not


be discredited bydrawinga smooth curvethroughthedata prior to its
conversion t o step-dose data. The steps and specificdetailsinvolved
with evaluating data frtnn both tracer study methods are i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h e
following examples.
%
-,
Trio tracer studies employing the step-dose and slug-dose acthods o f
traceraddition were conducted f o r a clearwcllwith a theoretical
detentiontime, 1, o f 30 rainutes a t an average flow o f 2.5 MGD. Because
f l u o r i d e i s added a tt h ei n l e tt ot h ec l e a r w e l l as awatertreatment
chemical,necessary feed equipment was i n placefordosingaconstant
c-15
concentration of fluoride throughout the ttep-dose tracer test. eased on
t h i s convenience, fluoride was chosenas thetracer chemical forthe
SteP-dosemethod test. Fluoride was also selected as the tracer chemical
.. fortheslug-dost aethod t e s t .P r i o rt ot h es t a r t of testing,afluoride.
baseline Concentration o f 0.2 mg/L was established for t h e w a t e r * x i t i n g
the cl earwei 1.
Step dose l m l o d Test
0

For the tttp-dose test aconstant fluoride dosage of 2.0 IQ/L was
added t o t h e c l e a r w t l l i n l e t . F l u o r i d e l e v e l s i n t h e c l e a m ! l e f f l u e n t
were monitored and recordedevery 3 ainutes. The raw tracer'study data,
along with the results o f further analyses are shown i n Table C-1.
The steps i n evaluating the raw data shown I n t h e f i r s t c o l m of
Tdble C-1 are as follows.First,thebaselinefluorideconcentration,
0.2 q / L , i s subtracted from the measured, concentration togivethe
fluorideconcentrationresulting from thetracer study addition alone.
For example, a t elapsed time = 39 minutes, the tracer fluoride concentra-
tion, C, i s obtained as follows:
C.trsurtb - Cbrstllnc

= 1.85 w/L - 0.2 w/L


= 1.65 mg/L
This calculation was repeated a t each timeintervaltoobtain the'data
shown i nt h et h i r d column o f Table C-1. As indicated,thefluoride
concentration rises f m 0 q / L a t .t s 0 minutes to the applied fluoride
. clotage o f 2 mg/L, a t t 63 minutes.
The next step i s t odevelop dimensionless concentrations by dividing
*. the tracer concentrations i n t h e second column o f Table C-1 by the applied
fluoride dosage, Co 2 q / L . For tm
.
I i e = 39 minutef, C/Co i s c a l c u l a t e d
as follows:
C/CO = (1.65 q/L)/(2.0 q / L )
= 0.82
The resulting. dimensionlessdata,presented i n thefourth Column of
Table c-1, i s t h e b a s i s f o r completing the determination of Ti, by e i t h e r
the graphical or numerical method.

C-16
0
3
6
9
- 0.20
0.20
0.20
0 020
DATA

'
-0
TABLE C-1
-DOSE
STEP

0
0
0
TRACER T E S I(1.2.31
fluoride Conqtntr
*a
0
0
0
.
12
15
0.29
0.67
0
0.09
0.47 .
0
0.24
.
0 045
18 0.94 0.74
21 1.04 0.84 0.42.
24 1.44 1.24 . 0.62
27 1.55 1.35 0.68
1.3230 1.52 0.66
33 1.73 1.53 0.76
36 1.93 1.73 0.86
1.6539 1.85 0.82
1.7242 1.92 0.86
1.82
45 .02 2 0.91
1.7740 1.97 0.88
1.6451 1.84 0.82 '

1.8654 2.06 0.93


1.8557 2.05 0.92
1.9060 2.10 0.95
1.9463 2.14 0.96

Hoter:
1. Baseline conc. = 0.2 mg/L, fluoride dose = 2.0 mg/L
2.
3 . -
Mcasured conc. = Tracer conc. + Bate1 ine conc.
Tracer conc. = Measured conc. Basel ine conc.
In order to.detemine T,, by .the graphical
method, a plot of C/CoVS.
ti= should be generated using the data in Table C-1. A smooth curve
should be.drrwn through the data as shown on Figure C-1.
TI, I s read directlyf n the graph ata dimensionless concentration
(C/Co) corresponding to the t i n for which 10 percent of the tracer has
passed at the effluent end o f the contact basin (flo). For step-dose
method tracer studies, this dimensionless concentration is C/Co = 0.10
(Levenspiel 8 1972).

-
T,, should be read directlyf m Figure C-1at CjCo = 0.1 by first

Intersection withthe smooth curve drawn through


. I

drawing a horizontal line (CICo 0.1) fm the Y-axis (t.- 0) to its


the data. At this point
of intersection, the timc read frola the X-axis is TI, and ray be found by
extending a vertical line downward to the X-axis. These steps were
performed as illustrated on Figure C-1, resultingin. a value for T,, of
approximately 13 minutes.
For the numerical methodof data analysis, several additionalsteps
are required to obtain f,, frola the data in the fourth c o l m of Table C-1.
The fonns of data necessary for determining TI, through a numerical
solution are log,,(l-C/Co) and t/T, the elapsed time divided by the
theoretical residence time. These are obtained by performing the required
mathematical operations on the data in the fourth column of Table C-1.
' For example, recalling that the theoretical detention time, 1, is 30

-
minutes, the values for log,, (1-C/Co) and t/Tare computedas follows for
the data at t 39 minutes:

= log,, (0.18)
-0,757
t/T 39 min/30 min 9 1.3

This calculation was repeatedat each time interval to obtain the


data shown in Table C-2. These data should be linearly regressed as
log,,(l-C/Co) versus t/T toobtain the fitted straight-line parametersto
the following equation:

C-17
mURE C-1
WCo vs Time *.
Graphical Analysis for TlO

..

0 10 20 30 6Q 80
TIME (MINUTES)
tA0I.E: C-2
DATA FOR NUMERICAL DETERMINATIONOF Tl0

UI k 1 W .
0 0
0.1 0
0.2 0
0.3 0
0.4 -00020 -
0.5 -0.116
0.6 -0.201
0.7 .
-0 237
0.8 .
-0 420
0.9 -0.488
1 .o -0.468
1.1 -0.629
1.2 , . -0.870
1.3 -0 757 .
1.4 -0.854
1.5 -1.046 .
1.6 -0 939 .
1.7 -0.745
1 .a -1 155 .
1.9 -1 125 .
2.0 -1.301 .
2.1 -1.532
In equation 1, A and b are the slope and intercept, respectively,
for a plot of logl0(l-C/Co) vs. t/T. This quation can be used to
calculate Tlo, assuaing that the correlation coefficient for the" fitted
data indicates a good statistical fit(0.9 or above) ..
.A linear regressfon analysis was performed theondata in Table C-2,
resulting in the following straight-lineparameters:
slope = a = -0.774 .-
intercept = b = 0.251
correlation coefficient 0.93 0

Although these numbers wen obtained nwerically, a plot of


log,,(l-C/Co) versus t/T is shown for illustrative purposes on FigureC-2
for the data in Table C-2. In this analysis, datafor tiwe = 0 through 9
minutes were excluded because fluoride concentrations above the basdine
level were not observed in the clearwell effluent untilt = 12 minutes.
Equation 1 is then rearrangedin the following formto facilitate a .
solution for Tie:

flo/T (log,, (1 - 0.1) - b)/m


In equation 2, as with graphical method, Tto is determined at the
time for which C/Co = 0.1. Therefore, in equation 2, C/Co has been .
replaced by 0.1 and t (time) by T,,. To obtain a solution for TlO, the
values of the slope, intercept, and theoretical deterrtion time are .
substituted as 'follorn:

* Tio/30 ain. -
(lOgl0(1 0.1) - 0.251)/(-0.774)
TI, = 12 minutes

In sunrmaryboth the graphical and nuukrical methods of data


reduction resulted in comparable values for T,o. With the numerical
method, TI, was deterrained as the solution to an equation based on the

C-18
r"
straight-line parameters t o alinear kegressionanalysis of the tracer
study data instead of an ."eyeball" estimate f m a data plot.

e m o d test
A slug-dose tracer' test was alsoperfomed on the clearwell at a
o
lfwrate of 2.5 mgd. A theoretical clearwell fluoride concentration of
2.2 ntg/Lwas selected. The fluoride dosing voluw and concentration were
determined frola the following considerations:
-
rmhullm
- The fluoride injection apparatus consisted o f afunnel and a
length of copper tubing.This apparatus providedaconstant
volumetric feeding r a t e o f 7.5 l i t e r s per minute (L/min) under
gravity flow conditions.
- A t a flow r a t e of 2.5 mgd, theclearwell hasa theoretical
detentiontime o f 30 minutes.Since thedurationoftracer
i n j e c t i o n should be lessthan 2 percent of the cledrwell I s
theoreticaldetentiontimefor an instantaneous dose, .the
maximurn duration of fluoride injection was:
Max. dosing
time - 30 minutes x .02 - 0.6 minutes --

- A t adosing r a t e o f 7.5 L/min, the maximum fluoride dosing


volume i s calculated to be:
. Max. dosing volume = 7.5 L/min. x 0.6 minutes = 4.5 L .
* for this tracer test, a dosing volume o f 4 l i t e r s was select-
ed, providing an instantaneous fluoride dose i n 1.8 percent of .
the theoretical detention ti=.

- The theoreticaldetentiontime of thecleatwell, 30 minutes,


was calculated b dividi the
clearwell volume,
52,100
. gallons or 1 9 7 , d liters,?!the average flow r a t e through
the clearwell, 2.5 mgd.
- Assuming thetracer i s c m l e t e l y dispersedthroughout' the
P
t o t a l volume o f t h e clearwe 1, the rbass of fluoride required
t o achieve a theoretical concentration of 2.2 mg/L i s calcu-
lated as follows:
Fluoride mass ( i n i t i a l ) = 2.2 mg/L x 197,200 L x = 4349
1000 mg
c-19
FlQURE C-2
vs . VT
-.l-C/Co
Numerical Analysis for TlO

0.01
.
- The concentration o f the instantaneous fluoride dose i s
detenoined by d i v i d i n gt h i s mass by the
dosing volume, 4
1itars:
Fluoride concentration I 434 g = 109 g/L
4 L

F l u o r i d el e v e l si nt h ee x i tt ot h ec l e a r w e l l were monitored and


recorded every 3 minutes. The raw slug-dose tracer test data are shown i n
Table C-3.
The f i r s t step i n evaluatingthedatafordifferent -times i s , t o
subtract the baseline fluoride concentration, 0.2 q / L , from the measured
concentration a t each sampling interval (Table C-3) . This i s the same as
t h ef i r s ts t e p used t o evaluate step-dose method data and givesthe
fluoride concentrations resulting fm the tracer addition alone, shown i n
t h e t h i r d column o f Table C-3. As indicated,thefluorideconcentration
r i s e s from 0 mg/L a t t = 0 minutes t o t h e peak concentration of 3.6 mg/L
a t t 18 minutes. The exitingfluorideconcentrationgradually
.
I recedes
t o near zero a t t = 63 minutes. I t should be noted that a maximum
fluoride concentration of 2.2 mg/L i s based on assuming complete mixing o f
the tracer added throughout the total clearwell volume. H w v e r , as shown
i n Table C-3, thefluorideconcentrations i n theclearwtlleffluent
exceeded 2.2 mg/L f o r about 6 minutes between 14 and 20 minutes. ,These
higher peak concentrationsare caused by the dispersionoftracer

throughoutonly a portionofthetotalclearwell volunte. I f a lower


tracer concentration i s needed i n the effluent because of local or federal
. regulations,the mass t o be added should be decreased accordingly.
The dimensionless concentrations i n the fourth colurair o f Table C-3
were obtained by dividing the tracer concentrations i n the t h i r d column by
thecleanrcWs theoretical concentration, Co = 2;2 q / L . These
dimensionl-css. concentrations were then plotted as a function of ti=, as
i s shown by . t h e slug-dosedata on Figure C-3. These datapoints were
connectedby s t r a i g h t lines, resulting i n a somewhat jaggedcurve.
The next step i n evaluating slug-dose data i s t o detennine t h e t o t a l
areaunder the slug-dose data curve on Figure C-3. Two methods e x i s t for
f i n d i n gt h i s area -- graphical and numerical, The graphical method i s

e-20
*???9?????S??V??9
0000-Am-m---0000000000
.e3
u -o c
u
'
e
0 0
c
u I1 u
L
U b u
c c
0 - 0
U d u
1 ...
nh-CI
FIGURE C-3
' C / C o vs. Time
Conversion of Slug-to Step-Dose Data

2 Slug-dose dc:s
n
Y

1.8 Step-dose d m
A
1.6

* 1.4

1.2
0
0
' \

0-
0.8

0.6
dl
0.4

0.2

Ol
I
based on a physical aeasurclacnt ofthe areausing a planikter.This
Involves calibration of the instrument t o define the units conversion and
tracing the outline of the curve t o determine the area. The results of
performing t h i s procedure may vary depending on instrument accuracy and
aeasument technique. Therefore, only an i l l u s t r a t i o n o f the nuinerfcal *

technique f o r f i n d i n g t h e area under the tlug-dose curve w l be presented


i
f o r t h i s example.
The a n a obtained’by either the graphical or numerical method would
be similar. Furthermore, once the area Is found, theremainingsteps
involved with converting the data to the ttep-dose response ate the same.
Table C-4 sumnarires the results of determining the t o t a l area using
a numerical integration technique calledtherectanglerule. The f i r s t
andsecond columns i n Table C-4 arethesaaplingtime and fluoride
concentrationresulting from traceraddition alone, respectively. The
steps i n applyingthesedata are as folloln.First,the sampling time
interval, 3 minutes, i s m u l t i p l i e d by the fluoride concentration at the
Lnp of the 3-minute interval to give the incremental area, i n units o f
milligram minutes per liter. For example, a t elapsed time, t = 39
minutes, theincremental area i s obtained as follows:
Incrementalarea = sampling time interval x fluoride cone.
= (39-36) minutes x 0.4 mg/L
= 1.2 mg-slin/L

Thiscalculation was repeated a t each timeintervaltoobtainthedata .


shown i n t h e t h i r d column o f Table C-4.
I f the data hadbeen obtained a t unequal s a q l i n g i n t e r v a l s , then
theincrementalarea for each i n t e r v a l would be obtained by multiplying
thefluorldeconcentrationatthe a o f each interval by the.time
duration of ..the interval. This
convention alsorequires
that
the
incrementalarea be zero a t the f i r s t sampling point, regardless o f the
fluoride concentration at that time.
As i s shown i n Table C-4, a l l incremental areas were sunned t o
- obtain 59.4 ag-ain/L, the t o t a l area under the slug-dose tracertest
curve. This number representsthetotal mass offl u o r i d et h a t was

c-2 1
..
,-
,/'
i
detected during the course of the trgcer test divided by the average flow
r a t e through the clearwell . . .
To. cotdplete theconversion o f slug-dose data t o i t s equivalent
step-dose response requires two additional steps. The f i r s t involves
sunning, consecutively, the incremental areas i n the third colum'of Table
C-4 t o obtain the cumulative area at the rpP o f each sampling interval.
For example, thecumulativearea a t time, t = 27 minutes i s found as
folo lrn :
.-
Cumulative area = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 3 + 10.2 + 10.8 + 5.4 + 5.7 + 3.6
= 38.7 sg-min/L

The cumulative areas f o r each interval are recorded i n the fourth column
o f Table C-4.
The f i n a l step i n converting slug-dosedatainvolves dividing the
cumulativearea a t each interval by t h e t o t a l laass applied.Totalarea
based on applied mass i s calculated as follows:

-
Total area mass applied/average flow = 434 g x 1000 ~ 6 , 5 7 0
9 m in
= 66.1 a
,L

i e = 39 minutes, the resulting step-dose data point


For tm it calculated as
follows:
C/Co = 49.5 q-min/L / 59.4 mg-min/L
.. . = 0.83
The result of perforuing this operation at each sampling interval i s the
equivalent step-dosedata. These datapointsare 'shown i nt h e fifth
column of 'Table C-4 and are also plotted on Figure C-3 t o f a c i l i t a t e a
graphical detemination of T.,I A smooth curve was f i t t e d t o the step-dose
data 'as shown on the figure.
T, can be determined by the methods illustrated previously in this
example for evaluating step-dose tracer test data. The graphical method
i l l u s t r a t e d on Figure C-3 r e s u l t s i n a reading o f T,, = 15 minutes.

c-22
.

F
C.1.7.3 -1 C m
In addition to determining l,, for use in CT calculations, slug.dose
tracer tests providea aore general measureo f the basin's hydraulics in
terns o f the fraction of tracer recovery. This nuaber is rapnrmtrtive
o f short-circuiting and: dead space in the unit resulting f m n poor
baffling conditions and density currents induced .
by the tracer chemical
A l o w tracer recovery is generally indicative of inadequate hydraulics.
However, inadequate sampling in whlch peaks in tracer passage are not
' '.

measured will resultin an under estiaateo f tracer recovery. ._the tracer


recovery is calculated by dividing the mass o f fluoride detected by the
l a s s o f fluoride dosed.
The dosed fluoride M s s was calculated previously was and 434 grams.
The mass o f detected fluoride can be calculated by bltiplying the total
area underthe slug-dose curveby the average flow, in appropriate units,
at the time of the test. The average flow in the clearwell during the
test was 2.5 ngd or 6,570 L/lain. Therefore, the mass of fluoride tracer
that was detectedis calculated as follows:
Detected fluoride mass = total area x average flow
= 59.4 x 1 a X 6,570
L 1000 mq mi n
390 g

Tracer recovery isthan calculated as follows:


Fluoride recovery detected mass/dosed massx 100.
= 390 g / 434 g x 100
* 90 I
Thfs is a typical tracer recovery percentagef o r a slug-dose test,based
on the experiences o f Hudson (1975) and Thitunwrthi (1969)

c.1.3 Ttowpcbcnde~ofo
For systems conducting tracer studies at four or amre flows, the T,,
detention time should be determined by the above procedures for each of
the desired flows. The detention tiaes should then be plotted versus
flow. For the example presented in the previous section, tracer studies

C-23
were conducted atadditional flows o f 1.1, 4.2, and 5.6 NO.
values at the various flows ware:
110

'25
13 .
7
4

f,, data for these tracer studies were plotted as a function of the flow,
-2
Q, as show on Figure C-4.
Ifonly one t r a c e r t e s t i s performed, the flow r a t e for the tracer
study should be not less than 91 percent ofthehighest o
lfw rate
experienced forthesection. The hydraul i cp r o f il et o be used for
calculating CT would then be generated by drawing a l i n e through points
obtained by multiplying the TI, at the testedo l
w
f rate by t h e r a t i o of the
tracer study o lf
w r a t e t o each ofseveral different flows in the desired
flow range.
For the example presented i n theprevioussection,theclearwell
experiences a maximum flow a t peak hourlyconditfons of 6.0 mgd. The.
highesttested flow r a t e was 5.6 mgd, or 93 percent of the maximum flow. .-

. Therefore, thedetentiontime, TI, = 4 minutes,determined by thetracer .


t e s t a t a flowrate of 5.6 q d may beused t o provide a conservative
estimate of TI, f o r a l l o lfw rates less than o r equal t o the maximurn f l o w
rate, 6.0 slgd.The l i n e drawn through points found by multiplying 1" =
4 minutes by t h e r a t i o o f 5.6 ngd t o each o f several f l o n r ' l e s s than 5.6
mgd i s also shown on Figure C-4 f o r comparative purposes withthe
hydraulic profileobtained from performing four
tracer, studies
at
d i f f e r e n t flow rates.

- -
c.2 of T:IO nithout c0ndUct'n-r Study
I n stme situations, conducting tracerstudies f o r determiningthe
. disinfectant'contact time, T,,, may be impractical or p r o h i b i t i v i l y
expensive. .The l i m i t a t i o n s may include a Jack of funds, manpower of
equipment necessary t o conduct the study. For these cases, the Primacy
Agencymay allowthe use o f " r u l e o f thumb" f r i c t i o n s repreSentingthe

C-24
FIOURE C-4
Detention Timevs, Flow

3t D

3c

25

20
Z '
3
Y

0
F
10
Maximum
Avel
1 5

- .^

0 I I I I I I I 1
II

' 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8
FLOW (MGD)
ratio of T,, to T., and the theoretical detention time,to deternine the
detention time,f t O , to be used for calculating CT values. This mthod for
finding T,, involves multiplying the theoretical detentiont i m by the rule
of thumb fraction,l,,/T, that is representative of the particular basin
configuration for which T,, is desired. These fractions provide rough
, astinates of the actual T,, and are ncollwnded to be used only on a
. limited basis.
Tracer studies conducted by Uankc and b y l e (1973) and Hudson
(1975) on chlorine contact chambers and flocculators/settl lng basins,
1

respectively, were used as a basis in detemining representative T,,/T


values for various basin configurations. Uarske and Boyla (1973)perforwed
trdcer studies on 15 distinctly different typesof full-scale chlorine
contact chambersto evaluate design characteristics that affectthe actual
detention ti-. Hudson (1975) conducted 16 tracer tests on several
flocculation and settling basins at six water treatment plantsto identify
the effect of flocculator baffling and settling basin inlet and outlet
design characteristics onthe actual detention time.

C.2.1 t of Des-istics
w
The significant design characteristics include: length-to-width
ratio, the degree of baffling within the basins, and the effect of inlet
' baffling and outlet weir configuration. These physical characteristics of
the contact basins affecttheir hydraulic efficiencies in terns of dead
space, plug flow, and mixed.flaw 'proportions. The dead space zone of. a
basin is basin volume through which no flow occurs. The remaining v o l w
where flow occurs is cotapri sed of plug flaw and mixedflaw zones The . -
plug flow zone is the portion of themaining volume in which no mixing
occurs In the direction of flow. The mixed flow zone is characterized by
complete mixing in the flow direction and is the complement to the plug
flow tone. All o f these zones were identified in the studies for each
contact basin. Comparisons were then aade between the basin configura-
tions and the observed flow conditions and design characteristics.
The ratio T,,/T was calculated from the data presented in the studies ,

andcompared to its associated hydraulic flow characteristics. Both *

studies resulted in Tlo/T values whichranged f m 0.3 to 0.7. The results


C-25
;r ' l ,
of the studies indicate how basin baffling conditions can influence the
T,,/T ratio, particularly baffling atthe inlet and outletto the basin.
As the brsin baffling conditions improved, higher t,,/T values were
observed, with the outlet conditions generally having a greater impact
conditions.
than the inlet . .
As discovered from the results of the tracer studies performed by 4_
s ..

k r s k e and Boyla (1973) and Hudson'(1975), the effectivenessof baffling .


in achieving a high T,,/T fraction is #)re related to the geometry and ' '

baffling of the basin than the function of the basin. For this reason,
T,,/Tvalues aay be defined for three of levels
baffling conditions rather
than for particular types of contact basins. General guidelines were
developed relating the Tl,/T values from these studies
to the respective
baffling characteristics. These guidelines'can beused to determine the
T,, values for,specific basins.

C.2.2
JaffliQo Classificatb
The purposeof baffling is to maximize utilization of basinvoluk, .
increase the plug flow tone in the basin, and riniaitt short" circuiting.
Solac form of baffling atthe inlet and outlet ofthe basins is used to
'. evenly distribute flow across the basin. Additional baffling may be
provided within the interior of the basin (intra-basin) in circumstances
requiring a greater degree of flow'distribution. Ideal baffling design
reduces the.. inlet andoutlet flow velocities, distributes the water as
unifomly as practical over the cross section of the 'basin, minimizes
mixing with the water already in the basin, and prevents entering water
from short circuiting to the basin outletas the result of Mind or density
current effects. Three general classificationsof baffling conditions --
--
poor,.average, and superior were developed to categorize the results of- . .
the tracer Ltudies f o r use in determining T,, fm the theoretical
detention tine of a specific basin. The T,,/T fractions associated with
each degreeof baffling are tuaraarircd in Table C-5.: Factors representing
the ratio betweenT,, and the theoretical detention timefor , p h g flow in
pipelines and flow in a completely rixed chaaber have been: included in
Table C-5for comparative purposes. However, in practice the theoretical
.. T,,/T values of 1.0 for plug flew and 0.1 for rixed flow are seldom
C-26
- -
Unbaffled (mixed flow)

Poor
I,&
0.1

0.3
None, agitated
basin,
widthratio,highinlet
velocities
S ilne
veryo
w
l l e n gttoh
and o u t l e t f l o w

or multiple unbaffled i n l e t s and


0
out t t s , no intra-basin baffles
Average 0.5 . Elaffled i n l e t p~ o u t l ewt i t h mate intta-
bas i n ' bfr 1f as
Supcri or 0.7 Perforated i nb laefstf leer,p e n t i n e or
perforated intra-basin baffles, outlet weir
or perforated 1aunders
Perfect (plug flow) 1.o Very highlength
to
width
ratio
(pipeline
flow) , perforated inlet, outlet, and i n t r a -
basin baffles
achieved because of the effect of space.
deadConversely, the T,,/T values
shown for the intermediate baffling conditions already incorporate the
effect of the dead space zone, as well the asplug flow zone, because they
were derived empirically rather than from theory.
As indicated in Table C-5, PPQT baffling conditions consist of an
unbaffled inlet.and outlet with no intra-basin baffling.Avcraat baffling
conditions consistof intra-basin baffling andeither a baffled inlet o r .
outlet. w c r i o r baffling conditions consistof at least a baffled inlet
and outlet, and possibly SOW intra-basin baffling to redistribute the
flow throughout the basin's cross-section.
The three basic types of basin inlet baffling configurations .are:
a target-baffled pipe inlet, an overflow weir entrance, and a baffled
subawged orifice or port inlet. Typical intra-basin baffling structures
include: diffuser (perforated) walls; launders; cross, longitudinal, or
* maze baffling to cause horizontal or vertical serpentine flow; and
longitudinal divider walls, which prevent mixing by increasing .the
length-to-widthratio of the basin(s). Coamonly.usedbaffledoutlet .
structures include free-discharging weirs, such as sharpcrested and
V-notch, and submerged portsor weirs. Weirs that do not span the width
of the contact basin, suchas Cipolleti weirs, should not be considered
baffling astheir use may substantially increaseniir overflow ratesand
the dead space zone of the bqsi n.

C.2.3 -11s of 6 a f f l W
Examples of these levels of baffling conditions for rectangular and
circular basins are explained and illustrated in the following section.
. Typical uses of various f o r m of baffled and unbaffled inlet and outlet
structures are also illustrated.
The 9 1 and~ section of a rectangular basin with~ p baff
c 1 ing con-
ditions, which can be attributed to the unbaffled inletand outlet pipes,
is illustrated on Figure C-5. The flow pattern shown in the plan view
indicates straight-through flow with dead space occurringin the regions
between the individual pipe inlets and outlets.The sectiofv view reveals
additional dead spacef m a vertical perspective in the upper inlet and
. lower outlet corners 'of the contact basin. Vertical mixing also occurs as
C-27
bottm density currents induce a counter-clockwise flow i n the upper water (-" i

1ayers .
The i n l e t o
lfwd i s t r i b u t i o n i s markedly improvedby the addition of
an inlet diffuser wall and intra-basin baffling as shownon Figure C-6.
However, only D z u baffling conditions are achieved for the basin as a
whole because of the inadequate outlet structure -- a Cipolleti weir. The
width of t h e w e i r i s short i n coatparison withthewidth of the basin.
Consequently, dead space e x i s t s i n t h e corners of the basin, as shown by
theplan vim. I n addition,thesmallweirwidth causes a- high mir
overflowrate, which r e s u l t s i n s h o r t c i r c u i t i n g i n thecenter of the
basin.
Syperior baffling conditions are exemplified b) the flow pattern and
physical characteristics of the basin shownon Figure C-7. The i n l e t t o
the'basin consists of submerged, target-baffled ports. This inlet design
serves t o reduce thevelocityofthe incotaing water and d i s t r i b u t e i t
~ n i f o n n l ythroughout the basin'scross-section. The o u t l e t s t r u c t u r e i s
a sharpcrestedweir which extends fortheentirewidthofthecontact
basin.Thistype ofoutletstructure w l reduce shortcircuiting and
i . --
I
decrease the dead space fraction o f the basin, although the overflow weir * --e

does create some dead space a t the lower comersoftheeffluent end.


These i n l e t and outlet structures are by themselves s u f f i c i e n t t o a t t a i n
superior baffling conditions; however, mate-type intra-basin baffling was
included as an' example o f how t h i s type o fb a f f l i n g . aids i n flow
redistribution within a contact basin.
The plan and sectionof a circularbasinwith 0pp1: b a f f l i n g
conditions,which can be a t t r i b u t e dt o flow shortcircuiting from the
center feed w all d i r e c t l y t o t h e e f f l u e n t trough i s shown ori Figure C-8.
Short c i r c u i t i n g occurs i n spite of the outlet weir configuration because
thecenter feed I n l e ti sn o tb a f f l e d . lfw d i s t r i b u t i o n i s
The i n l e t o
improved s e a t on Figure C-9 by the addition of an annular ring baffle
a t t h e i n l e t which causes t h e i n l e t flow t o .be distributed throughout-
' great&portion of thebasin'savailable volume. HOwtvCr, the baffling
conditions i n this contact basin are only per= because the inlet center
feed arrangement does not entirely prevent short Circuiting through the
upper levels of the basin.
. C-28
SECTION

FJOURE C-5 POOR BAFFLING CONOlTlONS


- 0 '

RECTANGULAR CONTACT BASIN


SECfION

FIGURE C - 6 AVERAGE BAFFLING CONDITIONS --


RECTANGULAR CONTACT BASIN
FIGURE C-7 SUPERIOR BAFFLING CONDITIONS -'b

'RECTANQULAR CONTACT BASJN


. .

?LAN

SfCTlON

FtGURE C - 8 POOR BAFFLING CONDITIONS


CIRCULAR CONTACT BASIN
--
PLAN

FIGURE C - 9 AVERAGE BAFFLING CONDITIONS 0

CIRCULAR CONTACT BASIN


SyDerioc baffling conditions are attained fn the basin configuration
shown on Figure C-10 through the addition of a perforated inlet baffle and
submerged orifice outlet ports. As fndicated by the flow pattern, more of
the basin's volurne i s u t i l i z e ddue t o uniformo wd i s t r i b u t i o n created by .
l
f
the perforated baffle. Short circuiting i s also diniQiZed because only a
small portion of flow passes d i r e c t l y through the perforated baffle wall
fm the inlet to the outlet ports.

C.2.4 A d d i t i o n a l C o w e r a t - .-
Flocculation basins andozone contacton represent water treatment
processes with slightly different characteristics fnwa those presented i n
Figures C-5 through C-10 because of the additional effects of mechanical
agitation and mixing from ozone addition, respectively. Studies by Hudson
(1975) indicated that a single-compartment flocculator had a T,,/T value
less than 0.3, corresponding t o a deadspacezone of about .20 percent and
a veryhigh mixed flow zone of greater than 90 percent. I n t h i s study,
two four-compartment flocculators, one with and the other without .
mechanical agitation, exhibited T,,/T values i n the range o f 0.5 t o 0.7.
This observation indicates that not only w l compartmentation r e s u l t i n
i
higher T,,/T valuesthrough better flow distribution, but also that .the
effectsofagitationintensity on T,,/T are reduced where s u f f i c i e n t
bafflingexists. Therefore, regardless oftheextent of agitation,
baffledflocculationbasins with two or n o
consi dered t o possess average baf f 1 ing conditions (T,,/t
unbaffled,single-coapartntntflocculationbasinsareCharacteristic
-
n cmpartanntrshould
0.5) , whereas
be

of
poor baffling conditions (T,,/T 9 0 . 3 ) .
Similarly, m u l t i p l e stage ozone contactorsarebaffledcontact
. . basinswhlchthocr characteristics of average bafflingconditions.Single .'
stage ozone contactorsshould be considered as beingpoorlybaffled.
However, circular, turbine ozone contactors ray exhibit flow d i s t r i b u t i o n
characteristics uhich approach those o f completelynixedbasins,with 'a
f,,/T o f 0.1, as a r e s u l t o f the intense mixing.
I n many cases, s e t t l i n g basins are d i r e c t l y connected t ot h e
flocculators. Data froa Hudson (1975) indicates that poor baff?ing
conditionsattheflocculator/settlingbasininterface can r e s u l ti n
C-29
backmixing fFoR l 'the'settlingbasintotheflocculator. Therefore, (?
s e t t l i n g basins that have integrated flocculators without effective inlet
b a f f l i n g should be considered as poorlybaffled,with a T,,/T of 0 . 3 ,
regardlessoftheoutletconditions, unless i n t r a - b a s i nb a f f l i n gi s
employed to redistribute flow. If intra-basin and o u t l e tb a f f l i n gi s
%u t i l i z e d , then the baffling conditions should be considered average with
,

a T,,/l o f 0.5.
F i l t e r s are
specialtreatment units because t h e i r design and
function i s dependenton flow d i s t r i b u t i o n t h a t i s completelyuniform.
Except for a small p o r t i o n o f flow which shortcircuits the fil& media by
channelingalongthewalls o ft h ef i l t e r ,f i l t e r media b a f f l i n g provides .
a high percentage o f flow uniformity and canbe consideredsuperior
baffling conditions for the purpose o f determining t,,. As such, the lo
value canbe obtained by subtractingthe volumc o f t h e f i l t e r media,
support gravel , and underdrains from the t o t a l volumeand .calculating the
theoretical detention tilac by dividing this volume by the flow through the
f i l t e r . The theoretical detention time i s then multiplied by a factor o f
0.7,corresponding to superior baffling conditions, to determine the TI,
value . .~

C.2.5 gonclusiou
The
recomnended T,,/T values' and examples are
presented as a
guideline for use by the Primacy Agency in detemining t,, values i n s i t e
specific conditions andwhen tracer studies cannot be performed because o f
practicalconsiderations.Selection o f l,,/T values i nt h e absence'of
tracerstudies was r e s t r i c t e dt o a qualitative assessment basedon
currentlyavailabledatafortherelationship between basinbaffling
conditions und t h e i r associated l,,/T values. Cond3tions which. are
canbinations or variations of the above examples m y e x i s t and warrant the
use ofintenecdiate T,,/T values such as 0.4 or 0.6. As more data on
tracer studies become available; specifically correlations between other
physical characteristics of basins and the flow d i s t r i b u t i o n e f f i c i e n c y
parameters, further refinements t o t h e TIo/T fractions and definitions of
baffling conditions may be appropriate.

C-30
PLAN

FIGURE C-10 SUPERIOR BAFFLING CONDITIONS


CIRCULAR CONTACT BASIN
RtfcFcnccs
.
Hudson, He E., Jr. "Residence 1i-s in Pretreatment", J.
January , 1975.
AWA, pp. 45-52,

Evaluation", Water and Sewage Uorks .-


Marske, 0. W. and byle, J. 0.. "Chlorine ContactChamber'ksign A Field
, pp. 70-77, January,1973 .-
fhirunrurthi, 0.. 'A Break-through in the Tracer Studies o f Stdiocntation
TanksY, 3. WPCF, pp.. R405-R418, November, 1969.

.C-31
INVESTIGATOR ( 5 ) RESULTS
1, %rrhrane Fi 1trati on
Chang and Kabl er Generallyunsuccersfd
USPHS, 1956

Pyper, DuFrain and Henry Eng Passing 1 gal/min a t


19W, (unpubl ishe41 *l(I-PSI. 15-1800 gal
total
2. Particulate F!l tratf on Shaw e t a l , 1977 Gt?wally goo(! r e n m 1
Tfliatomacrtaus ? a r t h , f l n A , Jura n X , T 9 ? 9 but poor eluation .
ttc. 1
3. Holman e t a l , 1983 Good r a p i d recovery,
DHHS , W a xgt o n , b u t limited i n field
use
4. 4nianic and Cationic Brewer, Wright State UNO Generally
unsuccessful
hchantYr! Re sins (unpubl ishedl

5. Epoxv-Fihergl ass Sal ston Rf ggs, COHS Lab, Serkley , CA . Overs11 recovery 23-83
rube Fi 1 ters (ungubl i shed) percent
TI1T” -arm I
4. MicroDorousYarnwnven neath. Jakvbowski, Erickson, 1979 and Recavee 3-15 percent
Fq’ters 1980, EPA-Cincinnati Extraction ave. 58 .
T F X l urn arlon an+ percent
polvprolvlene)
7. Pe? 1 icalr Cassette Svstern Mi11i pore Corp. ?day be useful f o r
(unpuhl istred) .processi ng f i l t e r
washings
8. F i l terwashi ng Apparatus OuWall e, U. of Wash., 1982~ Claims ?5 percent
(unpu31 f shed) recovery froi orlon
f i 1t e r s

TABLE 1

!C
I
PRI!MRY CO!I~ENfR.~TIONAND PROCESSTX YETHr)[)S
1, YMeRANE FILTER IMF) ETHODS
3.

1. Chan? and Kabler !n 1955


First t o use MF for cyst recovery. Recovered 2C-42 percent a t cyst
-
concentration of 3, 5 , ant 10 cyst/gal. nn c.dst foun4 a t
1 cys t/ga 1.
2. --
tle++nrl was ‘used i n 1965 Colnra!o outhroak (%ore, e? a t , 1969) us:ng
2 l i t e r s i z e water samplesfrom 10 sites. )lo cysts rrere detactec.
Use rli cellulosic filters have generally not h e n successful, i n
demonstrating cysts jq drinking water.

1. Luchtel an4 Co’lleases !n 198n wed 233 m, 5.0 urn pore size
nocleooor? (PC) fi1terS t o sonce?tratoformalin-flxe3. G. l m b l i a .
cysts f r m 2Q L t a p water sanrples.Recovery rates of a p ? j r o m ; d
75 p s r c o n t were reportel.

2. Pyper of ilufrain w d Henry Engineers c? aim good recovery w i t h ‘ saxe


nucleopora f i l t e r a t a f!ow rate o f 1 gal./min., n o t over 12 35:,
passing 15-1899 gal. i n iust over 24 hours.
’ c, Ever, w i t h thcseclaims SV Pyper and Luchtel , the !1F !lethod has onl:l mcs
(Aspen, 1966) heen successful i n demonstrating cysts i n water--frobaSly
because:
1. Ina9ilityto process a sufficient volume.
2. Inabi?ity t o remove rlyrts from C i l t c r .

a. -
5ku9 CDC (Shaw, 1977) used high-vat f i l t r a t i o n through swimin? ~ c s ?
-
sdnn f i l t e r (28Q,000g a l . t o t a l 9ver 10 clays) was backflushed i?:2 5 5
gal. d r u m an6 coagulated w/alun. concentrationfed t o beagle p u r c i e j
B n A a f t e r treatmn? (cheescc?otb t o wirescrgening t o 33 r?F
Centrffuge) was examine4 microsconically. First time cysts .observee i n
water sup?ty after concentrntinn.
5. -
qiatomaceous earth ( V I ‘COC (Juranek, 1979) used DE to remove tis:!
fro? seode? water. Prohlm was t’wt cysts couldn’t be removert fr:-
particles. f3rewer (1983) claims 5.2-31.1 percent recovery fron X
backwash. Petention throlrgh ‘3 f 3 n z (celit: 505, HyFl o-Supercc‘ 3- -
c e l f t e 56O)..at cyst concentration r a n g i n g from 6-16,000 cys+./L.. z :. .- .
range betwoen 66-131: percent.
C,3 >
.MAE CENTRIFUGE
a. Was found t o recover more cysts ( \ O X ) t h a n a series of MF-f i.1 ters and
nylon screens: 5 VS. 1 day. by MF.
5. Yay he !mpractical i n field because o f power requirement.
c. If used i n lab, 1 largesingle sample collected i n the field could miss
cyst. .-

A, May f i n d applicatfon f9r concentrationcysts from orlon f i l t e r wasbings.


A!l?DlIC AMD CATIOlUC EXCHANGE RESINS (Brewer - unpubl ishad)
a. Rased on bypothesit t h a t cysts could be attracted t o charged surfaces,
c.vsts have a cfiargp of approximately 25mV a t pH 5.5 which increases i n
clectro-neqativi ty as the pH ri ses t o 8.0.
b. Charge attractiorl tecaniques have been used for conctntration'of b o t h
bacterf a and viruses i n wter.
c, Five oxcharqe resi.no were tested:
(1. 40 percent recovery from anfonfc Dowex 1-XY columns
( 2 . 38 percent recovery from cationic Dowex 53W-X8 columns
A. Compared t o parallel tests wjdiatomaceous e a r t h , exchange resinsless
ccficieqt i n retention.
SALVO1.I EPOvY-FIBERGLACS TUBE FILTERS

a. Riggs o f CSlrD, Viral and Rick. Lab., can f i l t e r SO0 gallons d r i n k i n 3


-
w a t w thru IO" 8 pm Balston tube f i1 ter,
h. Backflushes w / l L 3 percent beef extract or solution of 0.5 percent
p o t a s s f m citrate.
c . Concentration i s centriflrged w/40 percent potassium c i t r a t e and niidl e
layer filtered thru 5 Y polycarboqate f i l t e r s .
d. Uses directfmunofluoresccnce antibodytechnique f o r detectfon and
idantification.
e. Claims ?0-30 percentefficiency i n collection, preprocessing a n d : 3 .
YICROP3R9US YAR!ROVEN DEPTH FILTE!?S

a. In 1976 EVA develooed a concentration-extraction method i n v o l v i p ; 3r;l


volumes of water t h r u sicroporous yarnwoven orlon-fiber f i l t e r s .
b. This method has been tenatively adopted asthe "method o f choi:2 :**

. concentmtingcysts from wa?er sugpl i c s .


1. Gone from 7,to 1 urn p a r s t t y f i l t e r
2. ' Limited the ra+e o f flaw t o 1/2 gallon/min
3. Lfmitedthe pressure head t o 10 PSI
4. -
Have gone t o p o l y p r o y l a n e f i l t e r s I n 1i e u . o f o r l o n
d. It was t h e f i r s t metho.4 successfully used t o detect cysts i n the -
d f s t r f b u t i o n s y s t e f l of a community water supply.
e. Is t h e r e c m c n d e d f f 1t e r t o be used hy the EPA contenius method.

a. Is a p t a t e an4 frame s t y l e h a l j a r whichacceptsbothultrathin and.!e?th


t y p t f i 1tcrs.
h, Has from'O.5 $0 25 ft2 of ? f l t e r area.
C. Has n o t been iwestigateAthorougirlybut has had some success i n v i r u s
concentration.

d. I t s maf n app'l f c a t i o n for cyst recovery nay l a y w i t h t h e processf ng o f '

filter washings.
- 8. F I LTERV4SH ING APPARATUS
a. This f s a proposeddevice by Du!Jal?e, 1982 -from U. of W., for unwinding
' t h e f i b e r s from the f i1t e r c a r t r i d g e whf 1e repzatedly brushing atld
squeezingthem w h i l e i n a bath solution.
3. Sath couldcontaineither a surfactant or pH c o n t r o l l e d s o l u t i m .
c.Potentfalclaimsare a s high a5 75 p e r c e n t e x t r a c t l o n o f cysts f r o m t h e
f f bers.
TABLE 2: Off ECTION :TETHODS
I WVESTIGATOR IS 1 RESULTS
1. Inmtrnof?uorescence Qfggs, CSDHS Lab, Berkley, CA Good prep..
a. n F A 1983 Cross Rx
. b. f?A Sauch, EPA-Cincinnatf Still under study
Riggs , CSOS
C. Yonoclonal Antibodies Rigas , CSDHS Still under study
Sauch, EPA-Unci nnati
!unpu$l i shedl
2. ELISA Methad Hungar, J . Hopkfns MD, 1983 Feces sanoles only
c4 1
3. Rrf'ghtf iel d/Phase Contra st . €PA Consensus method 3ngoi ng
1.a. nIRECT FLUOSESCEYT A!ITfBOnY (ORA) TECHN1r)UE
*.
1, R i ggs hasproduced a h i g h ti t e r purified imnune sera t o GI arb i a 1anbl i a
cysts i n guinea pigs and IahelQd i f wfth Fluoreceis f s o t m n m e r a
i s purified thru NHqOH and DEAE sefadex fractionation.
2. Obtained cross reactions w i t h Chilonastix nesnili cysts b u t claims i t c&n
be easily distingufshed from G'1arQia 3y Its smaller size.,
1. b. ItJflIRECT FLUORESCENT ANTIBODY (IFA) TECHNIQUE
1. Sauch using IFA w i t h fmnune sera from rabbits(unpurified). I t i s reacted
w i t h cometxially available fluorescent-labeledagoat anti-rabbi t gamma
g l o h 1 i n. I

2. Some cross-reactions w i t h certain a l g a l cells.


1.c. MO~JOCLOt!AL ANTIB0r)IES
1.
-
Usf ng clones of hybri noma cell 1ines obtained by fusing mousemyeloma
cells w i t h sgleen col 1 s f r m m!ce (BALR/c) immunized w f t h G. lamblia
WODhOZOi teS.

2. Produced ei q h t manocl anal antibodies evaluated by IFA against both trophs


and cysts,
a. 3/8 stafne4 the ventral d i s k
b. 2 stainedthe n u c l p i
c, 2 stained cytoplasmfc granules
d. 2 stained membrane conponmts.
3. Varfability i n starning may bedue t o differences i n Stages of encystment.
l

.
d

.
.

.
l

0 a1 .
.
*

a
02 l l
,

.
.

e
*
.

ttu? eric3n id f Associa3 cm


* l . .
l

t
.
*

l
.

I’

.
.

3
t

-- - --

c
wll
l

8 fan md

fens - of kntwm
olfds, color,

II”OTP chr presence of ath


ram concomit8n~ ctmmica

1
*
l 2
l

.
*
_ I 3

c
.
C c a
*

NF

.
1
I)
CO 1 eD15 1
l/2

Bl l

+ 0.01 e
N l 1
.

0.01 0 e * 10 2 .

.
t

.
C s

.
l

C YE NO

s l

NO
YES

* s .

..
.
I
3 I

PO

t
Cl, +

. .
c 6
.

Y
1

co
.
3 nth YE R b

NA 0
frrr POSSIB
rsquf
I,

.
7
2

P 2 - 7 1

0
0. 1
1 131

0.25 - 3 NE k - 10 1
I
.
.
5 IY

1 a 2

1 ylt 10
DP l

f
1 m1 0 a

co1
1 a 10 UF 5 a 7 1
l
*
* 1*
.

- *
N

NO
(FI E’?3 ‘IEfK:

.
3

*
NF 1 II
0 * 100 1
.

10 * 15 2

..
. .

N N

.
*

.
moncht S

13
.

*
t .
lb
mI m 1

PD a 0 20

W
I
fir 0.05 5 - 500 5 s 2

*
0.25 - 142 2 1 1

*
.
NO

n8n8 N R DED
ST)
newt NO
.
1

1
1 *

2/s

‘)
am

2/

, 1

3
.

0.01 .
5 . 9c 0.
l

.
.
l
A

s
II-*
,v

.
7 NO RECO T
ii

good HO CONY
l L

I
Stalid NO ,uOT R
stable”
(I

17
* 1 -. s .

1 0.3 1

1 0,s 1

1 0,s “ 1
.
*

NO

19
.

.
.
. I 0 (

t
I,

l
1

0, 0a 3 3 .

P tric i) 0, NR 1
NO

* L

2 N

0 N

. NO .RES

nma 4 NO

non NR NO

21 .
l
,

* 00

.
l
-2
i

1
*
*

I .

l
.

llr

Y t s GOT 3

10
l

11

13

14

.
0

l
23
l ‘
II 2
.
l

.
l

. *
l 5 l
. I
1

d*
E


l
l
will, h

methods,: wit
cho~i~e/chl suffer ftom as

. l
29
.. fcai

I: eV&lurffon of concan-
18!w of II QDOIIIIrrl
ati. ‘t
83. . -

iofiarrr=Ibd lm tho
ts with the ad

. . . 31
. *
.
* .

.,
.
.

.
e

*.
. .
l

.
*
.

. . .
*

.
. l

36
I

. I)
.

I .

a
37 a

.
.
‘ .
t
l
,
.
*
.

*
l

* . 38
*.

-- -
:
/

--- -
l
0
n
.
10 *

1 I)

1 *

*
.

14 4

13 *
*
m
.
‘icI, I and D rritfo
l

cf. 1
08 ’ *

. 22 .

23 *

27 l
A brief ard
v8riout rpec in .
IL
.

mm the s

8 I,
I HOt-, HO,, Ox, 0,-e
.

. T
APPENDIX E
INACTIVATIONS ACHIEVED
BY VARIOUS DISINFECTANTS
TABLE E-I
Cl' VALUES FOR INACrTVATBON
OF GIARDIA CYSTS BY FREECHLORINE
AT 0.5 C OR LOW
pH43 . pb7.0
L o (
(
- I
q -
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 23 3.0

n w. 82 109 1% 163 33 6s 130


28% W I12 140 168 33 67 I33
29n 86 I I5 143 7
I2 3468 I37
2 9 5 9 88 I I7 147 I76 urn 110
3060 90 110 150 I# 3672 I43
31 61 n I23 IS3 I84 n n 147
3263 9s I26 S
I8 189 u n IS1
3264 97 129 161 193 3977 IS4
3366 99 131 161 197 3979 IS7
34 67 101 134 1 4 m1 40 $1 I41
1168 103 t37 171' 20s 41 82 I 6
35'10 la 139 7
I4 209 42 84 IU
36 71 to7 142 In 213 43 86 171

05 1.0 1.5 2.0 25 3.0 os 1.0 is 2.0 2.1 3-0

55 110 IU
s7 114 171
59 118 l?i
61 I22 ' 8
I3
6) 1 2 s 188
6s 129 I94
66 I32199
68 I% 204
'Io 139 #)9
71 142 213
73 145 218
74 148 222
75 IS1 226
--
n 153 210
ATSC(I)

-
HLORINE pH<4 pH =6.5 pH ~ 7 . 0 #l=7.5
oNcENmATlON 4
- m- h
- h
-
l
4 4 0.S 1.0 I.J 20 2 5 3.0 6.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 OS 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.S 3.0 03 1.0 15 2.0 25 3.0

<=0.4 10 s 9 n 90117 111 IU


0.6 a0 10 a oo100120 1I4 I71
. 0.0 20 41 61 01 102 122 1I7 It!
I 21 42 63 U lo) 12s 'I I) l?!
I .2 21 42 H 05 106 In 122 IC
IA 22 43 o 07 to1 130 IS I&
I.6 22 u 66 II 110
132 I20 IW
' 1.0 23 4s 60 90 I35
113 131 m
2 23 46 69 92 115
I# 133 2ol
2.2 23 47 ?o 93 117 144 1% 2m
2.4 24 40 72 95 119 I43 13) PI
2.6 24 49 73 97122146 142 213
2.0 25 49 74 99 140
123 i45 211
3 21 42 a w I5 126
O 2s so 76 101 126 151 30 61 91 I21 IS2 IO I47 211
HUMINE pH40 pH4.5 pH < ~ 9 . 0
DNcENlmlmN lall-. 4- h
-
.kh) 0.5 1.0 15 2.0 2.) 3.0 0.) 1.0 IS 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.1 1.0 1.5 2.a 2s 3.0

<-0.4 SI 79 110 1 s 7 IQI m 4793 IY


0.6 41 81 122. 163 203 W 4997 tu
0.0 42 04 I26 160 210 252 JOm 2001
I 43 87 I# I f j 217 2W 52 lo) 200
I.2 4s 09 I,M I n m 261 53 O
I7 213
IA 46 91 . 137 13
. 228 ' 2 7 4 u 110 219
1.6 47 94 141 O I7 234 201 56 112 m
I .0 48 96 144 191 239 213 so I15 230
2 49 90 147 I% US 294 J 110 2s
2.2 so 100 IJO m m m 60 I 2 0 241
2A SI ' 102 I53 Z M . 255 306 61. In 245
2.6 52 lo( IS 6 208 2 a 312 63 I 2 5 250
2.8 53 IO6 IS9 212 265 310 H in 255 I .

3 51 IO8 270
216
I62 XU 6s 13Ol95 259324 9.3
AT IO C (I)
PILORINE pH<-6 pH4 . 5 pH =X0 pH-7.5
oNcENTMTloH
0.5
Lq
-
1.0 I S 2.0 2 5 3.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
L
q- w-
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 20 23 3.0

<~ 0 . 4 1 2 3 4 3 7 4 9 61 I5 29 1) 1 7 s m
~ n w 21
0.6 1 3 Z S # 5 0 63 IS 30 45 I8 36 54 71 09 21
101
0.8 l 3 2 6 S 5 2 61 I5 31 46 1 8 n u n n w 22
1 I 3 2 q 4 0 S 3 66 I6 31 47 I9 37 56 75 93 I l l 22
I.2 I3 27 40 53 67 16 32 U I9 3857 7695 IU 23
IA I 4 2 7 4 1 5 5 u I6 33 49 19 s sa n 97 IM 23
I .6 I4 .28 42 55 69 I7 33 so 2 0 4 0 6 0 7 9 9 9 I M 1)
1.I I4 29 43 S7 72 I7 34 51 20 6141 81 ICn 122 2s
2 1 5 2 9 4 4 % n 17 35 52 41 21 62 83 IO3 I24 n
2.2 I5 30 45 59 74 I8 35 53 21 42 64 85 oI6 m 26
2.4 I5 30 45 60 75 I8 36 54 22 43 6s I( la tm 26
2.6 IS 31 46 61 n 18 37 55 22 44 66 . 87 I@ 131 27
2.8 I 6 31 47 62 n 19 37 56 22 45 67 89 112 3 I4 27
3 1 6 3 2 4 8 6 3 7 9 % I9 38 n 23 46 t@ 91 I14 13l 28
'HUMINR pH4.0 pH~ 8 . 5 pH< r9.0
m c ~ m W
-
L L
q
-
.rdL) 0.5 1.0 i.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.J 1.0 1.5 2.5
2.0 3.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 23 3.0

<-0.4 2 5 5 0 n 89 118 I48 In 3s mm5 I B I 7 4 2 m


0.6 26 S I n n 122 s
I3 8 I3 36 73 Mp I45 182 218
0.8 26 53 79 % I26 I S 189 38 7S 113 151 188 226
I 2 7 % 81 98 130 I 6 3 1% 39 78 117 IS6 I% W
I .2 2 8 5 5 83 100 133 I67 200 40 m020 l a m ma
I .4 2853 8s Io3 !37 In 206 41 I24 I65 206 %7
I.6 29% 87 IO6 W I 176 211 42 84 2
I7 6
I9 211 2s
I .I 3060 #) O
I I 143 7
I9 215 43 86 1 9 7
I3 216 259
2 30 61 91 111 147 I 8 4 221 44 U 133 7
I7 221 %S
2.2 31 ' 62 93 . 113 150 I 8 8 22!5 45 90 I36 181 226 271
2.4 32 63 95 115' I53 192 230 46 92 3
I8 8
I4 276
230
2.6 326s 97 117 I S 6 1% 234 47 94 141 I87 234. 281
2.8 33 66 99 I20 I 5 9 I 9 9 239 48 96 144 I91 239 287
3 34 67 -
101 122 162 -
203 ?A3 49 97 146 IPS 243 292
HUMINE pH<4 pH173

-
'

ONCENtluTKm h
-
t h
-
en') 0.S 1.0 I5 2.0 25 3.0 05 1.0 15 20 2s 3.4

<a0.4 8 I 6 2 S 3 3 4 1 49
r o m ~ # 3 9 4 ? # s l 2 2 3 u4 7 % # 28
0.6 8 1 7 2 S 3 3 4 2 S O
1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 0 6 0 1 2 2 4 % 4860 U 29
0.8 9 1 7 % % 4 3 52
10 20 31 41 51 I261 24 49 61 '37 IS 29
I 9 1 8 2 7 % 4 4 5 3 1 1 - 21 32 42 53 63 13 25 38 50 63 IS 30
I.2 9 1 8 n ~ a 11 s 21 32 43 53 64 13 25 38 51 63 IS 31
I.I 9 1 8 2 8 3 7 4 6 U II 22 33 43 51 611 I 3 26 39 S2 U I6 31
1.6 9 1 9 2 8 3 ? 4 7 # 11 22 33 U 55 66 13 26 40 53 66 I6 32
I.8 IO 1 9 2 9 3848s 11 23 34 45 S7 68 I4 2 7 4 1 W 68 I6 33
2 10 I9 29 3 9 4 8 S8 I2 23 35 46 S8 6) I4 1 42 55 W I7 33
2:2 1 0 2 @ 3 0 3 9 4 9 9 12 23 3S 47 S8 '10 I4 28 '43 S7 71 I7 w
2.4 1 o m 3 0 4 0 s 0 6 0 1 2 2 4 % 4 8 6 0 7 2 1 4 2 9 4 3 S772 I8 3s
2.6 10 20 31 41 SI 61 I 2 2 4 3 7 4 9 6 1 7 3 1 5 2 9 4 4 $ 9 7 3 I8 36

-
'

2.8 10 21 31 41 S2 62 1 2 2 S 3 7 4 9 a 7 4 u s 3 0 4 s $ 9 7 4 I8 36
3 I 1 21 32 4 2 u 6 3 13 2S 38 SI 76 63 IS 30 46 61 16 91 I9 37 % n 93 II
HUMlNE pH4.0
ONCENTRAtloN h-
w-1 05 1.8 I.S 2.0 zs 3.0

<=0.4 1 I7 ..33 SO 66 &l 99 20399 79 93 117 UO


0.6 I7 34 SI U 83 101 20 64
11 Dl n 122 I46
0.8 I8 35'. S3 'FD 0 lab 4
22
1 63 84 101 124 151
I 18 M H n moa 22- 43 6s n 101 130 1%
I .2 I9 37 s6 74 93 I11 22 . . I S 67 89 107 I 3 3 I@
I.4 I9 38 S7 76 9S 114 2 3 4 6 6 ) 91 110 138 la
I .6 .1 I9 39 S8 n 97
116 a4 4
71
7 94 113 U1 169
I .8 20 40 60 79 99119 244872 w IIS 144 I73
2 20 41 61 81 101 1 2 2 2 s 4 9 7 4 98 I18 I 4 8 I77
2.2 S S O100 ~ I21 151 181
2.4 M 51 n 102 ID I53 IS4
2.6 26 52 n O
I4 I 2 5 In 188
2.8 22 44 66 88 110 132 27 53 10 I06 127 S I9 191
3 22 45 67 89 112 3
I4 27 W Dl IOD 135 162 I 33 6S 98 130 163 1%

(I) CT = c Gx~ivsrirrlia
99.9
AT2OC(I)

-
:HUlRINE pH =6.5 pW7.0 pW47.s
-ATION
YlL) 05 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.5
Lor
(
-
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
I
p l
- w-
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 05 1.0 1.5 2.0 25 3.0

' erO.4 6 I 2 18 %a36 7 1 s 2 2 2 9 3 7 4 4 9 I7 26 3s 43 10 21


0.4 6 13 I9 ZS32 R 8 I S 2 3 3 0 3 8 4 5 9 I8 27 36 45 II 21
0.8 '7 1 3 2 0 8 I 5 23 31- 38 46 9 18 28 3746 11 22
I 7 1 3 2 0 2 6 3 3 3 9 8 I6 U 31 39 47 9 19 28 37 47 11 22
I .2 7 1 3 2 0 2 7 3 3 4 0 8 I6 24 3 2 . 4 0 U 80 19 29 3a 48 I2 23
. 1.4 7 I 4 21. 27 M 41 8 I6 21 33 41 49 IO 19 29 3 9 4 8 I2 23
I.6 7 I4 21 28 3 S 4 2 8 172S 1 3 4 2 W IO 10 30 39 49 I2 w
I .I 7 14 22 29 3 6 4 3 9 I 7 26 W 43 51 10 20 31 41 SI I2 21
2 7 1 s 2 2 2 9 3 7 4 4 9 1726 3 5 4 3 S 2 IO 21 31 41 M 13 21
2.2 ? I S 2 2 2 9 3 7 4 4 9 11127 3 5 ~ s
II 21~ 32 as3 13 26
2.4 8 I S 2 3 m S 4 S 9 1 8 2 7 3 6 4 5 s I1 22 33 43 w 13 26
2.6 8 I S 2 3 31 3 8 4 6 9 I 8 2 8 3 7 4 4 S S I1 22 33 44s 13 27
2.8 8 16 24 31 39 47 9 1 9 2 83 7 4 7 % I1 22 34 45 56 w 27
3 8 16 24 31 39 47 IO 19 29 3 8 4 8 51 11. 23 34 45 9 u I 4 2 8 4 2 U Q
IUWNE . pH4.0 pHr8.5 pH <t9.0
oNcENTMI1oN Lq-. w- 4
t
-
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.S 3.0 0.1 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.S 3.0 0.5 1.0 t.5 2.0 25 3-0

<10.4. I S 3 0 4 5 97489 I8 35 S3
0.6 IS. 31 16 61 n ,n I8 36 SS
0.8 I3 26 40 W.66 79 1 6 3 2 4 8 6 3 7 9 % I9 38 n
I I4 27 41 S4 ' 68 81 163349 6 5 8 2 9 8 2039s9
1.2 I4 28 42 5s 49 83 17 33 50 67 83 100 m l o d o
IA I4 28 43 57 71 8S 17 34 'S2 69 86 103 41 21
. 62
1.6 1s2944unn I8 '35 53 10 U OI5 21 42 63
I.8 IS 3 0 4 5 s974 89 18 w 72 90101 22 43 65
2 I5 30 46 61 76 91 I8 37 55 73' 92 110 2 2 4 4 6 6
2.2 1631 47 6 2 7 8 9 3 19 38 57 75 94 113 231568
2.4 I6 32 48 63 79 95 19 3S U n 96 I15 2 3 . 46 69
2.6 16 32 . 49 65 81 97 20 H n P I I W 24 47 71
21 17 33 50 66 13 99 20 10 60 79 99119 2 4 4 8 7 2 - .
3 17 34 51 67 84 I01 20 41 61 81 IOL I22 i.
TABLE 6-6
cr VALUESFOR'INACTIVATION
OF OlARMA CYSCI BY FREE CHUWUNE
AT 25 C (I)
MIBRINE pll< =6
. . pH =6.5 pH =7.0 fls7.5
x)NcENTMTK))J
k0.5
<m0.4 4
1.0

8
b.-

I2
IJ . 2.0 2 5

16 2@ .34
3.0
-
0.5

S IO
I
q -
1.0 1.5
L_
2.0 2.5 3.0

IS 19 24 29
P
OS

6
La

I2 88
-
(
l
1.0 1.S 2.0

23
2.5

29
-
3.0

31
0.s

7
1.0

I4
h
l
-
13 2.0 25 3.0

0.6 4 8 , I3 17 21 25 S l O l 5 2 0 2 5 M 6 I2 I8 24 30 % 7 I4
.. 0.8 4 9 1 3 1 7 2 2 2 6 5 10 16 21 26 31 6 I2 19 25 31 37 7 1s
I 4 9 13 1 7 2 2 2 6 S 16 16 21 26 31 6 I 2 19 25 31 37 8 IS
I.2 5 9 1 4 1 8 2 3 2 7 s II 16 21 n a 6 13 I9 25 32 38 8 I5
- 1.4 5 9 1 4 1 8 2 3 2 7 6 11 17 22 28 33 7 1 3 2 0 2633 39 8 I6
I .6 5 9 U 1 9 2 3 2 8 6 I1 I7 22 28 33 7 1 3 1 0 n n 40 8 I6
. 1.8 5 IO IS I9 24 29 6 1 1 17 2 3 2 8 3 4 7 21 14 n w 41 8 I6
2 S IO IS I9 24 29 6 12 I8 2 3 2 9 35 7 I4 21 27 34 41 8 I7
. 2.2 5 IO I5 2025s 6 12 I8 23 29 35 7 I4 21 28 35 42 9 I7
2.4 S IO 15 2 0 2 5 30 6 I2 I8 1A 3036 7 1 4 2 2 2 9 % 43 9 I7
2.6 5 IO I6 21 26 31 6 I 2 19 25 31 3l 7 1 5 2 2 2 9 3 7 U 9 I8
2.8 5 IO 16 21 26 31 6 I2 19 25 31 fl 8 I S 2 3 3038 4s 9 I8
3 5 II 16 21 n 32 6 1 3 1 9 25323 9 I8 28 37 1 6 . 5 3

HLORINB pH-8.0 pH183


m
l-
N L
q- a
l-
l
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 23 3.0 0.S 1.0 1.S 2.5
2.0 3.0
EL-mE

<~ 0 . 4 8 1 7 , 25 33 42 SO l o 2 0 3 0 3 9 4 9 1
0.6 9 I7 26 34 43 SI IO 20 31 41 S I 61
0.8 9 1 8 z 1 % U S 3 II 21 32 42 53 63
1 9 I 8 2 7 3 6 4 5 s II 22 33 43 ' 5 4 6s
I.2 9 1 8 2 8 3 7 4 6 S S I1 2 2 . 34 45 56 67
IA 1 0 1 9 2 9 3 8 4 8 5 7 12 23 3s' 46 u . 69
I.6 IO 19. 29 39 U SI I2 23 ' 35 47 u 'fl
I.I 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 9 6 0 I 2 2 4 3 6 4 8 6 0 7 2
2 IO 20 31 41 S I 61 1 2 2 5 3 7 4 9 6 2 7 4
2.2 10 21 31 41 S2 62 I3 2S 38 SO 63 75 .
2.4 II 21 32 *2 s3 63 13 26 39 51 61 n
2.6 II 22 33 43 54 8 1 3 . 26 39 S2 U n
2.8 II 22 33 u ss 66 13 27 4U 153 67 10
3 II 22 34 45 # 6 7 I4 27 41 S4 68 I1

99.9
4

TABLE E-7
CT VALUES FOR
CTIVATION OF VIW BY FREE
*

Inactivation
2
.0 3
.0 4.0
DH A A
mlR-wLu 4rp lQ 4=9 1p fi=9 1p
0.5 6 45 9 66 . 12 90
5 4 30 6 44 ' 8 60
10 3 22 4 . 33 6 45
' 15 2 15 3 22 4 30
20 11 1 2 16 3. 22
25 1 7 1 11 2 " 15

Notes:
1. Basis for values given in Appendix F.
TABLE €08
CT VALUES FOR
INACTIVATION OF GIARDIA CYSTS . .
By DIQLIIPT(1)

e-t IC\
ImaiYum sd J, u ls 2p 21
0.5-10g 10 4.3 2.54 3.2 2
1-log 21 8.7 7.7 6.3 ' 5 3.1
1.5-log 32 13 12 ' 10 7.5 5.5
240g 42 17 15 13 10 7.3
2.5-1 Og 22 52 19 16 13 9
3-1Og 63 26 23 19 15 11

m:
1. Basis for values given i n Appendix F.
TABLE E-9
CTVALUESFOR
INACTIVATION OF VIRUSES
Yb
O
r
-X
Mf DH 6-9(1)

Rrmoval
2-109 8.4 5.6 4.2 2.8 . 2.1 1.4
. .
3-1 Og 25.6 17.1 12.8 8.6 6.4 4.3
4-1 Og 50.1 33.4 25.1 ' 16.7 12.5 8.4

Notes:
1. Basis for valuesgiven i n Appendix f.
TABLE E-10
CT VALUES FOR
gy Q&’)
INACTIVATION OF GIARDIA CYSTS
I -

O 5-1 Og 0.48
0..120.160.230.32 0.08
1-log 0.63 0.97 0.16 0.480.24 0.32
1.5-1Og 1.5 0-95 0.72 0.48 0.36 0-24
2-log 1.9 1.3. 0.95 0.63 0.48 0.32
&5-11.6og 2.4 1.2 0.79 0-60 0.40 ’

3-1Og 1.9 2.9 1.43 0.72


0.95 . .
’ 0.48

: m:
1. Basis for values given in Appendix f.
TABLE E-11

240g 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.3 0825 0.15


3-1 Og 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.4 - 0825
4-1 Og 188 1.2 1e o 0.6 0.5 0.3

m:
1. Basis for valuesgiven i n Appendix F.

..
c
CT VALUES FOR
INACTIVATION OF G I A R D I A (frSfS
Y C H L O R W OH 6-9

<rl s zT eraturc fCI


152Q L .
. 635 365 310 250 185 125
1,270 735 615 500 . '370 250
1 ,900 1,100 930 . 750 550 ' 375
2,535 1,470 1,230 1,000 735 -500
3,170 1,830 1 540 1 250 915 625
3,800 2 200 1,850 1,500 1,100 750

1. ' Basis for values given in Appendix F.


TABLE E-13
Cl VALUES FOR .
OF VIRUqFS BY CHL6RAMfNE(’)

321 2- 1og
428 643 857 1,243 214
3-1 09 2,063 1,423 356 1 067534 712
4-1 Og zl883 1,988 1,491746 994 497

Notes :
1. Basis for valuesgiven i n Appendix F.
TABLE €014

-oL Ion
3.0
21 36

Note:
1, Basis for valuesgiven i n Appendix F,
....

APPENDIX F
BASIS FOR C f VALUES
F.l.l free sorb
- APPENDIX F

The CT values f o r f r e e c h l o r i n e i n Tables E-1 through E-6 are based *

on a statistical analysis (Clark et al.,' 1988; attached t o t h i s appendix),


which considered both animal i n f e c t i v i t y s t u d i e s ( H i b l e r e t ale-, 1987) and
excystation studies (Jarroll et a1,, 1981; Rice e t a1 ., 1982; Rubin e t
.,
a1 1988) A m u l t i p l i c a t i v e model was selected t o bestrepresentthe
chemical reactions during the fnactivatidn process. This model was
applied t o each of the data sets, listed above,and i n various cunbina-
. tions. The animal i n f e c t i v i t yd a t a were included i na l l combinations -
studieb. The animal i n f e c t i v i t dy a t a was considered essential. for
inclusion in all the analysis of wmbineddata sets because i t included
many more data points than the other data sets, a l l o f which represented
' i n a c t i v a t i o nl e v e l sa t 99.99 percent. Because oflimitationswiththe
excystation methodology, only dataforachievinglessthan 99.9 percent
inactivation was available from such studies.
Statistical analysis supported the choice o f combining the Hibler et
. .
a1 and t h e J a r r o l l e t a1 data (and excluding the Rice e t a1 e (1981) and
Rubin e t a l . (1987) data), t o form thebest f i t model for predicting CT
values for d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of itiactivation. As a conservative regulatory
strategy, Clark and Regli (1990) (attached a t t h e end o f t h s i appendix) ,
recotmended t h a t C f values f o dr i f f e r e n lte v e l so ifn a c t i v a t i o n be '

detemined by a p p l y i n gf i r s to r d e rk i n e t i c st ot h e 99 percent upper.


confidence interval of the CT ,., values predicted by the model.
The model was applied using the above strategy asa safety factor,
t o determine the CT values ranging from 0.5-10g to'3-log inactivation at
0.5 and 5 C. CT values for temperatures above 5 C were estimated assuming
a twofold decrease for every 10 C. CT values f o r temperatures a t 0.5 C
were estimated assuminga 1.5 timesincrcase t o CT values a t 5 C. This
. general p r i n c i p l ei s ,supportedby Hoff (1986). It i s important t o note
thatthe CT values for freechlorine are sensitivetotheresidual
F-1
r

' concentration, C. For exdmple, at. a pH o f 7 and a temperature of 10 C, a . -


3-100 cyst inactivation tesultt from a C f o f 107 ng/L-ain with a
free residual of .0.6 g/L and aCT o f 124 mg/L-ain with a freeresidual of
2.0 mg/L.
Application of the model to pHs above 8, up to 9, nas considered
reasonable because the model is substantially sensitiveto pH (e.g., CTs
at pH 9 are over threet i m s greater thanCTs at pH 6 and over two times:
.
greater than CTs at pH 7) At a pH o f 9, approxiaately four percent of
the hypochlohut acid fraction o f fret chlorine isstill p r e s e k Recent
data indicate thatin terms o f HOCl residuals (versus total free chlorine
residuals includingHOCl and OC1') the CTproducts requiredfor inactiva-
tion o f E i a r u muris and -din cysts decrease with increasing
. .
pH from 7 to 9 (Leahy et a1 , 1987; Rubin etale, 1988b) However, with
increasing pH, the fraction of free chlorine existing as the m a k e r +

oxidantspecies (OC1') increases. In t e r n o f total freechlorine


residuals (i .e., HOCl and OCl-) theCT products required for inactivation
of E i a r u cysts increase with increasing pH fm 7 to '9 by less
than a factor of 2 at concentrations 6f less than. 5.0 og/L (see *

Table F-1). Also, the significance o f pH on the value o f CT products


achieving 99 percent inactivation appears to decrease with decreasirig
temperature and free chlorine concentration. The relative effectso f pH,
temperature, and chlorine concentration,on inactivatfon of Giardia
cysts appears to be the same for m r d i a cysts (Rubinet a1 .,
1988b), although aot as much data for Giardia h&.Lbcysts for high pH
and temperaturevaluesasfor nuzh cysts is yet available.
F.1.2 @one md Chlorine Oioxidg
The CT values for ozone in Table E-10 are based on disinfection
studies
using yitrp . excystation of Giardia
. (Wickramanayake, 6. e., et al., 1985)'. CT,, values at 5 C and pH 7 for
ozone ranged from 0.46 t o 0.64 (disinfectant concentrations. ranging from
0.11 to 0.48. olg/L). No CT values were available for other pHs. The
highest CT,, value, 0.64, was used as a basis for extrapolation to obtain
the CT values at 5 C, assuming first order kinetics and applying a safety
factor o f 2, e.g., (0.64 X 3/2 X 2 = 1.9). .CT values for temperatures
F-2
TABLE F-1

Temperature Comttation
QM (CI w w 2.015.11
7 1 500 760 1,460 1,200
15 200 290 360 290
8 1 510 820 1,300
15 220 320
9 1 440 1,100 1,300 2,200 .
15 3 10 420 620 760

..

. .
above 5 C were estimated assuming a twofold decrease for every 10 C. CT
values f o r temperatures a t 0.5 C were estiratcd assuming a 1.5 t i b s
increase t o CT values a t 5 C.
The CT values'for:chlorinedioxide I n Table E 4 are based on
disinfectionstudiesusing yftrQ excystationofEJardip mr'rn CT,,
values a t pH 7 and 1 C, 5 C, 15 C and 25 C (Leahy, 1985 and Rubin, 1988b).
The average CT,, value a t each teatperatun (27.9 a t 1 C, 11.8 a t 5 C, 8.5
a t 15 C, and 4.7 a t 25 C) was extrapolated using f i r s t order kinetics and
multiplied bya safety factor of 1.5 t o obtain the CT,,., values, e.g.,
a t 1 C, C,,., 927.9 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 63.
Because of the limited data available at pHs other than pH 7, the tam CT
valuesarespecified for a l l pHs. Although most o f t h e 'CT,, data were
determined a t pH 7, it i s known that chlorine dioxide is amre e f f e c t i v e a t
pH 9. Thus, the CT values i n the rule are more conservative for higher
pHs than f o r lower pHs.
A lower safety factor i s used for chlorine dioxide than for ozone,
because thedata was generated using
Eiardia
cysts
nhi,ch
are more
resistant
than M b l i a cysts. Cf values .at
other
temperatures .
mr.e estimated, based on the same r u l e o f thumb a u l t i p l i e r s assumed f o r
ozone
A larger safety factor was applied to the ozone and chlorine dioxide
. datathan tothechlorinedata because:
a. Less data were available for ozoneand chlorine dioxide than
for chlorine;
b. Data available for ozone and chlorine dioxide, because o f t h e
limitations of the excystationprocedure, only reflected up t o
o rs l i g h t 1 beyond 99 percentinactivation. Data forchlo-
i
rine, base on animal Infectivity studies rather than excysta-
t i o n procedures, reflectedinactivationof 99.99 percent..
Extrapolation of data t o achieve C f values f o r 99.9 percent
inactivation with ozone and chlorine dioxide, involved greater
uncertaintythanthedirectdeterminationof CT values f o r
99.9 percentinactivationusingchlorine. .

C. The CT values f o r ozoneand chlorine dioxide t o achieve 99.9


percent inactivation are feasible to achieve; and
d. Use o f ozoneand chlorine dioxide i s l i k e l y t o occur w i t h i n
the.plantratherthan i n thedistribution system (versus
chlorine and ,chloramines which are the likely disinfectants
F-3
..

,/- -
, for we i n thedistrtbution system). Contact m ti e masure-
mntr within the plant w l
i involve nater uncertainty than
0
measurement of contact time i n p i p e l net.

€PA recognizes that the CT values for ozoneand chlorine dioxide are ,

based on l'imited data.Therefore, €PA encourages thegenerationof


' additional data i n dCCOrdanCe with the'protocols provided i n Appendix 6 t o ,

determineconditionsotherthanthespecified CT values,' for providing


effective disinfection at a particular system.
.-
F.1.3 Qdorwnius
The CT values f o r chloramines i n Table E-12 are basedon disinfec-
tionstudiesusingprefonacd chloramines And In Y l f f b 'excystation of
(Rubin, 1988). Table F-2 suamarizes CT values for achieving
99 percentinactivation O f Giardia cysts. The highest CT values for
achieving 99 percent inactivation at 1 C (2,500) and 5 C (1.,430) were each
multiplied by 1.5 (i.e., first order kinetics w en assumed) t o estimate
the CTh,, values a t 0.5 C and 5 C, respectively, :in Table 512: The CT,,
value o f 970 a t 15 C was multiplied by 1.5 to'estimate the CT,,., value.
The highest CT, value of 1,500 a t 15 C .and pH 6 was not usedbecause i t
appearedanomalous to the other data. Interesting to note i s that among
the data i n Table F-2 the CT values i n the.lowerresidualconcentration
range (Q mg/L) are higher than those'in the higher residual concentration
range (2-10 mg/L) . This i s opposite t o 'therelationship between these
variables for free chlorine.: For chloramines, residual concentration may
have greater influence than contact time on the inactivation of Giardia.
cysts within the range of chloramine p s i d u a l concentrations practiced by
water u t i l i t i e s ( l e s s than 10 a g / L ) . .No safetyfactor was applied t o
these data since chloramination, conducted i n the field,--is more effebtive.
. than
using preformed chloramines. Also, appears t o be more
resistant than t o chloramines (Rubin, 1988b).
The protocol i n Appendix G can. be used t o demonstrate i f less
stringentdisinfectionconditionsthanthosecited i n Table €012 c a i
achievecomparable levels o f inactivation for specific system characteris- ,: '

tics.

F-4
TABLE F-2
CT VALUES FOR 99 PERCENT
CTIVATION OF U D I A N R I S CYSTS By -m
(Source: Rubin, 1988) . .. ..

Temperature loraminc C o n w t r a t
ptt A a
2
6 15 1,500
5 >1,500 .-
1 >1 a 500
7 15 ~970
5 >970
1 2 ,500
8 15 1,000
5 >1,000
1 >1,000 .
9 15 890
5 990
1 a90

*CT valueswith ">Ic signs areextrapolated from the known data.


F.2

F.2.1 free C h l o r b . - .
CT values f o r f r e e c h l o r i n e a r e based on data by Sobsey (lm)
for
inactivation of Hepatitus A virus (HAV), Strain HM175, a t pH 6,7,8,9 and
10, chlorine concentrations of 0.5 t o 0.2, and atemperature o f 5 C, as
contained i n Table F-3. The highest CT value f o r t h e pH range 6-9 f o r *

achieving 2, 3, and 4-log inactivation of HAV mre m u l t i p l i e d by a safety


factorof 3 t o o b t a i n t h e CT values l i s t e d i n Table E-7. (e.g; , the CT .
valueforachieving&toginactivationat pHs 6-9 was determinedby
multiplying 2.55 X 3 = 7.6 = 8). The CT values a t pH 10 were significant-
ly higherthanthose f o r pHs 6-9 and areconsideredseparately. The CT
values i n Table E-7 f o r pH 10 alsoincludeasafetyfactorof 3. CT
values a t temperatures other than 5 C were determined assuming a w to fold
decrease for every 10 C increase. CT values for inactivating viruses i n
general are based on HAV data since they give h'igher CT'values than ttiose
for inactivation of polio and rotaviruses under similar conditions of pH
and 'temperature (Hoff , 1986)

F.2.2 Qilorine . .
Dioxide
Data by Sobsey (1988) for inactivation of Hepatitus A virus, strain
HM 175, by a chlorine dioxide concentration of 0.5 mg/l a t pH 6 and 5 C i s
shown i n Table F-4. The CT values i n Tab1e E-9 f o r pHs' 6-9 andtempera-
t u r e = 5 C were determined by applying a safety factor of 2 t o the average
CT valuespresented i n Table F-4 a t pH 6. Thissafetyfactor 4s lower
thanthat used t o determine CT values for chlorine because chlorine
dioxide appears t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more e f f e c t i v e a..t'higher pHs and.most.
waters are assumed t o have a higher pH than 6.
CT values a t ' temperatures other than 5 C i n Table E-9 were
determinedby applyingatwofold decrease f o r every 10 C increase. The
datafor pH 9 was not considered because i t i s verylimited and other:
viruses are more resistant to chlorine dioxide than Hepatitus A i s a t pH
9 . According t o H o f f (1986) a t a pH of 9 and atemperature o f 21 C, a CT .
o f 0.35 provides a 4-109 i n a c t i v a t i o n o f p o l i o v i r u s 1. Applying the same
safety factor and r u l e o f thumb m u l t i p l i e r s t o t h i s data results in a CT
F-5
.
* .of 2.8 f o r a 4-109 virus Inactivation at *0SoC, i n contrast t o a CT of
50.1 resulting from the Hepatitus A data a t pH 6. Therefore, i n order t o
assure inactivation of Hepatitus A, thehigher CT valuesare needed.
Systems wlthhigh pHs nay wish t o demonstrate the effectivenessof
chlorine dioxide at lower CT values based on the protocol i n Appendix 6.
Chlorinedioxide i s much more effective for Inactivating rotavirus and
polio virus than i t i s f o r i n a c t i v a t i n g HAV (Hoff 1986).
.-
F.2.3 m r a m i M
The CT values i n Table €013 a t 5 C m n based d i r e c t l y on data by
Sobsey (1988) using prefolarcd chlormines at pH 8. No safetyfactor'was
applied to the laboratory data since chloramination 'in the field, where
some 'transient presenceof free chlorine wouldoccur, i s assumed mri
effective than preformedchloramines.
HAV i t l e s sr e s i s t a n t o preformedchloramines than are 6ther
viruses. For example, CTS of 3,800-6,500 were needed for 2-log inactiva-
t i o n o f simianrotavirusat pH = 8.0 and ttraperature I 5 C ( h a m and
Hoff, 1984) However; these S- virusesareverysensitive t o free
chlorine. CT values ranging from less than 0.025 t o 2.16 were required t o
achieve 99 percent inactivation of rotavirus by free chlorine at 'pH I 6-10
and tunperature 4-5 C (Hoff, 1986). HAV i s amre resistanttofree
chlorine than are rotavi ruses
The C f values i n Table E-13 apply f o r systems using combined
chlorine where chlorine i s added p r i o rt o anraonia i n thetreatment
sequence. Thisshouldprovidesufficientcontactwithfreechlorineto
assure inactivation of rotaviruses. CT valuesTable E-13 shouldnot be
used forestimatingtheadquacyofdisinfectioninsystemapplying
prefonaed chlo'ramines or ruanonia ahead o f chlorine, since C f values based
on HAV inactivation with preformedchloramines may not be adequate for
destroying rotaviruses. In systems applyingpreformedchloramines, i t i s
reconmended that inactivationstudies as o u t l i n e di n Appendix G be
performed withBacteriophage"S2 as theindicatorvirusto determine
sufficient Cf values.Also,theprotocol i n Appendix G canbeused .by
systems applying chlorine ahead o f w n i a t o demonstrate less stringent
disinfection conditions than those indicated i n Table E-13.
F-6
TABLE F-3
CT VALUES FOR INACTIVATION OF HEPATITUS A VIRUS
Y F W N E .
(Source: Sobsey 1988) . *

OH

4 2 B 9 ' u
1.18 0.70 1.oo 1.25 19.3
1.75 1.07 1.51 . 1.9 14.6
2.33 1.43 2.03 2.55 9.0

.
1ABLE F-4
CT VALUES FOR INACTIVATION OF HEPATITUS A VIRUS
BY CHLORINE DIOXIDE ( W s E y 1988)

Experiment -2 Concentrati,onWL!
.No. lnitidl AY=a!E ' .
1 0.49 .- 0.32
2 0.50 ' 0.33
3 0.51 0.36
- 4 0.51 0.37
pH9 1 0.5 * 0.5
2 0.5 0.5

.
Inactivation Time

pH6
Lo9
Inactivation
2
4
3
12
1
9
2030 22 29
55 43 59
(mi n\

2
t No.
3
5
4
7
39
* 1
3.8
7.47.99.69.4
-
CT1

2
3.0
3 4
1.8 2..82.6
Average
Cf
8.6
' *
17 20 16 14 ' 16.7

1. CT values were obtained by multiplying inactivation time by the average


concentration shown above for each experiment.
6

F.2.4 *[lzonc
No laboratory Cf values based on inactivation of HAV virus are yet
available for ozone.Basedon data f m Roy (1982), .amean C f value of
0.2 achieved 2-109 inactivation of poliovirus 1 a t 5 C and pH 7.2. h c h
lower CT valuesare needed t o achieve a 2-log inactivation of mtavims
(Vaughn, 1987). No CT values were available for achieving greater than a
2.109 inactivation. The CT values i n Table E-11 forachieving2-log
inactivation at 5 C were detenained by applying a safety factor of 3 to
thedata frola Roy (1982). CT values f o r 3 and 4-loginactivation were
dttemined by applying f i r s t order kinetics andassuming the same safety
factor of 3. CT values were adjusted for temperatures other than 5 C by
applyingatwofold decrease forevery 10 C increase. Based
on the
available data, CT valuesfor ozone disinfection are not strongly
dependenton pH. Therefore, data obtained a t pH = 7.2 i s assumed t o apply
for pHs i n t h e rangeof 6.0 t o 9.0, However, i t should be noted that the
maintenance o f an ozone residual i s affected by pH.
..
F.2.5 g i t r a v i o l e t LiQbt !UVl
The CT values f o r i n a c t i v a t i o n o f viruses by UV are, basedon studies . '

by Sobsey (1988) on inactivation of Hepatitis A virus (HAV) by UV. These


data wereusedbecause HAV hasbeen established asan important cause o f
waterborne
disease. The CT values were derived by applyingasafety .
factor of 3 t o t h e HAV inactivation data. The CT values i n Table E-14 are .
higher than the CT values for UV inactivation of poliovirus 1 and simian
rotavirus from previous studies (Chang e t a1 1985). .,
F.2.6 potassium P e m
Potassium permanganate i s a comnonly used oxidant i n water
treatment.Preliminarytesting by Yahya, e t a1 1988, indicatesthat
potassium permanganate nay contributetovirusinactivation. The t e s t
dataincluded i n Table F-5 indicatestheinactivation of bacteriophage
MS-2 usingpotassjum permanganate with a purewater-buffersolution.
These data do not include safety factors. It i s l i k e l y t h a t CT values for
actual water treatment processes w l d i f f e r from these values. This data
i
has only been providedhere asan indication o f the potential of potassium .

F-7
nu4 nu&
0.5 27.4 a(') 264 a
1.5 32.0 a W.9 b
2.0 ND(~) * 53.5 c
5.0 63.8 a 35.5 c

1. Letters
indicate
different
cxperikntal
conditions.
determined.
Not
2.

.
THEBASISFOR C'T VALUES I N THE SURFACE
WATER ,

TREATMENT RULE : INACTIVATION BYCHLORINE

Robert I
!. Clark, Director
Drinking Water Research Division
Risk Reduction ,Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268

and

S t i g Reg1i
Office o f Drinking Water
.
U. S Environmental Protect ion Agency'
Washington, DC 20460 .

RISK REDUCTIONENGINEERINGLABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEAReH AND DEVELOPMENT *
U. S. ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
CINCINNATI, OH 45268

February 1991
THE BASIS FOR GIARora C'T VALUES 'IN THE SURFACE WATER
TREATMENT RULE: INACTIVATION BY CHLORINE

bY

Robert W. Clark,' and Stig Reglib

INTRODUCTION

The 1986 amendments to the SafeDrinking Water Act(SDWA) require €PA to


(a) specifying criteria under
promulgate primary drinking water regul ations
which filtration would be required, (b) requiring disinfection,as a treatment
technique for a11 public water systems, and (e) establishing maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) or treatment ,requirements for control
of Giardia
lamblia, viruses, Leafonella, heterotrophic plate countbacteria, and
turbidity, EPA has promulaged treatment technique requirements tofulfill the
SDWA requirement for systems usingsurface waters and ground waters under the
direct influence o f surface water.' Additional regulations specifying
disinfection requirements for systems using ground water sources
not under the
direct influence of surface water will be proposed and promulgatedat a later
date. This paper presents a model that relates pH, temperature, chlorine
- .
concentration, and inactivation level to Elardla inactivation by free
chlorine. Because Uardia lamblia is known to be one of the most resistant
organisms to disinfectionby.ch1orine found in water, much interestand effort

a
Director, Drinking Water Research Division, Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory, 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio45268
bUSEPA, Office of Drinking Water,,401 M Street,'S.W., Washington, DC 20460
has been devoted t o determination of C't values for h'uThe
.
* .
model has been usedto predict 'C't" values that have been Included as part of
EPA's Surface Water Treatment Rule (SUTR).
BACKGROUND ' 5

Under the SUR all conanunity and non-cokunity public water systems using & 9 ? -

surface water, or ground water under the direct influenceof surface water,
are required to provide ainimurn disinfection'to control fjiardil\rmb'la,
enteric viruses and bacteria.' In addition,.unless the source water i s well
(total or fecal io1 iforms
protected and meets certain water quality criteria
and turbidlty limits), treatment must also Include filtration. The treatment
provided, in any case, isrequired to achieve.at least 99.9 percent removal
. and/or inactivation of Giardia Jambliq cysts
and a t least 99.99 percent
i removal and/or inactivation of viruses (i.e., virus of fecal origin and
. .
infectious to humans). Unfiltered systems are required to demonstrate that .
. disinfection alone achieves the minimum performance requirements by monitoring . %;

disinfectant residual(s), disinfectant contact time(s), pH (if chlorine, is


used), and water temperature. These data must. be applied to determine if their
# C a t ' value [the product of disinfectant concentration (mg/L) and disinfectant .
-
-.r

a.--
-;
i,

contact (minutes)] equals or exceeds the C't values for fifardia


. .
specified in the SUR.' With the exception ofchloramines, where amnonia is
added prior to chlorine, these C't values are also adequate. to achieve greater
than 99.99 percent inactivation of viruses. For filtered systems, statesare
required to specifythe level of disinfection.foreach system to ensure that
their overall treatment achieves at least 99.9 and 49.99 percent removal .
and/or inactivation of Giardia jamblla cystsand viruses, respectively.1
In the Guidance Manual to theSWTR, €PA recomnends C't values for
different disinfectantsto achieve levelsof inactivation for unfiltered
systems, filtered systems will be required to rehieve lessInactivation then
required for unfiltered systems. The percent inactivation that filtered
I - .
systems should achieve as a function of the filtration technology in place and
source water quality conditions
is-also recouunended.'
. PROBLCU
The destructiono f pathogens by chlorination is dependent 'on 8 number of
factors, including water temperature, pH, disinfectant contact t h e , degree of
mixing, turbidity, presence of interfering substances, rnd concentrationof
chlorine avallable. The pH has a significant effect on Inactivation
efficiency because it determines the speciesof chlorine found in solution,
each of which has a different inactivation efficiency.
The impact of temperature on disinfection efficiency is alsoslgnificant.
For Example, Clarke's work in virus destruction by chlorine indicates 'that
contact time must be increased two to three times when the
temperature is
lowered 10°C.3 Disinfection by chlorination can inactivate Eiardigcysts, but
only under rigqrous conditions. Host recently, Hoff et al, concluded that (1)
these cysts areamong the most resistant pathogens known, (2)disinfection at
low temperatures is especially difficult, and (3) treatment processes prior to
disinfection are important.'
Typical C't values for 99 percent inactivation of Eiardia Jamblla
by free
chlorine a t different temperatures and pH values are shown in Table 1.

3
TABLE 1. COT VALOES FOR 99% INACTIVATION OF &IARDIt' g!.

LAMBLfA CYSTS BY FREE CHLORINE

e
Disinfectant
Concentration
Temp TIN Mean No. o f
(OC PH (RIo/L) (ain)
C't C't Experiments
5 6 1;.0-8 0 6-47 47*84 65 . I
7 2.0-8.6 7-12 56-152 97 3
8 2.0-8.0 72-164 72-164 -110 3
IS. 6 2.5-3.0 7 18-21 20 2
7 2.5-3.0 6-18 18-45 32 2
8 2.5-3.0 7-21 . 21-52 37 2
25 6 1.5 c. 6 C 9 C 9 1
7 1.5 ( 7 (10 c10 1
8 1.5 c8 4 2 <12 . 1

Jarrollet ol., usingvitrQexcystationto determine cyst.'viabtlity, -A


.*b,

. .
. showed that greaterthan 99.8 percent o f Eiardia Jamblipcysts can be killed -E-?
by exposure to 2.5 arg/L o f chlorine for 10 minutes at l5'C and pH 6, or after
60 minutes at pH 7 or 8. At S°C, exposure'to 2 mg/L of chlorine killed at
least 99.8 percent o f all cysts at pH 6 and 7 after 60 minute^.^ While it
. .
required 8 mg/L to kill the same percentage of cysts at pH 6 and 7 after 10
-
minutes, it required8 mg/L to inactivate cysts to thesame level at pH 8
after 30 minutes. Inactivation rates decreased at lower temperatures and at
higher pH values as indicated by the higher C ' t values.
Because 'of theobvious interactions among these variables it i s essential
that a model be developed for predicting C't values under the various
conditions that ray exist. in drinking water,systems,

4
OBJECTIVE
As Indicated, @any factors Influence U d i a tambllr reaction kinetics.
The objectlveof the study described In thls papertherefore 1s to develop an'. .-..
equation that will relate C't values for inlctivated by chlorlne to
such factors 8s pH, temperature, level' of Inrctlv8tion m d chlorlne
concentration. As mentloned previously, this equation ultlaately provided the ,

values presented In the SWTR and rssoclrted Guldance Manual for dlslnfectlon
of- 5 by free chlorlne.
SIGNIFICANCE
The significance of these efforts relates to thefact that EPA's Office
of Drinking Water has adopted the C't concept to quantify the inactivatlonof
Giardia lamblia by disinfection with free chlorine. Whether ornot a utility
is forced to install surface water treatmentwill depend, on its ability to
meet the C't values specified by the SUTR. Even if the utility is not
required to install filtration a utility may haveto make significant
. investments in holding basins and disinfection capacity In order to meet these
' requirements. Therefore C't values established under the.SUTR will be
extremely important to the'drinking water'industry and the authors believeit'
is important that the industry understand the basis for the procedures used t o
estimate these values. This paper describes the wayin which C't values were
6 calculated for the MR. It Is unlikely that'utilities can directlyuse the.
models developed in this paper, although it is important that they understand ,

the mechanism by which C't values have been derived. Tables generatedfrom
the wdel will be useful as they provide theC't values for 5iardiainacti-
vation by chlorine that utilities must achieve. These tables are presented at
the end .of the paper. .

5
f"--i.
THEORY i

Current disinfection theory i s based on the Chickor Chick-Watson model.


Chick's law expresses the rateof destruction of microorgrnisars based ona
first-order chemical reaction.'
dN/dt 9 -kt (1)
which when integrated yields
In (\/Ne) .
I -kt . (2) .-
where . .
N, = number o f organisms present at time t (minutes)
N, = number of organisms present at time 0 ' ,

k = rate constant characteristicof type o f disinfectant,


microorganisat, and water quality aspects o f system (minutes") -
.'
t = time (minutes)
Watson, using Chick's data, refined this equationto produce an empirical
velation that included changes in the disinfectant concentrati.on:'
In (N/No) - r C"t . (3)
.v-LF.
.+-
"

where
C = concentration of disinfectant [ (milligrams/l iter)*'"]
r - coefficient of specific lethality (liters/milligram minutes)
n = coefflcient of dilution (liters/ailligrams minutes)
or
(l/r) 1 n (Nt/No) = C"t (4)

For a given level of survival such as N,/No = 0.001 (3 log reduction) the left

-
hand side of equation4 is a constant K, or
K C"t (5)
The value K will vary depending on the level of inactivation.

6
\

where

-
temp temperature at which experiment was conducted in OC

pH pH at which experiment was conducted in pH units


Equation 6 can be rewritten in the form:
c a t R PCbpHCtempd (7)
where
R,a,b,c, and,d are coefficient tobe determined. .

A more convenient form for coefficient estimation and the one


used in this
paper is as follows:
- t = R I4cb-1PHctempd (8)
As will be discussed in the following sections these coefficients
will be
determined by a statistical analysis using appropriate data bases.
COEFFICIENT ESTIMTES
Several data sets are available for estimatingthe coefficients in. .
equation 8. Data sets have been developedby Jarroll, Hibler, Rice and
Rubin.Sos#lOvI1
Much of the available giardiainactivation data is based on. excystation.
rather than animal infectivity since it is an easier measure o f cyst
viability.'l Hoff et at. compared mouse infectivity and excystationfor

7
' determining the viabiiity of 5. mui,S cysts exposed to chlorine rnd reported '

that both methods yielded slmllartasuits.1' Hibler et al. used Mongolian


of chlorine on
gerbils to deternine the effects &.u b l i a cysts.' I a
n
._-
:

. series of experiments, cysts were exposedfor various time periodsto free -*.
.* I

0.4 to.4.2 mg~


chtorine concentrations ranging from / at 0.5, 2.5, 8nd 5 . 0 0 ~ ,.

--.
and pH 6, 7, and 8. Erch of's gerbils was fed 5 x lo' o f the chlorine exposed
'of infection. ,Since t h e test
cysts and subsequently examined for evidence
animals had each receiveda dose of 5 x 10' o f the
. _chlorine exposed cysts
and
. .
subsequently examined for evldenceo f infection and since infectivity studies
with unchlorinated cysts showed that approximately
5 cysts usually constituted
an infective dose,the following assumptions were
caade dependi.ng on the
infectivity patterns occurring in the animals. If all five animals were
infected, it was assumed that C't had produced less than 99.99 percent
inactivation and if no animals
were infected, that .it had produced greater
than 99.99 percent inacti~ation.~ If, however, 1-4 animals were infected It *-.'
was assumed that the levelof viable cysts were5 per animal and that 99.99
percent of the original cyst population had been inactivated. Hibler
interpolated from theresults and provided comprehensive tables showingC't.
values at O.S0C temperature interva]~.' Because of observations. indicating
that C't values increased as chlorine concentration increased within the range
of chlorine concentrations used, Hibler et a i . advised against use of the C't.
values forchl'orine concentrations above 2.5 mg/L.
fable 2 sumnarites Hibler's
* .
data for thedifferent experimental
conditions examined. Column 3 shows the rangeo f chlorine concentrations i n
mg/L to which cysts were exposed before beingfed to the gerbils, and Column 7
shows thenumber of experiments whichyields 1-4 infected gerbils out of 5.
Column 4 shows the range Of cyst exposure times rnd Column 5 contains the
range o f C ' t values that rre the product of the chlorine concentration and
cyst exposure time.
, .

TABLE 2. C'VALUES
T FOR 99.99 PERCENT INACTIVATION BASED
ON ANIMAL INFECTIVITY DATA

Range o f
Range o f Cyst Exposure Ran e o f Ran e o f Number of
Temp
Conc, Time C ' tues
va f
from Pr.e!t i c t e d Obserln-
pH "c (mg/L) . (min)
Data C ' t Values t i o n s
x 96 39 - 300 73763 136-192 25
f6 5I::0": 1-3. 80 . 18-222
0. 1-3. 47 25-287
6'5'-2
5'0 1
'-
107-151
93-134
15
26
i 0.5' 0. -4. 05 76-600 156 -3 205-295 14
7 2.5 0. ,=4. 23 55-350 124 -3 47 169-235 14
7 5 0. 1-4. oa 47-227 144 -2 22 156-211 15
8 0.5 0. '-3.25 132-593 9 -526 294-410 22 .
8 2.5 0. 1-3. 24 54-431 5-37 1 233-324 21
8 5 0. -3. 67 95-417 0-3 86 209-299 15.

Hibler'sdata set,based on animal i n f e c t i v i t y , i s appealing because i t


i s a more direct indicator of cyst viability than data based on excystation.
However the C ' t values i n t h i s data set are based s o l e l y on 99.99 percent
inactivation. The otherthreedatasets, basedon excystation, have values
calculated f o r all four parameters i n equation 8. Table 3 contains a sumnary
characterization of the studies on whichthesedatasets werebased.Because
' no one individual experiment provided the exact characteristics required for
t h i s study an attempt wasmade t o find the 'nost consistent" set of data f o r .
parameter estimation, which might include several o f t h e data sets discussed.

9
TABLE 3. CHARACTERIZATION OF &. FREECHLORINE*
INACTIVATION STUDIESUSED IN PREDICTIVE HODELS

Reference Viability
cyst C o m e n ts
NO. Source Assay .-'I -

5 Conventional
rxcystatlon
Symptomatic
-
A

survival human ,curves


based on.multiple
snap1es End
-
point 0.1%
survival
7 Gerbils, adapted gerbil 'infec- No survival curves.
from infected
humans. (CDC
isol ate)
tivity (5
anicrls/sample) -
Endpoint sought .
0.01% survival

8 Symptomatic
excystation
and Conventional
-, .. nonsymptomat ic survival curves
humans based on mu1 tiple
samples.End
survival
-
point 0.1%
.-..
u.

9 excystation
adapted
Gerbils
Conventional
from infected survival curves
-
."
e
&-.

humans.(Several based on mu1 tiple


i sol ates used) samples. . End
*Data provided byDr. John Hoff formerlyof USEPA

*.
The Hiblerdata set was includedin a11 combinations considered because
it was the largest data set, the data set was based onanimal infectivity, and
. the data reflected higher percent inactlvation thanrequired under the SWR.
Since thedata based on excystation, with
the exception of a few datapoints,
only reflected percent inactivation upto 1 log or 1,ess than that required
under the SWTR, inclusion o f the Hibler datawas considered essential for
-developing amodel that could predict disinfection conditions for achieving
10
99.9 percent inactivation with ainimm uncertainty. filtered systems wi
l
need t o know disinfection conditions for achieving less than 99.9 percent
inactivation. Therefore data from a t least one of the excystrtion studies was,
. .
considered essential since t h e C ' t values i n the SUTR may be used f o r
calculating partial inactivation levels (1.8.. less than 99.9 percent).
A fundamental question that needed t o be addressed was t h e s t a t i s t i c a l
compatibility of the data sets. I n i t i a l regressionestimatesfor.each o f the
data sets were made using equation 8.'' High #rr8 were obtained for these .
f i t s but slgnificant differences were found f o r the "R" c o e f f i c i e n t o r slope.
This indicated that the basic modelwas adequate but that there were
differences i n the coefficients as defined by the individual estimates using
equation 8. It was decided t o 'anchor" a l l of the data sets to the Hibler
data set. The approachused was t o construct an indicator random variable t o
move the regression intercept or slope t o compensate f o r data set
differences." The significance o f the indicator random variable would .
supportthehypothesis o f different regression surfa'ces, i.e., incompatibility
o f thedata sets chosen.The indicator random variable w.as created i n such a
way as t o always d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the' Hibler data s e t and other data sets
considered and t o move the regressioninterceptnottheslope. The indicator
random variable was defined as follows:
o i f Hibler data
2 - r 1 i f other data
l (9)

Therefore equation 8 was modified as follows:


t - R I (ICb-1pvtempd10u (101
where t, I , C, pH, temp 'are defined as i n equation 8, andR,a,b,c,d,e are
constantsdetermined from regression.

11
Equation 10 can ba t r a n s f o m d as follows:
log t log R + a l o g I +. (b-1) l o g C t c log pH + d temp + ez (11)
:In equatlon 11 when z 0 equation 10 i s defined over the Hibler data set,
and Y
u--

R I* c"'
--
t pHc tempd (12) .
4 .i. ._
v.

When z 1 equation 10 I s defined over the remrinlng data and -:*


r?6
7

t (R 10') I* cbo1p t t tempd - (13)


Table 4 displays the data setcombinations and regressiondlagnostlcs. Note
that t I s the Indicator random variable.
I n Table 4, t h e f i r s t column shows the various data sets considered 'In
theanalysis. Column two contains'the 'r2' values based on equation 13 for '

each o f thedatacombinations. Column three indicates major results of. the


* analysis.for example i t was found, f o r t h e f i r s t datasetcombination, that
the intercept, and temperature variable were not slgnificant. Column 4 shows
the t e s t that was used t o determinewhether o r not theequationyieldsbiased **>.
.*--

results. ;z.
As indicated i n Column 4 o f Table 4 residual plots were used t o determine
constantvariance and normality.Fortunately a s t r i c t assumption o f normality
i s notrequired. As s t a t e d i n Neter, WassemanandWhitmore'Small departures
from normal it y do not create any serious problems. " Hajor departures, on the
other hand, should be o f concern". further they write, 'Unless thedepartures
from normality are serious, particularly with respect t o skewness, the actual
confidence coefficients and r i s k s o f e r r o r wl
i be close t o the levels f o r
exactnormality". I n a d d i t i o n because o f the large sample size one would
expect the central l
i
m t theories would apply and symnetry would not bean
i
issue.

12
It was found that 90% of the datafell within plus/or/minus 1.64 standard
deviations of the man. I n addition 75% of the data fell within plus or minus
1 minus standard deviation which gives support for
the normality assumpt i on.
[For I perfect nomat distribution we would expect 68% of thedata to lie
within plus or minus 1 standard deviation. Similarly, we would expect 90% to
lte within plusor minus 1.64 standard deviationof the mean].
The indicator random variable for the intercept variable using the
* Hibler, Jarroll data base was not significant (p-value = 0.3372). All other
data bases considered had a Significant indicator random variable
at the 0.095
level of significance. A formal test .fordifferences. of intercept and/or
slope between the Hibler and Jarroll data sets was conducted
and no difference
was detected.
As mentioned previously the Hibler dataset does possesses some desirable
characteristics and it it the largest dataset among a11 data sets available.
However one aight argue that by forcing the Hibler data set into the
analysis
the possibility has been ignored that the other data sets maybe mutual1.y
consistent, and the Hibler data set mayrepresent an "outlier". In addition,
one might hypothesize that data from different experimental situations .
prohibits us from making a reasonable. comparisonm n g these excystation
studies. Table 4 shows that the Hiblerand Jarroll data sets are compatible.
.Since Table4 also shows thatHibler-Rice and Hibler-Rubin i s not consistent,,
then it is reasonable to assume that theJarroll date is not consistent with
the Rice and Rubin data so that the Hiblerdata is not alone in being
inconsistent with the other datasets. It seems reasonable thereforet o stact
with the Hibler data set, the largest one, then Incorporate other smallerdata '..

sets into the modelfng process. Thus logic supports the use o f the Hibler,
. .
13
. .
,

Jarroll dataabase.for extending the model development'and the coefflclents in '

equation 8 were estirnrted using these data as shown In Table 5 in the log '

transfomd form. ra -

TABLE 4. DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS FRON DATA. SET COMBINATION


ANALYSI$ -.
..

ta sets considered R-ware - ab1


Varl as Plots r
.,a,
.

kbler, Rlce, Jarroll, Rubin 0.6801 Intercept, temp non-normal data ..


not-slgniffcant non-constant var

Hibler, Rlce, Jarroll, Rubin, t 0.7316 tmp non-normal data


Intercept, e ,

not-slanlficant n o n - w t a n t var
Rice,
Albler, Rubin 0.6649 Intercept, temp aon-normal data
, not-significant .non-constant var
Hibler,
Rlce,
Rubln, L b. 7899 Intercept non-normal data
not-slgnlficant non-constant var
hibler, , Jarroll , Rubin 0.6424 intercept, temp non-normal data
not;signiflcant non-constant var -
Hibler,Jarroll,Rubin, L b. 6879 intercept, :tempnon-normal data
. not-slgnlficant .non-constant var
Ri bl er,
Rice,
Jarroll 0.8619 a l l variables non-normal data . .
slgnlficant , non-constant var
" '
ih
Hibler,
Rice,
Jarroll, z b. 865 all varlables .. non-normal data
si,qnfficant ' non-constant var *w.

Rubin
klbler, 0.6483 ' temp non-normal data
not-slgniflcant non-constant var
Hibler,
Rubin, z . b. 7593 .Intercept non-normal data
not-slgnfflcant constant var
hibler, Rice 0.8548 all variables non-normaJ.data
significant constant var
Hibler, Rice, z 0.8678 all variables . non-normal data
significant constant var. .
hi bl er , Jarroll 0.8452 all varlables non-normal data
slgnlficant constant var
, .z
Hi bler, Jarroll b. 8459 z not significant non-normal data
constant var
TABLE 5. COEFFICIENT ESTIMATES FOR EQUATION 8.'
Statistical Analysis
Standard T for HO: Var i ance
Variable OF CoefficientErrorParameter-0PROB >.O 1. - inflation .
retor
-0.9021
INTERCEP 0.200
0.014
-4.518 .
0 0001 0.000
.
1 183
1061 -0.2681
-0.8121
LOGCHLOR .
0 042
0.221
-19.420
-19.136
11.535
0.0001
0.0001 1.033 .
LOGPH 1
-0.1461
L06lEHP
2.544
.
0 028 -5.117
0.0001
0 0001
1.032
1.179

In Table 5 column 7 entitled the 'Variance Inflation Factor (VIF)' is


defined as (l-&*)where is the coefficient of aultiple determination when
% is regressed on theother variables in the model. The minimum value of VIF
i s . 1 if there is no multicollinearity. As shown in column 7 all of the
variance inflation factors are closeto one.
DISCUSSION OF MODEL
As discussed in the previous sections the coefficients for equation8
were determined by a combination of log transformation and linear regression.
An issue to consider is the probability that therei s measurement error in the
model's independent variables and the effect that this could haveon estimates
of the parameters.
Regression is intended to fulfill the dual purposes of .prediction and
explanation. The purpose of equation 8 is primarily to predict by providing
water utiiities guidance as to what C't values will be needed for a desired .
level of inactivation. The purpose of this model is to predict C't values and
will not be hampered bymeasurement error as long as consistency1 s
maintained." Since any measurement is subject to some typeof error, the
approach taken to deal with this issue was to provide safe or "conservative
.estimates' of C't values..

15
rppligd to the rnrlytisequation 13
As one ofthe dirgnostic procedures
was'evaluated for mu1ticolinearlty. As can be see from Table 5 all of the
.coefficients are highly tignlficant rnd there Is no nultlcolinearity.

TABLE 6. COLLINEARITY DIAGNOSTICS

Condition VAR PROP VAR PROP VAR PROP VAR PROP VAR PROP'
Number Intercep ' La61 LOGCHLOR LO6Ptl -
LOGTEHP
. .
1a 0 0 0 0.0002 . 0.0031 0.0214 0.0003 0.0174
2.495 0.0001 0 i0063 0.0138 0.0001 ' 0..7833
0 0003 0 0067 0.9285 0.0004
2.801
10.662
45.636 .
0.0147
0.9847
0.9266
0 OS74
0.0029
0.0334
.
0 0'253
0 9739
0.000s
0.1918
0.0071

In Table 6 VAR PROP is the variance-decornpositlon proportion (VDP) and


has a maximum value o f 1. A high condifion number coupled with high VOP
values for two or more coefflcients is an indicatjon o f multicoll'lnearity
between those variables. A condition of 45.636 i n conjunction with an
. intercept VDP of 0.9847 and Log(pH) VDP of 0.9739 indicated a dependency ' '

between the intercept and Log(pH)variable, however, multicollinearity among '

the other coefficients were nonexistent. .


The final equation used for predicting C't values in the SWTR was based
, on equation 8 IS follows:
C't = RI'Cbplftempd (14)
Confidence intervals of the coefficients estimate for equation
14 based

R: ( 0.384,
0.4096)
8: * (.-0.2321,-0.3031)
b: ( 0.0792,
0.2977)
c: ( 1.9756,
3.1117)
d: (-0.2192,
-0.0724)

16
RESULTS
There are many uncertalnties regarding
the varlous data sets that might
be considered for calculating C't values. The random varlable analysisshows'. :.
the' statlstlcrl tnconrpatlbillty among nost of these data sets. More work
needs to be done to deflne the Impact of strain vrrlatlon and &l yiyn versus
&l yitrq techniques onC't values. In order toprovlde conservatlvc estlmates
for Cat values In the SUTR and the guldancedocument the authorsused the
approach Illustrated In Figure 1,
In Figure 1 the OOX'confIdence Interval of the 4 log inactivation level
Is calculated, First order kinetics are thenassumed so'that the inactivation
"line" goes 'through1 at C't - 0 and, a C't value equal to the upper99% con-
fidence Interval at 4 logs of Inactivation. Rs can be seen the lnactlvition
llne consfsts of higher C't values than all of themean predicted C't values
from equation 14, most of theJarroll et a1 .( and most of the Hibler data
points. Conservative,C't values, for a specified level of inactivation, can
. be obtained from the inactivation line prescribedby the disinfection condi-
' tions. For the example indicated in Figure 1, the appropriate C-t for
qchieving 99.9% inactivation would be 105.' This approach (assumption of first
order kinetics) also provides the basis forestablishlng credits for sequen-
tial disinfection steps allowed underthe SUTR. It should be noted that this
approach provides very conservative estimates'at mid range levels of Cat. .
Note in Figure 1 that some of theIndividual data pointsfall outside the
99% confidence Interval estimated at the four logs of inactivation. This is
to be expected since the confidence Intervalsconstructed were for mean C a t
values, but also indicated the high variability of the ,Hibl er data.
Equation 14 was applied using the above strategy, as a safety factor, to
determine the .C't values for 99.9 percent inactivation at 0.5OC and SoC in the

17
I
N - Ct-PRED.
A
' C ' ACTUAL Ct
T A 99% CONF.INTERVAL
I AT '4 LOGS OF INACTtVATlON
v
A
T . .
I
0
N
L
E
V
E
.I

Ct VALUES

FIGURE 1. 99Oh CONFlDENCE LEVELS USING


.EQUATION 14 FOR CHLORINE = 2'mgA;
PH 1 6 ; TEM.PERATURE 5OC
final MR.' C't values for temperatures rbove 5% were estimated assuming a
. .
twofold decrease fbrevery 10°C incteata in temperature since all the Hibler
data was generatedat SoC or less. This generrl principle 1s supported by
Hoff.
Application 'of equation 14 to pHs rbove 8, up to 9 , was considered
reasonable because the model f s substantially sensitive to pH (e.g., C'ts at
C'ts at pH 6 and about two times
pH 9 are about three times greater than
greater than C'ts at pH I),At a pH o f 9, rpproximately four percentof the
hypochlorous acid fraction of free chlorine i s still present. Other data
indicate that in terms of HOCl residuals (versustotal free chlorine residuals
including HOCl andOCI') the C't values required for inrcttvation of aardia
gutit and Giardia cysts decrease with increaslng pH from 7 to 9.''
However, with Increasing pH, the fraction of free chlorine existingas the
weaker oxidant species (OC1') increases. In terms of total free chlorine
residuals (i.e ., HOCl and OC1-) the C't values required for inactivationo f
Giardia puri t and Giardia lamb1 i a cysts increase wlth increasing
pH from 7 to
9 but generally iess than by a factor of 2 at concentrations of less than 5.0
mg/L." Table 7.compares theC't values in the proposed SUTR to those given
in the SUTR. The C't values in the proposed SWTR were based only on the
Hibler data and included different safetyfactors.*"

19
TABLE 7, COMPARISON BETWEEN MOOIFIEO APPROACH (HUNS) AND RULE C'TS 6

AT 99.9%INACTIVATION AND S°C I N THE PROPOSED AND FINAL SWTR.

DM
Concentration 6 7 8 3 . #;.
WL Proposed Flnrl Proposed FInai Proposed FInal Proposed Final
,

1 105 108 149 165 216 -238 329 312 &-x

2 116 122 165 186 243 269 , 371


,
353

The C o t values in the final SWfR 8re 0-10 percent lower than In the
proposed S U R . T8ble 8 presents representative C ' t values determined by
application o f the above detcrlbed approach.

TABLE 8. CALCULATED C'T VALUES FOR GIARDIA INACTIVATION


USING USING EQUATION 14 AT0.5OC and 5"
Values for Inactivation o f Giardia Cysts
by free Chlorine at 0.5OC
-
z

orine
toLrati,on
PH
Inactlfatipp
PH * 7
Loa hactivatioq .
PH = 8
koa Inactivation
-
pH 9
oa Inactivation
1
.
p
.
.

mg/L 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0


0.5 1.0 2.0
3.0
0.5.
1.0
2.0
3.0 1:'O 0!5 2.0 3.8 -.
v.

-T
0.4 4623 91 137 33 195
130
65 '46 65 277
185
92 390
260
130
1 25 49 99 148 35 70 140 210 51 101 203 304 73 146 ,291 437
2 20 55 110 165 39 79 -157 236 5 8 ' 115 231 346 03 167
333 500
3 30 60 121 181 44 87 174 261 64 127 255 382 92 184 368 552 ,

Values for Inactivation o f Giardia Cysts


by Free Chlorine'at 5OC
Chlorine
Concentration
PH = 6
Loa Inactivation
PH 7 -
a Inactivation
PH 8 -
loa Inactivatlort
pn = 9
oa Inactivation
mg/L 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 0%. 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.5 1.0
2.0 3.0 0)s l..O 2.0
3.8 ',

0.4 32 16 65 97 23
13993 46 33 13766 198
18693 47 279
I 18 35 70 105 25 50 99 149 36 72 144 216 52 104 208 ,312
2 19 39 77 116 28 55 I10 165 41 81 162 243 59 118 235 353
3 21 ' 42 84 126 30 61 121 182 45 89 179 268 65 130 259 '389

20
4

Because calculations for the SYfR C ' t ' values are the ,upper l
m t on the
i
I -

error bounds assodated with equrtlon I4 (Tabla 8), an equation was developed
t o estlmate these C ' t values for 0.5 and S°C d l n c t l y . C ' t values ibove SoC
can be estimated by using the method glven below t o estimate C o t values a t
SOC, then the assmptlon that there i s a twofold decrease I n C ' t values f o r
every 10°C increase I n temperaturecan be applled. The q u a t i o n for the

C't -
estimated C ' t values a t 0.5 and 5OC Is as follows:
(R2 = 0.998)
I)'*w
0.36 pH2~~temp~o"sCo"s(-log (15)
where the variables I n equation 15 are as defined previously.
Table 9 compares the values estimated by equation 15 and the WR values
shown i n Table 8.

TABLE 9. CALCULATED
C'T
VALUES FOR GIARDIAINACTIVATION
USING EQUATION 15 AT 0.5 AND SoC

-
Values f o r I n a c t i v a t i o n of Giardia Cysts
Chlorine pH 0 6
Concentration h a Inactivation
pH 7 -
bv Free Chlorine at 0,SoC
Loa Inactivation LOCI Inactivatioq
pH 8 - pH 9
a Inactivation
-
mg/L 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 0% 1.0 2.0 3.8
0.4 22 86 43 129 33 196
131
65 94 47 187 281
385
257
12964
* l 25 49 99 148 37 75 149 224 54 107 214 321 74 147 294 441 -
2. 27 55 109 164 41 83 165 248 59 118 137 355 81 163 325 487
3 29 58 116 174 44 88 175 263 63 126 251 377 06 173 3 4 5 517
-
-
Values f o r I n a c t i v a t i o n o f G i0a r d i a Cysts
bv Free Chlorine a t 5 C
Chlorine PH * 6 pH = 7 pH 8 pH = 9
Concentration Loa Inactfvatloa k2uuu&m Loa Inact iv a t ion
mg/L 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.5 1.0. 2.0 3.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.5 1.0 2.0
3.8,
0.4 15 31 61 91 23 46 92 138 33 66 132 198 46 91 182 272
1 17 35 70 104 26 53 106 158 38 76 151 227 52 104 208 311
. 2 19. 39 77 1.16 . .29 58 117 175 42 ,84 167 251 .58 115 320 345
3 20 41 82 123 31 62 124 186 44 89 178 266 61 122 244 366

21
. FUTURE YORU .
Because o f the importance from an economic and a publ ichealth viewpoint
of the calculation of C't values for the inactivation of m a Jamblil by '

expended i n developing models that.


free chlorine, much effort has been
interrelate the important variables effectlng these
values.' The work
' reported in thls paper reflectsthe ruthors attmpts todevelop such 1

relationship for inclusion in the SUTR. However, it also r h s r-very


interestfng pofnt regardlng the application of statistical methodology to
public policy decision problems. There is no perfect 'regulatory' experimnt
that answers all of the textbook questions that could
be raf sed regarding
regulatory decision making. One has to use rvallable data and Incorporate the .
best judgment thatcan be brought to bear on a given issue t o insure that
.
publ ichealth and we1fare is protected. The need to combine data sets from
different investigations and then developa decision rule based onthe data,
I

shown
as in this paper, as an example o f the
this process. . %:

There is no doubt in the authors' mind that other better models may be =--
developed. For.example, Haas' work in applying the Horn model to inactivation +
*.
v

data and incorporating the method of Maxirnura likelihood for estimating


parameters Is promising." The authors believe that the public Is best served
i
. by examining problems from many differentpoints of view and encourage others.
to pursue these difficult, frustratingbut extremely challenging problems. .
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Amendments to theSafe Drinking WaterAct clearly iequire thata l l
surface water suppliers in the U.S. filter and/or disinfect to protect the '

health of their customers. 5. jamblia has been identified as one of the


.leading causes of waterborne disease.outbreaks in the U.S. E. , m a cysts
. are also oneof the most resistant organisms to disinfection by free chlorine.

22
EPA's Office of Drinking Water has adoptedthe C't concept to quantify the
inactivation of Ea J m a cysts by.disinfection. If a utility can assure
that a large enough C't can be maintained to ensure adequate disinfection .'.: *
then, depending upon site specific factors,t t aay not be required to install
filtration. Similarly, the C't concept can be appliedto filtered systems for
determining appropriate levelso f protection.
In this paper, an equatlon has been developed that
can be used to predict
C't values for the Inactivation of 6. ljlmblia by free chlorinebased on the '

interaction o f disinfectant concentration, temperature, pH, and inactivation


level. The parameters for this equation havebeen derived from a set o f
animal Infectivity and excystation data. The equation can be used to predict
C't values for achieving0.5 to 4 logs of inactivation, within temperature
. ranges of 0.5 to S0C, chlorine concentration ranges up to 4 mg/L, and pH
1 eve1 s of 6 to 8. While the model was not based on pH values above8, the
model is still considered applicable up to pH level of 9. . The equation shows
the effect of disproportionate increases of C't versus Inactivation levels.
. Using 9% confidence intervals at the 4 log inactivation levels and applying .
first order kinetics to these
end points a *conservative regulatory strategy
for defining C't at various levels o f inactivatlon has been developed. This
'approach representsan alternative to the regulatory strategy previously
proposed. L

23 .
.. The authors would like to acknowledge Hs. Patricia Pierson and Hs. Diane
Routledge for the?r assistance In preparingthis manuscript. The authors are
grateful to Dr. John Hoff, forrnerly 'of USEPA, Ms. Shirley Pien and Hs. Eleanor
Read of theComputer Sciences Corporation,Hr. Dennis Black of the University
o f Nevada, Las Vegas, and Dr. Charles Haas o f the Illinols Institute of
. .
Technology for their reviewand suggestions to Improve theaanuscript. The
authors would like to extend a special acknowledgement to Ms. Dianne-Wild for
her assistance in the preparation o f this manuscript.

24
REFERENCES
1. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Filtration, Disinfection,
Turbidity,- 5 J!A!!!&h, Viruses, Lsgiwella, and Heterotrophic
Bacteria. Final Rule, 40 CFR parts I41 and 142. Fed. Reg. 54:124:27486
(June 29, 1989).
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office o f Drinking Water, Criteria
and Standards Divislon. Guidance Uanual for Compliance with the Filtra-
tion and Ditinfectlon Requirements for Public Water Systems Using Surface
Water Sources, October 1987,
3. Clarke, N. A., Berg, C., Kabler, P. W., and Chang, S. L., 'Huplan Enteric
Viruses In Yater: Source, Survlvrl, and Removability'. International
Conference on Yater Pollutions Research,Landar, Septeraber, 1962.
4. Hoff, 3. C., Rlce, E. W., and Schaefer 111, F. W. 'Disinfection and the
Control of Waterborne Giardiasis", In Proceedings of the 1984 Specialty
Conference, Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE,June 1984.
5. . Jarroll, E. L., Bingham, A. K. , and Heyer, E. A. "Effect of Chlorine on . .
Giardia m
lia Cyst Viability". Bpglied and Envfronmental HicrabioloQy,
Vol. 41, pp. 483-48, February, 1981.
6. Chick, H., "an Investigation o f the Laws of Disinfection:, J. Hygiene, 8,
92 (1908)
7. Watson, W. E., "A Note on the Variatlon of the Rate ofDisinfection with
Change in the Concentration of the Disinfectant", 3. Hygiene, 8, 536
(1908).
8. Clark, R. M., Read, E. 3 . , and Hoff, J. C. "Analysis of Inactivation o f
* Giardb Lamblia bv Chlorine". Journal o f Environmental Engineering, A X E ,
Vol. 115, No. 1, February, 1989, pp. 80-90.
9. Hi bler, C.P., Hancock, C. M., Perger, L. H., Wegrryn, 3. 6. and Swabby,
K. 0. 'Inactivation of Eiardia Cysts with Chlorine at O.S°C to 5.OoC.
rmerican Water Yorks Association Research Foundation, 6666 West Quincy
Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80235, 1987.
. 10. Rice, E. W., Hoff, 3. C. and Schaefer 111, F. Y. "Inactivation o f Eiardfa
Cysts by Chlorine", fli 1 t Jan. 1982, ,
.
V O ~ 43, NO, 1, pp. 250-251.
11. Rubin, A. 3 . . Evers, 0. P., Eyman, C. H., and Jarroll, E. L.,
"Inactivation of Gerbil-Cultured Eiardb Cysts by Free Chlorine",
flmlied and Environmental Microbiolociy, k t . 1989, Vol. 55, No, 10, p. .
2592-2594.
12. Hoff, J . C., "Inactivation o f Hicrobial Agents by Chemical Disinfectants"
EPA/600/2-86-067.
13. Draper, N. and Smith, H. (1981) Second Edition, ADDlied Rearession
/balvsis, Wiley: New York.
25 . '
17:Haas, Charles W., m d H i l l a r , B. Strtistical Analysis of 0 a t a . m
Chlorine Inrctivrtion o f #lardla w, Final Report prepared for U.S.
EPA Office o f Drinking Water, January 6, 1988. e ,

26
GLOSSARY

d N,/dt = rate of change of organisms with respectto time


k = fnactlvation
rate tn minutes-' 9 ...

t time In alnutes
Nt
= number of organisms 8t tlm t
o
N*
r - number o f organisms 8t time .

coefflcient of spcclfic lethrllty (liters/mtlligrm


= concentration of disinfectant .(mi11 Igrrms/liter)*'"
- minutes)
C
n = coefflcient of dllution
K constant,at given level temperature, pH and Inactivation level
PH '
= pH In water phase
temp temperature in OC

I = level of inactivation
. C't = concentration in q / L times time in minutes
R = coefficient to be determined
a coefflcient to be determined
c = coefficient to be determined
d Coefficient to be determined
e = coefflcient to be determlned
z = coefficient t o be determined
VIF variance lnflatlon factor. If VIF is 1 there is no multicolinearity
VDP = variance decomposition number. If VDP is high for two or more
varlables there i s an inductlon o f multlcollnearity. between
vari ab1 es
Bonferroni technique = a conservative method of estimating confidence
intervals

27
pcmanganatq as A disinfectant. t i s not meant t o be usedas a basis for
I
establishing CT requirements.
. '
z

Reftrcncet
J. Inactivation of Simian Rotavirus SA 11 by Chlorine,
Beman, 0.; Hoff,
Chlorine
Dioxide
48:317-323,
1984.
and eknochloramine.
Appl . Environ;
Microbiol. ,
, J.C.H.; Ossoff, S.F.; Lobe, D.C.; Dorfman, U.H.; Dumais, C.M.;
ChanP
Qual s, R.G.; Johnson, J.D. I n a c t i v a t i o no f Pathogenic and Indicator
Microorganisms. AppliedEnviron.Uicro., June 1905, pp.1361-1365.
Clark, R.M.; Read, E.J.; Hoff, J.C. Inactivation o f by
Chlorine: A Mathematical and S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis.UnpuhlishedReport,
EPA/600/x-87/149, OWRD, Cincinnati , OH, 1987.
Clark, R.; Regli, S.; Black, 0. Inactivation o f Giardia
by Free
Chlorine: A Mathematical Model. Presented a t AWA Water Q u a l i t y
Technology Conference. S t . Louis, Mo., November1988.
Clark, M.R.; Regli , S. The Basis for Giardia CT Values i n t h e Surface
Water TreatmentRule: Inactivation by Chlorine.Submitted t o Journalof
Water Supply Research and Technology-Aqua,August 1990.
Hibler, C.P.; C.M. Hancock; L.M. Perger; 3.6. Wegrrn; K.D. Swabby I n a c t i -
vationofGiardiacystswithChlorineat 0.5 C t o 5.0 C American
Water .
.
Works Association Research Foundation, I n press , 1987 .
Hoff, J.C.
Research Laboratory,Cincinnati,
r%zi6"1'
E P A / 6 0 0 , 5 2 - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , v ~ ~ ~ P%%i
n E ~ ~ io " , V A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ! $ ~ %
Ohio, September,1986. '

J a r r o l l , E.L.; A.K. Binham; E.A. Heyer EffectofChlorine on u r d i g


Cyst V i a b i l i t y . Appl. Environ.Microbiol., 41"-487,
1981.
Leahy, J.G.; Rubin, A.J.; Sprout, O.J. I n a c t i v a t ioofn &
Cysts by Free Chlorine. Appl. Environ.Microbiol.,July 1987.
Rice, E.; Hoff, 3.; Schaefer, F. Inactivation Gf Giardia Cysts
by
Chlorine.Appl .
and Environ.Microbiology, 43:250-251, January 1982.
Roy, D., R.S. Engelbrecht, and E.S.K. Chian.Comparative Inactivation .of
SixEnterovirusesby Ozone.3. AWA, 74(12):660, 1982.

Rubin, A. FactorsAffectingtheInactivation o f Eiardb Cysts by Mono-


chloramine andComparison with other Disinfectants. Water Engineering Re-
searchLaboratory,Cincinnati, OH March1988a.

F-8
.
Rubin, A. "Cf Products for .the Inactivation of (;lardta Cysts by Chlorine,
Chlormine, Iodine, Ozone rnd Chlorine Dioxide" submitted for publication
i n 3. AWWA, December,1988b.
, M.
€PA Quarterly Report . December1988.
Sobte A i n Water.
CR-8d-024 .'Detection and Chlorine Disinfection of Hepatitus

Vau hn, 3.; Chen, Y.; Lindburg, K.; Morales, 0. Inactivation of Human and
?
Sia an Rotaviruses by Ozone. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.; 53(9):2218-2221,
September1987.
Wickramnayake, 6.; Rubin, A.; Sproul, 0. Effectsof Ozone iind Storage
. . tanperature
Cysts..
on J.AWWA, 77(8):74-77, 1985.
Yah a, H.T., Lrndetn, L.K., forsthocfel , N.R., Kujawa, .KO, andGerba, C.P.
T
Eva uation of Potassium Permanganate f o r I n a c t i v a t i o n o f Bacteriophage
US-2 i n Water Systems. Copyright 1988,CatusChemical Company, Ottawa,
Illinois.

..
..

DETERMININGCHLORNIINE INACTIVAfIOt~OF dIARDIA


FORTHESUSFACEUATER TREATMNT RULE

MicrobiologicalTreatmentBranch
RiskReductfonEngineeringLaboratory

and

P a r a s i t o l o g y andImmunology Bianch
Environmental‘lonitoringSystemLaboratory
U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency
2C West 7 l a r t i n L u t b r K i n g D r i v e
Cincinnati Ohio 45268
?

Appendix
3

The SurfaceWatertreatmentRulerequlres 99.93 or greaterremoval/


i b c t l v a t l o n o f Giardia. The followingprotocol may beused t o determine
thepercentage o f r d l a i n a c t i v a t l o no b t a i n e d by a treatmentplant
using c3loramlne dlsinfection.
I. MATERIALS

A. H a t e r i a l sf o rD l s l n f e c t l o n

1. S t o c kc h l o r i n es o l u t i o n
2. Stock ammonia s o l u t l o n
device 3. S t i r r i n g ' . . -
4. Incubator Of water bath
for
temperatures below .aablent
5. Waterfrointreatmentglant
6. G i a r d i am u d sc y s t s

...
7. A s J o r t e d m s o a r e
8 Assorted plpettes
9 Reagents and i n s t r u m e n t sf o rd e t e r m i n i n gd i s i n f e c t a n tr e s i d u a l

..
10 S t e r i l e sodium t h i o s u l f a t es o l o t l o n
11 Vacuun f i l t e r device,for 47mn diameter f i l t e r s
12 1.0 itm pore size polycarbonate filters, 47. nm diameter
13. Vacuum source
14. Crushed I c e and i c eb u c k e t
15. Timer
3. P a t e r i a l sf o E
r xcystation

1,
2.
Exposed and controlGiardiamurlscysts
Reduc in g sol u t i on
-
3. 0.1 M sidiumbicarbonate
4. Trypsi n-Tryode' s s o l u ton i
5. 15 m l c o n l c a l screwcap centrifugetubes
6. Water bath, 37OC
7. Warn a i r i n c u b a t o r or s l i d e w a m l n g t r a y , 37OC
8. A s p l r a t ofrl a s k :
9. Vacuum source
13. Assortedpipettes
11, Vortex mixer
12. Centrifuge with swlnging bucket rotor
13. Chamber s t Ides
14. Phase contrast microscope
15. Oif f e r e n t l a l c e l l c o u n t e r
16. TImer
II . REAGENTS
A. Reducing Solutlon c
. *
Ingredient . Amount
glutathione (reduced form)
Lcystelne-YCI
0.2 9
0.2 9
-
1X Hanks' balanced salt solution 20.0 m l

Wssolvethe dry ingredients In the 1X Hanks' balanced salt


soldtion and warm t o 3 7 O C before use In.theexperlnent.
Prepare
fresh, w l t h l n 1 hour o f use. .

9. Sodium Bicarbonate S o l u t i o n , 0.1 M


Ingredient Amount
Todium blcarbonate 0.42 9

01,ssolve the salt I n 10 to IS tnl d i s t i l l e d water. Adjust


the volume t o 50 ml w i t h addltlonaldlstllled water and
warm t o 3 7 O C before use In the experiment.Prepare fresh,
w l t h l n 1 hour of use. ..
C. Sodlum B i c a r b o n a t e S o l u t l o n , 7.5%
Ingredient Amount
3odium bicarbonate 7.5 9

Dissolvethe sodium blcarbonateln.50 m l d i s t l l l e d water.


Adjust
the voluwe t o 100 ml w i t h a d d l t i o n a l distilled
water.Store a t room temperature.
D. Sodlum thlosulfate S o l u t l o n , 10;
Ingredlent Amount
Sodium
fate thlosul 10.0 9

Dissolve the sodlum thiosulfate i n 50 m l dlstllled water. .


Adjust the volume t o 100 m l w i t h addltlonal distllled
water. Fl1 t e rs t e r i li r e the solutlon ;through a 0.22 um
poroslty menrbrane or autoclave for 15 mlnutes a t 121°C.
Store a t room temperature.

.
E. TySode's Solutlon, 20X
Ingredlent Ainount
Ba CI 160.0 9
KC1 4.0 9
CaC12 ' 4.0 9
Mg Cl 6H 0 2.0 9 .
** AaH2504 g20 1.0 9
G1 ucose 20.0 9'
Dlssolve the dry Ingredlents I n theorderl'lsted In 750 m l .
d i s t l l l e d water. Adjust the volune t o 1.0 l i t e r w l t h addl-
t l o n a l d i s t l l l e d water, . I f l o n g term storage 4 u p t o 1
year) Is d e s i r e d ,f l l t e rs t e r l l l t e t h e solutlon'through a
0.22 urn porosity meabrane.

F. Tyrode's Solutlon, 1%
Ingredient Amount
X Tyrode' s sol u t i o n 5.0 m i
Oilute 5 ml o f the 20% Tyrode's solutlon t o a' f l n a l volune'
of 100 ml w i t h d u t l l l e d water.
C;. Trypsin-Tyrode's S o l u t i o n
Ingredient Amount
'trypsin, 1:100, U.S. Siochemlcal Co. 3.50 9
NaHCO3 0.15 g
1X Tyrode'ssolutlon 100.90 ml
!4ith continuous m i x i n g on a s t i r p l a t e , gradually add 100 m l .
1X Tyrode's solution t o the dry Ingredients, Contlnue
s t i r r i n g u n t i l the dry Ingredients are completely dissolved,
Adjust the pH of the s o l u t i o n t o 8.0 w i t h 7.5':
Chill the trypslri Tyrode's. solutlon t o 4 O C . NOTE: Tryps
Na n
l o t s nust be tested for thelr excystatlon efflclency.
Prepare fresh,.wlthln 1 hour of use.
H. Polyoxyethylene Sorbitan Konolaurate (Tween 20) Solution, 0.01%
(v/v)
Inqredient Amount
Tween 20 0.1 ml

well .
Add the Tween 20 t o 1.0 l i t e r , of distllled water. ?fix
5

I, Vaspar
Ingredient Amount
Paraffin 1 part
Petrol eum j e l l y 1 part
Yeat the two Ingredients I n a boiling water b a t h until melt-
ing and mixing i s complete.
.. . 7

111. GIARDIA MuRIS ASSAY


A. Cysts
Giardia muris cysts may
be a v a i l a b l e from commercial sources.
be produced i n Mongolian gerbils (Meriones un uicu-
latus) or i n mice. Mus musculus, the 1aboratory mouse, +T
m, and
C3H/he s t r r n s h a v e e e n used t o produce G. muris
cysts. Themethod, i s laborintensive and requires a g 6 d anfmaT
fdCi1 ity.
order for thedisinfection procedure t o work properly, the G.
-
In
muris cysts used must be of quality. fvaluation'of
high a cy%
suspension is a subjective procedure i . n v o l v i n g aspectsof morpho-
logy and microbialcontaminationas well as excystment. . A good
--
quality G. muris cyst preparation should exhibit the following:
1. Examine cyststock suspensionmicroscopically for the presence
ofeqptycyst walls (ECU). Cyst suspensionscontaining equal
t o or greater t h a n 1% ECY should n o t be used for determining
inactivation a t any required level. However, i f a 99.9:
level o f disinfection i n a c t i v a t i o n Is required,
the
stock
cyst suspension must contain <O,.l'% ECU.
2. Excystation should be 90: or greater. . .)

3. The cystsuspension s h o u l d contain l i t t l eo r no detectable


microbialcontamination.
4. Good G . muris cysts are phase bright w i t h a defined cyst w a l l ,
perf t?opTiTc'?pace, and agranular cytoplasm.Cysts w h i c h are
phase dark, have no detectableperitrophicspace, and have a
granular cytoplasm may be non-vi.able. There generally should
benomore t h a n 4 t o 5% phase dark'cysts i n thecystprepara-
tion.
e .

Sood G. muris cyst'preparationsresult when the following


guldeTines are follosJed d u r i n g cystpurification from feces:
a. Use fecescolt ectedover a period of '24 hours or less. .
b. The isolation o f thecysts from thefeces should bedone
Immediately a f t e r thefecalmaterial is collected.
c. I n i t i a l l y , G. muris cysts 'should. be purified froni the
fecal mater61 b y o t a t f o n u s i n g 1.0 11 sucrose.
d. Ifthe G. muris cystsuspensioncontains an undesirable
* *density?fcontaminantsafterthefirst sucrose f l o a t ,
furtherpurificationis necessary. Two methods for
further puri,fication are suggested.
1) Cysts may be reconcentratedover a layer o f 0.85 Y
sucrose I n a 50 m l conicalcentrifuge tube. If t h i s
3

second exposure tosucrose 1s not done qulckly, h l g h


cyst losses can occur due t o thelr Increased bouyant
dcnslty i n the hyperosmotlc sucrose medium.The
cysts must be thoroughly washed free ofthesgcrose
lmnedlately after collection of the Interface.
2) Cysts can be separated from dlsslmllarsized contami-
nants by sedimentation a t u n i t gravity, which wlll e---
>",.

n o t qdversely affect cyst bouyant denslty, morphology,


or v l a b l l l t y .
8. Yalntenance o f Cysts
1. Preparatlon
of
stock
suspension ~

Oetemlne the suspenslon denslty of the g. muris cyst prepara-


t i o n uslng a hemocytometer (see Appendix A ) j j u s t thecyst
.
suspension denslty w i t h d i s t i l l e d water t o approximately 3-5
x 106 cystslml
2. Storage
Storecysts I n d i s t i l l e d water I n a refrigerator a t -4*C.
Cysts s h o u l d n o t be used for disinfection experlnents I f they
aredore t h a n 2 weeks old (from tlme offecesdeposition) .
C. Excystation Assay
A number o f G. muris excystation procedures have been described i n *x
the s c l e n t l f l c ~ r a t u r e(see Bib1 lography,Section VI). Any of -,rs
y.
8
these procedures may beused 'provided 90% or greaterexcystation
I"

-ps
-*rr.
o f control, undlslnfected G. murls cysts Is obtalned. The +
.,".
. -
f o l l o w l n g protocol I s used t r e v a m the suitability of cysts I n
thestocksuspension, and t o determineexcystation I n control and
disinfected cysts. *

1. For evaluatlng a cyst suspension or for runnlng.an unexposed


control , transfer 5 x 105 G. murls cysts from the stock (.

preparatlon t o a 15 m l conlca'T screu cap centrlfuge tube. An


unexposed control should be processed a t the.same tlme as. the
dlslnfectant exposed cysts.
2. Reduce the volunre of G. muris cyst suspenslon I n each 15 ml
centrlfugetube t o O . r m l e s s by centrifugatfon a t 400 x
g for 2 minutes.Aspirate and discardthesupernatant t o no
l e s s t h a n 0.2'ml above the pellet.
3. Add 5 m l reducing solution, prewamed t o 37*C, t o each tube.
. 4. Add 5 n l 0.1.M NaHC03, prewanned t o 3 7 O C , t o each tube. NOTE:
l i g h t l y closethecaps t o prevent the loss of C02. I f the
CO2 escapes,excystation will notoccur.

5. Mix the
contents of each tube by vortexing a n d place , i n
a 37OC water b a t h for 30 mi.nutes.
3

6. Remove thetubes'.fromthewater b a t h and centrifuge each for


2 mlnutcs a t 400 x g.
7. k p l r a t e and discardthesupernatant t o no l e s s t h a n 0.2 m l
above thepellet-and resuspend thepellet In each tube i n 10
m l trypsln-fyrode's s o l u t i o n chilled t o 4 O C .

8. Centrifugethetubes for 2 minutes a t 400 x g.


9. Aspirate and discardtheSupernatant t o no l e s s t h a n 3.2 m l
above the pellet.
.-
10. Add 0.3 m l trypsin-Tyrode'ssolution, prewarned to' 3 7 O C , t o
eachtube. . Resuspend the p. muris cysts by low speed vortex-
i ng.
11. Prepare a chamber sl lde for each tube
'(see Appendix B ) .
12. Seal the covers1 i p on each chantber slide w i t h me1 tedvaspar
and incubate a t 37°C for 30 minutes i n an incubator or on a
sl ide wanner.
13. After i n c u b a t i o n , place a 'chamber slide on thestage o f an
u p r i g h t phase contrast mic'roscope. Focus on theslide with a
low power objective. Use a t o t a l m a g n i f i c a t i o n o f 3OOX or
more for theactual quantitation. NOTE: Be careful t o keep
theobjectives o u t ofthevaspar.
11. Ilhile scanning theslide and u s i n g a differentialcell coun-.
t e r , enumerate the number of eapty cyst walls (Em), p a r t i a l -
l y excysted trophozoites ( P E T ) , and i n t a c t cysts (IC) observed
(seeSectlon V for a furtherdescription o f these form a n d
the ,nethod for calculating Rercentage excystation).Ifthe
percentageexcystation i n thestocksuspension i s not 90: or
greater, do n o t continue w i t h thedisinfection expcriment.

.
10

.
I
V . DISINFECTION PROCEDURES FOR G I A R D I A
A. The t r e a t m e n tp l a n tw a t e rt o be used should be thewaterInfluent .
I n t o the c h l o r a m f n ed l s l n f e c t l o nu n l tp r o c e s s used I n theplant, .. :.
I f c h l o r a n l n e d l s l n f e c t l o n Is performed a t tnore than one p o i n t I n
thetreatflentprocess, e.3. , p r e f l l t r a t l o n and p o s t f l l t r a t l o n ,
t9e pr0cedur.e shouldslmulate as c l o s e l y as post1 b l e actual
treatmentpractlce.

B. Preparestock ammonia and c h l o r l n es o l u t l o n s t o beadded t o the


treatment plant water to achfeve the same s t o l c h l o m e t r l c r e l a t l o n -
s h l p between c h l o r l n e and ammonla that I s used In the water
treattnentplant. These solutlonsshould be concentrated enough
so t h a t no more than 2 a1 o f each s o l u t l o n w l beadded t ot h e
treatrnent plant water belng dlslnfected.'
C. Deterninethecontacttlme by the methods described I n theSurface
!later Treatinent
Rule
and/or
the
associated Guldance Manual,

D. Rinse a 600 m l b e a k e rw l t ht r e a t n e n pt l a n t w a t e r t o remove any


extraneous material t h a t may cause d i s l n f e c t a n t demand. Then
add 500 m l t r e a t n e n t p l a n t w a t e r t o the beaker.
E. M I X theContentsofthebeakershort o f produclng a v o r t e x I n the
center and c o n t i n uuen ttihlceo n c l u s l o n o f the
expcrlment.
F. E q u i l i b r a t et h e 600 m l beaker and i t s contents as well as t h e d i s -
infectantreagentstothedesiredexperimentaltemperature.

G. Adjustthe stock 5. m u r i sc y s t sus enslon w1,th d i s t i l l e d water so


t h a t t h e c o n c e n t r a t i n 2-5 x 13 cysts/ml. l
H. Add 0.5 m l o f theadjustedcystsuspensiontothecontentsofthe
600 m l bea ker.
I. Add t h ed l s l n f e c t a n tr e a g e n t st ot h e beakeruslngthe same r e a -
gents,the same sequence o fa d d i t l o no fr e a g e n t s , and the sane
t l m eI n t e r v a bl e t w e e na d d l t l o no fr e a g e n t st h a t Is used I n t h e
d l s l n f e c t l o n p r o c e d u r e I n thetreatmentplant. .

J. J u s tp r l o r t o theend o f theexposuretime, r h o v e a sample ade- *

q u a t ef o rd e t e n n l n a t l o no ft h ed f s i n f e c t a n tr e s i d u a lc o n c e n t r a -
t l o n . Use methodsprescrlbed I n theSurface Water treatcnentXule
f o r t h ed e t e r m i n a t i o n o f coeblnedchlorine.Thlsresidual shou1.d
be t h e same (2205) as resldual?resent I n thetreatmentplant
operatlon.
K. A t the end o f theexposure t i m e , add 1.0 m l 102 sodium t h i o s u l f a t e
soliltiontothecontents o f the 600 m l beaker.

L. Concentratethe G. m u r i sc y s t sI nt h eb e a k e br yf i l t e r i n g t*e
entire contents tTro- 1.0 um p o r o s i t y 47 ma dlameter polycar-
bonate filter.

.
11

M. Placethe filter, Cystside up, ontheside o f I 150 m1 beaker.


Add 10 m l 0.01% tween’ 20 s o l u t i o n t o the beaker. Using a Pasteur
p i p e t t e , wash t h e .p..mudscysts from thesurface of t h e filter
by a s p i r a t i n 3 and e x p m g the 0.01% tween 20 s o l u t i o n over t h e
surface of the f l l te?.
. . s-
N. transferthecontents o f . t h e 150 a l beaker t o an a p p r o p r i a t e l y
l a b e l e d 15 m l screwcapconicalcentrifugetube.
-.
0. Keep the tube on crushed
ice
until
theexcystation assay i s . .
performed (see Section 111, C) o n t h e d i s i n f e c t a n t exposed cysts
and on anunexposed controlpreparationobtained from Shestock
c y s t suspension,

.
12

V. PROCEOURE FOR DETERMINING IHACtIVAfIO~J


A. Glardla mutts E x c y s t a t l o n Q u a n t l t a t l o n Procedure

where ECW I s t h e number of empty c y s t walls,


-
PET I s the number of p a r t l a l l y cxcysted trophozoites, and
C
I I s ' t h e number o f I n t a c t c y s t s .
An EC'A Is defined as a c y s t w a ll whlch I s open a t oneend and I s
conrpletelydevoid o f a trophozolte. A PET I s a cystwhich has
started the excystation process and progressed t o t h e p o i n t where
thetrophozolte has e l t h e rs t a r t e dt o emerge or has c o a p l e t e l y
emerged and i s st111 attached to
thecyst wall. An IC i s a
t r o p h o t o l tdeh i c h I s completely surrounded with I c y swt a l l
showing no evidence o f emergence. For thecontrol,generally 100
forms are counted to determine the percent excystation.
The number o fc y s t st h a t must be observed and c l a s s l f l e d (ECW,
PET, IC) i nt h ed i s i n f e c t e d sample i s dependent on t h el e v e lo f
i n a c t i v a t i o nd e s i r e d and on theexcystatlonpercentageobtained
in the control

Far 0.5, 1 and 2 l o g 0 reductions, (583, 905 and 99% l n a c t i -


vation,TeSpeCtivelyf,the mlnimum number o f c y s t st o be
observedand c l a s s i f i e d I s determined by divldfng 100 b y t h e
.
percentageexCyStatfon(expressed
the control
as a decimal)obtainedin'

For a 3 loglo r e d u c t i o n (99.93 i n a c t l v a t l o nt)h e minimum


number of c y s t s t o beobservedandclassifiedis,determined
b yd l v i d f n g 1.000 bythepercentageexcystation(expressed
as a decimal)obtained I n t h e c o n t r o l .
B. D e t e n n l n i n gI n a c t l v a t l o n
The amount o f I n a c t i v a t i o n I s determined by comparing the percent-
age e x c y s t a t i o n o f ' t h e exposed c y s t p r e p a r a t i o n t o thepercentage
e x c y s t a t l o n i n t h ec o n t r o lp r e p a r a t i o nu s i n gt h e following for- *

mu1a :

-
% i n a c t l v a t i o n = 100% [(exposed Z excysted/control X excysted) x 1003
Ifthepercentageexcystation i n t h e exposed preparation i s Zero,
1.e.. o n l y IC [ n o ECW o r ?ET) a r e observed and' counted,use <I as
the vat ue f o r Wexposed X excysted" fn the formula for.calculatin.9
X inactivation.
.*.
13

. .
VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Pub1 Ic.Heal th Associatlon; Amerlcan Water Works Association;
MaterPolutlonControlFederation.Standardtlethodsforthe Examina-
o ft i o n !.later and Wastewater, 16th ed. (1985). . --
6.

Belosevlc, !!.
L G.H. Faubert. Giardia murls: correlation between
o r a l dosage, course of i n f e c t l o n , a n d o p h o r o l t e d i s t r l b u t l o n I n t h e
*I

mouse m all lntestlne.. Exp. Parasltol., 56:93 (1983). .

Erlandsen, L.S. and L A . Heyer. Giardia and Giard1asls.- Plenum


Press, tlew York, (1984).
Faubert, G.H. e t a1.
t i o nw i t hG i a r d i a
(1983).
Comparatlvestudiesonthepattern
spp. i n Mongol Iangerbils. 3. P a r a s l t o l
..
o fi n f e c -
69:802 .,'
Feely, D.E.
-
muris. .
A simp1 i f e d method f o r I n v i t r oe x c y s t a t i o n
J. Parasi to1 , 72:474-475(198') 7
o f Giardia

Feely, D.E. Induction o f e x c y s t d t l o no f . 6 i t r d i am u r i sb y Cop. 62nd


Annual lrteetingofthe Amerlcan Society o m m l s t s , flncoln,
Nebraska, Abstract No. 91(1987).
Gonzalez-Castro, J. , Bermejo-Vicedo, H.T. and .Palaclos-Gonzalez , F.
-
3esenquistaniento y c u l t i v o de Giardia muris.. Rev. Iber. Parasitol , . .
46:21-25(1986).
.
Melvin, C.H. and t1.M. Brooke. LaboratoryProceduresfortheDiagnosis

(1982) .
o f IntestinalParasites.3rd ed., HHS Pub1,ication No. ( C X ) 82-8282

Miale, J.B.
Company, S t . Louis , Missourj (1967) .
LaboratoryNedicine Hematology, 3rd ed. C. V. Mosby

model .
Roberts-fhomson, I.
C
Gastroenterol
. e t a1..
.,
G i a r d i a s iIstnh e
71:57(1976). '
mouse:. an anlmal .

Sauch, J.F.
mentation. .
P u r l f l c a t l o no fG i a r d i am u r i sc y s t sb y
Appl Environ. N i C m , 4 8 : 4 5 4 (1984).
.velocity sedi-

Sauch, J.F. A new method forexcystationofGiardia. Advances i n


Giardia Research. U n i v e r s i t yo f Calgary, Calgar-ada ( I n Press).
' Schaefer, 111, 'F.W., Rice, E.W., L Hoff, J.C. Factors
promoting .
E d m . , 78:795(1984) .
I nv i t r o' e x c y s t a t i o no fG i a r d i am u r i sc y s t s . Trans. Roy. SOC. Trop.
VII, TECHNICALCONTACTS:
A. Eugene Y. RIce
HlcroblologicalTreatmentBranch
' - .
RIskReductlonEnglnetrlngLaboratory
U.S. EnvlronmentalProtectlon Agency
26 UestMartinLutherKlngOrlve
Clnclnnatl
Ohio
15268
Phone: (513) 569-7233
B. Frank W. Schaefer,I11
Paras1 tology andImmunologySranch
Envlronmentaltlonltorlng Systems Laboratory
U. 5. Envl ronmental Protec tlon Agency
26 UestHartlnLutherKingDrive
Clnclnnatl,
3hlo 45268
Phone: (513) 569-7222

.
1s

Appendix A! Use o f the Hemocytometer


Suspension Dens1t y Detennlnation Uslng the Improved ?Ieubauer (Bright-1 ine)
Hemocytometer
The hemocytometer conslsts o f two chambers separated by a transverse
trench and bordered bllaterally by l o n g i t u d i n a l trenches. Each chamber
i s ruled and conslsts of n l n e squares, each 1 x 1 x 0.1 m'wlth a
volume of 0.1 m3. Each square m I s bordered by a trlple 1lne, The
center 1Ine o f thethree Is the boundary Ine 1 o f the square.
(See ,

Figure 1).
.-
According t o the U. S. Bureau o f Standards' requlrements,*the Cover
glass must be free of vlslbledefects and must be optically plane on
both sides w l t h i n p l u s Or llinus 0.002 m. ONLY HEWOCYTOMETER COVER
GLASSES M A Y BE. USED. ORDINARY COVER GLASSES AND SFRATCHED HEMOCYTOMEmrS
R E UNACCEPTABLE, as theyIntroduceerrors l n t o the voTwe relationships.
The suspe?lslon t o be counted must be evenlydistrlbuted and free o f
largedebris, so t h a t the chamber floodsproperly. Ihe suspension t o be
counted should contain 0.012 Tween 20 solutionto prevent G l a r d i a cysts
froln sticking and causing Improper hemocytometer chamber fl- Cyst
suspenslons should be adjusted SO t h a t .there are a t o t a l of 60 t o 100 cysts
i n thefourcornercountlngsquares. Counts are statdstically accurate,
I n t h i s range. If the Suspension Is too numerous t o be counted , then I t
must be dilutedsufficfently t o b r l n g i t intothis range. In some cases,
the suspensionwlll be too dllute after concentr3tlon t o give a s t b t l s t l -
cally re1i a b l e count. I n . the 69-1'30 cyst range, There i s n o t h i n g t h a t can
bedone about t h l s s l t u a t l o n other t h a n t o recordtheresult as question-.
ab1 e.
To use the hemocytometer:
1. Diluteorconcentratethe suspenslon as requlred,
2. Apply a cleancover glass t o the hemocyto,neter and load the
hemocytometerchamber w l t h 8-10 u l ofvortexedsuspenslonper
chamber. I f thls operatlon has been properly executed, the
l i q u i d should amply f i l l the entlre chamber w l t h o u t bubbles or
overflowing I n t o the surroundlng moats. Repeat thls step w l t h a
clean, dry hemocytometer and coverglass, i f loadlng has been
Incorrectly done. See step (12) below for the hemocytocneter
cleanlngprocedure.
3. !b notattempt t o adjustthecoverglass, apply cllps, or In any
way dlsturb the chamber a f t e r I t has been fllled. Allow the
Glardia c y s t st os e t t l e 30 t o 60 seconds before startingthe
count.
4.. The G i a r d i a cysts may be counted uslng a magnlficatlon 200-6OOX.
5. :4ove. the chamber so theruledarea i s centered underneath i t .

6. Then locatetheob'ctiveclo e t o thetgver ~ l t \ \w l e watch-t * ~


l n g .It from the s t f e o f ratger t h a n roug
16

7. FOCUS
appears .
UP from the coverslip u n t i l the hemocytometer rul Ing

8. A t each of thefourcorners o f the chanber i s a 1 m2 dlvided


i n t o 16 squares i n whlch Giardia cystsareto be counted (see . .,-..
*

Ffgure 1). Beglnnlng w i t h m o p row o f four,squares,count 1


A t h a hand t a l l y counter i n the directions indicated I n Figure
2. Avold c o u n t i n g Giardia cysts twice by counting onlythose
touching the top a n d m u n d a r y lines and none of those touch- .%
i n 3 the lower a n d right boundary llnes. Count each square mm f n -
this fashfon.
9. The formula for detcnnlnlngthe number o f Giardia cys,rsper ml
suspenslon Is:
# of cysts counted 10 d i l u t i o n factor
a o f sq. mm counted x x- ' x r1 000 mme3
I cystslml
. 1'3. 'Record the
result on data
a sheet sinilar t o t h a t shown I n
Figure 3.
11. A t o t a l of s i x .different hemocytometerchambers w s t be loaded, .
counted, and thenaveraged for each Glardla cyst suspenslon t o
achleve optlmal countlngaccuracy.
12. After each use,the hemocytometer and coversl l p must be cleaned
immediately t o preventthecysts and debrls from drying on I t .
Since this apparatus Is preclsely machined, abrasivescannot be
used t o clean I t asthey w l l l disturb the f l o o d i n g a n d u a e
relationships.
a. Rinse the hemocytometer and cover glass flrst wlth..tap
water,then 702 ethanol and flnally w l t h acetone.
b, 3ry and pol I s h the hemocytomet.er chamber and cover glass
w l t h lens paper. Store i t I n asecureplace.
13. A number o f factors are known t o Introduceerrors I n t o hemocyto-
metercounts. These include: c

/
a.'Inadequatesuspenslon m i x i n g before f l o o d i n g the chamber.
b. Irregular f l l l l n g the
of chamber, trapped air bubbles,
dust, o r 011 on the chamber or covers1 i p .
c.
Chamber coversllpnot flat.
d. Inaccurately rut ed chamber.
e. The enumeration
procedure. loo many or t o o few Giardia
cysts per square, s k i p p i n g orrecounting some G i a r d i a cysts.

. .
17

f. Total number of Glardla cysts


counted
*too
islow
to
g l v t statistical .coi?'i7Ke In result.

9. Error i nr e c o r d i n gt a l l y .

* 1. Inadequatecleaning and removal o f cysts froln theprevious


count.

j. A l l o w i n gf i l l e d chamber t o 'tlt too long so t h a t chamber SUS-


p e n s i o n d r l e t and concentrates.
18

Figure 1. Hemocytometer p h t f o t mr u ti n g . Squares 1, 2, 3, and 4 a r e


used t o countGiardiacysts. (From M l a l c , 1967)

Figure 2. Manner o f c o u n t i n gG i a r d i ac y s t si n 1 square m. Dark. cysts


a r ec o u n t e da n dl i g h tc y s t s are o m i t t e d .( A f t e rH i a l e , 1967)
t
i cystslml I I o f cysts counted x 10 dilutlon factor 1 000'mm'
o f sq. mm counted EZ x x

Figure 3. Hemocytometer Data Sheet f o r Giardia Cysts


Appendlx 8. PreparatlOn and Loading of
Excystatlon Cham'ber Slldes
1.
x 3 m
m.
fJslng tape whlch IS stlcky on b o t h sldes, cut strlps approximately 11
. .
2. Apply a s t r l p of thetapeto one side of a 22 x 22 nun covetsl.l?.
3. Apply a second strip oftape t o theopposite edge b u t same side of
the coversl lp.
4. Y n d l l n g the coversl i p by the edgesonly, attach the coversl-lp to the
center o f a 3 x 1 Inch glass sl lde by placingthetaped sldcs o f the
coversllp dodn along the long edge of the glass st Ide.
5. Hake surethecoversllp Is securelyattached t o the sllde b y l l g h t l y
presslng down on the edges o f thecoverslip w l t h your fingers. Care
should be taken t o keep flnger prlnts off the center of the coversllp.

6. To load the chamber slide,place a Pasteurormicrollterpipette


contalnlng a t l e a s t 0.2 m l o f the Glardla cyst suspensfon about 2 mm
from an untapededge o f the c o v e t s m o w l y allow the cyst suspen-
sion t o flow toward thecoversl l p . As I t touchesthecoversl ip i t
d i l l be wlcked or drawn r a p l d l y under the coversllp by adhesfve forces,
3nly expel1 enough ofthecystsuspensionto.completely f i l l the
chamberformed by the tape, slide, a n d coversl ip.
I

7. Wipe away any excesscystsuspenslon whlch I s n o t under the coverslip


w l t h an absorbant paper towel, b u t be careful n o t t o p u l l cyst
suspenslon from under the covgrslip.
8; Seal a l l sides o f thecoverslip w l t h vaspar t o preventthe s l i d e frola
drying o u t d u r i n g theIncubation.

Figure 1. Excystatlon Chamber $1 i d e


NOTE: Preparedexcystst1on.cha:nbersl i d i s may be comnerclally a v a i l -
able from SplralSystem, Inc., 6740 C l o u g h Pike, C i n c l n n a t f ,
Ohio 45244,(513) 231-1211 or 232-3122. or from other sources.
APPEII9IX 6-2

DETERMINING CHLORAHIIIE INACTIVATION OF VIRUS


FOR THESURFACE WATER 'IREATHEN1RULE

MicrobiologicalTreatmentBranch
Risk
Reduction
EngineeringLaboratory .
and

P a r a s i t o l o g y and ImmunologyBranch
. EnvironmentalHonitoring Systems Laboratory
U.S. EnvfronmentalProtection Agency .
26 g e s t M a r t i n L u t h e r K i n g D r i v e
C i n c i n n a t i , Ohio 45268
TABLE 3F CONfEtllS

.
3

The Surface water Treatment Rule requlres 99.99? or greater,temoval/


l n a c t l v a t l o n of vlruses. The f o l l o w i n g p r o t o c o l may beused t o determine
thepercentage o f v l r u s l n a c t l v a t l o n o b t a l n e d b y a treatmentplantusing
chloramfne dlsinfectlon.

I. UTERIALS
A. M a t e r i a l s for D i s i n f e c t i o n

1. Stockchlotlnesolution
2. Stock ammonia s o l u t f o n
3. Stlrrlng device
4. Incubator or w a t e rb a t hf o rl e s st h a nr m b l e n t e h p e r a t u r e
5. Hater froin treatment plant
6. ?4S2 bacter lophage
7. Assortedglassware
8. Assortedpipettes
9. Aqueous, s t e r i l e s o d i u m t h l o s u l f a t e s o l u t i o n
10. Refrigerator
11. Vortex mixer
12. Tlmer
E. N a t e r l a l s f o r MS2 Assay

1.
2.
US2 bacteriophageand i t s Escherichiacoli:host
Assortedglassware
-
3. Assortedpipettes
4, Incubator, 3 7 O C
5. qefrlgerator
6, P e t r i dishes, 100 x 15 mm, s t e r i l e
7. Vortex mlxer
8. Water bath, 4 5 O C
9. Sterllerubberspatula
10.
11
12
.. EDTA, disodium s a l t
Lysozyme, c r y s t a l l i z e d from egg white
Centrifuge with swinging bucket rotor
.. 4

If. REAGENTS AND MEDIA


A. tryptone-Yeast E x t r a c t (TYE) Broth .
Ingredient Amount
tryptone Bacto 10.0 9 -
Yeast e x t r a c t 1.0 g
61ucose 1.0 , g
Na C1 8.0 g
1.0 M CaC12 . 2.0 m l
Dlssolve I n d l s t l l l e d water t o a t o t a l volume o f 1.0 l l t e r ,
then add 0.3 m l of 6.0 M NaOH. fhls medium should..be s t e r l -
l l r e de i t h e r by autoclavlng f o r 15 minutes a t 121OC or
f i l t r a t l o nt h r o u g h a 0.22 urn p o r o s i t y membrane and then
stored a t approximately 4'C. * I t Is used I n preparlng
b a c t e r i a lh o s ts u s p e n s i o n sf o rv i r a l assays.
8. Tryptone-YeastExtract (TYE) Agar

Ingredient Amount
BE broth .1.0 l i t e r
Agar 15.0 g
The a g a r s h o u l d b e ' a d d e d t o t h e b r o t h p r l o r t o . s t e r i l i z a -
t i o n . Themedium should be s t e r i l i z e d byautoclaving for
15 minutes a t 1 2 1 O C . This medium I s used t o prepareslant
t u b efso r maintenance of bacterial stock cultures. The
prepared slant tubes should be stored' at approximately 4'C.
C. S o t t o m Agar foraacteriophageAssay. '

Agar 15.0 g
Na C1 2.5 9
KC1 2.5 9
1.0 1.0 M CaC12 ml

D l s s o l v teh ien g r e d i e n tisdn l s t l l l e w


d a t etro a total
volume o f 1 1I t e r . The medlum should be s t e r l l l t e d . by .
a u t o c l a v l n gf o r 15 minutes a t 121OC. Afterautoclavlng and
c o o l i n g ,s t o r ea t 4'C. I m n e d l a t e l yp r i o rt o use, l i q u e f y
t h e medium byheating. Add approxlmately 15 m l o f Iique-
fledagarinto: each Petridish.This'bottomlayerserves
asananchoringsubstrateforthetopagarlayer.
4

0. fopAgar for Bacterlpphage Assay


Ingredlent Amount
tryptone Bacto 10.0 9
Agar * 0.0 g
Ha C1 8.0 9 .
Yeast e x t r a c t 1.0 9
G1 ucose l,o g
1.0 M CaC12 1.0 m l
Dlssolve the Ingredients I n d i s t l l l e dw a t e tro a total
volume o f 1 l i t e r T. h i s medlum should be s t e r i l i z e db y
a u t o c l a v i n g 15rnlnutes a t 121OC. A f t e rc o o l i n g , s' t o r ea t
4OC u n t i l needed i n bacteriophage assays. Imnediately
p r i o r to. use i n assays, 1iquefy the mediun by heatlng and
thencool t o and m a i n t a ai nt a temperature of 45OC.

E. S a l t 31 1uent for Bacteriophage Assay


Ingredient Amount
ka c1 8*5 9
1,O M CaCl2 2.0 m l
D i s s o l v eI nd i s t i l l e dw a t e rt o a t o t a l volume o f 1 l i t e r .
This dlluent should be s t e r i l l z e de i t h ebr ay u t o c l a v l n g
f o r 15 minutes a t 121'C or f i l t r a t i o nt h r o u g h ' a 0.22 Jm
p o r o s i t y membrane. Store a t room temperature.

F. CaCl2,
1.0 M
Ingredient Amount
2aC1 2 11.1 9
D i s s o l v ei nd l s t l l l e dw a t e rt o a t o t a lv o l u q eo f 100 m l .
Autoclave 15 mlnutes a t 1 2 1 O C ofri l t esr t e r i l i z teh e
s o l u t i o nt h r o u g h a 0.22
um p a r o s l t y membrane. S t o r ea t
room temperature.

G. Sodlum T h i o s u l f a t e , 1%
Ingredient Amount
fate thiosul 3odium 1.0 9

D l s s o l v et h e sodium t h i o s u l f a t e I n 50 m l d l s t l l l e d water.
A d j u st ht e volume t o 100 m l . u l t h a d d i t i o n adl i s t i l l e d
water. F i l t esr t e r i l i z et h es o l u t l o nt h r o u g h a '5.22 ;Im
p o r o s i t y membrane orautoclave 15 m i n u t e sa t 121OC. Store
a t room temperature.

. " .
!

111, MS2 BACTERIOPHAGE ASSAY '

1. MS2 bacteriophage:
catalog number 15597-81, Amerlcan Type
Culture Collection, 12301 Parklawn Drlve, Rockvllle, MD -20352
2. Bacterial
host:
Escherlchla
coli
catalog number 15597,
' American Type Culture~ollection-'
8. Growth and MajntenanceofMicroorganism
.-
1. Preparatlonofbacterlalhoststock cultures
Inoculatehostbacteriaonto TYE a g a rs l a n ttubes, Incubate
24 hours a t 37OC t o a l l o w b a c t e r l a l growth,andthen refrlger-
a t ea t 4 O C . A t monthly Intervals the cultured bacterlal
hostsshould be t r a n s f e r r e d t o a new TYE agar slant.
2. Preparatlon o f bacterlophagestocksuspenslon
Helt topagarandnalntalnat 45OC. Add 3 m l of theagarto
a 13 x 100 mn t e s t tube cpntalned I n a rack I n a 45°C water
bath. Add 0.5 t o 1.0 ml .of the bacterlophage suspenslon . .
d i l u t e d so t h a t the hostbacterial "lawn" wlll show nearly
complete lysis afterovernlghtIncubatlon; Add .0.1 t o 0.2 m l *

o f a TYE broth culture ' o f the hostbacteriathathas been


Incubatedovernlght. M i x gently a n d pour the contents on the
s u r f a c e o f bottom agarcontained I n a P e t r i d l s h t h a t has.
beenpreparedpreviously. Rock the P e t r i d l s h tospreadthe
addedmaterialevenlyover the agarsurface.Afterthetop
a g asro l l d l f i e(sa b o u t 15 mlnutes),Invert the P e t r i d i s h
andincubate overnight a t 37OC. Repeat the above procedure '

so t h a t a minimum of 5 b u t no more than 10 Petri dlshesare


prepared .
Following thls lncubatlon and uslng a sterlle rubber spatula,
gentlyscrape the top and bottom agarlayersInto a large .
beaker. Add t o this pool ofagarlayers an amount of TYE
b r o t hs u f f l c l e n tt o y i e l d a t o t a l volume of 80 m l . To thls
mixture add 0.4 g of EDTA (disodium s a l t ) and 0.052 g of *

lysozyme ( c r y s t a l l f z e d from egg white). Incubate this mixture


a t room temperaturefor 2 hours w l t h continuous m i x i n g . Then
centrifuge the mlxture f o r 15 mlnutes a t 3.,000 x g. Carefully
remove the upper f l u i d layer. Thls f l u i d 'layer C O n S t i t . u t e S a
'vlralstock suspension for
use
In
subsequent testing and
assays. me viral stock
suspenslon my be divided i n t o
a1 lquots and stored either frozen Or a t 4 O C .
C. Per#ormance ofSacterlophage Assay
A two-week supply o f P e t r i d i s h e s may bepoured w i t h bottom agar
ahead of time and r e f r i g e r a t e di n v e r t e da t 1'C. I f stored i n a
r e f r l g e r a t o r , a l l o w agar p l a t e s t o e q u i l i b r a t e t o room temperature
before use. Elghteen hours prlor t o beglnnlng a bacterlophage
assay,prepare a bacterialhosttuspenslon by l n o c u l a t l n g 5 m l of
TYE b r o t h w l t h a small amount o f bacferlatakendlrectly from a
slant tubeculture. Incubatethebrothcontalnlng thls bacterlal :
Inoculum overnlght(approxlmately 19 hours) a t 3 7 O C lmmedlately '
prior t o use I n bacterlophage assays a s descrlbed below. fhls
type o f brothculture should be prepared freshly for each 'day's
bacterlophage assays. Ifnecessary, a volune greater t h a n 5 ml
can be prepared I n a slmllar manner.
On t h e day o f assay,melt a sufflclent amount of t o p agar and
a a l n t a l n a t 4 5 O C In a water bath. Place t e s t tubes (13 x 100 mm)
I n a rack I n the same water b a t h and allow to warn, then-add 3 m l
of t o p a g a r t o each tube.Inoculatethe t e s t tubescontaining
t o p agar w l t h thebacterlophage samples (0.5 t o 1.0 m l of the
sample/tube) plus 0.1 t o 0.2 m l oftheovernlghtbacterial host
suspension. Dllutethebacterlophage samples from 10'1 t o 1Y4
In saltdiluentprior t o lnoculatlon and assay each d i l u t i o n I n
a negatlvecontrol .
t r i p l l c a t e . In additlon,assaytheunlnoculated
Agltatethetesttubescontalnlng
bacteriophage inoculu'II, and bacterial host suspensiongently on a
salt dlluentas
top agar,
vortex mixer, and pour the contents of
each onto a hardened
bottom a g a r layercontalned I n an approprlately numbered dish.
Quickly rock the Petrl dishes t o spreadthe added aaterlal evenly, .
a n d place on a f l a t surface a t room temperature whlle the a g a r
present I n the added material s o l l d l f l e s (approximately 15 m i n -
utes).Invert and incubatethedishes a t 3 7 O C overntght(approxl-
mately 13 hours). The focal areas of viral Infection w h i c h
develop d u r i n g t h i s I n c u b a t i o n arereferredto'as "plaques" a n d ,
i f possible, should be enumerated Immediatly ,after the lncubatioq.
I f necessary,theincubatedPetridishes can be refrfgerated a t
4 O C overnlght prior t o plaque enumeration. As a general rule,
c o u n t only thoseplates t h a t contaln between 29 and 200 plaques.
3

IV.DISINFECTIONP ~ O C E D U R E
A. lhe treatment p l a n t water t o be used should be the water influent
Intot9e chloramine disinfectton u n i t process used i n the p l a n t .
I f chloramine disinfection is perfoned a t more t h a n one p o i n t i n
thetreatmentprocess, t o g . prefiltration and postfiltratlon, the
procedure shouldsimulateascloselyaspossibleactualtreatment
practice.
8. Prepare stock ammonia and chlorinesolutions t o .beadded t o . t h e
treatqent p l a n t water to achieve the same stoichiometric t e l a t i o n -
shlp between chlorine and ammonla t h a t is used i n the water
treatment p l a n t . These solutlons s h o u l d be concenttated enough
so t h a t no more than 2 ml of each solutlon wlll beadded tothe
treatment plant water belng dlslnfected.
C. Deternine the contact time by the methods described I n the Surface
Water Treatnent Rule and/or the associated Guidance Manual.
D. Rinse two 600 m l beakers w i t h treatment p l a n t water t o remove any
extraneousmaterlal t h a t may cause disinfectant deaand. Then add.
400 m l treatment p l a n t water t o the beaker. The' f l r s t beaker
w f l l be seeded w i t h H92 beforethecontentsarechloraninated,
The second beaker wlll be an indlgenous virus control and wf 11
be chloramlnated w l t h o u t a d d l t l o n of extraneous. phage.
E. H i x the contents of the beaker short of producing a vortex i n t h e
center and continue u n t i l the
conc?usion of the
experiment,
f. Equilfbratethe 600 ml beakers and theircontents as we17 as t h e
disinfectantreagents t o the
deslred
experimental
temperature.
G. Dilute the stock MS2 bacteriophage so t h a t thebacteriophage con-
centratlon' Is 1 t o 5 x 108 PFU/ml. ,
H. Add 1.0 m l of the diluted MS2 bacteriophage t o the contents of the
f i r s t 600 m l beaker.
1. Remove a 10 m l sample from thecontents. of the f l r s t beaker a f t e r
2 minutes of mixing. Assay the MS2 bacterlophageconcentration
i n this sample w i t h i n 4 hours and recordtheresul t t as PFU/ml. *

This value i s the i n i t l a l MS2 concentratlon..


J. Remove a 10 m l Sample from thecontents of the second beaker

you assay the


s
a f t e r 2 minutes of mixing. Assay the l n d i enous bacteriophage
concentration I n this sample w i t h i n 4 hours a t the same tlme as
sample from the flrst beaker) and record the' .
resultsas QFU/ml
tlon.
.This value i s the I n i t i a l unseeded concentra-

K. Add thedisinfectantreagentstothecontents of b o t h beakers


using the same sequence,tlme, a n d concentrations as are used n i
the a,ctual treatment p l a n t operations.
9

L, J u s t p r i o r t o the end o f the contact time, remove a volume o f saa-


p l e adequate f o r d e t e n i n a t i o n o f t h e d i s i n f e c t a n t r e s i d u a l con-
c e n t r a t i o n from both
beakers. Use methods p r e s c r i b eitdnh e
Surface Water treatnentRuleforthedetermination of combined
c h l w i n e . This residual should be the tame (22oX) as the
residual present i n the treatment plant operation.
H. ‘ A t the end o f the exposuretime , remove a 10 m l sample fromthe
f i r s t 600 m l beaker and n e u t r a l i z e w i t h 0.25 m l o f 1.0% aqueous,
s t e r i l e sodium t h i o s u l f a t e . Assay f ot hr e HS2 bacteriophage *
s u r v i v o r s dnd r e c o r dt h er e s u l t sa s PFU/ml. f h l sv a l u ei st h e
exposed NS2 concentration.
N. A t t h e end o f t h e exposuretime, remove a 10 m l sample fromthe
second 600 ml beaker and n e u t r a l i r e w i t h 0.25 m l of 1.0% aqueous,
s t e r l l e sodium t h i o s u l f a t e . Assay fortheindlgenousbacterio-
pha3e s u r v l v o r s and r e c o r dt h er e s u l t sa s PFU/ml. ‘Thisvalue i s
the exposedunseeded concentration.

Y. PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING INACTIYATION


A. CalculationofPercentageInactivation
Use t h ef o l l o w i n gf o r m u l at oc a l c u l a t et h ep e r c e n ti n a c t l v a t i o n
o f MS2:
1. ‘z I n a c t i v a t i o n = 190% - [(exposed
HS2/initlal FlS2) x 1903

I steps I,J , M and N c a l c u l a t e i n i t i a l


Ilsing values from SectionV
MS2 andexposed HS2 as f o l 1 ows:
2. I n i t i a l 1.152 (PFU/ml) - I - J.
3. Exposed MS2 (PFU/ml) * M - N.
I f t h e number of PFU/ml i n exposed MS2 i s zero, i.e., noplaques
a r e produced a f t e r assay of u n d l l u t e d and d i l u t e d samples,use <1
PFU/ml as thevalue i n t h e above formula.

B. Comparison o f PercentageInactivationtoLoglb o f I n a c t i v a t ion.


682 i n a c t i v a t i o n Is e q u i v a l e n t t o 0.5 l o g l o i n a c t l v a t i o n
90% i n a c t i v a t i o n i s e q u i v a l e n t t o 1 loglolnactlvatlon
99% i n a c t i v a t i o n i s e q u i v a l e n t t o 2 loglo inactivation
99.9% l n a c t l v a t l o n Is e q u i v a l e n t t o 3 logloInactivation
.. 10
* .

VI.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, M.H. Bacteriophages.IntersciencePubl.ishers, New York e1959).
American Public Health Association; AmericanWater Works Association;
VaterPollutionControlFederatlon.Standard
t i o n o f Water and Wastewater, 1 6 t h ed, t1985) .
I:ethods for t h e Exrmina-

Grabow, W.O.K. e t a l . I n a c t i v a t i o n o f hepatitus A virus,.otherenter- *

i cv i r u s e s and i n d i c a t o r organisms I n water by chlorination.


. . Water
Sci. Techno1 e ) 17:657 (1985)
.-
Jacangelo, J.D.; Q l i v i e r i , V.?.; L Kawata, K. Mechan*lsm o f I n a c t i v a -
t i o n o f microorganismsbycombinedchlorlne, AWUARF Ript.,Denver,
CO (1987).
SafeDrinkingWater Committee. The d i s f n f e c t i o n of d r i n k i n g water.
In: Drinking Waterand Health,National Academy Press, Washfngton,
D.C., 2:5 (1980).

phages f 2 and T2 i n water.Appl .


Microbiol 24:658 (1972). .
Shah, P. & McCamish, J. R e l a t i v e r e s i s t i n c e of p o l i o v i r u s 1 a n d ' c o l i -

U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency. GuidanceManual f o r Compliance .


w i t ht h eF i l t r a t i o n and D i s i n f e c t i o n Requirements for Publfc Water
Systems Using Surface \later Sources. Appendix G, U.S. EPA, O f f i c e
o f Water, C r i t e r i a andStandards D i v i s i o n , Washington, D.C. (1988).
Ward, N . R . ; Wolfe, R.L.; S Olson, S.H. E f f e c ot f pH, a p p l i c a t i o n
technique, and c h l o r i n e - t o - n i t r o g e n r a t i o on d i s i n f e c t a n t a c t i v i t y o f
inorganic
.
chloramines with
Microbiol , 45:508 (1984) ,
pure culture 'bacteria,.
. *
Appl. Environ.

.
11

.
VII. TECHHICALCONTACTS: a

A. Donald B e n a n
:!icroblologicalTreatmentBranch
RiskReductionEngineeringLaboratory
U.S. Environmental'rotection Agency
26 West MartinLutherKingDrive
Cincinnati
Ohio
45268
Phone: (513)569-7235

9. Chtiston 3. Hurst ..
?licroblotogicalTreatmentBranch
RiskReductionEngineeringLaboratory
U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency
26VestMartinLutherKingDrive
C i n c i n n a t i Ohio
45269
Phone: (513)
569-7331
6.3 DETERMINING CHLORINEDIOXIDE INACTIVATION
OF GIARDrA CYSTS UYO VIRUS

G i a r d t a ’
. .*

The basis for the chlorjne dioxide CT values for Giardia cysts in
the Guidance Clanual is given i n Appendix F.1.2. The CT values are based
on data collected mainlyat pH 7, Very little data was availableother at
pHs. A review of data from Hoff (1986) indicates that the disinfection
efficiency of chlorine dioxide for bacteria m d virusej increases .
approxiarately 2 to 3 fold as pH increases from 7 to 9. Data on which the
CT values in the SWTR are based indicate that at 25 C,. E, aauti_2 cyst
inactivation CTs were approximately 2 fold higher at pH 7 than at pH 9
(Leahy, 1985). In addition, the data also indicate that chlorine dioxide
efficiency increases ai disinfectant concentration increases within the
range studied.
Because the data on effects of chlorine dioxide concentration and
water pH on Giardia cyst inactivation efficiency+re very lidted, they. .
were not considered in calculating the Eiardtn cyst CT values in Appendix
E. However, the data suggest that site specific conditions, i,e. water .
pH and disinfectant concentration, can have significant effects on
chlorine dioxide effectiveness. Therefore, the option of allowing the
Primacy Agency to consider the use of lower CT values, by individual
systems has been provided.
This approval should be based on acceptable experimental data
p&ided by the system. The data should be collected using the protocol
provided in Appendix G-1 for determining Giardfa cyst inactivation by
(.

chloramine with appropriate changes in Section I V A,;B, I and J to reflect


the use of chlorine dioxide rather than chloramines, This procedure can
be usedfor any disinfectant which can be preparedin an aqueous solution
. and !s stable over the course o f the testing. To do this, chloramine
should be replaced with the test disinfectant in ’the above noted sections.

.
Y(tus
The basis for the chlorine dfoxfdeCT values for virus in Appendix
F.2.2 consists of limited data from Sobsey (1988). Because the pH 9 data
available were very limited,the Cf values are 4asedtheonpH 6 data with
a safety factor of 2 applied. As indicated previously, m i & 'of data .
' from a nutnber of studies (Hoff, 1986) shows that chlorine dioxide
efficiency increases2.to 3 fold as pH increasesfrola 7 to 9.
Because the virus CT values for chlorfne dioxideare very conserva-
tive and most systemsoperate at water pHs higher than those bn whfch the
Gf values are based, the option.ofallowing the Prilaacy Agency to constder
the use of lower CT values has been provided.
fhfs approval shou1.d be based on .acceptable cxperilaental .data
provided by the system. The data should be collected using the protocol
provided in Appendix 6.2 with appropriate changesin Sectfons - I A,1 and
2 and IV A , B, D, K, and L to reflect the use of chlorine dioxide rather
than chloramines. This procedure can be usedfor any disinfectant which
can be prepared in an aqueous solution andis stable over the course 07
the testing. To do this, chloramine should be ivplactd with the test
disinfectant in the above noted sectionsb

REFERENCES
Hoff, J.C. Inactivation of MicrobialAgents By ChemicalDisinfectant's, .?-
.-
EPA/600/52-86/067, U S . Environmental Protection AgencI Water Engineering
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, Septembtr,198i.
Leahy, 3.6. Inactivation of wardia Furis Cysts by Chlorine and Chlorine
Dioxide. Thesis, Department of civil Engineering, Ohio State University,
1985b

Sobsey, M.D. Detection and Chlorine Disinfectionof Hepatitis A Virus'in


Water. CR813024, EPA Quarterly Report, Dec. 1988.

6.3 -2
6.4 DETERMING OZONE INACTIVATION OF GIARDIA CYSTS AND VIRUS

G. 4.1 BACKGROUND

The b a s i s for t h e ozone CT valuesaregiven i n Appendices F.1.2


(Giardia cysts) and F.2.4 (Virus). As Indicated, both sets o f CT values
are basedon l i m i t e d d a t a and because o f t h i s , t h e v a l u e s e s t a b l i s h e d a r e
conservative andemploy l a r g e s a f e t y f a c t o r s . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e - d i f f e r e n c e
between t h e way the laboratory experiments used to' develop the CT values
and how ozone i s ',used 'inwatertreatmentpresents a p r o b l mw i t h
t r a n s l a t i n g t h e d a t a f o r f i e l d use. The laboratory studies were conducted
usingsteadystate ozone concentrationswith ozone c o n t i n u a l l y added
during the contact period. In contrast, steady state ozone concentrations
a r ne omt a i n t a i n e idfni e l d use.
Also, t h e f f e c t i v e n e s os f ozone
c o n t a c t o r r used i n f i e l d a p p l i c a t i o n s may vary from each o t h e r and from
t h em i x i n ge f f i c i e n c i e sa p p l i e di nt h el a b o r a t o r ye x p e r i m e n t s used t o
e s t a b l i s h t h e CT values.
The n e t e f f e c t o f a l l o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s Is to l
i
m i
t theappli-
c a b i l i t y o f t h e CT values i n t h e SWTR and GuidanceManual t o i n d i v i d u a l
systems. T h e r e f o r e , t h e o p t i o n o f a l l o w i n g t h e h i m a c y Agency t o c o n s i d e r
t h e use o f l o w e r CT values by individual systemshasbeenprovided.
This
approval shouldbe based. on acceptable' experimental
data
providedbythe system. I n general,theproceduresprovided i n Appendix
G . l for
determining Giardia c y sitn a c t i v a t i o n and Appendix 6.2 f o r
d e t e r m i n i n gv i r u si n a c t i v a t i o n canbe used.However, unlikechloramines
ozone i s n o t a s t a b l e d i s i n f e c t a n t . Because of ozone's rapid dissipation,
a p i l o t s t u d y must be used i n l i e u o f t h e batch system t o demonstrate the
d i s i n f e c t i o ne f f i c i e n c y . Generalconsiderations for c o n d u c t i n gp i l o t
s t u d i e st od e m o n s t r a t et h ed i s i n f e c t i o na b i l i t yo f ozone or any o t h e r
u n s t a b l e d i s i n f e c t a n t a r e enumeratedbelow.

6.4.2 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PILOT -TEST

A. All microorganisms,reagents and media arerepared as i n -


P
d i c a t e d in sections G.l f o r G i a r d i a and 6.2 or v i r u s .

G.4-1
..

8. The disinfectant should be p r e ared, measuredandadded t o t h e


. 8
t e s t water as it' would be a ded t o t h e water a t t h e ,water
treatment plant
C . tSpecific reactor design should bea function of the disinfec-
a n t and r e f l e c t how the .disinfectant Is added a t t h e wat'cr
treatment
plant.
Provisi.ons
should be l a dtedoe t e r n i n e .
concentration of d i s i n f e c t a n t and m i c r o b i a ll u r v t v a lt ob e '
measured with contact time..
-
An example o f conducting a p i l o t t e s t f o r a plug flow k a c t o r u s i n g
ozone or another unstable disinfectant i s provided below.

0 ua Fo
l- Protad
The s i z e o f the plugo lfwreactor can be. approximated from t h e t a b l e
below.Glass, stainlesssteel, copper, plastictubing or othermaterial 1 '

compatiblewiththedisinfectant canbeused t o constructtheplug olfw .


reactor.Table 1 shows theapproximatelengthofpipefor a' plug flow ,

r e a c t o rt oy i e l d 10 minutescontactat flow rates between 50 and 500


ml/min.Depending on pipe size and material an economical reactor can. be
constructed.
T U L E 1. APPROXIHATE LENGTH AND OIAYCTLR OF ? l P E ...
BASED ON FLOW

LINEAR ?l!E*LtNGTH. METERS


MQllMl ? l P E DIAYETER, at
t Low TIYE VOLUlE 1.2 0.6 . 1.8. 2.54 2 3.81 5. 08
.............................................*...............*....*..*......*.....*....
ml/mln Yik LITERS CC 0.28 . 1.31 2.54 5.07 11.40 20.27

50 10 0. I IO0 17.7 4. 4 2.0 ' 1.0 0. 4 0.2


100 10 1 1000 35.4 8.8 . 3.9 .2.0 0.9 0.5
200 10 2 2000 70.7 17.7 7.9 3.9 1.8 1.0
300 10 3 3000 106.1 26.1 . 11.8 5.9 2.6 1. 5
400 10 4 4000 141. I IS. 4 15. 7 1.9 I.5 2.0
500 10 5 IO00 176.8 . 44.2 ' 19..6 9.9 4.4 . 2.5

Additional information on the design of specific pilot studies can


be found i n the following references by Thompson (1982) , Hontgornery .(1985) ,
and AI-Ani (1985) .

plug flow reactor


cyst suspension, 2x10' c y s t s / t r i a l '

G 4-2
.
Cyst quantity - cysts are prepared as indicated i n 6.1.
'io' CYStS/d X 20,000 a1 2x10' cysts required/trial,
MS2 stock,2x101'/trial
' 2-20 1i t e r (5 gal)carboy
t e s t water pump, mid range 200 ml/min
disinfectant generator
disinfectant pump, a i d range 10-20 ml/min .-

disinfectant residual reagents and equipnent

I€sumww
A. Reactor
conditions
1. Test Water Flow rate= 200 ml/nin ( t h i s nay vary from 50 t o 500
ml/min with 20 1 reservoir total experimental time= 100 min)
2. Disinfectant flow
gas-requiresspecificcontactor designed f o r d i s i n f e c t a n t .
Liquid.10 t o 20 ml/min
3. Temperature
c o n t r o l 1ed
4. Prepare 20 l i t e r r e s e r v o i r (5 gal). o f . t e s t w a t e r a t t h epH and
temperatureofthe CT t r i a l . Do not add microorganisms
5. Prepare 20 l i t e r r e s e r v o i r (5 g a l ) o f t e s t w a t e r and equi-
l i b r a t e t o t h e temperature o f t h e CT t r i a l . Add Giardia
c y s t s a t an i n i t i a l d e n s i t y o f 10' cysts/ml and/or MS2 bacter-
i a l v i r u s a t an i n i t i a l d e n s i f y o f 10'PFU/ml. .Mix thoroughly
and adjust pH t o t h e pH o f t h e CT t r i a l . Continuous mixing o f
thetestwaterfeedstockshould be carriedoutoverthe
course o ft h e CT t r i a l t o preventthe Eiardip cystsfrom
settling.
B. -
D i s i n f e c t i o n Procedure P r i o rt oD i s i n f e c t i o nT r i a l
1. Determine contact time for the sample ports i n the plug flgw
reactor under conditions of the CT t r i a l by methods described
i n the SWTR.
2. Deterninedisinfectantconcentrationwith no microorganisms i n
the feed test water.

G .4-3
C. Cf Trial Procedure
1. Stayt test water feed without cysts and or virus (approx. 200
lal/min) , start disinfectant feed (gas or liquid). .
Allow systemto equilibrate.
Monitor disinfectant residual by appropriate.method during
this time. Samples for disinfectant residual shouldbe taken
directly into tubes or bottles containing reagentsto fix the
disinfectant at the tiae the sample is collected. - Keep a plot
of disinfectant residual vs runningtime to evaluate steady
state conditions.
2. After the disinfectant residual has stabilized, switchto the
reservoir containingthe test microorganism(s) .
3. Allow system to equilibrate for a time = 3 X final contact
time.
exampl e
final contact time110 min, allow 30 mln.
4. Monitor disinfectant residual by appropriate method during
this time. If the disinfectant residual is stable begin
chemical and biological samplingfor calculation of C f .
5. Sampling
a. Chemical
A sufficient volume (about250 la1 should be collected
from the sampling tap prior to.the biological composite .
to determine:
PH
-
Residual disinfectant Samples
should be collected directly
into tubesor bottles containing
reagents to fix the disinfectant
at the time the sample 1s collected,
b. Biological
Samples f o r microbial analysis are collectedas short
time composite samples over a 10 to 20 minute time
period. Several trials may run for a given 20 l i t e r
test water preparation as long assufficient equil ibra-
G .4-4
tion and flow recovery times a n allowed between. z

trials.
- Zero time samples should be collected as 250 a1
composite samples either directly frm the test
water 'feed reservoir or in line priorto the addi-
tion of the disinfectant.
- Four 250 a1 samples are
a 2 1 sterile bottle
agent for the particular
sample i s thorou hly mixed upon collection and
P
stored at 4 C. I multiple sample orts are used,
P
the order of collection shouldbe m longest to
shortest contacttime to minimize flow changes due
to sampling.

6. Eiardb cyst recovery and assay.


Concentrate the 1000 ml composite sample by filtration
according to the method given in section G.1. Record and
report the data as described in section 6.1. The expected
cysts/smple i s given below:
Cysts/sample = 4 x 250 ml X 10' cyst/ml = fxlO'cyst/sample.
7. Virus Assay
Before filtration for Biardip, remove 10.0 rnl from the
biological composite sample to a sterile screw cap culture
tube containing 2 to 3 drops chloroform. Assay for MS2,
record and kport the virus data according to the methods and
procedures described in 6.2. Be sure to correct the Giardia .
sample voluan to 990 al.
8. Calculation of CT
Calculate CT in a manner describedin Section G.1 for
and Section 6.2 for virus. The residual disinfectant should
be the average of the four residual determinations performed
prior to theindividual samples collectedfor thebiological
composite and th'e time should be the timedetermined for. the . .
sample port under similarflow conditions.

6.4-5
REFERENCES

A1-Ani, C.S.U., F i l t r a t i o n of W Cysts and other substances:


Volume 3. RapidRate F i l t r a t i o n (EPA/600/2-85/027)1985.
lkntgoncry, Jams M. Consulting Enginters Inc., u r treamt P r i n c u
il e y andSons , Hay1982.
e s u , John W
Wallis, P.M., Davies, J.S., Nuthonn, R. ,Bichanin-Happin, J.U., Roach, P.D. ,
and Van Roodeloon, A. Removal and Inactivationof --Cysts in a
Mobile Water Treatment Plant Under Field Conditions: Prelfminary Results.
In n m d i a ResearCh. P.M. WalliS and B.R. Hamand, ads, Union
o f -Press, p.137-144,1989.
Wolfe, R.L. , Stewart, M.H., Lihge, S.L.,and k G u i n , H.J., Disinfection
of Model Indfcator Organisms fn a DrinkingUaterPilotPlant by Using
PEROXONE, AppliedEnvironmentalMicrobiology, Vol 55, 1989, pp .2230-2241,
* Olivieri, V.P. and Sykora, J.L., F i e l d and Evaluation o f CT for Determining
the Adequacy o f D i s i n f e c t i h . American
Water Works Association Water .
Q u a l i t y Technology Conference. I n press, 1989.
APPENDIX H
SAMPLING FREQUENCY FOR TOTAL COLIFORMS
IN THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
8

TABLE X-1
TOTAL COLIFORM SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS
BASE0POPULATION
UPON -
Minimtmr Minimum
Number Number
Population of Samples
Served :f:z2f1,2,3) . Population Served Per Month

25 to 1,000 1 59,001 to 70,000 70


1,001 to 2,50070,001 2 to 83,000 80
2,501 to 3,30083,001 3 to 96,000 90
3,301 to 4,10096,001 4 to 130,000 100
4,101 to 4,900 5 130,001 to 220,'OOO 120
4,901 to 5,800 220,001 6 to 320,000 ' 150
5,801 to 6,700 320,001 7 to 450,000 180
6,701 to 7,600 450,001 8 to 600,000 210
7,601 to 8,500 600,001 9 to 780,000 240
8,501 to 12,900 780,001 10 to 970,000 2 70
12,901 to 17,200 15 970,001 to 1,230,000 . 300
17,201 to 21,500 1,230,001
20 to 1,520,000 330
21,501 to 25,000 25 1,520,001 to 1,850,000 , 360
25,001 to 33,000 30 1,850,001 t o 2,270,000 390 .
33,001 to 41,000 40 . 2,270,001 to 3,020,000 420
41,001 to 50,000 50 3,020,001 to 3,960,000 450
' 50,001 to 59,000 3,960,001
60 or more , 480

-
Notes:

1. Non-cornunity systems using all or part surface water and community'


systems must monitor total coliform at this frequency. A non-
community water system using ground water and serving 1,000 persons
or fewer must monitor quarterly, beginning 5 years after therule's
promulgation, although this can be reduced to yearly if a ranitary
survey shows no defects. A non-community water system serving pore
than 1,000 persons during any month, or a non-community water system
using rurface water, must monitor at the same frequency as a l i k e -
sized cornunity public water system for each month the system
provides water to the public.

2. Unfiltered surface water systems must 'analyze one.coliform sample


each day the turbidity exceeds1NTU.
TABLE n-1
TOTAL COLIFORM SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS
BASED UPON POPULATION (Continued)
. .-

3, Systems collecting fewer than 5 88UIpleS p u month on a regularbasis


must conductsanitary surveys. Colaanrnity and
non-community systems
must conduct the i n i t i a l sanitary surveys w i t h i n 5 and 10 years of
ptamulg@tion,respectively. Subsequent surveys must be conducted
every 5 yearst except for non-conununfty systemsusingprotected and
disinfected ground water, wkich have up t o 10 years to conduct
subsequentsunteys.

. .
. .
..
TABLE H-2
MONITORING AND REPEAT SAMPLE FREQUENCY

I Routine
System Size Samples Y Repeats More Monitoring
For
(2)
Quarterly
NCWS (l) 4 . S/mo for 1 additional mo
(2)
25 1,000 Monthly 4 5/mo for 1 additional mo
1,001 0 2,500 2/mo 3 9/mo for 1 additional mo
2,501 3,300 3/m 3 5/mo for 1 additional mo . .
3,301 - 4/mo
4,100 3 S/mo
additional
1 for mo.
4,101 0 4,900 5/mo 3 None

>4,900 Table 1 3 None

-
Notes:
1. Non-community Water systems.

2. For exceptions, see Table 1.


APPENDIX I
MA1 NTAI N I NG REDUNDANT
DISINFECTION CAPABILITY

. .
APPENDIX I

The SWTR requires that unfiltered water systcms. provide kdundant


disinfection components t o ensure the continuous application of a
disinfectant t o thewaterenteringthedistribution systun. I n many'
systems, both f i l t e r e d and unfiltered, a primary disinfectant i s used t o
providetheoverallinactivation/maoval and a secondary k i d u a l i s .
applied t o maintain a residual 'in the distribution system. As o u t l i n e d i n
Sections 3.2.4 and 5.5.4, redundancy ofthedisinfection tystcar(s) i s . .
recomnended t o ensure thattheoveralltnatment requirement of %log
Elarm cyst and 4-logvirusMmoval/inactivation i s achieved, and a
residual i s maintained entering
the
distribution system. This i s .
particularly important for unfi ltered supplies where the only treatment
b a r r i e r i s disinfection. Redundancy o f components i s necessary t o iliow
for disinfection during routine repairs, maintenance and inspection and
possible failures.
I n reviewingwaterdisinfectionfacilitiesfor compliance w i t h
redundancy requirements,thefollowingitemsshould be checked:

I. meral e

A. Are t h ec a p a c i t i e soaf l l cocaponents ofboththeprimary


system and the backup system equal t o or greaterthan the
requi red capaci ti t s ?
Some systcms may have two or more unitsthatprovidethe
required dosa e rates when a l l u n i t s a no erating. In these
. 8
downtime o f any of the operating units.
.I
cases, anad i t i o n a l u n i t i s neededas ackup, during the
The backup must have
a capacity equal t o or greaterthanthatofthelargest
- on-line
unit.
8. Are adequate safetyprecautionsbeing'followed,relativeto
the type o f disinfectant being used?
C. A r e redundant components beingexercised or alternatedwith
the primary components?
D. Are a l l components beingproperlymaintained?
E. Are c r i t i c a l spare parts hand
on t o repair
disinfection
equipment?
.
'
F. A r e spare parts available forcomponents that are indirpens-
ible for disinfecting the water?

11. Pisinfectant stom


*"
A ninilaua o f two storage units capable of being used alternately . 'L-
?&

3- shouldbeprovided. The totalcombinedcapacity ofthe storageunits w


should provide as a minimum the systein design capacity.
A* Chlotinc
Storage for gaseous chlorine will normally bein 150-1b cylinders,
2,000-1b containers, or larger on-site storagevessels.
1. Is there automatic switchovct equipment if one cylinder
. or container empties or becomes inoperable? ,

2. Is the switchingequipment ingoodworking .order,


(manually tested on a regularly scheduled basis), .and
are spare parts on hand?
3. Are the scales adequate for at least two cylinders or
containers.

B o HYPQmw&
Storage of calcium hypochloriteor sodium hypochlorite is normally
provided in drums or other suitable containers. Redundancy requiremnts *r

are not applicable to these by thcraselves,as long asthe required minimum -4

storage quantity is on hand at a11 ti&.


c. m
An hydrous asmonia is usually stored i n cylinders as a pressurized .
liquld. Aqua' a m n i a is usuallys t o n d as a solution of Mmonia and water
2.
in a horizontal pressure vessel.
- .
I. Is the available storage
usable units?
volume divided intotwo o r more

'2. 1s autmatic switching equipment imoperation to change


Over from one unit to another when one is empty Or
inoperable?
3. Are there spare parts for the switching equipment?
111. &watiu
Ozone and chlorine dioxide are not stored on-site. Rather, because
of their reactivity, they are'generatedand used irmcdiately. . .
To satisfy the redundancy requirementsfor these disinfectants it i s
recomnended that two generating units, or two sets o f units, capable o f
supplying the required feed ratebe provided. In systems where there is.
mre than one generation system, a standby unit shouldbe available for
*times the on-line units need repair. The backup unit should have a
capacity equal to or greater than the unit(s) It MY, replace.
. .
A. nkinuhu
Chlorine, sodium chlorite, ,or sodium hypochlorite should be stored
in accordance with storage guide1 ines previously described.
8. Ozone
Are all generation components in working order for both
present and
the primary and the redundant units (whether usingair or oxygen)? .
c* Comnon
Is switchover and automatic , start-up equipment installed and
operable to change from the primary generating unit(s) to the redundant
unit (s)?

IV. feed Svstems


Redundancy in feed systems requirestwo separate units, or systems, .
* each capable of supplying the required dosage of 'disinfectant. If more
than one unit is needed to apply the required feed rate, a spare unit
should be available to replace anyof the operating units duringtimes o f
malfunction.. The replacement unit should, therefore, have a capacity
equal to 3r greater than that of the largest unit which Itmay replacei
This requirement applies to all disinfectionmethods,and i s best
implemented by housing the on-line and redundant components in separate
rooms, enclosures , or areas , as appropriate. .
In reviewing these systems for redundancy, the following components
should be checked:
. A. Chlorim
1. Evaporators
. 2. Chlorinators
3. Injectors

I -3
8. MvDachloFIte . .
1. Mixing
tanks and mixers
2. Chemical feed pmps and controls
3. Injectors

c.

0. -
Oronc
1. Dissolution quipncnt,.including compressor and del ivery
plping systems
-
u

-
1. Chlorine
feed equipment
2. Sodium chloritemixing and metering equipnrtnt
3. Day tank and mixer .
4. Metering pumps
5. I f a package C10, u n i t i s used, w
t o w s t be provided .

E.
1. Chlorine
feed equipment . ,

2. Amnonia feed equipment, includingapplicabie equipment


for either:
c
a. Anhydrous amon i:a (
’ ..bo Aquaamnonia (solut

v. . .-

. P

Thq best method of monitoring a d i s i n f e c t i o n f a c i l i t y f o r continuous ’

operation i s by continuousrecording equipment. To improve re\iabili.ty,


i t i s suggested that duplicate continuous monitors are present for backup
i n the event-of monitor failure. However; ifthere i s a f a i l u r e i n t h e
nonitorirg system f o ri n d i c a t i n gt h a t a continuous residual i s being.
maintained, the SWTR allows systems t o take grab samples every four hours
for up t o f i v e days during . . monitor repair. For systems without 24 hour
s t a f f i n g it w i
l not be p r a c t i c a lt ot a k e grab samplesand redundant
”. monitoring equipment i s recommended. Failure of continuous m n i t o r i n g
would be a v i o l a t i o n o f a monitoring requirement, not a treatment
requirement .
A. nlorine ’

* 1. Does t h e f a c i l i t y have acontinuousmonitor for chlorine


residual at the disinfection system s i t e w i t h an alarm
I -4
'or i n d i c a t o r t o showwhen the monitor i s not function-
. ing? For added assurance, theprovisionof a backup
' monitoringunitisalso reconacnded. * -
2. Is there instrumentation i n place t o . automatically
switch from one Inonitor t o t h e o t h e r i f t h e f i r s t one
f a i 1s?

8. HvDochtoritt .-
S a m as for chlorine system.
c. Orone

-
1. Does t h e f a c i l i t y have acontinuous ozone monitorwith
automatic switchover capability and alarms?
2. Does t h fea c i l i t y have continuous
a ozone residual
Inanitor with automatic switchover capabilityand alarms?

D*
1. Does t h ef a c i l i t y have continuous
a chlorinedioxide
monitor with automatic switchover.capabi1i t y and alarms? .
2. Does t h ef a c i l i t y have continuous
a chlorinedioxide
residualmonitorwithautomaticswitchovercapability :
and alarms?

E.
1. Does t h e f a c i l i t y have acontinuous asmoni;a Ifonitor with
automatic switchover capabi 1i t y and alarm?
2. Does t hfea c i l i tayl s ohave continuous
a chlorine
residual
monitoron-site
with
automatic
switchover
capabi 1it y and a1 anus?

VI. powtr luopl~


A permanently i n s t a l l e d standby generator,capable o f running a l l
. e l e c t r i c a l equipment atthedisinfectionstation, and equipped for
automatic start-up onpower f a i l u r e , should be on-site and functional.
Alternativesto a standby generator,'such as afeed l i n e froma
different power source, a r e acceptable i f they canbe shown t o have equal
reliability.

1-5
VII. Al#ulik
Indicators,and alarms, both local and remote, shouldbe capable o f
promptly . a l e r t i n g operat ing and supervisory
personnel of prob 1-
condi tions .
A. Lacat
Lights, butters, and hornsshould be installed and functioning
alert on-site personnel t o problem conditions.
.-
8. Remote
Alarrn signals should be relayed t o a central control panel which i s
manned24 hours per dayandwhose operators can n o t i f y response personnel
imcdiately. .
c. 7 . .
A minimum l i s t o f problem conditions which should have indicators
and alarms, bothlocally and a t a 24-hour per day switchboard,are as
follows:
1. Disinfectant leak
2. Feeder pump f a i lure
3. Power outage
4. Generator or alternate power source on
5. Disinfectant residual less than setpoint value
.-
VIII. fhcl
Maximum re1 iabi1i t y i s ensured when redundant units are separated ,

from primary units. The type o f separationshould be appropriate t o t h e


typ.e o f potentialmalfunction. For example,any area within a building
subject t o a chlorine leak should have primary components separated from
redundant components by an a i r t i g h t enclosure, L e * , separate rooms o f
varying sizes.

IX. warate Facil itv


. Under certainconditions, such
as locationof a disinfection
f a c i l i t y . i nan area of high earthquake potential', the most r e l i a b l e F a n s
o f providing.redundant f a c i l i t i e s may be t o housethem i n a completely
separate structures a t a different site.

I -6
APPENDIX J
WATERSHEDCONTROL PROGRAM

.
APPENDIX J
"

The following i s a guideline for documenting watershed


a control -
program. The SWTR only requires watershed
a control program for
unfilteredsupplies. A watershed control program can also benefit a
f i l t e r e d system by providing protecti,on for aaintaining the source water
quality,minimizingthelevelofdisinfectionto be provided. I t i t
therefore recormended t h a t a l l systems conduct thebasic elements o f a
watershed control program. However, the scope o ft h e .program should
increase as the complexity and size of the watershed/system increases.
The program could bemore or less comprehensive than t h i s o u t l i n e , and
w i 11 be determined on a case-by-case basis by the u t i 1i t y and the Primacy
Agency, Inadditiontotheguidelines below, a wellhead protection
program could be the basis of a watershed control program i n many states;
All o f the elements found below would also be part of a local wellhead
protection program.
A. Hatershed DesctiDtion
1. Geographical location and physical
features o f the
watershed.
2. Location of major components o f the water system i n
relationship t o the watershed.
3. H drology: Annual pnci.pitationpatterns, stream flow
K
c aracteristics, etc.
4. Agreements and delineationofland use/ownership.' .

8. _. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the Watershed Characteristics


Md A c t i v i t i e s b b
1 Naturally
Occurring:
a. Effect of precipitation;terrain,soiltypes and
land cover
b. Animal populations(detcrfbc) --
include a dis-
cussion o f the m d i a contaminationpotential,
any other microbial contamination transmitted by
animals

3-1
.. i

e. Other - any o t h e ra c t i v i t y
a f f ect water qualit y
whichcanadversely

2 . Wan-Wade:
a. Point sources o f contamination such as wastewater 1
a. .

. treatment plant, industrial discharges, barnyard, Q


-.

feedlots, or private septic systems . ,.. -<

The impact o f these sources on themicrobiological


quality o f thewater sourceshouldbeevaluated. in
e
cases r e s u l itidinne n t i f i a b l e degradation, the
discharges shou d be eliminated i n order t o minimize the
treatment o f the water needed.
b, Nonpoint
Source o f Contamination:
1) Road construction
roads
- major highways, r a i l -
2) Pesticide usage

3) Logging
4) Grazing
animals
5) Dischar e t o ground water whichrecharges
9
the sur ace source ->-.
rh.
. ZI

6) Recreation
*activities
7) Potential for unauthorized a c t i vt ihntey *

. watershed
8) Describe any other human a c t i v i t yi nt h e
watershed and it s p o t e n t i a l impact on water ,

qual it y
It should be noted that gratin animals i n the watershed
water.CryptosoridiUm
9
may lead t o the presence o ~ s D o r i d i ni t~h e
i s a pathogenwhich may r e s u l t
i n a disease outbreak upon ingestion. No information i s
available on i t s resistance to various. disinfectants,
therefore i t i s recomnendcd that grating should not be
penni t t e d on watersheds o f non-fi 1tering systems I
Sewage discharges w l
i introduce viruses into the water
sourcewhich may be occluded i n s o l i d s and protected
from inactivationthroughdisinfection. It is,there-
fore, recomncndcd that sewage dischar es should not.be
..
P
permitted within watersheds of non-fi tcring suppl l e s e
Although it i s preferable to not have grazing or sewa e
discharges within the watershed, Primacy. Agencies w i 1 9
3 -2
case-by-case basis .
need t o evaluate the impact .of these activities ona
I n cases where there i s a, long
detention time and a high degree o f d i l u t i o n between the
p o i n t o f t h e a c t i v i t yand the water intake, these activ-
i t i e s way be permissible for unfiltered. supplies. The
u t i l i t y should set r i o r i t i e s t o address the impacts i n
8
B.1. and 2.# consi ering their health si.gnificance rnd
the abi 1i t y t o c o n t r o l them.
.-
C. m t r o ' l of D e t r f m t a l A c t ~ v i t i = ~ m n 3 s
Depending on the activities occurring within the wcrtershed,
varioustechniquescould be used toeliminate or miniaize
t h e i re f f e c t . Describe h a t techniquesarebeing used t o
control the effect of activities/events identified i n 8.1. and
2. i n i t s yearly report.
Example:
Wivity: Logging i n t h e watershed.
m a c m n t Derision: Develop program t o minimize impact
o f logging.
procedurq: Establish .agreements with logging compan'ies
to
maintainpractices which w l minmize adverse
i .
impacts on water . quality. These practicesshould
include:
-- l i m i t i n g access to l q g i n gs i t e s
- ensurin cleanup
9 osf i t e s
control lng erosion from site.
jbnitoring: - Periodicallyreview1ogging.practices to.
ensuretheyareconsistentwiththe agreementbetween
t h e u t i l i t y and the logging companies.
Example:
B t i v i t yP: o i n t sources o f discharge w i t h ti nh e
watershed .
-nt Decision: . Eliminatethosedischarges or.
minimize t h e i r impact.
procedures: Actively p.articipate the
inreview of .
discharge pennits t o a l e r t t h e reviewing agency o f t h e
potential(actual) impacts ofthedischarge and lobby
.
f o r i t s e l i m i n a t i o n or s t r i c t c o n t r o l
. .

3-3
.
itoriu: Conduct special
monitoring t o ensure
E n d i tions of the permit aremet and t o document adverse .
effects on water quality. I -

0. Monitortna
1. Routiqe: M i n i m specifications for mnitoringseveral
raw water q u a l i t y parameters a r e l i s t e d i n Section 3.1. -
Describe when, where and bow these samples w i 11 be ..c

collected. These n s u l t s w li beused to evaluate


nhetherthesource may continue t o be Used without
filtration.
2. Specific: Routine mnitoring may notprovideinforma-
t i o n about a l l parameters of interest. For example, i t
may be valuable t o conductspecialstudies t o measure
contaminants suspected o f being resent (Giardia, pesti-
P
cides, fuel products, enteric v ruses, etc.). Frequent
presence o f eitherGiardia or e n t e r i c 4 r u s e s I n raw
water samples p r i o r t o d i s i n f e c t i o n would indicate an
inadequate watershed control program.Moni t o t i n g may
also be useful t o assess theeffectivenessofspecific ,

control techniques, and t o a u d i t rocedures. or opera-


P
t i o n a l requirements i n s t i t u t e d w t h i n t h e watershed.
U t i l i t i e s are encoura ed t o conduct additional monitor-
4
ing as necessary t o a d them i n c o n t r o l l i n g t h equa1i t y
o f the source water.
E. Ooerat iorlf
1 . Management ,-

a. Organizational
structure '

b. Personnel and education/certification requirements


2 . Operat ions
a. Describe system operations and design f l e x i b i l i t y .

b. The u t i 11t y should conduct some form o f ongoing


review or survey i n the watershed t o i d e n t i f y and
react to potential impacts on water quality. The
'scope o f t h i s review should be documented and
agreed upon by the u t i l i t y and Primacy Agency on
a case-by-case basi 5.
c

s e t t l i n g basins.Discuss what triggers, and who


decides t o make, those changes.
3. Annual Report: As part o f the'watershed progfm, .an
annual report should be submitted t o the Primacy Agency.
The contents o f the report should:
a. Identify
special concerns that
occurred i n the
watershed and how they were handled (example:'
herbicide usage, new construction, etc.).
b. Sumarireotheractivities i n 'the watershed such
as logging,hunting,waterqualitymonitoring,
etc.
c. Project what adverse a c t i v i t i e sa r e expected t o
occur i n the future and describe how t h e u t i 1 i t y
expects t o address them.
F. t s /Land Owner-
The goal o f awatershed management program i s t o achieve the
highestlevelof raw water qualitypracticable.This is
p a r t i c u l a r l y c r i t i c a l t o an unfiltered surface supply.
1. The u t i l i t y w l have maximum opportunitytorealize.
i
t h iosa l i f they have completeownershtp o f the
1
waters ed. Describe e f f o r t s t o obtain ownership, such
as any speci a1 programs or budget. When complete
* .

ownership o f the watershed i s notpractical,efforts


should be taken t o gafn ownership o f c r i t i c a l elements,
such as, reservoir or stream shoreline, highly erodable
land, and access areas t o water system f a c i l i t i e s .
2. Where ownership o f land i s not possible,
written .
.
agreements should be obtained recognizing the watershed
as part of a public water tu ply. Maximum f l e x i b i l i t y
whichcoul 8 f
should be i v e nt ot h eu t i t yt oc o n t r o l a n d uses
have adverse e f f e c t on thewaterquality.
Describe such agreements.
3. Describe how t h eu t i l i t y ensures thatthe landowner
complies with these agreements.
APPENDIX K
SAN I TARY SURVEY
- APPENDIX K

The S U R requires thatan on-site inspection be conducted each


as outlined in Section 3. Itis recomnended that at the onset of
year

detennining the classification of asource water that a detailed sanitary


survey be Conducted. In addition, it is recomended. tbat a sanitary
survey such as contained 3 to 5 years
in this appendix be conducted every
by both fi ltered and 1 tered
unfi systemsto ensure thatthe quality of the
water and sewice is maintained. This time period is suggested sincethe
time and effort needed to conduct the c&p&hensive survey aakes it
impractical for it to be conducted annually. A periodic 'sanitary survey
i s also required under the Total Coliform Rule for systems collecting
fewer than 5 samples/month. The survey must be conducted every5 years
for all systems exceptfor protected ground.water systems which disinfect.
These systems must conductthe survey every 10 years.
The sanitary survey involves three phases, including planningthe
survey, conducting the survey and compiling the.final report of the .
survey, as will be presentedin the following pages.
Plannina the Survey
Prior to conducting or scheduling a sanitary survey, there
should be a detailed review 9f the water system's file to
prepare for the survey. The review should pay particular
attention to past sanitary survey re orts and correspondence .
describing reviously identified prob
P P ems and their so1ution.s.
These shou d be noted, and action/inaction regarding these
problems should.be-specificallyverified in the field. Other *

information to review includes: any other correspondence,


water system plans, chemical and microbiological sampling
results, operating reports, and engineering studies. This
review will aid in the familiarizationwith the system's past.
history and present conditions, the andagency's past interac-
tions with the. system.
The initial phase of the water quality *view will be carried
out prior to conducting the.survey aswell , and will consist
o f reviewing the water system's monitoring records. Records
should be reviewedfor compliance with all applicable'microbi-
I ological , inorganic chemical, organic chemical, and radiologi-
cal contaminant K L s , and also for compliance with the
monitoring requirements for those contaminants. The survey

u- 1
will provide an op ortunityto review these records with the
P
utility, and to d scuss solutions to any MCL or monitoring
violations. The survey will also provide an opportunity to
review how and where samples are collected, and how field
measurements (turbidity, chlorine residual, fluoride, etc.)
are made. Points to cover Include: * -

a. Is the system in compliance with all applicable MCLs <.


(organic chemical , microbiological
, inorganic chemical
and radiological)?
b. Is the system in compliancewith all monitoringrequire- '+.
*-
men ts? .-

The pre-survey file review should generate a list of itemsto


check in.the field,and a list of questions aboutthe system.
It will also help to plan .the fomat o f the survey and to
estimate how awch time it may take. The next step is to make
the initial contact with the system management to establish
the survey date(s) and time. Any records, files, or people
that will be referenced during the survey should be mentioned
at the outset. Clearly laying out the intenttheof survey u
front will greatly help in mana
Qing the system, and wil !
ensure that the survey goes ysmooth without a need for ?peat
- trips .
2. ductipg
the
Surygy
The on-site portion o f the survey is the most important and
will involve interviewing those in charge of managing the .
water system as well as the operatws and other technical .
. people. The survey will also review all major system compo-
nents from the source(s) to the distribution system. A
standard form is frequent1 used to ensure that all major .
components and aspects o! each system are ,consistently .~
reviewed. However, when in the field, it i s best to have an .
open mind and focus most attention on the specifics of the
water s s t m , using the form only as a guide. The surveyor
i
should e certain to be on time when beginning
This consideration will help get
the survey.
the survey started smoothly
with the operator and/ormanager.
As the survey progresses,any deficiencies that are observed
.
should be brou ht to the attention of the water system
R
ersonnel , and t e problem and the corrective measures should
e! discussed. It is far better to clarify technical details
and solutions while standing to next it is to
the problem than
do so over the telephone. Pointsto cover .include:
a. Is the operator competent in performing the necessary
. field testing for operational control?

K-2
b. Are testing facilities and equipment adequate, and do
reagentf used have an unexpired shelf life?
c. Are field and other analytical instruments properly and
n g u l arly cal
i brated?
d. Are records of field test results and water quality
compliance monitoring results being maintained?
e. Conduct any sampling which will be part of the survey.

-
Also, detailed notes theof findings and conversations should
be taken so that the report of thesurvey nil 1 be sn accurate
reconstruction of thesurvey.
Specific. components/featureso f the rysttln to ?view and some
pertinent questions to ask are:
A.
All o f the elements for a source evaluation enumeratedbelow
nay also bepart o f a Wellhead Protection Program.
1. Description:basedonfieldobservations and
discussion with the operator, a general charac-
terization o f the watershed should be made.
Features which could be included in the descrip-
tion are:
a. Area o f watershed or recharge area. . .
b. Stream
flow.
c.' Land usage(wilderness,farmland,rural
housing,. recreational, ccwnsercial , indus-
trial, etc.).
d. Degree o f access by the pub1 ic to watershed.
e. Terrain and toll type.
f. Vegetation.
g. Other.
2. Sources of contamination in the watershed or
sensitive areas surroundingwells or well fields
should be identified. Not only should this be
determined by physically touring and observing
but the survey-
the .watershed and its dally uses,
or should also actively questionthe water system
manager about adverse and potentially adverse
K-3
activities in the watershed. An example of types
of contamination Includes:
a. Man Made. .
. *
1. Pointdischarges of sewage,stonn-
water, and other wastewater.,
2. On-site sewage disposal systems. -
3. Recreational
activities
..
(swimning,
boating, fishing, etc.)
4. Human habitation. ..
5. Pesticide-usage.
6 . Logging .
7. Highways or other roads f m which
there might be spills.
8. Coamercial or industrialactivity.
9. Solid waste or other disposal facili-
ties.
10. Barnards,feedlots,turkey and
3:
chic en farms and other concentrated
domestic animal activity.
..
11. Agriculturai activities such as' raz- >-

in!, tillage, etc., which af ects


so 1 erosion, fertilizer usage,
B
etc. -.

. -12. Other . ..

b. Natural ly Occurring .
1. Animal populations, both domestic and
wild.'
2. Turbidit fluctuations (from precipi-.
T
tation, andslides, etc.).
3. Fires.
4. . Inorganic contaminants from parent
materials (e.g., asbestos fibers)
5. Algae blooms.

K-4

.
6. Other.
' This l i s t i s by no mans a liln c l u s i v e .
. The surveyorshould r e l y p r i n c i p a l l y on his
observations and thorough questionin
regardingtheuniqueproperties
watershed t o completelydescribe&at
of cac
may
1.
contaminate the source water.
3. Source Construction.
a. Surface
Intakes.
-
1. I st h e source adequate in'quantity?
2. Is thebestquality source or loca-
t i o n i n t h a t source being used?
3. Is the'intake
protected from i c i n g
problems i f appropriate?
4. the
Isintake screened t o prevent
.* entry o f debris, ,and are screens
maintained?
5. Is animal a c t i v ci to n t r o l l ewd i t h i n
!
the imediate vicnity of the intake? *

6, Is there a raw watersamplingtap?


b. I n f i l t r a t iG
o na l l e r i e s .
1. Is thesource adequate inquantity?
2. Is the best quality source being used?
3. I st h el i d over
the
gallery
water-
. t i g h t and locked?
'4. I st h ec o l l e c t o irn sound condition
and maintained as.necessary? .
5. I s there araw water samplingtap?
c . Springs .
1. I st h e source adequate i n quantity?
2. I tsh e r e adequate protection around
the spring such as fencing t o control
the area within 200 feet?

K- 5
3. Is the s ringconstructed t o best
R
capture t e spring flow and exclude
surface water i n f i l t r a t i o n ?
. .
4. Are *theredrains t od i v e rst u r f a c e
, . water f m . tvhi ec i tnhoi etfy.
spring?
5. Is thecollectionstructureof sound ..-
construction with no leaks o r cracks?
6. Is there a screened overflow and -..
drain pipe? .-
7. Is the
supply intake
located above
the f l o o t .and screened?
8. . Is there a raw watersampling tap?
d. Catchment and Cistern.
1. Is source adequate i n quantity?
2. Is thecistern o f adequate size?
3. Is the catchment areaprotected frorrl
potentialcontamination?
4. Is the catchment drain
properly
screened? . .

' 5. Is the catchment area and cistern of


sound construction and i n good condi-
tion?
6. Is catchment constructed o f approved
non-toxic, non-leaching material? '

7. Is thecisternprotected from contam-


ination --
manholes, vents, etc?
8. Is there a raw watertap?
e. Other
Surface Sources.
1. Is the source adequate i n quantity?
. 2. Is thebestpossiblesource,being
used?
3. ' Is theimediatevicinity o f the
source protected from contamination?
K-6
4. Is thestructure i n good condition
and. properly constructed?
5. Is .therea raw watersamplingtap?
4. Pumps,
Pulaphouses,
and Controls .
a. A n a11 intake pumps, booster PUGS,and
other pumps of sufficient capacity?
b. A r e a l l pumps
and controlsOperational and
raintainedproperly? -
c. Are check valves,
blow o f f vafves,
water
meters and other a purtenances operated and
maintained propery? P
d. Is emergencypower
backup with
automatic
start-upprovided and does it work ( t r y
it)?
e. Are undergpoundcompartments
and suction
we1 1s waterprbof?
f. Is t h ei n t e r i o r and exteriorof.the pump-.
house i n good s t p c t u r acl o n d i t i o n and
properly maintained?
g. Are there any safety hazards (electrical or
mechanical) i n t h e pumphouse?
h. Is the pumphouse locked and otherwise
protected against vandalism?
i. . Are waterproductionrecordsmaintainedat
the pumphouse?
5. . Watershed Management ( c o n t r o l l i n g contaminant .
sources): The goal o ft h e watershedmnagement
program i st oi d e n t i f and control contaminant
t h i s document, Watershed
K
sources i n t h e waters ed (see 'Section 3.3.1 of.
Control Program") .
Under ideal conditions each source o f contmina-
t i o ni d e n t i f i e di n 2 wi1.1 already have been
identified by the u t i l i t y , and some means of
controlinstituted, or afactualdetermi.nation
made t h a t i t s . i . q a c t on water q u a l i t y i s i n s i g - -
nificant. To assess the degree t o which the
watershed management program i s achieving i t s '

goal,thefollowingtypesofinquiriescould be '

made:
.,--
i
a. I f the watershed i s notentirely owned by r

t h e u t i l i t y , have written agnments been


. made withotherland owners t o controlland
usage t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e u t i l i t 3
A r e appropriate re ulations under t e
contractofstate/ ? -
oca1 department o f
K 0

' health i n effect?


b. Is the u t i l i t y rakingeffortsto.obtainas
.*-
complete ownership otfh e watershed as
possible? Is e f f o r t directed t o control ,

c r i t i c a l elements? I.

c. Are there means bywhichthe'waiershed is


regularlyinspected for new sources o f
' . contamination or trespassers where access
i s 1m
i ited?
d. Are there
adquatel
'qualified personnel
T
employed by the.ut l i t y f o ri d e n t i f y i n g
watershed and waterquality problems and
,

who are given the responsibility to correct


these problems?
e. Are raw water quality records
kept to
assess trends and t o , assess the impact o f
d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s and contaminantcon-
, t r o l techniques i n the watershed?
f. Has the system responded adequately t o
concerns
expressed
about the source or
watershed i n past sanitary surveys? ..... .. .

g. Has t h eu t i l i t yi d e n t i f i e d problems i n i t s
yearly watershed controlreports, and i f
. so, have . these problems been adequately
addressed?
h. I d e n t i f y what other agencies 'have control
or j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e watershed. Does the
u t i l i t y a c t i v e l y i n t e r a c t w i t h these a en-
!
c i e s t o see t h a t t h e i r p o l i c i e s or act v i -
ties are consistent with the utility's goal.
of maintaining high raw water quality?

1. Disinfection.
a. Is thedisinfection equipment and disinfec-
tant
appropriate for the
application
(chloramines, chlorine, ozone,and chlorine
K-8
dioxide are generally accepted disinfec-
tants)? ..
b. Are there back-up disinfection units on
line in case o f failure, and are they
operat i onal ?
C. Is there auxiliary power with automatic
start up in case of power outa e? Is it
9
tested and operated on a n g u ar basis,
both with and without load?
d. It there an adequate quantityof- disinfec-
tant on hand and is it properly stored
le.g., are chlorinecylindersproperly
abeled and chained)?
e. In the case o f gaseous chlorine, i t there
automatic switch over equipment when cylin-
ders exp i re?
f. Are critical spare parts on hand to repair ' '

disinfection equipment?
9. Is disinfectant feed proportionalto water
f1 ow?
h. Are daily records kept of disinfectant
residual nearthe first customer from which
to calculate CTs?
i. Are production records kept fromwhich to
determine CTs?
j. Are CTs acceptable based'on the level o f
treatmentprovided(seeSurfaceWater
Treatment
Rule for CT values,
and
Sections 3 and 5 of this guidance manual
for calculation of CT).
k. Is a disinfectant residual maintained in
the distribution system, and are records.
kept of daily measurements?
1. If gas chlorine is.. used, are adequate
safety precautions being followed
I e.g.,
exhaust fan with intake withins i x nches
of the floor,self-containedbreathing
apparatus that is regularly tested, regular
safetytrainingforemployees,amnonia
bottles and/or automatic chlorine detec-
tors)? Is the system adequate to ensure
K-9
thesafetyofboththepublic 'and the
employees i n the event of a chlorine leak?
2. Other.
.
a. Are other
.treatment processes appropriate' .
and aretheyoperated t o produceconsis-
tently high water quality?
,.
.b.Are pups , chemical
feeders, and other
mechanical equipment i n good condition and .
maintained? properly . .,

c. A r e controls and instrumentation adequate


for the process, operational, we11 main-
tained and calibrated?
d. A r e accuraterecordsmaintained (volume o f
watertreated; amount o f chemical used,
. etc.)?
e. Are adequate supplies o f chemical hand
on .
and properly stored?
f. Are adequate safety
devices
available and
precautions observed?
Sections o f a sanitary survey p e r t a i n i n gt o
systems c o n t a i n i n gf i l t r a t i o nf a c i l i t i e s have
been omitted, as thissection o f the guidance
document pertains t o non-fi ltering systems. - ..
..

Afterwater hasbeen treated,water.quality mustbe


protected .and maintained as i t flows throu h the
d i s t r i b u t i o n system t o the customer's tap. The ollow- 9
i n questions pertain t o the water purveyor's a b i l i t t o
B
ma ntain high water quality during storage
tion.
and d i s t r bu- r
1. Storage. c

a. Gravity.
1. Are storage reservoirs covered and
otherwise
cpnstructed t o prevent.
cont ami nat ion?
2. Are a l l overflowlines, Vents, drain-
lines, or cleanout pipes turned down-
ward and screened?
K-10

.
3. A r e all reservoirs inspected regular-
ly?
' 4. Is the storage capacity adequate for
the system?
5. Does thereservoir (or reservoirs)
provide sufficient pressure through-
out the system?
6. Are surface coatings within the res-
e r v o i r i n good repair and acceptable
for potable water contact? -
7, Is the hatchcover for the'tank water-
t i g h t and locked?
8. Can thereservoir be isolated from
the system?
9. Is adequate safety equipment (caged
ladder, OSHA approved safetybelts,
etc.) i n place for climbing
the
tank?
10. Is t h es i t e fenced, 'locked, or other-
wise protected against vandal ism?
11. Is thestoragereservoirdisinfected
a f t e r r e p a i r s are made?
12. Is there a scheduled program for *

cleaning storage reservoir sediments,


slime on f l o o r and side walls.
b. Hydropneumatic.
1. Is thestoragecapacity adequate for
the systan?
2. A r e instruments,controls, and equip-
mentadequate, operational # and main- s

t a i ned?
3. Are t h ei n t e r i o r and exteriorsurfac-
es o f the pressure tank i n good con-
d i t ion?
-4. Are tank supports s t r u c t u r a l l y sound?
5. Does the low pressurecut i n provi.de
adequate pressure throughout
the
, e n t i r e system?
K-11
6. Is the puny cycle
rate acceptable
. .- .

(not more than 15 cycIcs/hour)?


2. Cross Connections.
a.. Is the systela free of &norm uncontrolled
cross connqctiont?
b. dots t h eu t i l i t y have cross
a connection "-
-
prevention program, including annual test-
ing of backflow prevention devices? . --r r

e. A r e backflow prevention
devices- installed
a t a l l appropriatelocations -(wastewater
treatment plant,
industrial
locations,
hospitals,etc.)?
3. Other.
a. Are roper pressures and flows maintained
P
a t a 1 times of the year?
b. 00 al constructionmaterials meet AWWA or
equivalent standards?
c. Are at1
services metered and are
meters
read?
d. Are plans for
the system available and
current?
--
e. Does the systemhave an adequate mainte-
nance program?
- . Is there evidence o f leakage i n t h e
system?
.
. ,-_

-...~---

- Is there a pressuretesting program?


.
- Is therearegularflushing program?
- Are . valves and hydrantsregularly.
exercised and maintained?
- Are AWWA standards f o rd i s i n f e c t i o n
followed after all repairs?
. - Are there specific
bacteriological
c r i t e r i a and limitsprescribed for
new l i n e acceptance or following l i n e
repairs?

K- 12
- Describethecorrosioncontrolpro-
gram.
. *

- 1s .the .system
other systms?
interconnected with
0 .

1. Is there an organizationthat I s responsible for


providing the operation, maintenance, and mnage-
rrcnt of the water system?
2. Does theutility'regularlyrunaarirabothcurrent
and long-term probleats i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e i rwater-
shed, or otherpartsofthe system, and define
how theyintendto 'solve theroblmsLe., is
theirplanning
follow through with plans?
P
mechanism cf ective; do they

3. Are customers user


fees and are
col
lec-
tions
4. Are there'sufficient personnel t o operate and
manage the system? .
5. Are personnel
(including management) adequately' .
trained, educated,and/or certjfied?
6. Are operation and maintenance manuals and
aanu-
facturerstechnicalspecificationsreadilyavail- .
able for the system?
7. Are routine
preventative mainten'ance schedules
established and adhered t o f o r a l l 'components o f .
thewater system? . .
8. Are sufficient
tools,supplies, and maintenance
parts on
hand? . .

9. Are sufficientoperation and maintenance records


kept and readilyav.ailable? .
10. Is an
emergency planavailable and usable,. and
are employeesaware o f it?
11. Are a l lf a c i l i t i e s free f m safetydefects?
. When the survey i s completed, i t i s always preferable to
b r i e f l y sumnatire the survey withtheoperator(s and
; management.The main findingsofthe survey shou d be
reviewed so i t i s clearthattherearenot misunder-
\
standings about findings/conclusions. It i s also good
K-13
to thank the utility for'takin part In the survey,
P 9
arran ing Interviews with clpp oyees, gathering and
. expla nfng their records, etc. The information and help
which the utility can provide an invaluable to a
successful survey, and every attwpt should be made to
* continue a positive relationship with the'systm.
3.
A final report of the survey should be completed as soon as
possible to foraally notifythe system andother a enciesof
r 0
the findings. There is no set or necessaril best o m t for
doin so, and the length of the report wi 1 depend on the
'

9
find ngs of the survey and sire of thesystem.." Since the
report may be used for future compliance actions and inspec-
tions, ,it should include as a minimum: 1) the date of the
survey; 2) who was present during the survey; 3) the findings
of thesurvey; 4) the recoamended improvementsto identified
problems; and5) the dates for completion of any improvements.
Any differences between the findings discussed the at
conclu-
sion of the survey and what's included In the flnal report
should be discussed-and clarified with the utilit prior to
P K
sending out the ,finalre o r t . In other words, t e utility
should be fully aware o the contents of the final report
before receiving it.

, K-14
APPENDIX L
SMALL SYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS
.
.' APPENDIX L
4

Introduetfon
Under theprovisionsofthe SUTR, systems with fewer. than 500
serviceconnections may be e l i g i b l e for an exemption.Guidance on t h e
requirements for an exemption i s provided i n Section 9. For systems which
a r e n o t e l i g i b l e f o r an exemption, compliance with the SKIR i s mndatory.
I t i s recognized that the majority (approximately 75 percent) of people i n
theUnitedStatesareserved 'by a relativelysmall number o f large
systems. However,most water systems i n t h e U n i t e d States are small .For
small systems , compl lance with the various provi sfons o f t h e SOWA has
t r a d i t i o n a l l y been problem. a Records show small systems, have a
disproportionatelyhigher incidence o f d r i n k i n g waterqualf t y and
m o n i t o r i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s . The'reasons f o r these d i f f i c u l t i e s can generally
bebroken down into the following three categories:
-- Economics
Treatnrent Technolo ies
*

- 9
Operations (lack o q u a l i f i e d personnel)

Small water systems typicallyface severe 'economic constraints.


Theirlackofoperating revenues r e s u l t s i n s i g n i f i c a n t l i m i t a t i o n s on
t h e i r a b i t i t y t o respond t o t h e r e q u i m w n t s o f t h e SDWA. These systems
cannot benefit from the economies of s t a l e Clhich are avai lable to larger
systems
The second d i f f i c u l t y f a c i n g t h e small systems hasbeen t h e l a c k o f
appropriate treatment technologies. Although methods for &ving amst o f .
the contaminants known t o occur in drinking water are available, many o f
thesetechnologies have onlyrecently been scaled down for thesmaller
systems .
The t h i r d problemwhich has t r a d i t i o n a l l y plaguedsmall systems i s
the lack o f well trained operators. This deficiency i s t h e r e s u l t o f many
combined f a c t o r s . F i r s t o f a l l e many o f these operators are' employed only
on a part-timebasis or i f theyare employed on a full-time basis they
havea myriad of.additiona1 duties. In addition, the operator's technical
..
.
background may be limited as well thi.s results f m the low salary of
the position, which is uninviting to qualified operators. Also, in spite
of therequirement of retaining certified operators upheld in aany states,
'

it seems to be difficult to enforce this requirement in small systems.


The purposeof this appendix is to provide assistanceto the Primacy ...
Agencyindefining the problems andpotential solutions typically --F-
h_

associated with small systems.lt is beyond the scope of this document to


-.
I

provide an indepth dicussion o f the needs of small systems. H&ver, over


the past several years the needs of the small water systems have been
recognized to be of primary concern andn m & s workshops, seminars .and
c m i t t e e s have been attemptingto more clearly deffneworkable solutions.
A partial listing of the papers,' reports and proceedings which discuss
problems and solutions pertaining to small systems beyond that which is
possible in this manual is presented in the reference list of this
appendix.

Economics
One of the most severe constrdints of small systems i s the small
economic base from which to drawfunds. Certain treatment and services
must be provided for a conmunity regardless of .how.few people are served.
Thus, as the number of connections to the system decrease, the cost per
connection increases. The economic limitations of small utilitfes makes
it difficult to provide needed upgrading of existing facilities or '.an
adequate salary to maintain the employment of a qualified operator to
monitor and maintain the system. Adding to the severity of,the economic
hardships of small systems is the fact that aany of the small water
systems are privately owned, with private ownership fncrtasingas system
size decreases. The ownership of the plant presents difficulties 'since
privately owned systems are subject rate to controlsby the local public
utility e m i s s i o n , are not eligible forpublic grants and loans, and may
find comnercial loans hardto obtain.
Financing options forsmall systems include; federal and state loan
and grant programs, federal revenue sharing and revenue bonds (for
municipal systems) and loans through the United States Small Business
Administration.(SBA) and use of industrial development bonds or privatiza-
. L-2
. tion(forprivateutilities). These .options are explained in. greater
detail in the "Gu'idance Manual - Institutional Alternatives for .Small
.
Water Systems" (AWA, 1986) The following paragraphs will explain some
existing options which may 'ease thehardship of financing smalj water
treatment facilities.
The major cause of small system difficulties arises from the lack of
funds and resources. It is therefore in the best interest of small
uti 1 ities to expand their econqnric base and the resources a v k lable to
them, to achieve the economies of scale available to larger . systems.
.
. Regionalization is the physical or operational union of small systems to
effect this goal. This union can be accomplished through the physical.
interconnection of two or more small systems or the connection of a
smaller systemto a pre-exfstinglarger system. Water supply systems can
also join together for thepurchase o f supplies, materials, engineering
services, billing and maintenance. The. union of. the small systems
increases the population served, therebydispersing. the operational costs
and decreasing the cost per consumer. .-
' The creation o f utility satellites is another form o f regionaliza-
tion. A satel 1 ite uti 1 ity is one which taps into the resources of an .
' existing larger facility without being physically connectedto, or 'bwned
by, the larger facility. The larger system may provide any of the.
following for the smallersystem:
1. Varyinglevels ' of technicaloperational, or managerial
assistance on a cqntract basis.
2. Wholesale treated water with or without additional services.
3. Assuming ownership, operation 'and maintenance nsponsibflity.
when the small system i s physically separate with a separate
source .
The formation o f a'sateilite offers @any advantages for both the.
satel 1 ite and the parent utility. These advantages include: an improved
economy o f scale for satell itcs,an expanded revenue base for the parent 1"'
utility, provisions of needed resources to satellites, the retention of
the satellites' local autonomy, improved water quality management of the
satel 1 ite, improved use o f publ ic funds for publ icly owned satel
1 it+
L-3
4

I n order t oc r e a t e a more definitestructurefortheunion of


r resources o f watertreatment f a c i l i t i e s , water d i s t r i c t s 0ay be created.
Water d i s t r i c t s are formed by county o f f i c i a l s and provide fir the public '

ownership o f t h e u t i l i t i e s . The u t i l i t i e s i n any g i v e n d i s t r i c t would


combine resourcesand/orphysically connect systems so t h a t one or two
f a c i l i t i e s would provide water for
the
entire
district. The creation of -.
-.
water d i s t r i c t s c r e a t e s e l i g i b i l i t y f o r p u b l i c aonies, has the potential
for economies of s i z e , f a c i l i t a t e s t h e takeover or contract & v i c e s with
pub1i c l y owned non-comnunity systems and small p r i v a t e l y owned' systems,
and offers a tax advantage.Drawbacks includesubjection t o p o l i t i c s , a
strong local planning effort is needed f o r success, and competition with
' privateenterp,ri ses.
The c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of u t i l i t i e s can be taken one stepfurther
throughthecreation o f county u t i l i t i e s or even s t a t e u t i l i t i e s . The
government w i
l create a boardwhich may then act t o acquire, construct,
maintain and operate any publicwatersupplywithin i t sd l s t r i c t ,t h e
system may provide water on i t s own or purchase water from any municipal
* corporation. The board may adopt and administerrulesfortheconstruc-
tion, maintenance, protection and use o f publicwatersupplies and the \h-

- . f i x a t i o n o f reasonable rates f o r water supplies. The cost of construction w:


and/or upgrading o f a c i l i t i e s may be defrayed through
theissuance of ..*.
I=

bonds and/or property assessment. As withallthedlternatives,the IC-


. ")'

creationof government control of t h e u t i l i t i e s has i t s advantages and


disadvantages. The advantages, include:
' the
cwation of
central
management, c r c a t f o n o f economy o f scale for u t i l i t i e s , e l l g i b i l i t y f o r
public grants and loans,savingsthroughcentralizedpurchasing, manage-
ment, consultation, planning and technical assistance, and possible
provisionforpool of trainedoperators. The disadvantages includethe
s u b j e c t i v i t yt op o l i t i c s ,t h e slow response caused by bureaucracy, and
, competition t o private contractors.

Treatment Technoloaiu ..
The highcost o f availabletreatmenttechnologies has l i m i t e d t h e i r '

use i n smallwatersupply systems. Recently prefabricated package plants


and individual treatment units havebeen developed t o lessen these costs.
L-4'
At the present time, the treatment technologies which are rvailable to
enable systemsto comply with the Safe Drinking Uater Act are identified
to be thefollowing:
--Package plants .
-- Slow-sand fi lters
Diatomaceous earth filters
Cartridge filtration

A brief discussion of each treatment method is


provided'below,
EaduLmm
Clarification and filtration units whichrequire minimal assemblyin
the field can now be manufactured. lo minimize required operator skill
level and operational attention, the equipment should be automated.
. Continuous effluent turbidity and disinfectant residual monitoring systems .
with alarms and emergency shutdown provisions are featuresthat safeguard
water quality and should be provided for unattended plants.
$1 ow-Sand Fi 1 tm
Slow-sand filters are applicable to small water supply systems,
Their proven record of effective removal of turbidity and Giardia cysts
makes them suitable for application where operational attention 4s
minimal, Since nochemicals otherthan a disinfectant are needed, and no
mechanical equipment is involved,the required operator skill level isthe
lowest o f the filtration alternatives available to small systems.
6
Diatomaceous earth (DE) pressure and vacuumfilters canbe used on
relatively l o w turbidity surface waters (lessthan 1 to 2 NTU) for removal '

of turbidity and Wardip cysts. DE filters can effectively remove


particles as small as 1 micron, but would require coagulating chemicals
and special filter aids toprovide significant virusnmoval.
C a r t r W e Fi 1 tsrs
Cartridge filters using microporous ceramic filter elements with
pore sizes as small as 0.2 uminay be suitable for producing potable water,
in combination with disinfection, from raw water supplies containing
moderate levels o f turbidity, algae, protozoa and bacteria.The advantage
to a small system, is, with the exception of chlorination, that no other
chemicals are required. The process i s one of strictly physical removal
L-5
of small p a r t i c l e s by straining as the water passes throughthe porous
membranes. Other thanoccasional
cleaning or membrane replacement,. :.
operationalrequirementsarenot complex and do notrequireskilled
personnel .--.
.+<

-.-
4.

The c r i t e r i a f o r s e l e c t i o n o f a f i l t r a t i o n technology for a small .


conrrnunit y areessentiallythe same as those f o r a larger cotnrnunit y That . .
.*L
-- c

i s t, h eu t i l i t y must f i r s t screen the complete l i s t o f ' available


alternatives to eliminate thosewhich are either not technically suited to ,
theexistingconditions (Table 4-1) or notaffordable by t h e u t i l i t y .
Remaining alternativesshouldthen be evaluated bared on bothcost
(capital, annual, and life-cycle) and non-cost bases (operatlon and
maintenance, technical requirements versus personnel available; f l e x i b i l i -
t y regarding future needs; etc.). I n these evaluations i t should be noted
that even though automated package plants are cost-competitive with 'slow
sand f i l t e r s , t h e i r o p e r a t i o n requirements t o achieve optimum performance .
could be complicated.Also, the maintenance requirements for package
plants would be mechanically and e l e c t r i c a l l y o r i e n t e d and mightrequire .
a malntenance agreement with the manufacturer.
During the process ionf s t a l l i nt hg e treatment system, interim -9
-
measures should be taken t o ensure the del ivery of a reasonably safe water . I
.'.
.
-"

t o ' t h e consumers. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e a v a i l a b l e i n t e r i m measures l i s t e d i n zr


Section 9.3, temporary i n s t a l l a t i o n o f mobile f l l t r a t i o n p l a n t s may be
possible. These trailer-mounted units are sometimes available from state
agencies f o r emergencies, but more often may be rented or leasedfrom an .
equipment manufacturer.
d i f i c a t i o n o f E x i s t i n aF i l t r a t i ' o n S v s m -
Small treatment systems thatarealready i n existenceshould comply 'I

with the performance c r i t e r i a o f the SWTR. I f the. systems are not'found


t o be perfo-ming satisfactorily, modifications to the existingprocess may
be required. Improvement i n treatment efficiency depends on the type of
*

f i l t r a t i o n system i n use. Operation o f slow sand f i l t e r s c o u l d be checked


for bed depth, short-circuiting, excessive hydraulic loading, and for the
need t o pretreatthe raw water.' I n f i l t r a t i o ng a l l e r i e s , or Sometimes,
roughing f i l t e r s ahead of a slow sand f i l t e r may provide for better
L-6 .
performanceby reducing the solidsload on t h ef i l t e r s . However, the
design c r i t e r i a and costs for t h i s a l t e r n p t i v e have not yet been defined.
Site specific studies may be required before roughing filters could be
used t o 'achieve compliance withtheregula-tions.Diatmaceousearth .
(DE) f i l t e r s shouldbe checked forappropriateprecoat and.bodyfeed
application, hydraulic loading,
grade
(size)of DE being used; and
possible need for chemical pretreatment. Package p l a n t s w u l d have t o be
checked process-by-process, s i m i l a r t o t h e system used for a conventional
plant. Other f i l t r a t i o n processeswould have t o bechecked f o r h y d r a u l i c
loadingrate,appropriateness of t h e f i l t e r m a t e r i a l (pore sire), and '

possible need for additional pretreatment;


bistnfectian
Disinfection (CT) requirements f o r small systems can Be act I n
several different ways.
The most obvious method o f maintainhg a
d i s i n f e c t a n t r e s i d u a l i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o nsystem i s t oadd d i s i n f e c t a n t a t
one or more additional locations. An alternate nethdd i s t o increase the
disinfectant dose at.theexistingapplicationpoint(s). The l a t t e r
alternative, however, may increasedisinfectantbyproducts,including
THMs, i n t h e system.
I f i t i s a r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t d i s t a n c e b e t k e n th; 'treatmentsystem
and t h e f i r s t customer, additional contact time can be provided so t h a t
thedisinfectant dose does not have. t o be increased beyond desirable .
residuals. Two s p e c i f i c methods o f . increasingcontacttime for small
systems are 1) i n s t a t l i n g 8 pressurevessel or closedstoragevessel ,
b a f f l e dt op r o v i d e adequate contact tiw, or 2) constructing a looped
pipeline, on the finished water line between t h e f i l t r a t i o n - d i s i n f e c t i o n
system and t h e f i r s t customer. The f e a s i b i l i t y o f e i t h e r of these methods
w u l d depend on system specifics that include s i t e , physical condittons,
and cost .
IfJt i s not practical to provide additional storage time to achieve
thedesired CT, an alternate, mre e f f e c t i v e d i s i n f e c t a n t may be used. An .
. .
alternate disinfectant may provide a s u f f i c i e n t CT without altering t h e
system configuration.

L-7
? QQmAiQU
?
Water tteatment facilities need t o be operated properly i n order to
achieve maximum treatment efficiencies. There i s c u r r e n t l ya lack of well
trained operators at many small treatment plants. The nain cause i s lack
o f awareness o f the importance 'ofcorrectplantoperation,lack of
training progrdl~s, 'lack o f enforcement of the requirement for amplopent
o f a certified operator and lack of funds t o employ such an operator,
Small systems may wish .to implement a circuitrider/operator
program. I n t h i s programa qual i f i e d ,c e r t i f i e d , experiencedoperator
works for severalwatersupply systems. The -rider can e i t h e rd i r e c t l y .
operate the plants, or providetechnicalassistance t o i n d i v i d u a l p l a n t
operators;,by acting as a t r a i n e r throughon-the-jobsupervision. The
l a t t e r would be preferable since i t couldcreate a pool of well trained
operators.
The main cause o f inadequately trained operators i s t h e l a c k of well
establishedtraining programs. U n t i l such t r a i n i n g .programs are begun,'
systems mustdependon .other training wan$, suchas seminars andbooks.
One resource which may be helpful i n runningtheplant i s .yBasic
Management Principles for Small Water Systems - AWWA.SmalJ-Systems
.
A n ' '

i
Resource Book'' , 1982
Most package plant manufacturers' equipment manuals include at least
brief sections on operatingprinciples, methods forestablishingproper .
. chemical dosages, instructionsforoperatingthe equipment, and trouble-
shootinggutdes. An individual who studiesthesebasicinstructions and
. receives comprehensive start-uptraining should be ableto.operatethe
. equipment s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . These services are v i t a l t o the successful
performance of. a package water treatment plant and should be a requirement.
of the package plant manufacturer. The engineer designing a package plant
f a c i l i t y should specify that start-up and training services be provided by
the manufacturer, and also should consider requiring the eanufacturer t o
. v i s i tt h ep l a n ta t 6-monthand 1-year intervalsafterstart-uptoadjust
the equipment, review operations, and retrainoperating personnel.
Further, t h i s program should be ongoing and funds should be budgeted every
year for a t least one r e v i s i t by the package plant manufacturer.

L-8
Another way for.smal1 systems t o o b t a i n q u a l i f i e d p l a n t o p e r a t i o n
would be to contract the services of administrative,operations;and/or
maintenance personnel from a larger neighboringutility, govsmment *.
agencies, service companies or consulting firms. theseorganizations
couldsupplyassistance i nf i n a n c i a l and legalplanning,engineering,
purchasingaccounting :and collection services,
laboratory support,
licensedoperators or operatortraining,treatment and water q u a l i t y
assurance, regulatoryliaison, and/or emergency assistance. .Through the
contractingoftheseservicestheutility.providesforthe resources
needed, improves waterquality management.and retains i t s autonomy.
However, i f andwhen the contract i s terminated,the u t i l i t y r e t u r n s t o
i t s originalstatus.

American Water Works Association. f l P t i c . M w n t Principlesfor Small


u a t e r Svst-, 1982.
. .
American Water Works Association. D e s i D
m, 1984.
Kelly, Gidley,Blair and Wolfe, Inc. .Guidance Manual
A l t e r w i v e s for %a11 Water SYS-.
Jnstitutional
A H A ,Research FoundationContract
- .
79-84 , 1986. . .

L-9 '
I

APPENDIX M
b

PROTOCOLFOR DEMONSTRATION
OF EFFECTIVE TREATMENT:
- APPENDIX M

PROTOCOL FOR DEMONSTRATION

This appendix presents approaches which can be taken t o demonstrate


o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e removaland/or inactivation o f u r d i a cysts. .

.
or AltcrDptt Tc-
Systems using a filtration technology other than those enumerated
i n the SWTR saydemonstrate theeffectivenessofthetreatmentprocess
through p i l o t or f u l l scaletesting. As ,aminiwm,testingshould be
conducted when the source exhibits i t s worst case annual conditions. Some
systems say have w t o periods of 'worst case' water quality including the
1 * coldwater i n winter or algae blooms duringthe s m e r .
P i l o t u n i t s should intlude the following:
- filtration rate of the pilot
r a t e on f u l l scale unit
systemequal t o f i l t r a t i o n

'- p i l o t f i l t e r diametergreaterthan or equal t o 50 times


the mediadiameter, (Robeck, e t al.1959)
- media diameter,depth,and'sizegradationshould
i d e n t i c a l t o f u l l scale,
be

- coagulantdosingidenticaltofullscale
- any mixing and settlingoccurring before f i l t r a t i o n i n
t h e f u l l s c a l e p l a n t should be reproduced as closely as
possible i n t h e p i l o t . ' H i x i n p should be o f t h e same G
value(s), and the detention tlan f o r s e t t l i n g should be
close t ot h e average flow detentiontine for the
projected full scale plant.

According t o t h e SWTR, alternatetechnologiesaust be capable o f


meeting the same t u r b i d i t y perfonnance c r i t e r i a o f slow sand f i l t r a t i o n
systems. Thus t h e f i l t e r e d waterfromtheprocessshouldbemonitored
continuously or w i t h grab samples every four hours f o rt u r b i d i t y . . The
requirement for meeting t u r b i d i t y performance has been establishedto

M- 1
- ensure t h a t h e r e wi
l beno i n t e r f e r e n c eo tf u r b i d i t y with. v i r u s
!

inactivation through disinfection.


> Following the demonstration o f m e t i n g t h e t u r b i d i t y requirements,
e. t hle v eoElfi a r d icay s t removal achieved mustbe determined, The,
protocol may i n M.2 followed
be for t h i s demonstration. t?
.l
.y.

M.2 particle Size Analvsis O-tration for G i a M a Cv-val Crea


Particlesizeanalysis may beused t o demonstrate t h el e v e l of
actual Giardia cyst rernoval providedbythe system. Thisdebonstration
canbe done using samples from the f u l l scale plant or a p i l o t unit.
I n t h e case of e i t h e r a f u l l s c a l e or p i l o t s c a l e demonstration,
removal ofparticles i n the range o f 5 t o 15 urn i n diametershouldbe
detennined using an electronic particle counter that hasbeen calibrated
with latex spheres. I f a l i g h t blockagedevice i s used (e.g. M A C ) t h i s
calibration should havebeendone d u r i n g i n s t a l l a t i o n of the device. The
calibration should be checked before taking measurements for the purposes
o f t h i s demonstration. Samples shouldbe diluted appropriately to ensure
. t h a t measurements do notreflect coincident error. Coincident error
r e s u l t s when more than one p a r t i c l e passes thedetectorat one time,
causing an inaccurate particle count and diameter measurement. An
e l e c t r i c a l sensing zone device (e,g. Coulter Counter or flzone) may also
. be
used. Appropriatedilutions,electrolytestrength, and c a l i b r a t i o n
proceduresshould be followed (these are scheduled t o be o u t l i n e d i n t h e
1 7 t h e d i t i o n o f Standard Methods). When using an e l e c t r i c a l sensing zone
instrument, an o r i f i c e no larger than 125 urn andno smallerthan 40 ' u m

should beused sinceonlyparticles between ZS'and 40% o f t h e o r i f i c e


diameter are accurately sized and counted (Karuhn e t a11975)
9 .

Samples ' o f t h e f i l t e r i n f l u e n t and e f f l u e n t shouldbetaken ' 5

minutes a f t e r t h e backwashed f i l t e r i s placed i n operation, and every 30


1 minutesthereafter for t h e f i r s t 3 hours o f operation,followed by hourly
samplesup u n t i l backwash (Wiesner e t a1 1987). A l samples should show
a tl e a s t a 2-log removal. The SWTR establishes an overalltreatment
0' requirement of 3-1og Giardia cyst removal/inactivation. Thus, disinfec-

M-2
..

tion must be provided to supplement the particulate m v a l and met thls


requirement:
Samples from repeated fi lter runs may be averaged at aach'sampl ing
. .. ,
time, but samples should not be averaged within one filter run.
Additional suggestions on particle counting technique (Uiesner
1985) :
1)
.r
If particle counts are not determined imdiatel upon
sampling (within 10 rfnutcs) samples should be di uted.
2) For an electrical sensing zone measurement, samples
should be diluted 1:s to 1:ZO with a "partlcle-free"
electrolyte solution (approximately 18 NaCl) containing
100 particles per ral or fewer.
3) For a light blocka e measurement, particle free water
8
should be used to ilute samples.
4) Dilutions should be done.to produce particle concentra-
tions as close tothe tolerance for coincident error as
possible to minimize background counts.
5) Particle counts should, bedetermined within'8 hours o f
.
sampl i ng
6) All sampling vessels should be washed with laboratory
detergent, double rinsed in particle free water, and
rinsed twice with the water being sampled at the time .
o f sampling.

The log reduction of particles in the size range o f . 5 to 15 um in


size can be assumed to correspond to the log reduction o f cysts
wfifch would be achieved.

M.3 m t r a t i o n for Increased Tutbiditv Allow-

Based upon the requirements of the SWTR, the minimum turbidity


performance criteria for systems using conventional treatment or direct
filtration is filtered water turbidity. less than or qual to0.S'NTU in
95 percent o f the measurements taken each month. However, at the dis;
cretion o f the Primacy Agency, filtered water turbidity levels of less . .

than or equal to 1 NTU in 95 percent o f the measurements taken every month

M-3
m y be p e m i t t e d 'on a case-by-case basis depending on t h e c a p a b i l i t y o f
!/
x t h et o t a l system, t o rmove and/or i n a c t i v a t ealte a s t 99.9 percent o f
b m b l i a cysts.
Treatment p l a n t s t h a t use settling followed by filtratton, or d i r e c t '
f i1t r a t i o n a r e general l y capable o f producing a f f ltered water wjth a
t u r b i d i t y o f 0.2 NTU or less. The m s t l i k e l y cause of h i g h t u r b i d i t i e s
i nt h ef i l t e r e dw a t e r .i si n c o r r e c t coagulantdosing(O'Melfa, 1974).
Regardless o f t h et u r b i d i t y o f the raw or finished water,coagulant
a d d i t i o na t some p o i n t p r i o r t o f i l t r a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d to Iestabilize
p a r t i c l e s f o r reatoval i n t h e f i l t e r . Only plants documenting continuous
coagulantfeed p r i o r t o f i l t r a t i o n should be e l i g i b l e for beingallowed
h i g h e r f i l t e r e d water turbidities than the 0.5 NTU requircment. A t plants
that continuously feed coagulant and do n o t m e t t h e 0.5 NTU requirement,
a s e r i e s o f j a r t e s t s , and perhaps sandcolumn f i l t r a t i o n t e s t s ( i n batch)
should be performed t o evaluate the optimum coagulant dose f o r t u r b i d i t y
remova1 .
I n t h e eventthatplants candocument continuouscoagulantfeed,
and, after running the plant under conditions deteimined i n batch'testing
t o be o p t i m a fl o rt u r b i d i t y removal, s t i l l do not wet the 0.5 NTU
requirement, e f f e c t i v e f i l t r a t i o n s t a t u s may still be appropri.ate.This
would further be supported i f i t canbe shown t h a t t h e f u l l t c a k p l a n t '

i s capableofachieving a t l e a s t a 2-109 reduction i n t h e concent,ration


of p a r t i c l e s between 5 and 15 urn. i n size through particle size analysis

-
as outlined i n Section M.2.. Where a f u l l scale plant does not yet exist,
appropriately scaled-down p i l o ft i l t e r s mightbe used f o r such a
demonst r a t ion.

The level of disinfection could also be considered f o r determining


when t o allow a higher turbidity performance c r i t e r i o n f o r a system. For
example, if asystemachieves 3-109 Giardiacystinactivationthrough
disinfection, as determined by CT values, i t may be appropriate t o allow
higherfilteredwaterturbidities (i.e., greaterthan 0.5 NTU but less
than 1 NTU i n 95 percent o f t h e measurementsand neverexceeding 5 NTU).
..

M-4
. .
The expected l e v e l of fecal . contamination and Giardia cyst
concentrations i n the SOuKe watershould, be considered i n the above
analysis,Highlevelsofdisinfection (e.g., 2 t o 3-109 i n a c t i v a t i o n o f
Giardia cysts), i n a d d i t i o n t o f i l t r a t i o nwhich achieves less than 0.5 NTU
i n 95 percent o f the anasunments nay be appropriate, depending upon
source water quality. Further guidance on t h e l e v e l o f d i s i n f e c t i o n t o be
provided for various source water conditions i s provided i n Section 4.4.2. .
I n all cases the minimum d i s i n f e c t i o n t o be provided mustsupplement t h e
p a r t i c u l a t e removal t o ensure l ae ta s t a 3-log f j s t rmov-
alfinactivation.

References
American PublicHealthAssociation; American Water Works Association;
Water Pollution Control Federation. tandard Methods for the m i n a t i o n
'

gf Water and Wastewater, 17th ed. (stfpplennt), September1989.

CoulterElectronics 600 W. 20thStreet,Hialeah, FL 33010-2428


Karuhn, R.; Davies, R.; Kaye, B.; Clinch, M. Studies on .theCoulter
Counter Part I .
Powder Technology Volume 1I , 'pp. 157-171, 1975.
O'Melia, C. The Role of P o l y e l e c t r o l y t e si nF i l t r a t i o n
67012-74-032,1974.
Processes, €PA -
Robeck, G.; Woodword, R. L. P i l o tP l a n t sf o r WaterTreatmentResearch,
Journal of Sanitary Engineering A X E Vol, 85;SAl; 1, August 1959.
Wiesner, M. "Optimum WaterTreatment PlantConfigurationEffects o f Raw
Water Characteristics," dissertation John Hopkins University, Baltimore,
MD, 1985.
Wiesner, M.; Rook, 3. 3.; Fiessin er, F. Optimizingthe Placement o f GAC
1
F i l t e r s , J . AWWA VOL 79, pp. 39-4 , Dec 1987.

M-5
APPENDIX N
PROTOCOLS FOR POINT-OF-USE
DEVICES
ef fectiveners o f new technologies as well U point-of-use devicer. The
evaluationpresented here deals w i t h the removalof pad’culater and .
disinfection.In ueas w c
hi pertain to disinfection, the guidelines
contained in Appendix G take precedence.

.
CONTRSTS

PREFACE

N-1

N-6
3. MICROBIOLOGICAL WATER PURIFIER TEST PRodDURES N-8 '

APPENDIX N-1 SttMMARY FOR BASIS Of STANDARDS AND N-21


TEST WATER PARAMETERS

APPENDIX N-2 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IN TASt FORCE N-29


APPRUDIX N-3 RESPONSE BY REVIEW
SUBCOMMITTEE TO N-31
PUBLIC COMMENTS .

.
. .
I

UNITED STATES
ENVIROMlff3TAL PROTECTION ACEN&

Registration Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
Criteria urd Standards Division
Office of Drinking Water

GUIDE STANDARD AND PROTOCOL FOR


TESTING MICROBIOLOGICAL WATER PURIFIERS-

Report of Task Force


Submitted April, 1986
Revised April, 1987
1. -GENERAL
.
. .

1.1 Introduction

The subject of microbiological purificationfor waters of unknoun micro-


biological quality repeatedly presentsitself to variety of governmentaf and
non-governmental 8goncietr consumer groups, manufactu;ers and others. Exam- '

ples o f possible applicationof such purification capabilitioi


tdclude:
- Backp8ckerr and campers
- Non-standard military requirements
- Floods and other natural disasters
- Foreign travel and strtions (howver,'not f o r extreme contamination
situations outside of the U.S.)
..
- Contaminated individual sources,wolls and springs (however, not for .
the conversionof waste water to microbiologically potable water)
- Motorhomes and trailers
Batch methods of water purification based on chlorineand iodine disfn-
fection or boiling are well known, but miny situations and personal choice.
. call for the consideration of water treatment equipmenet. Federal agencies
rpocifically involvod in responding to questions and. problems relating to
microbiological purifier equipment include:
- Registration Division; Office of Pesticide Programs (OPPI, Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA), registration of microbiological
purifiers (using chemicals);
- Compliance Monitoring . Staff, EPA.3 control of microbiological
purifier device claims (non-registerable products such as. ultra-
violet units, otonators,chlorine generators, others);
- 'U.S. Army Medical Bioengineering Researchand Development Laboratory
(USAMBRDL) , U.S. Army Natick Resoarch and'Development Center and
other Army and military agencies: .research 8nd development for
possible field applications;
- Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Drinking Water (ODWI,
&PA: Consideration of pofnt-of-use technology as acceptable teeh-
' .
. ,

nologyunder t h e PrimaryDrinkingWater Regulations: consumer


information and service;

N- 1
. i

t
- Drinking Wator Roioarch, Wator Enginooring Rosoarch Laboratory
WZRL), SPA; rosponrible
for
water treatment tochnology rosoarch;
- Microbiology Wanch, Hoalth Effocts Resoarch Laboratoky ( H E W , PA;
responsalefor s t u d y of health otfocts related t o drin~cingwater --
f iltorr . * ~

.;;7"1
A nuubor o f reprosontativos of tho h v o mrntioned agoncies
provided .--
.I

atcollentparticipation i n tho task f o r m t o dovolop microbiologicaltosting . -.-.


"-
protocols for wator purffiors. Major participation was also .provided by the
following:
, - A tochnicalroprosentativo
-.

from tho Wator Quality Associ8tiont


- A technical r0prOSentatiVO fro&! tho &WironmBnta1 Hoalth Center,
Department of Health and Welfaro of Canadat .nd
~n associate professor (microbiology) from tho
Univorsity of .
0

Arizona .
1.2 Basic Principles
1.2.1 Definition
0 As s e tf o r t h i n EPA Enforcement Strategy and a8
' .upport0d by aFederal
. Trade Commission (FTC) decision (PTC v. S i b c o Products Co. , In& , e t al.,
NOV. 22, a u n i t 0 i n order t o bo called a microbiological
1965) 0 water &. ,

purifier0 must ramovo, k i l l or inactivate 'a11type; of disease-causing micro-' -r*-


-u i

organisms from t h o water,includingbacteria,viruses g d protozoan cysts 80 .I..


VL

as t o tenderthepmcesrodwatersafe for drinking.Thorofore, t o qualify, a -.


*
,^

microbiologicalwaterpurifier.Pnrsttroat or romove a11types of challenge

1.2.2 General Guide


.
organisms t o moot spodfiod standards.

Tho stwdard and protocol w i l l be a goneral guide and, i n m o m cases, may


presentonlythe minimum features and framework forteating. While baoic
features of t h o standard and protocol have bien testod, it was not feasible to
' conduct full-flodgoc¶ t e s t i n gf o ra l l possible types of wit#. Consequently,
.' protocol users shouldincludepre-testing of t h e i r units i n a testing rig,
including the sampling tochniquos t o bo used. Where usersofthe prototol
' find good reason t oa l t e r or add t o tho guide i n order t o meet specific
.f operational problems, t o ,use i n alternate organism or laboratory procedure, or
.
'

t o respond t o innovativetreatment u n i t s withoutdecreasing the level of


testing or altoring the intont o f theprotocol, they 8hould f e e l freo to dc .
t o . For u t ~ h the 8 OPP RegistrationDivision rnight find it necessary t o
m e n d theguide roamwhat for different types oftreatment units. Another
example would bo u l t ~ a v i o l o t (U.V. 1 units, which puy have specific =.quire-
ments in addition t o t h e guide protocol.
1.2.3 Performance-Based
The standard wi1.1 be perfonamce-based, u t i l i z i n g r a a l i s t i c worst case
challenges and test conditions and uso of the ttandaxd aha11 risult in water
q u a l iet y
q u i v a l ettnhota t o f a public
water
rupply
meting
the
microbiological requirements' and intent of the National Primuy Drinking Water
Regulations.
.1 2.4 Exceptions
. A microbiologicalwaterpurifior must remove, kill Or i n a c t i v a t ea l l .
types of pathogenicorganims i f claimsare made f o r any organism. However,
an exceptionforlimitedclaims may be allowed f o r units ramoving specific
organisms toserve a definabli environmental need (i.e., cyst reduction units '
whichcanbe used on otherwise disinfected and microbiologically safe d r i n k i n g
water, such as a disinfected b u t unfilteredsurfacewatercontaining cysts.
such units are not to be called microbiological water purifiers and should not'
. be used as sole treatment for M untreated raw water.)

1.2.5 Not t o Cover Non-MicrobiologicalReductionClaims


The treatment of water t o achieve removal of a specific chemical or other
non-microbiological substances from vator will not be a p a r t of this standard.
NationalSanitationFoundation (NSF) Standards 42 (Aosthetic~Effects)and 53
(Health Effocts) provide partial guides for chemical removaland other clair&
testing.
1.2.6 Constlvction and InformationExclusions
While thestandard recommends safe,responsibleconstruction of units
w i t h non-toxic materials for optimum operation, 811 Ach items and associated
operationalconsiderations are excluded as being beyond the scope of .the
standard. Included i n the exclusionarematerialsofconstruction,electrical
and safety aspects, design and construction details, operational instructions
'

.and information, and mechanicalperformance testing.


1.2.7 Research Needs Excluded

N- 3
. .-
I

Tho w i d er t m d u d and protocol must reprosont a practicaltenting


' program and notincludo resoara. reconm!tOndationr. For .xmrple, considerauqp
. of mutant orgdmnu or d ~ f o r o n t i a t i o nbetuoon fnjurod urd dead orp.niim; .
' would bo resoarch it- a t this tima and not appropriate for inclusionin the *
-.c .

rturdard. *.
.A*-

Not t o Conrider Sabotage


1.2.8
..,-
-*

Esoteric problems which could bo prosonted by a variety of hypothetical *.


. -
tOmri8t (Or W e h ) 8ituation8, W l d ~ m i UI d UXlnOCe88&w
~ '-qliCation,
and aro not appropriate for lnclurlon in tho standard.
1.2.9 Continuity
Tho guide rtandard and protocol w i l l be a living docur#nt, subjectto
revision and updating w i t h tho onsetof now tochnology and knowledge. It is
recamended t h a t ' t h or e s p o n s i b l ea u t h o r i t i e s for registration and drinking
wator quality review potential noods every two to. three years and .reconvene
the task force upon need or upon request from t h o water quality industry, to
nviow and updato tho standard and testing protocol. .

1.3 Treatment U n i t s Caverage


'1.3.1 Universe of Possible Treatment U n i t s
A reviewoftreatment units that might be considered as. microbiological
.
' purifiersdiscloses a number ofdifforent types covoringtreatmentprinciples
ranging from f i l t r a t i o n and chunical disinfectiontoultraviolet l i g h t ra-
diation.
1.3.2Coverage of This Standard
In view o f the limited technical data available and in order t o m i t e
, t h o work o f the task force, the i n i t i a l coverage i s l b $ t o d , on a p r i o r i t y
basis, t o threo basic types ofmicrobiological watc'r p u r i f i e r s or act$ve
components w i t h their principal means of action as follows:
1.3.2.1 Ceramic F i l t r a t i o n Candler or Units (may or
may not contain a chemical bacteriostatic agent)

Filtration, and adsorption, urd chdcal anti-microbialactivity if a


chemical i s included.
1.3.2.2 Halogenated Resins and U n i t s

N-4
Chemical disinfection kid possibly f i l t r a t i o n . (Notot While not
.hcluded i n t h i s guide ,rt.nd&d, halogen product8 for disinfection or . y s t e u
usfng halogen addition and f i n e f i l t r a t i o n m y be tested w i n g ' a m y of its.
. .
elements, io'..8 t e s t water p a r . ~ ~ t e r smicrobiological
, c h a ~ e n g oand reduction
requircl~unts, analytical techniqudr and othor pertinent elements.)
1.3.2.3 Ultraviolet (Wl U n i t s
W irradiation w i t h possible add-on treatnwnt for adsorption and f i l t r a -
tion (not applicab1e t o w units for t r i a t i n g potable water from public water
.upply 8 y S t O M )
0

1.3.3 Application of Principles t o Other Units


ail. only throe types of u nsi are covered i n this standard, the princi-
t
ples urd approaches outlinedshould provido UI f n i t i a l guide for tho testing
of any of a number of other types of units .nd/or systunr for the .micmbiplog-
ical purification of contrminat?d water.

b.

N-5
2. PERFORMANCP: REQUIREMENTS
9

$. 2.1 nicrobiological Water Purifier


In order to make the claim o f wmicrobiological water purifier," units
. must be tested and demonstrated tomeet the microbiological reductionrequire-
-
e..

SI:'

nmnts of Table 1 according to the test procedures described in Section 3 .,


- .
I

(Appendix N-1) for the.specific typeof unit involved.


.-

2.2 Chemical Health Limits


Where silver or sonbe o h m pesticidal chemical is used in a unit, that
chemical concentration in the effluent water murt w e t m y N&tional Primary
Drinking Water M a x i m u m Contaminant Level (MCL), additional Federal guidelines .
or otherwise be demonstrated not to constitute a threat to health from con-
sumption or contact whereno HCL exists.

2.3 stability of Pesticidal Chemical


Where a pesticidal chemicalis used in the treatment unit, the stability
of the chemical for disinfectant effectiveness should be sufficient for the
potential shelf 1ife.and the projected use lifeof the unit based'on manu'fac-
turer's data. where stability cannot be assured from historical data and'
information, additional testswill be required.

2.4 Performance Limitations


2.4.1 Effective Lifetime
I
The manufacturer must provide an explicit indication or assurance of the .
unit' I effective use lifetime to w a r n the consumer of potential diminished
treatment capabilityeither through:
a. Having the unit terminate dischargeof trehted water, or
b. Sounding M alann, or

c. Providing simple, explicit instruction for servicing or replacing


units withinthe reconmended use life (measurable in tarnu of volume
throughput, specific time frame .
or other appropriatem e t h o d )
2.4.2 Limitation on Use of Iodine

N-6
EPA policyinitially developed i n 1973
.
and reafiimed i n 1982 (memo of
March 3 , 1982from J. A. C o t r w o t o C. A. Jones, subject: aPolicy on Iodiriq
Disinfection") i s that iodine d i s i n f o c t i a n i s acceptable for short-term or
limited or emergency use but that it i s not reco8mnd.d for long-trnn or
routine cormunitywaterrupply application where iodine-containing species may
remain i n the drinking water.

N-7
I

3i XfCROBIOL6C;ICAL WATER PURIFIER TEST PROCEDURES

3.1 Purpose
These t o r t 8 a r e performad on coramic f i l t r a t i o n candlos or units, halo-
genatod resins and units and u l t r a v i o l e t ( W ) u n i t s in odor to .&stantiate
thoir microbiological tomoval capabilities over t h o offoctive use l i f o of t h o
p u r i f i o r as defined i n Tablo 1 and, whero a pesticidal, chomical is usod, t o
determine t h a tr a i d chomical i s notprosent in theoffluont.-at oxcessive
levols (soeSoction 3.5.3.4, Appendix #I ,

3.2 Apparatus
Three production u n i t s of a typo a r e t o be tested, simultaneously, i f
feasible: othemise, i n a manner as similar t o that as possible. '

Design of the t e s t i n g rig p u s t p a r a l l e l and simulate projected field use-


conditions. For plumbed-in unitsa guide f o r design of the test rig may be
taken from "Figure 1: Test Apparatus-Schematic" (p. A-2 of Standard Number 53
"Drinking Water Treatment U n i t s --
Health Effects," NationalSanitation
Foundation) Otherwise, t h e t e s t r i g must be designed t o simulate f i e l d use
. conditions (worst case1 for the u n i t t o be testod.

3.3 art Waters -- Non-Microbioloiical


Parameters . .,
I n addition to the microbiological influent challenge8,'the various test'
waters will be constituted w i t h chemical and physicalcharacteristicsas
fO l l o w 8: 9

3.3.1 Test water 11 (GeneralTest Water) '

This water i s intonded for tho normal non-stressed (non-challenge)phase


of t e s t i n gf o ra l lu n i t s and shall have smcific characteristics which may
easily be obtained by the adjustment of many public mystam tapwaters,as
follaws:
' a m . It s h a l l be free of any chlorine or otherdisinfectantresidual;

b. pH -0 6..5 - 8.5;

C. Total Organic Carbon (Iy)(=) 0.1 - 5.0 W / L t

d. Turbidity 0.1 - 5 WU;

N-0
e. Twperatura 20 C . S C; and

f. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) SO - SO0 lag/&.


3.3.2 Test Water 42 (Challenge Test Water/Haloqen Disinfection)
This water is intended for the rtrassed challenge phase of tasting where
units involvehalogen di8infeCtantS (halogenresins or other units) and shall
have the following specific characteristics:
a. Free of chlorine or other disinfectant residual;
-
b. (1) .pH 9.0 .2, and

( 2 ) for iodina-based units a pH of S.0 -


.2 (current information
indicates that the low pH will be the most savera test for virus
reduction by iodine disinfection);
t
c. Total Organic Carbon (TOC)not less than 10 mg/t;
d. Turbidity not less than 30 "v;

e. Temperature 4 C 1 C; and

f. Total Dissolved Solids ( T D S ) 1,500 mg/L - 150 mg/L.

3.3.3 Test Water I 3 (Challenge Test Water/Ceramic Candle


or Units Withor Without Silver Impregnation)
This water is intended for the stressed challenge phaseof testing for
'the indicated units but not for such units when impregnated with a halogen
disinfectant (for the latter, use Test Water Y21. It shall havethe following
specific characteristicsr
a. It shall be free of any chlorine or other disinfectant residual:

b. pH 9.0 - .2;

c. Total Organic Carbon (TOC) -- not .less than 10 mg/~;

d. Turbidity -0 not less than 30 "U;

3.3.4 Test Water #4 (Challenge Test Waterfor Ultravfoiet Units)


This water is intended for the stressed phase of testing for t'v units and
shall havethe following specific characteristics:

N-9
a. Pne of chlorine or other
disinfectet
residual;

,9. Color U.V. absorption(absorption' a t 254 ' n m l 0- Sufficientpara-


hydroxybenzoic acid (PHBH) t o be jus2 below the trigger point of the
warning alarm on the U.V. unit. (Note thatSection 3.5.1.1 provides
an alternative of adjusting tho U . V , . l u n p electronically, especially
when the U.V. lamp i s preceded by activated carbon treatment.)
3.3.5 Test Water WS (LeachingTest Water for U n i t s Containing Silver)
Thfr water i s intended forstressedle8chingtests of u n i t s containing
silvertoassurethatexcesslevels of s i l v e r w i l l not be leached i n t o the
drinking r a t e r . I t shall have t h e followingspecificcharacteristics:
a. Free of chlorine o r other disinfectantresidual2

b.. pH 5.0 0.2; --.


-
-0

u _
C. TotalOrganic Carbon (Tot) -0 approximat4ly 1.O q / L ; I
. -.

d. Turbidity -0 0.1 - 5 NTvt -. -


e. Temperature 0- 20 C .,5 Ct and *
.. c
.
c
.

f. TotalDissolvedSolids
e
.(TDS) 0- 25 - 100 -/La

3.3.6 Recoxanended Materials for Adjusting Test Water Characteristics


a. pU: inorganic acids or bases (i.e.', E l , NaOH) .;

b. *tal Organic Cubon (TOC): humic acidst .

c, Turbidity: A.C. FineTest Dust (Park No. 1543094)


from: A.C. Spatk Plug Division
General Motors Corporation
1300 North Dort Highway
F l i n t , Michigan 48556;

d. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): seasalts, Sigma Chemical Co.* S9883


(St, Louis,MO) or another equivalent source of TDS;

N-10
e. ' c o l o r U.V., Absorption8 p-hydroxybenzoic acid (grades general
purpose reagent).
3.4 Analytical Uethodr
-
3.4.1 Microbiological Methods
' Methods i n this section are considered "state-of-the-art" a t the time of
its preparation and rubsequent improvements should beexpected. Wethods used
for microbiological analyses 8hould be c o a h t i b l e v i t h and equal t o or better
than those given below.
3.4.1.1 Bacterial Tests
a. ChosenOrganismr Klebsiellaterriqena (ATCC-33257).
b; Method ofProduction:Test organism w i l l be prepared by overnight
growth i n nutrient broth or equivalent t o obtain the organism i n the
stationary growth phase (Reference: Asburg, E.D., Methods of
TestingSanitizerr and Bacteriostatic Substances Inx Disinfection,
S t e r i l i z a t i o n and Presenration, Seymour S. BlocJc, ed., pp. 964-980,
1983). The organism w i l l be collected by centrifugation and washed
three times i n phosphatebuffered saline before use. Alternatively,
the Organisms may be grown overnight on nutrientagarslants 'or
equivalent and washed
from the s l a n t s w i t h phosphate 'buffered
saline. The suspensionsshould be f i l t e r e d through s t e r i l e Whatman
Number 2 f i l t e r paper (or equivalent) to remv'e any bacterial
clumps. New batches of organisms must be prep,arcd daily for -use i n
challenge testing.

C. State of Organism; Organisms i n the stationary growth phase and


suspended i n phosphate buffered saline w i l l be used.

d. Assay Techniques: Assay may be by thespreadplate, pour p l a t e o r


membrane f i l t e r technique on nutrient agar, M.F.C. or *Endo medium
(Standard Methods f o r the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1 6 t h
edition, 1983, APHA).
triplicate.
Each
sample dilution w i l l be assayed
- in .
3.4.1.2 V i r u s Tests
a. Chosen Organisms: Poliovirus type 1 (LScl (Am-VR-SO) , and Rota-
v i r u s S t r a i n SA-11 (ATCC-VR-899) or WA (ATCC-VR-2018).
b. Method of Production: A l l stocks should be grown by a m c t h o d
described by S m i t h and Gerba ( i n Methods i n Environmental Virology,
pp. 15-47, 1982) and g u r i f i e d by t h e procedure of Sharp; e t al.
(Appl. Microbiol. , 29:94-101 , 1975) , or rfmilar procedure (Bennan
and Hoff, Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 481311-323, 1984) as these
. methods w i l l produce largely monodispersed virion particles.

N-11
C. State of the OrganismPreparationprocedure
* w i l l largely produce
J monodispersed particles.
2. d. Assay Techniques: Poliovirus type 1 may be grown i n the M;M, HA-104
or other cell l i n e which w i l l nrpport the grwth of this virus. The
rotaviruses s u e best grown i n the M-104 cell lfne.Sinceboth
viruses CM be assayed on the MA-104 c e l l l i n e , a chgllenge t e s t may
consist o f .qual amounts of both v i r y e r as a mixture (i.e., the
mixture must contain a t l e a s t 1.0 x 10 /ao f each virus) Assays
MY be as plaque forming units (PFU) or as frPPrunofluotescence foci
(IF) (Smith &d Gerba,~ In: Methods i n Environmental Virolopy8
pp. 15-47, 1982). Each dilution w i l l b. assayed i n W p l i c a t e .
3.4.1.3 Cyst Tests .
a. ChosenOrganism
1. Giardia famblia o r the related organism, Giardia = t i s , may be
used as the challenge cyst.
2. where f i l t r a t i o n i s involved, t e s t s with 4-6 micron spheres or
p a r t i c l e s have been f o y d t o be satisfactory and may be used as
asubstitute f o r t e s t s of occlusion using live organisms (see
I .
.
Table 1) Spheres or particles may only be used t o evaluate
filtrationefficacy.Disinfectionefficacy canonly be evalu-
ated w i t h the use of viable Giardia cysts.

b. Method of Production: Giardia muris may be produced i n laboratory


mice and Giardialamblia may be produced i n Mongolian gerbils;
inactivationresults based on excystation measurements correlate,
wll w i t h animal infactivityresults. '

C. State o f the Organism: Organisms may be separated from fecal


material by the procedure
described by Sauch (Appl. Environ.
nicrobiol., 48:454-45fr 1984) or by the proceduredescribed by
Bingham, e t a* l . (Exp.P u a s i t o l . , 47~284-281,1979).

d. Assay Techniques: Cysts u e first 'reconcentrated (300 ml.


,minim
sample size)accordingto the method of Rice, Hoff and Schaefer
(Agpl. Environ.Microbiol., 43c250-251,1982). The excystation
method described by Schaefer, e t 8l.
(Trans. , RoyalSoc.ofTrop.
Mod. L Hyg. 78r795-800, 1984) shall be used t o evaluate Giardia
-
mtis cyst viability., For Giardia l m b l i a cysts, the excystation
method described by Bingham and Meyer (Nature, 277,301-302, 1979) or
Rice and Schaefer (J. C l l n . nicmbiol. , 14: 709-710, 1981)shall be
used,Cyst viability may also be determined by an assay, method
involvingthe countinq of trophozoitesas well .as intact cysts
(Bingham, e t al., Exp. Parasitol., 478264-2918 1979).

3.4.2 Chemicaland P h y s i c a l Methods

N-12
~ l physical
l .nd chomical analpus shall be conducted in accordance w i t h
procedures in Standard Method8 forthe Examination of Water and Wastewatei,
16th Edition, American Public Health At80ciationr Or equivalent.

3.S TestProcedure8
-
3.5.1 Procedure Plumbed-in Units
A. 1. Install threeproduction units of A type as i n Figure 1
and condition each u n i tp r i o rt o the W a r t 0 s . t h et e s t in
accordance w i t h the manufacturer'sinstructions w i t h the t e s t .
waterwithout the additionofthetest contaminant. Measure
tho flaij r a t e through each unit. The unit'shall be t e s t e d a t
the maximum system prossure of 60 p s i 9 r t a t i c and flow rate
will not be artificiallycontrolled. -
2. Test waters s h i l l have thedefinedcharacteristicscontinuously
except for t e s t waters 2, 3 and 4 w i t h respect t o t u r b i d i t y .
The background non-sampling t u r b i d i t y level w i l l be maintained
a t 0.1-5 NTU b u t the t u r b i d i t y s h a l l be increased . t o the
challengelevel of
not l e s s than 30 NTU i n the following .
manner I
- I n the "on" p e r i o d b ) p r i o r t o the sampling "on" period.

- I n the oampling "on" period when the sample actually w i l l


be taken. (Note: a t l e a s t 10 u n i t void volumesof t h e 30
NTU watershallpass through t h e unit prior t o actual
sampling so a st o provide adequateseasoning and u n i -
fomlty before sample collection.) .
b. 1. Use appropriate techniqu'es of dilution and insure continual
mixing t o prepare a challenge solution containing the bacterial
contaminant. Then spike test water
continuously w i t h the
influentconcentrationspecified i n Tabla 1. .

2. Use appropriatetechniques t o prepareconcentratedvirus and


Giardia8uspensions. Food these usp peas ions i n t o the I n f l u e n t
stream 80 as t o achieve the influentconcentrationsspecified
i n Table 1 i n the following manner:
- I n the "on" period (I;)p r i o r t o the sampling "on" period.
- I n the sampling "on" period when the san@le actually w i l l
be taken. (Note: a t l o a s t 10 unit void vo1um.r of seeded
water s h a l l pass through the u n i t p r i o r t o sampling so a s '
t o provide adequate seasoning and uniformity before sample'
collection.)
c. Rug0 tho 8yStom of' the uncontaminatedwater w i t h a sufficient flew
of c o n t d n a t o d test water. S t a r t an operating cycle of 10 p.rcent '

o n r 90 percont off w i t h a 15 t o 4 0 minute cyclo (marqplo; 3 minutes


1
on, 27 P3nut.r offJ w i t h the contu8inrt.d t e s t water. This cycle
shall be continuod f o r not more than 16 hours pot day (Plfn-innrm daily '

rost period of 8 hours). Tho t o t a l program +hall extend t o 1001 of -


ortinrated volume capacityfor halogenated resinsor units and for
.10-1/2 day8 for ceramic candles or unit8 and U.V. units.
... .
d. Sampling: Samples of influent urd offluent water a t the specified
sampling points shall bo collect& as shown W l w , f o r the various
unftr; these are minima aunpling plans w h i c h m y be increased i n
number by tho investig+tor. All srmples +hall bo collected i n
duplicate frob the flowing water during tho sampling "on" portion of
the cycle and they shall be one "unitvoid volume" i n quantity(or
of appropriatequantityforanalysis) and* toprosent worst care
challengeconditions.Effluent 8rmph8 shallusually be collected
near t h o middleof the sampling "on" period (or the wholevolume
during one"on" poriod)urceptfor samples followingthespecified
"stagnation"periods,for which 8ampling shall be. conducted on the
first water volume out of the unit. Each runple w f 11 be taken in
duplicate and s h a l l be rotained and appropriatelypreserved, if
required,for chemical or microbiological &nalyris i n the event
verification i s required. (For units where the volume of a single
"on" period i s insufficientfortherequiredanalysis, samples from
successive "on" periods may be accumulated u n t i l a sufficient volume
has been collected.)
1(a). Sampling Plan:HalogenatedResins o r Units '(Non-iodine Based) i
.*
---.

Tests
Test Point Active
.
(Iof Estimated Test
Capacity) Background
Water -
.
Influent Agent/
Hlcrobiological
Residual

start General X X X
25% X X
50% x X
After 48 hours
stagnation X X

60% Ch.1- X X
x
75%
c After 48 hours
stagnation
' lenge
PH
9.0
- .

0.2
X

X X
100% X X

l(b). Sampling Plan:IodinatedResins o r UnAts

N-14
Torts
Test Point Active
(%of Estimatod
Capacity) -
Test
Water
Influent
Background
Agent/
HicrobloIoqical
Residual
Start Genoral X X
25% X
50% X
Aftor 48 hours
stagnation X

60% Chal- X X
75%
After 48 hours
stagnation
lenge
PH
9.0
-- 0.2
X

X
X

90% Chal- X X
lenge X
100%
After 40 hours
stagnation
PH
5.0
-- 0.2 X
X

2. Sampling Plan: Ceramic Candles o r Units and U.V. Units

Tests

Test Point -
Test
Wa t e r
Influent
Background Microbiological ..

Start Goneral x X
Day 3 (middle)' X
Day 6 (middle) X
After 48 hours
stagnation 1 x

Day 7 (middle) X '


Day 8 (near ond) Chal- - x
After 48 hours lenge
stagnation X
Day 10-1/2 X

(Note: All days are "running days" and excludestagnation periods. When
test shall be'conducted as shown i n
the u n i t s contain s i l v e r , a leaching
Section 3.5.1.eand silver residual will be matured a t each microbiological
88npling p o i n t . 1

N-15
..
. .
,--

e. Lmching Tests for Silverized. Units: where the w i g contains


silver, 8dditional tests utilizing Test Water #S w i l l be conducted
88 fO11OWS8

Tests
Influent
Test Point Background Silver/Residual
stut
D.r 2 .-
After 48 hours
stagnation X

. .
. .
fiternate Sampling Plans:
1. Since some laboratories may find it inconvenient t ot e s t some
u n i t s on a 16 hour on/O hour offcycle, two alternatesare
recognized:
- Go t o a shorteroperational day butlengthen
test
proportionally . .
the days of .

- Useup t o 20 percent "on"/80 .percent "off"'f o r a propor-


tionally shorter omrational day
2, sampling points mustbe appropriatelyadjusted i n any alternate '8 .
sampling plan. cs*
?'*
A*

-r.s
Application of Test Waters: The application of t e s t waters i s .-_
.I .-
ZL
designed t o provide information on performance under both normaland '
..5"
stressedconditionsr it should be the same or equivalentto the .
.*a
1

following:
1. a, Halogenated Resins or Units (Non-iodine bared) -0

*
First 50% of t e s t period: Test Water 1 (General) .
k s t 50% of test period: .
-
Test Water 2 (Challenge)
(pH 9.0 * 0.2)
b. IodinatedResins or U n i t s -
First 50% of test periodz Test, Water 1 (General)
Next 25% ,of t e s t period: Test Water 2 (Challenge)
(PH 9.0
0 0.2)
Last 25% of t e s t period: Test Water 2 (Challenge)
(but W i t h pH 5.0 0.2) -
2. Ceramic Candles o r Units 0-

First 6 days of testing: 'Test Water 1 (General) '

N-16 .
.
k a t 4-1/2 days
of
testing:
Tort Water 3 (Challongo)
3. Ulttaviolot (U.V.) Units - -
F i r s t 6 days of tostingr Tort Water 1 (General)
k s t 4-1/2 days o f . t e s t i n g r T o r t Water '4 (Challenge)

h. Analyses and monitoringr


1. Xicmobiological suqpling
spocifiodinfluent
ana
analysis s h a l l b. conducted of the
and offluont sanqling p o i n t s during 8aCh ',

indicatod sampling pariod.


2. Tost Water Monitoring: Tho spocified purmoters of tho various
t o r t waters (rea Section 3.3) will be measured and recorded a t
eachmicrobiologicalsamplingpoint;thespecifiodparameters
will be measured a t l e a s t once on non-sampling days when tho
u n i t s uo being operated.
3. Background chemicalanalysesofinfluentwatbr shall bo CMI-
ducted a tl e a s t once a t the s t a r t of each t e s t perfad t~
determinetheconcentration of t h o U.S. EOA primaryinorganic
contaminants,secondarycontaminants and routinewaterpara-
meters, not otherwise covered i n the described test waters.
40 I n addition,qualityassurance testing s h a l l be conducted for
t h e seed bacteria underenvironmental conditions on the first
and l a s t days of t e s t i n g t o make sure that there is no r i g n i f i -
cant change over t h et e s t day. Populations w i l l be measured
(for oxample, a s dispersed i n the supply tank) a t the beginning
and ond of the t e s t day to detect possible incidental effects
such asproliferation, dio-off, adsorption tosurfaces,otc.
Rolativelystablebacterial seedpopulations u o ossential.to
an acceptable test program.
5. when a ,unit contains a halogen o r silver, theactiveagent
rosidual will be nmasured i n the effluent at each microbiologi- .
cal t o r t (sampling) point.

60 Silver will additionally be nnasured three timts i n the efflu-


e n t as specified i n Section 3.5.1.0. . 8

i. Neuttalization of Disinfection Activity!


Immdiately
after col-
lection, oach t o r t sample must be treatod to neutralizeresidual
disinfectant. For halogrn- and silver-bareddisinfectants this may
be don. by addftioh of thioglycollate-thiosulfate neutralizer
solution (Chambers, e t al. , J . Amor. Water Works Assoc. f4:208-216,
1962). This solutionshould be propared
daily. A l l results are
invalid unless .8amples are neutralized immediately upon collection.

j. Special Provisions f o r Ceramic Candles or Units:


1. p r o v i r i o n s for rlow flow: Ceramic unfts m y be r u b j o c t t o
clogging and g r o a t l yn d u c o df l o wm o r tho t o r t priod. An
attempt should be made t o maintain manufrcturorratod * or
claimid flow t.t.8, b u t -On 8t reducod flaw8 the suapling
. program set f o r t h i n Section 3.S.l.d.2 s h a l l bo maintiinod.
2. Cloaning of coramic u n i t 8 8 Unitrshould be cloanedAccording
t o ~ u n u f a c t u r o r ~dsi r o c t f o n s . hro cloanings
rhould occur
d u r i n gt h e period of test ( i n order t o provotheunit' s
durabilitythrough tho clo.ning procoduro). HOWVO~, n o u t h e
timo of microbiological suapling, t h o units should
not be
c l o a n o du n t i l after tho sampling. Further, JW .&ti-microbial
chunical (for cloaning or sanitizing) may be 8pplied t o the
units e i n g - t h o t o r t period unloss tho manufacturer specifios
t h o same as part of routine maintenarm.
k. Halogenated u n i t s or U.V. u n i t s w i t h mchanical f i l t r a t i o n p r o c e s s o r
r e p a r a t o f r o m t h o microbiological d i s i n f o c t i o n canrpononts shall havo '

t h o mochanical f i l t r a t i o n components replacod or serviced whon


s i g n i f i c a n t flow roduction(clogging) occurs i n accordance w i t h the
m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s i n order t o maintain tho t e s t flow rat..
Units w i t h non-renrovablo mechanical f i l t r a t i o n components w i l l be
run u n t i l flow i s bolow that consideredaccoptablefor consumer .
convenionce. (If promature clogging
presents a problem, soma
s p e c i a l i z e d u n i t s may r a q u i r e a custamizod t e s t plan.)'
1. Special Provisions for U l t r a v i o l e t (U.V.1 Units:

The u n i t s w i l l be adequatoly challenged by the prescribed test.


waterst consequently they w i l l bo operatod a t normal i n t e n s i t y .
However, where the U.V. troatment component is preceded by
activatedcarbontroatment, the output of t h e U.V. lamp s h a l l
be a d j u s t & e l e c t r o n i c a l l y , s u c h as by reducing the c u r r e n t t o ' ,

the a lm p or other appropriato mOan.8 t o be j u s t ' abovo the alarm .


point. This o p t i o n shall be a v a i l a b l e for useunder other U.V.
configurations, a t the choice of the persons rasponsibla for
t o s t i n g , 8s an a l t o r n a t i v o t o M a use of t h o U.V. absorbent,
p=hydroxybonoic acid.
2. Fail/safer Units w i l l provide and w i l l be t o s t e d f o r f a i l / s a f e
warnings in the evont of water q u a l i t y changes or equipment
failures which may i n t e r f e n w i t h its microbiological p u r i f i c a -
tion function.
' 3. Cleaningr mnufacturer' s guidanco w i t h r o s p e cttco l e a n i n g
w i l l be followed.
3.5.2 .Procedure: Non-Plumbed Units
a. General: The basicproceduresgiven in Section 3.5.1 s h a l l be used
w i t h necessaryadaptations t o allow for the specific design of t h e

N-18
unit.. I n any evont, tho t e s t i n g pm'codums s h a l l provide a ' t o s t
-. challenge equivalent t o those f o r plrtnrbod-in units. r
. -
b. Tort conditions and apparatus should be rdapted t o nflect proposed
oractual use conditions i n consultation vith the mmtrfacturer,
including flw r a t e andnumber of pwple t o be sorved per day. I n
some u s e s o u i 8 b l e flow or other non-stuadudconditions may be - .
necessary t o r e f l e c t a worst-ease test. q..,

3.5.3 Acceptanco and Rocords . .


3.5.3.1 -
TO qualify as a microbiological water purifier, a11 three production
units of .a type must continuously meet or excoed-the reduction requinments of
Table 1, within 812Wsble ar#arureaunt tOlOranCeS for not more' than ten percen't
of influent/effluent 8-18 pairs, defined as follows:

3
Vi rus 2 one order
of magnitude
Bacteria : ono order of magnitude
cystsr one/half
order of Mgnitude
The geometric moan of a l l microbiologica1 reductions must'mset or exceed
, the requirements of Table 1. An example is given as follows:

' - Unit: iodinated resin.


- 10 per unit -
Number of sample p a i r s over the completed t e s t program:
3 units 30.

- -
Number of arlowable Samph pairs where log reduction is b s u f f i - .
cientr 101 of 30 3 sample pairs.

- Allowable mikmun log reductions i n these 3 pairt:

-- , Bactoria
Virus
cyst
--- 5 log
3 log
2-1/2 log
c

- .
Conclusion: If the geometric man of a l l reductions meets o r
exceeds the requirements o f Table 1, the indicated i n s u f f i c i e n t
sample pair8 w i l l be allowed.
3.5.3.2 Records

N-19
All prtinent p m c o d U r 8 S . ~ ddata shall ba recorded in a standud f0-t
and retained for possible +*vi- until the report 'of results has h e n corn-
pletely acceptedby review au'thorities, in no case for lass than a year.
3.5.3.3 Scaling UP or Down
Where a manufacturer has several similu units using the s a w basic
technology and puallel 6struction urd opmration, it may sometimes be .
. appropriate to allow the test of one unit t o ba considered representative
.- of
others. Where any 8erious doubt ucists, all units of wuiaus 8izes m y
require testing. A "rule of three" i s SUggOSted as a matter of judgment.
Scaling up to threa times larger or on-third, based on thes i t e of either the
test unit or o f its operative e ~ k n t ,may be illoued. ot ow aver, for W'unftsr
m y size rcale-up must be accompanied by a p u a l l e l increase in radiation
dose.
3.5.3.4
Where silver or some other chemical i s used in the unit, concentrations
a in the effluent water must meet m y National PrLnrry Drinking 'Water Maximum
Contaminant Level ( M C L ) , additional Federal guidelines,or otherwise must not
constitute a threat to health whereno MCL exists.

N-20
APP-IX N-1
SVMMARY FOR BASIS OF STANDARDS AND TEST WATEk PARAMETERS

A. Microbiological Reductibn Requirements


1. Bacteria
jl.
iW-3 I

Current8tandards for thenricrobiologiul


safety of drinking ,-~
t*li

water are based on thepterence of coliformbacteria of which ' 3fzs<

designated &s t h et e s t 0rg.niSm sin-


.
Itlebsiella i s a d e r . n(lLIPbers of the genus Klebsiella u a also
potential pathogens of m& (Vlassof, 1977) IUebsiellaterrigena i s
it is complonly found i n
.
surface
waters (Izmd, e t a l e 1981). .:" - .

~xperiencewiththe useof colifonabqcteriatoestimatethe


presenceofentericbacterial pathogens i n d r i n k i n g water as per-
. fonmdoverthe l a s t 75 yearsindicates a high degree of reliabil-
ity. Requirod testing of more than one bacterial. pathogen appears
unjustified
sinceviral and Giardia testing will be required.
Enteric viruses and Giardia are known t o ba more resistant t o cOmmOn
' disinfectants than enteric bacterial pathogens and virusesare more
. _. resistanto runoval by treatments such asfiltration. Thus, any
treatment which would give a good removal of both virus and Giardia
pathogens would most likely.reduceentericbacteria below levels
considered infectious (Jarroll, e t al., 1981; Liu, e t a l e , 1971).
m e c v c r n t r a t i o n of coliform bacteria i n raw sewage is approx-
imately 10 /lo0 m.l Cgncentrations i n polluted streamwaters have
been found t o exceed 10 per 100 E d (Culp, e t al., 1978, Table 10).
Based on the over 105 /lo0 m l concentrations obsemed in highly
pollutedstreamwater and a targeteffluentconcentration of less
. than 1/100 ml, a 6 log reduction i r recommended.
2. . virus
.
I n the United Stafes goncentrations of enteroviruses are ellti-
mt8d to range from 10 -10 / l i t e r i n raw revage ( F u r a h a d Schaub,
1,971) Based
on this observation i t i,s 8Stfmat8d thas'natura3
waterscontaminated w i t h raw
sewage may contain from 10 t o '10
enteric viruses per l i t e r .
. .
There are currently no 8tandardr for viruses i n drinking water
i n the United States. However, EPA 'has proposed a non-enforceable
health-based recommended maximum contaminant level (RMCLI of zero
for viruses (EPA, 198s). Severalindividuals and oiganizatfons have
developedguidelines f o r the presence of viruses i n d r i n k i n g water '

and various experts have proposed rtandards (WHO, 1979, 1984; Berg,
1971; Melnick, 1976). I t has generally been f e ltth a t drinking
water should bo fro. of infoctiousvirusrinco oven on. virus i s
potontially infoctious and maggettod 8tAndardS u o l u g o 1 y based on
tr'chnological limits of our dotoction methodology. Cufdolines
mggosted by t h o World Hoalth Organization (1984) and othe'rs
rocom~~end t h a t volumes t o bo tosted be i n t h o ordor of .100-1,000
liters and that viruses bo &brant i n thoso volumes.
h&ng a t u g o t r f f l u o n t ' l o v o ~ o f l t r s thrn,ono virus i n 100
l i t o r s of wator and a concontration of 10 m t o r i cv i r u s e s i n 100
tors of sowage-contunimted wators, tho' waterpurifiorunits
should achiovo a t l o a r t 4 log8 of virus romoval, .-
Tho relativo resistance o f , e n t e r i c v i r u s ~t o~ d i f f o r r n t dis-
i n f o c t a n t s v u i o s g r e a t l y among the onteric v i r u t o s and oven among
mombers of the same group ( i . e . , ontiroviruses). For oxamplo, while
f2 coliphage i s one of tho most rosisturt virus08 'to inactivation by
chlorine it is on. of the most r u s c e p t i b h t o i n a c t i v a t i o n by 020ne
(Huakoh and Butler, 1984). Ionicconditions and pH can also affect
therelativorosistance of differentvirusorto a disinfectant
(Engolbrocht, o t & l o1980). r On this 'basis it i s f e l tt h a t mote
than on. ontericvirus rhould bo tostedtoonlure t h e efficacy of
any disinfoction rystem. Poliovinri type 1 (Strain LSc) was choson
as one of the test viruses because it has boen extonrively used . i n
disinfection and environmental studies as roprerentativeofthe
enterovirus family. It i s rocognizrd that it i s not the most
r e s i s t a n t v i r u s ' t o i n a c t i v a t i o n by chlorine, b u t is still r e s i s t a n t
enough t o s e r v e a s a useful indicator. Rotavirus i s 8eleCted as the
second test ontericvirussince it representsanother group of
enteric viruses i n nucleic acid composition and size. It is also a
major cause of viralgastroenteritis. and has been documented a s a
causeofwaterbornegastroenteritis (Gerba, o at l . , 1985). The
human rotavirus or the similar S M a n rotavirus may be used i n the
t e s ty o c o d u r e . A n e t +log reduction f o r a j o i n t challonge of
1 x 10 /t each for poliovirus and rotavirus i s recoamended.

3. Cysts
(Protoaoan) I

Over the past several years, giardiasis has consistently been


0110 of the most frequently roported waterbotno d i s e a s e s t r a n h t t t e d
by drinking water i n the United States (Craun, 1984). EPA has
proposed a RMCL of zero for Giardia (EPA, 198s). Its occurrencehas
gonorally boon associatod w i t h treatment deficiencies
including
e i t h e r inadoquato or no filtration.Giardiasishasnot boen known
t o occur f r o m drinkingwater produced by well-operated f i l t r a t i o n
treatmentplants. Do Walle, o t 81. (19841, i n a rtudy of filtration
treatment plant efficiencies, cited percent removals for Giardia i n
p i l o t plant tests as follows:
- Rapid f i l t r a t i o n w i t h coagulation-sedimentation: 96.6-99.'9%;

- D i r e c tf i i t r a t i o n w i t h coagulation? 9S.9-99.9Q.

N-2 2
?rem . t h i s rosearch and f r o m tho lack of Giardia casos i n
rystoms whoto ~ 3 0 q ~ a t o f i l t r a t i ount i r t 8 8 1 +log (99.911 nduction
requiromnt i s consldored t o be consorvativo and t o provide 8
coaparable
levelof
'protrction for wator p u i i f i o rtso .' a
wll-oporated filtration treatment plat.'
Data on environmental lovelsforcysts i n naturalwaters 1s
1Lnit.d bocauso of t h o d i f f l c u l t i o s of
sampling and analysis.
Unpublished data indicate vory low lwols from loss than 1/L t o l e s s
than 1O/L. Won a 3-1- nduction Wotlld pkvido UI offluont o f l e s s
than 1ll00 1?8 Compurblo t o th0't.comwnd.d virus d u c t i o n roquire-
montr.

1985) 8 may bo used aq t h o chalkengo organism. Tosts w i l l becon-


ducted w i t h a challonge of 10 organfrms por l i t e rf o r a 3-log
roduction.
Whore the treatment unit o r component f o r cysts i s based on the
principle of occlusion filtration alono, t o s t i n g f o r a 3-1- reduc-
tion of 4-6 micron particles or spheres (National Sanitation Founda-
t i o n Standard S3? as anoxample) i s acceptable.Difficulties i n the
cyst production and
measurement technologies by lesser-equipped
laboratorios may requiretheuse o f such alternativetests where
applicable.
8. MicrobiologicalPurifierTest Procedures
1. Test
Waters
a. The general t o s t water ( t e s t wator #I) i s designed forthe
nonnal, non-stressed phase o f testing w i t h characteristics that
may oasily be obtained by the adjustmont of many public system
tap waters.
4

b. Test wator #2 i s intended for the rtretsed phase of t o s t i n g


whore units involve halogen disinfoctants.
1. Sinco t h o disinfectionactivity of some hafogens f a l l s
w i t h a r i s i n g pH, it i s important t o stross t o s t a t an
elevated pH. The reconmended levo1 of 9.0 * 0.2, while
exceeding the recannuended secondarylovol (Environmental
Protoction Agencyr 1984) i s still w i t h i n a rangeseen i n
some natural waters(Environmmtal Protoction Agency,
f u l condition is . provided
current infonnation indicates that
-- -
1976). However, f o r iodine-based u n i t s , a 8ocond o t r e s s -
a pH of. 5 .O 0.2 since
t h o disinfection
a c t i v i t y of i o d i n e f a l l s w i t h a low pH (National 'Research
Council, 1980). While beneaththe recoxanended secondary
level (Environmental Protection Agency, 19841. a pH Of 5 . 0

. .
N-2 3
i s not unusualin natural waters (mvironlnenta1 Protection
Agency, 1976).
.a. organic matter as total organic carbon (Tot) is known to
Interfere with halogen disinfection. while this mc is
higher than levels in many natural waters, the designated
concentration of 10 q / L is cited AS typical in stream
.
waters . (CulpFJesner/Culp, 1978)
3. High concentrations of turbidity can shield nricroorganihs '

aid interfere w i t h disinfection. While'the recomended


level of not less than 30 NTU is in the range'of turbidi-
ties m e n in secondary wastewater effluents,this level is
also found in many surface' waters, especially during
periods 'of heavy rainfall andsnow melt (Culp/Wesner/Culp,
1978).

4. Studies with Giardia cysts have shown decreasing halogen .


disinfection activity w i t h lower tunperatures (Jarroll,
at a1. , 1980); 4 C, a coumon low temperature in many
natural waters, is recornmsnded for the stress test.

5. The M o u n t of dissolvedsolids ( T D S ) mayimpactthe


disinfection effectiveness of units that rely on displace- *

able or exchange elements by displacement of halogens or


resins, or it may interfere with adsorptive processes.
While TDS levels of 10,000 mg/L are considered unusable
for drinking, many supplies with over 2,000 mg/L are.used.
for potable purposes (Environmental Protection ,Agency,
.
1984) The recommended level of 1,500 mg/L represents a
realistic stress challenge.
C. Test water 13 is intended.for the stressed phase of testing of
ceramic filtration candles or units with or without silver
impregnation.
a

1. Since viruses are typically eluted from adsorbing media


at
high pHs (Environmental Protection Agency,1978) it may be
concluded that a high pH will provide the most stressful
testing for a ceramic-type unit; consequently, the high
natural water pH of 9.0 is recommended.

2. -pert opinion also hold8 that. organic material will


interfere w i t h adsorption of viruses. Thus, a high total
organic carbon level of not less than 10m g / ~is recpm-
'

mended.
3. Turbiditymayenhance the entrapment 'and removal o f .
microorganisms but it also may stimulate "short-
circuiting" through some, units. A turbidity level of
30 NTU will provide stress at time of sampling but t h e

5-24
i
non-sampling l e v e l o f 0.1-5 NTU w i l l allow routino opera-
t i o n of u n i t s .
. ..
4. Export opinionholdsthat low wrtortunperaturesandhigh
TDS would most likoly i n t e r f o r r w i t h virus reduction by .
adsorption; consequently , 8 4 C temperature and 1,500 mg/L j.
.-_

TDS are recomendod. 4 - c .

d. Test w r t e r , # 4 i s intondod for t h o stressed phase of t o s t i n g f o r


u & t r a v i o l o t ( W ) units.
1. In gonrral,high Toc, t u r b i d i t ya n d TDS and' lw teutpora-
turoaroconsfdored most s t r r s s f u l for W , 'md the in-
dicptod
challongo
lovols 8re the 8s for t o r t
water 02.
2. The pH i s n o t c r i t i c a l and miry range f r o m 6.5 t o 8.5.

3. I n order t o t e s t the W u n i t s 8 t their most vulnerable


s t a g e of operation, 8 color challenge ( l i g h t absorption a t
254 run) i s t o bo maintained 8t 8 l e v e l where w l i g h t
i n t e n s i t y i s j u s t above the u n i t ' s low i n t e n s i t y warning .
alarm point. Howevor, an 8ltern.t. t o the absorption
challenge i s provided through adjusting the l i g h t i n t e n s i - .
t oy u t p u t of the W lamp e l e c t r o n i c a l l y by reCucing
. c u r r e n t t o the lamp, or o t h e r appropriate means, t o be
j u s t above the a l a m p o i n t t this approach would be
p a r t i c u l a r l yn e c e s s a r y where the W lamp is preceded by
activated carbon treatment.

e. Test water 05 is intendedfor the stressedleaching tests of


u n i t sc o n t d n i n gs i l v o r . Low pH, TOC, t u r b i d i t y , and TDS and
highertemperature are f e l t t o be the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c sa s s o c i -
ated w i t h increased loachability. The reconmended pH of
5 .O * .2, w h i l e 'beingbeneath the roconanended secondaryrange
of 6.S-8.S (Environmental Protection Agency, 1984) i s still
found i n some n a t u r a l waters.
2. Test Procedures c

Tho plan for t e s t i n g andsampling is dosigned t o reveal u n i t


performance under both "normal"and "stressed* operating conditions.
The stressed phase would u t i l i z e a ret of water q u a l i t y and opera-
t i o n s c o n d i t i o n s t o g i v e the u n i t s a realistic worst case challenge.
T e s t i n gp l a n s f o r a specific model might involvemodifications t o
the recommanded plan1 more samples*could be taken and analyzed; more
unitscould be studied. The p r i n c i p l e of demonstrating
adequate
performanceevenunder r e a l i s t i c worst caseconditions should be .
maintainedand t h e f i n a l s e l e c t e d t e s t proceduresshould be agreed .
as between i n v e s t i g a t o r s and reviewers or regulators.

.. N-25 '
milo 8oIne aspicts of tho tosting procoduroshavoboen U t i l i 2 . d
i n .actual U p e r h n t S , tho proposed protocol ha8 not boon verifiod
or utilitodfor tho various u ni thatmy be considerod. Conte-
s
t
quently, invortigatorr urd usors of thir protocol MY find reasons
toaltor sane aspects through their practical mxporioncet needed *

changes should bo discussed and cleuod w i t h involvod rrviowerr/- -


regulators.

p
REFERENCES:

Berg , G. Integrated approach to the problem of vinrses in water. J . ASCE,


5 Sanit. Eng. Dive 971867-882, 1971.
CulplWesner/Culp.Guidance f o r planning the location ofwater8upply intakes
downstre- from municipal wastewatertreatnwnt f a c i l i t i e s . EPA Report, Office
of Drinking Water. Washington, DC, 1978.
.
Craun, C. F. 1984 Waterborne autbroaks of giudiasisr Currentstatus. In:
-
Giardia and qiudiuis. D. L. Erlandsen urd t . A. neyer' Eds. ,.,Plenum Press,
New York,pp.243-261, 1984.

DeWalle, P. E.: J. Engeset: Lawrence, W. R w v a l of CPardia lambliacyst by


drinking watertreatmentplants. .Report No. EPA-600/52-84-069, .Office of
Research andDevelopment, Cincinnati, OR, 1984.
Engelbrecht, R. S., e t al. Comparative inactivation of viruses by chlorine.
Appl. Environ. Hicrobfol. 40r249-256, 1980.
Environmental Protection Agency. Quality criteria for water. Washington, X,
1976. ..
Environmental Protection Agency. National secondary drinking water
regulations. EPA-570/9-76-000, Washington, DC, 1984.
Environmental Protection Agency. Nationalprimary drinking water regulations;
syntheticorganicchemicals,inorganicchemicals and microorganisms; Proposed
rule.FederalRegister, Nov. 13, 1985.
Farrah, S. R., and S. A. Schaub. Viruses i n wastewater sludges. In: Viral
Pollution of the Environment, G . Berg, Ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida'.
pp.161-163,19830
Gerba, C. P.: Rose, J. B.: Singh, S. N. Waterborne gastroenteritis and v i r a l
hepatitis. CRC C r i t i c a l Rev. Environ. Contr. 15:213-236,
1985.
Harakeh, M.; Butler, X. Inactivation of human rotavirus, SA-11 and other
Ryg.
enteric viruser in e f f l u e n t by disinfectants. J. C a b . 93r157-163, 1984.

Hoff, J. C.: Rice, E. W.: Schaefer, F. W. Comparison of animal infectivity


and excystationas measures ofGiardia muris cyst inactivation by chlorine.
Appl. Environ. Microbial. 50:1115-1117, 1985.
fzard, D.1 Farragut, C.:Gavini, F.; Kerrters, It;; DeLey, J.; k c l e r c , H.
Klebsiellaterrigena, a new species from water and soil. I n t l . J. Systerbitic
Bacteriol. 31:116-127, 1981.
Jakubowski, W. Detection
of
Giardia cysts i n drinking water. In: Giardia
. and Giardiasis,
Erlandsen, S. L.; Hcycr, E. A. Edo., Plenum Press, NY.
pp. 263-286, 1984.

N-27
..

Jarroll, E. L.; Bfngham, A. K.; Weyer, E. A. Giardia


cyst
destruction:
Effectiveness of six mall-quantitywaterdirhfection methods. kn.
J. Trop.
M.6. 2918-11, 1980
. .
. Jarroll, E. L.; Binghm, A. X.; Weyer, E. A. Effect of chlorine Qn Giardia
cyst viability. Appl. Environ. nicrobiol. .43:483-487, 1981.
0. c., et al.
L i u 8 Relative resistance ef 20 hwmn entericviruses t o free
- chlorine i n PotoMc Riverwater.Procoedings of 13th Water @ a l i t y Conference
Snoeyink, V.; Griffin, V. E d 8 0 8 pp. 171-1998 1971.
eln nick, J . L. Viruses i n water. In: Viruses n
i water erg, G.;
Bodily, H. L.; Lennotte, E. H.; Welnick, . J . L.; Wetclaf T . G., fdo. Arner.
R ; l b l i C Hlth. ASSOC., Washington, DEI pp. 3°11,'1976.
National ResearchCouncil. The disinfection of drinking water, Int Drinking
Waterand ~ o a l t h ,Volumo 2. Washington, DC, pp. SO1378 '1980.
National
Sanitation Foundation. Drinking water
treatment unitsr Health
effects.Standard 53. Ann Arbor, MI, 1982.'..

Vlassoff, L. T. R.lebsie1la. In: Bacterial


Indicators/Xealth
'Hazards
Associated w i t h Water Hoadley, A. W.; Dutka, E. J . , Edr. American Society for
Testing and Materials,Philadelphia, PA. pp. 275-208, 1977.

world Hoalth
Organization. Human Viruses i n Water,
Technical support
Series 639, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1979.
World Health Organiiation.Guidelinesfor'Drinking Water Quality. Volume 1..
Recommendations.World HealthOrganization, Geneva, 1984.

N-28
LIST OF PARTICIPANTSr TASK FORCE ON GUIDE STANDARD AND PRoTocoL FOR
b TESTING MICROBIOLCCICAL WATER PURIFIERS - '.
,'.
Stephen A. Schaub, Chaimm 0- 0.S. Army Medical Bioengineering Research and
DevelmentLaboratory (USAHBRDL) 8 ,Fort: f h t r i d r r mryland 21701, FTSZ t. !j

8/935-7207 -0 m: 301/663-7207. "?


. ,.
,p.-.

Frank A. Ball, J r . , SeCtetUy --


Ctiteria .nd Standards DiViSion, Office of
Drinking Water (WH-550) 0 Environntental Protection Agency; Washington, "
rrt.

D.C. 20460, Phone: 202/382-3037.

Paul Berger, Ph.D. Criteria and Standards Division, Office of


-0 Drinking
.
Water (WH-SSO), Errvironmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460,
Phoner 202/382-3039.
t castillo
u --
Disinfectants Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs (TS-767C0,
Environmental Protection Agency,Washington, D.C. 20460, Phone: 703/557-
3695 e

Ruth Douglas DiSinfeCtMtS Branch, O f f i M of Pesticide Programs (TS-767C),


-0

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. '20460, Phone:, 703j557-


3675.

A 1 Dufour --
Microbiology Branch, Health Effects Research Laboratory,
Environmental Protection Agency, 26 W. S t . C l a i r Street, Cincinnati, Ohio
45268, Phones FTS: 8/684-7870 --
Commr f13/569-7870.

Ed Geldreich --
Chief, Microbiological Treatment Branch,Water Engineering
Research LabOratoZy, Environmental Protection Agcncy, 26 W. St. Clair
Street,
Cincinnati,
513/569-7232.
Ohio 45268, Phone: fiS: 8/684-7232 corn: --
Charles Gerba
Imunology,
--
Associate Professor, Department of Microbiology and
University
Arizona,
of Tucson, Arizona 85721, Phone: .
602/621-6906.

John Hoff -
Microbiological Treatment Branch, Water Engineering Research .
Laboratory, Environmental ProtectionAgene,
'

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, Phone: FTS: 8/684-7331 --


26 W. St. Clair Street,
Corn: 51WS69-7331.
Art Kaplan Office of Research andDevelopment (RD-681) Environmental
-0

Protection Agcncy,Wamhington, D.C. 20460, Phone: 202/382-2583.


' Bala Krishnan --
Office of Rasearch and
Devalopmant
Protection Agency,Washington D.C. 20460, Phoner
(RD-681) hvironmcntal
202/38&2583

John Lea -- Disinfectants Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs (TS-767C)

3-29
. .
Environmenfal
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460, Phone:
703/557-3663 . .

Dorothy Portner Dirinfect8ntr Branch, O f f i c e of P e s t i c i d e Programs


-0

(TS-7674) 0 Environtnentil
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460,
Phone: 703/557-0484.
Don Reasoner -Wcrobiologic.1 heatnwnt Branch,
Lrboratory, Eaviromenta1 Protection Agency,
Water Engineering Reseuch
26 W. St. C l a i r S t r e e t ,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, Phone:312/654-4000.
P. Regunthan (Regu) -- Everpure, Inc.
I l l i n o i s 605f9, Phone:
312/654-4000.
8 660 N. Blackhawk Drivo, WGrtmont ,

David Stangel --
Policy and h a l y r i r Branch, O f f i c a of Compliance Honitoring,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. # , Phone;202/382-7845.
RichardTobfn 0-Monitoring and Criteria Division, Environmental Health
Center,Department of Health and Welfare of Canada, Tunnay's Pasture,
Ottawa, Ontario, K I A OLt, Canada, Phones 613/990-8982.

N-30
. APPENOIX N-3
..-
c
RESPONSE BY REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
...
TO PVBLIC COHMENTS ON GUIDE STANDARD. :.
AND PROTOCOL FOR TESTING MICROBIOLOCICAL WATER PURIFIERS
. *

A. Recommendation forthe useofGiardial.mbliacysts as a replacement for


Giardia muris cysts as the ptOtOZoan c y s t t e s t organisms.
Recoannendationt
The subconrmittk concurs w i t h tha recoummndation md f u r t h e r endorses the
use 02 Giardia lanblia as the preferrod cyrt test for evalua'tion of a l l '
treatment u n i t s and devices. Obviously the useof the protozoanorga-
nism 'ofactualhealth concern i n testing i s most desirable. Anyone
f i n d i n g the Giardia
lamblia s t r a i n feasible f o r testing and cost-
effectiveto work w i t h i s encouraged t o use same instead of Giardia
-
muris
8. Substitution of 4-6 micron bead or p a r t i c l e t e s t s a s an alternateoption
instead of the Giardia cysts for evaluating devices that rely strictly on
occlusion filtration
for
microbiological removalr Several cornenters
criticizedthe use of beads or particles (e.9.. A.C. fine d u s t ) and
recommended only use of live Giardia cysts for performance.tests.
Discussion:
The subcolnmittee recognizes and favorsthe use ofthenatural human *
.+-.
parasite, Giardia lamblia, b u t was not awareof any convincing s c i e n t i f i c =#?'

data which would disallow the optionaluse of testing w i t h beats or


p a r t i c l e s f o r u n i t s or devices using only occlusion f i l t r a t i o n t o remove
microorganisms. Previous development of the NationalSqnitation Standard.
(NSF) S3 (1982) requirement forcystreduction (using 4.6 micron parti-
cles as cyst models) was based on engineering and scientific opffjon and .
experimental evidence tahta t time. Specifically, Logsdon used
radioactivecyst.models i n t h ei n i t i a l phase
of a study ofremoval
efficiencies for diatomaceous e a r t h f i l t e r s ; subsequentexperiments'with
Giardia muris cysts confinned the eff cy o f the d i omceous earth
f i l t e r s . Further studies by Hendridcs\5? and De'WalletH w i t h Giardia
lamblia cysts 8180 showed comparable reduction efficiencies for
diatomaceous e a r t h f i l t e r s .

l.S.A. Schaub; F.A. Bell, Jr.; P. Berger; C. Gqrba; J. Roff;


P. Regunathan;
and R. Tobin. [Includesadditionalrevisionpursuant to
Scientific Advisory Panel
review (Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act) . I

N-3 1
.
Subsoquentlyconfinu8to& para1101 t o s t i n gr o s u l t s havo &on devoloped
vir-a-vis 4-6 microb p a r t i c l o r as coraparod t o Giardia lamblia cysts.
Specifically, two n i t sl i s t o d by 'NS? for cyst rrduction(using 4-6
a c r o n p a r t i c l o r ) (" h a w also beon testod .nd l i t f f d for 100%officioncy ,

roductbn(using Giardia lamblia cysts) by Hibler :

1. ntorpure Model QC4-SC


2. Royal Boulton Hade1 F303.
Again we prefor tho US. of the human pathogon? C i u d i a lunblia; howver,
no urporimontal data has boon providod rogardfag tho lack Qf v a l i d i t y or
of failure i n provious tests u t i l i z i n g boada or h i c l e s of 4-6 mic6ns.
In most cases t h o bacterial or v i r a l challongos t o o c c l u s i o n f f l t o r s ill
ropresent a groater problem in terms of laictobiological reduction
roquiromcrnts than w i l l cysts.
Therefore, without
substantiation of
deficiencies, the use of 4-6 micron beads or part'iclos i s considered t o
bo as foasible as t h o US. of l i v e cysts f o r routino porformanco tosting
of' water filtration (occlusion) devices.
: Rocomendation I
Reconmend retaining the optional use of 4-6 micron particles or beads for
cyst reduction tosting in occlusion filtration dovices only.
References:
Logsdon, G . S., o t al. AlternativeFiltration Methods for Removal
of Giardia Cysts and Cyst Models, JAUWA, 73(21111-118, 1981.

Logsdon, G. S.: Hondricks, D. W.? o t al. Control of Giardia Cysts


The Laboratory's Rose. Prosonted a t tho AWWA Water
by F i l t r a t i o n :
Quality Technology Conferenco, &comber, 1983.
(31 DeWalle, o t a1. Romoval of GiardialambliaCysts by Drinking Water
Treatment Plants,
Grant No. R806127, Report t o Drinking Water
Research Division, U.S. EPA (ORD/HERL), Cincinnati, QUO.

National Sanitation Foundation, Listing of Drinking Water Treatment


Units,Standard 53. May, 1986.
Hiblor, C. P. An Evaluation of Filter8 i n the Removal of Giardia
lamblia. Water T~ChnOlOgy,pp. 34-36. July, 1984.

C. Alternatoassaytechniques for cyst tests (Jenson) : Proposed alterations


i n c y s t tests include a d i f f e r e n t method for separating cysts from fecal
material and an assay mathod involving the counting of trophozoites' as
'

well as i n t a c t cysts. B o t h a l t e r a t i o n s have been used by. Bingham, et al.


(e.
Parasitol., 471284.291, 1979).

Recommtndation:

N-32
Theso altorations appoar t o bo roasonablolaboratory pro~.duros,suppon- .
c ed by e mor-roviowod article and w i l l bo included i n tho Roport as
r, optionsfor poSSib10 d e v o l o ~ n and
t US. by intorestodlaboratories.
.a

$ Dm Tho use of pour p l a t e .tochniquos as an optionfor%lebsiel.la.terrigena . -.


bacteria analyses.
Rocownandation:
The pour plat.technique adds a heat stross f a c t o r t o tho bacteria which . ":.
constitutes a possibledeficioncy.nW.vor, it i s 4 recognirod standard --
mothod and probably w i l l notadverrelyaffocttheXlebsiel'la terrigenq.
Consoquontly, it w i l l be added t o t h e Roport u one of tho acceptable
techniques.
E. '' Option of using Escherichia c o l i i n l i o u of IUebsiella tarrigma for the
bacterial torts.
Discusbion:
Appendix N-ll Soction A. 1. of the Guide Standard and Protocol s e t s f o r t h
thobasisforsoloction of K. terrigenaas the testbacteria. me
selection wasmade alongpragmatic line mphasizing the occurrence of X.
-terrigena i n surfacewaters and t h a t it would representtheenterz
bacteria. It was also pointed out that the t e s t s w i t h virus and Giardia
were expected t o be more severe than the bacterial tests. For comprehen-
siveness, bacterial tests were included i n the protocol but were not f e l t
t o cberausacsi a l the v i r u s and Giardia
tests. 3 '

E. c o l i , o r any number ofothergenerally acceptod indicator&actctia, .&&


.s..-
. could be used f o trh et e s t program i f they were shown t o 'have good .&.- ,.
t o s t i n g and survival characteristics (equivalent to X. terrigena) by the
rosearch interested w
.
Reconmendation:
The intent o f t h o Guide Standard and P r o t o c o l is t o prbvide a baseline
program subject t o modification when properly supported by an interested
laboratory.Consequ~ntly~ any laboratory could propose and w i t h ptppcr
support (dwmstrating&allonge and t e s t oquivalenky t o X. tetrfgena)
1 use Escherichia c o loi r one of the
other
ontericbacteria. This idea
r: w i l l be includod i n rovised working i n Section 1.2.2, "General Guide."
I

4 F. Performance requinmantrforGiardia c y s t s and virus i n relationto the '

EPA-Recommended Mutimum Contamination k v e l s (RMCLs) of zero.


Discussion:
The RMCLs of zero f o r Giardia and viruses whichhavebeen proposed by EPA
arehealthgoals. They are no enforceablestandardssinco toassure t h e
-
presence of "no organisms" would require an i n f i n i t e sample. The .
rationale f o r the rocoma~ndodperformance rquiremonts f o r Giardia cysts
and virus is set f o r t h i n Soctions A.2 and A.3 of Appondix A. Wo f e e l
t h a t thoso raquirormnts togothot w i t h tho application of realistic worst
case tost conditions vi11 provido A conservativo tost for units X O S U l t i C g
i n tr0at.d mffluontvatoroquioalont t ot h a to f a public vaser supply
mooting the microbiological roquiroments And intontof the National
Primary Drinking Water Rogulitions..

. Rocomendation:
)r
.. Rot.in rocomendod performance (log reduction)
r.qu$renunts
forcyst and ,

virus roduction.
C. 'Rotavirus and i t 8 proposod assay: On0 c k n t e r s t a t e s t h a t the rota-
virus t o s t s u o impracticalhcause Amirtharajah (J. AWA, 78(3) :34-49,
1976) c i t o s 'no satisfactory colturo proedurer availablo for analysis of
those pathogens and, therefore, monitoring would not bo foasible."

Discussionr
i
Section 3.4.1.2, ' V i r u s Tests" of the Roport, presents means for cul-
t u r i n g and assayingrotavirures. This' means f o r doingtherotavirus
t e s t s are available and are practical for application in the laboratory.
Dr. Amirtharajah was r e f e r r i n g t o the field collection, identification i n
the presenceof a wide variety of microorganisms, and quantification as
notbeing'satisfactory.'Laboratoryanalysis o f rotaviruses i s practi-
cal but their f i e l d monitoring may not yet be foaotble.
Further,theselection of bothpoliovirus and rotavirus as tort viruses
was necessitated by the f a ctth a t the surface
adsorptive properties and
disinfection resistance of the various enteric viruder havoboen shown t o
d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y by virus group aridby s t r a i n s o f a spocific virus.
While a l l ontericvinrser and thoir itrains could not bo economically
tested, i t was determined by t h o task force that a t l e a s t two d i s t i n c t l y
differentvirus types should be tosted'toachieve mom idoa of the
diversity of romoval by the'variouotypes o f water p u r i f i o n . Polio i n d
rotaviruses have distinctlydifforontphysical and c h d c a l charac-
teristics repnsontativeofthovirusor of concern. Po1iwirui.s are
small singlo stranded RNA viruses w i t h genorally good adsorptive proper-
ties t o surfaces and f i l t e r m d i a Mila rotaviruses are overtwiceas
largo, u e doublestranded RNA and . i n soma studies have h e n found t o
poasers law potontial for adsorptionontosurfaces or f i l t e r media.
These two viruses also have bean demonstrated to'havo somewhat different
disinfection kinotics.
Recommendation:
Retain the rotavirus test requirements.
H. Definition of microbiological
water
purifier? One general comment
requestedredifinition based on "lack of any v i r u s removal "requirement

N-34
i n the EPA primary drinking wator regulations, so that no virus r~duction
roquiromont rhould bo includod. Also, f t W8. claimed t h a t tho separation
4
of purifiers f r o m non-pur$fiors wouldbo a ~wdisservicot o consumers a d
F

?
othor users .
I(

Discussion:
Viruses are recognizod i n tho &PA regulations vis-a-vis a proposed recom-
mended auxfnnrm contuninant level of zero. S i n c e virus monitoring for
compliance w i t h a possible ncL is not yet,feasible, a treatment require-
mont is necoss.ry. Virus control will be considered i n thoSafoDrinking
Water Act f i l t r a t i o n and disinfection troatumntrogblatioai. The roduc-
t i o n of viruses by troatmont is Ufrcussed . .
by kaireharajah (J. A m ,
7833334-49, 1986).

w i t h torpect t o consumers and otherusers, we feel th%t thecurrent


. 'dofinition is appropriate and necessary.' The average consumer cannot be
oxpected t o k n w the difference between virusor 8 bacteria and cysts, or
when a raw wator w i l l or w i l l not c0ntai.n m y of these organisms. I n
order to protect the average consumer,'.the subject units either alone or
specified organism .
with supplementarytreatment,should be ableto cope w i t h a l l of the

Recommendation:
Retain the current definition for microbiological water purifier.
I. coverage
of units:Several comments relatedtothe coverage of u n i t s .
These questions are addressed individually aa follows:

1. Ultraviolet u n i t s that are used f o r supplementaltreatment of water


from publicwater system taps would not be covered. W e agree that
such unitsaronot covered and,parentheticallanguagehas been
included i n Section 1.3.2.3 t o c l a r i f y thia point.

2. A SpOCi81 s t a t u s should bo given t o units w h ih remove Giardia and


c
bacteria b u t not virus. Spocifically, t h e meaning of Section 1.2.4,
aExceptions,a W8S addressed. The %(coptions'section was specif-
i c a l l y dovoloped t o r e l a t e t o the. p t o b l ~of~ ~publicwater.systems
having disinfoction b u t no f i l t r a t i o n on arurfacosupply. Cysts
alone have been found to suntive disinfection treatment and could be
ptosent i n such treatedwaters. I n this case an effective c y s t
f i l t e r serves an independent,beneficial purpose and shouldnot be
required t o be amicrobiologicalwaterpurifier. However, such a
unit shouldnot be used as sole treatmentforuntreated raw water.
Additional parenthetical language has beenadded t o Section 1.2.4.
3. The entiretreatment u n i t or system should be tested, not just a
single component. We agree b u t believethat i t is sufficiently
clear without providing additional language.

N-35
.
4. Tho protocolshould' bo rxpandod t o cover units for the roduction of
TCE, EDB and othor chemical pollutants. Wo f r l t that.t b o introduc-
tion of non-microbiological claim t o tho mkndudvould mako it
l u g o , unwioldy and. duplicativo of . & n e x i s t i n g t h i r d - M y rtanduds
and t e s t i n g progrun (8.0 Soction 1.2.S).
J. Allegedproforonco of NationalSanitation ?oundation (NSF). over other
1.boratories for conducting tho microbiological wator p u r i f i o rt e s t i n g
protocol. The comnont indicated that w were giving ISF proferential .
troatment"to the dotrimant o f other lrboratorios well qualified t o
porform t h o roquired protocol. .-
Discussion:
We havo made appropriateroforances t o u i s t i n g standards (142 and 153)
dovoloped by t h o NSF standards dovelopmont ptocoss. Standard S3, the
health effects standard, W 8 S dovelopod by a broadly based Drinking Water
Treatment U n i t s Coannittoo, inc luding reprosontatives from local, Stat.
and Foderai health and e n v i r o m n t a l agoncios, univusitios, professional
md technical u s o c i a t i o n s , as well as wator quality industry
ropnsentatives. I t was adopted in 1982 and the only test from i t
u t i l i z e d i n our Report has been substantiated as doscribed i n P a r t B of
this "Response."
Nowhere i n our report have we advocated NSF (or any other laboratory) as
the prime or only laboratory for fmplementing "the required protocol."

Roconnnendationr
No action needed.
A. Instructionconcerning
offectivelifotim. One comment described an
alternate means f o r detorraining lifetime whur a ceramic u n i t i s
"brushed" t o ranew its u t 4 l i t y and i s gradually reduced i n diameter. A
gauge is provided t o measure diamtu and t o dotormino when replacement
is needod. *

Recanmendation t
Whon a amnufacturer provides a satisfactory "other" means of determining
lifetime, this should boaccopted.Appropriate words have been added t o
. Section 2.4.1.C.
L. Coramic candler should
not
be
cleaned .during tosting bocauso some
consumerswould not clean them and this would provido the awqrtt case
test." Onecomment asserted this point.
Discussion:

There i s some truth t o this proposition. However, the other approach may
also have validity. Frequent brushing may reduce filtrationofficiency.

N-36
f n any event where a a i n u f a c t u r e r prescribes f i l t e r cleaning and how' t c
do it, and provides a gauge t o detenaine lif8tim88 w feel the t e s t i n g
program i s bound t o follow the a m u f a c t u r e r ' s d i r e c t i o n s .
Recouanendationr
--
I-

*-
No change no8ded.
r

M. Scaling up or down. One C o n u n m t p o i n t so u t that one or mor8 nranuf4c- .


turers may vary r i t e of t r e a t m e n tu n i t s by increasing or decreasing the 'I&.
number of o p e r a t i v eu n i t s rather than the sit8 of the. op.rativ8 unit.
he c o m e n t s u g g e s t s a l l w i n g scaling b u e d on site of operativa unit.

Reconwandation: .-.
..it
..W8 agree vith the Conment and
have 8dded c l d r i f y i n g words t o Sec-
t i o n 3.5.3.3.
N. T u r b i d i t yl e v e l o f "not less that 30 NTV" for ceramic candles or u n i t s .
me cement states that "Such l e v e l s are impossible t o u t i l i z e i n t e s t i n g
mechanical f i l t r a t i o nd e v i c e s which w i l l clog e n t i r e l y or requiresuch
frequent brushing as t o render. the test kapersible as a practical
.matter."
Discussion:

We recognized the potential"clogging problems" i nS e c t i o n 3.5.1.a(2)


where the 30 NTU water it only t o be app1;ed inunediately before. -4 '

during each samplingevent; t h e non-sampling t u r b i d i t y l e v e l , which w i l l ..e>-, .


w
iI

be appliedover 90% of the "on" time, is currently set a t no less than -&-
l o m.
~

. *;
Turbidityl8vels of 30 NTU are' con$aonly found insurfacewatersduring
heavy r a i n f a l l or snow melt. Treatmentunits may be usedunder these
- circumstances, 80 this challenge level should be n t a i n e d . However, most
..usage w i l l occur under background
conditions so the non-sampling
NTW.
t u r b i d i t y l e v e l s s h o u l d be 0.1-5

2. Change non-sampling t u r b i d i t y t o 0.1-3 Nrm.


Appropriate
wording
changeshavebe8nintroduced i n Section 3.5.l.a(2) and i n Appen-
d i x N-1 , Section 'B.
0. Chlorine i n t e s t water t 5 . One c o m e n t asserts thatchlorine"tends to
i n c r e a s es i l v e r ion l e a c h i n ga c t i v i t y ' and t h a t a high chlorine level
s h o u l d ' b e included i n the s i l v e rl e a c h i n gt e s t ; b u t no reference o r
evidence, however, i s provided t o back t h i s assertion.

N-3 7
Discussion:
We have no compellingevidence or roason t o ucpoct t h a t chlorino w i 1 . l
enhance tholoaching of s i l v e r .
#owovor8 tho proscribed low pH and TES
lovels w i l l provide a cloarly sovero t o s t for silvor leaching.
Recommandation:
. No change needed.
P. Umocossary d i f f i c u l t y and
oxponse of t o s t protocols. Several corawants I

wero made undor this gonoral hoading. Thoro colnwntr we' outlinod .and
discussed as fol1awrr
1. TOO many sampling eventsaro roquirodt sampling of a few u n i t s a t
start, middle and f i n i s h should be satisfactory: The cornittee has
carafully l a i d out the standard and protocol and w e feel the minimum
sampling plan must bo maintained for the consumers' health pro-
toction.
2. Three u n i t s are too many tostudyt parallel t e s t i n g of .two u n i t s
should bo satisfactory: For consumer protoction, the Disinfoctanto
Branch8 Office of Pesticide Progrsmr, has t r a d i t i o n a l l y required the
tosting of threounits. The d t t e o recognizes .the additional,
cost involved i nt o s t i n g a third u n i tb u t feels that this w i l l
provide a minimum love1 of assurance t o preventinfectious disease
and recommends retention of t h e 3-unit requirement.

3. The protocol requires large tanks and micrabiological reoeeding'on a


d a i l y basis: W e feel t h a t the tank size requirements 'are not
extreme and can be met by an interestod laboratory. ' W i t h respect t o
reseeding, it should be pointod out t h a t virus and cyst seeding need
only bo conductrd immediately before and during the sampling "on"
period (see section 3.5.1.b (2) 1 8 equivalont to less t h a t 10% of the
"on" time. This "spot" seeding for viruses and cysts rocognired the
oxpense a n d . d i f f i c u l t y of maintaining large populations of these
organisms. Continuous sooding was provided for bactoria bocaure
they aro easier t o grow and maintain and Pright have the capacity to
grow through somo unit88 givon enough time and opportunity.

4. Challenge l o v e l s of contaminants are too h g h compked t o h own


envirornnental conditions and the required 'log reductions exceed Safe ,

Drinking Water Act requirements: As explained i n a footnote t o


Tablo I, Section 2, the influentchallenges may constitute greater
concentrations than would be anticipatodin source waters. These
l e v e l s are nocessary t o test properly for the required log reduc-
tionswithouthavingtoutilize sample concentration procedures
which are time/labor intensive and which MY, on tkieir own, intro- ' '

duce quantitative errors t o the microbiological assays. As men-


tioned i n P a r t I of this paper, the log reductions for bacteria,
v i r u s and Giardia have been suggested for public water system

N-38 .
trmtnrrnt i n a p a w by &irthara j.h (1986, JAWA, 78: 3834-49) me
reductions i n .tho .microbiological purifior standard are entirely
compatible w b
ti tho reductions cited f o r public wator supply
treatment

N-39
..

APPENDIX 0
GUIDELINES TO EVALUATE OZONE DISINFECTION

. Principal Technical Author: Or. Ovadia Lev


Division o f Environmental Sciences
Hebrew University o f Jerusalem
. Jerusalem, Israel .
.
APPENDIX 0
GUIDELINES TO EVALUATE OZONE DISINFECTION -
IALuumm
m
0.1 INTRODUCTION 0.1-1
0.1.1 ;Background 0.1.1
0.1.2 Objectives of the Recomnended Guidelines 0.1-2
0.1.3 EPA's Approach in Setting the Reconmended
Guide1 ines 0.1-3
0.1.4 Typical Ozone Disinfection Unlts 0.1-4
0.2 DETERMINATION OF CONTACT TIME (11 0.2-1
0.2.1 Background 0.2-1
0.2.2 1, Analysis 0.2-1
0.2.3 A8ditional Considerations for T,,,:
Multiple Chamber Contactors . 0.2-3
0.2.4 Alternative Analysis of Disinfection Kinetics 0.2-7
0.2.5 Continuously Stirred lank Reactor (CSTR) Approach ~O~'2-9
0.2.6 Segregated Flow Analysis (SFA) 0.2-10
0.2.7 Relative Inactivation of Giardia Cystsand Viruses .0.2-12
0.2.8 Examples of Determining Contact lime (T) 0.2-13
0.2.8.1 Evaluation Using 1 0.2-13 *
0.2.8.2 Evaluations Using &TR Calculations 0.2-16
0.2.8.3 Evaluations Using SFA 0.2-18
. 0.2.9 Estimating T 0.2-21
0 . 3 DETERMINATION OF OZONE CONCENTRATION (C) 0.3-1
0.3.1 Introduction 0.3-1
0.3.2 Direct Measurement o f C 0.3-2
0.3.3 Estimating C Based on Residual Measurements
at the Outlet 0.3-6
0.3.3.1 First Chambers 0.3-6
0.3.3 2 Subsequent Chambers 0.3-7
0.3.4 Estimating C 0.3.-10
0.4 SITE SPECIFIC EVALUATION OF OZONE COkTACTORS 0.4-1.
0.4.1 Introduction 0.4-1
0.4.2 Site Specific Correlations Cofwith an
Observable Vari ab1 e 0.4-2
0.4.2.1 Utilizing Off-Gas Measurements 0.4-4
0.4.3 Modeling the Performance of Full Scale Operations 0.4-7
0.4.4 Microbial Indicator Studles to Model Inactlvation
Contactors 0.4-9

REFERENCES
TABLE OFCONTENTS (Cont inued)

LuLLEmw
Fol lowing
enru:
0-1 TurbineContactor, HaworthWater Treatment Plant ' 0.1-5
Hackensack, NJ
0-2 ~ l t i p l e - c i a m t wOzoneSystem, tor h g e t e s
Aqueduct F i l t r a t i o n P l a n t 0.1-5
0-3 Multiple-Chamber .OzoneSystem, City o f Tucson, Arizona 0.1-5
0-4 Multiple-Chamber OzoneSystem. East Bay Municipal
U t i l i t y D i s t r i c t , Oakland, C a l i f o r n i a 0.1-5
0-5 Schematic o f Deep U-Tube Ozone Contactor 0.1-6
0-6 Schematic o f In-Line Static Mixer 0.1-6
0-7 P r i n c i p a l o f Segregated Flo; Analysis 0.2-11
0-8 Se rtgated Flow Analysis o f anOzone Contactor
Bracer Study 0.2-14
0-9 Tracer StudyofSturgeon Bay Ozone Contactor 0.2-15
0-10
-
SegregatedFlow Analysis of Ozone Contactor
Integration o f SurvivalEfficiency. 0.2-20 .

0-1 1 Segregated Flow Analysis o f Ozone Contact .Chamber 0.2-20 *

0-12 Decision Tree for Estimating T 0.2-21


0-13 Flow Configurations i n Ozone Contact Chanbers. 0.3-1
0-14 D i r e c t Measurements for Determining T 0.3-5.
0-15 Ozone Concentration Profiles 0.3-8
. 0-16 Decision Tree for Estimating T 0 -3-10
0-17 Example o f EmpiricalCorrelationofResidual Ozone '

and . O f f-Gas 0.4-6


TABLE' OF CONTENTS (Contlnued)

lab1 e Foll ng
owl
No. Title
0-1 RecommendedProcedurestoCalculateContact T h e (T) 0.2-2
0-2 Cf Values for Inactivation by Ozone 0.2-7
-
0-3 k Values for Inactlvatlon by Ozone 0.2-7
0-4 Sheet
Spread -Notations for SFA 0.2-18
0-5 Segregated Flow Analysis of an Ozone Disinfection
Contactor at Hackensack 0.2-20
0-6 Correlations to Predict CBased on Outlet Ozone
Concentrations 0.3-6
0-7 Henry's Constants for Ozone Oi4-5
0-8 Empirical Correlation Between Cat and yat 0.4-6 . .
0.I INTROOUCTION

0.1.1 W k a r o u n d
The'Surface Water Treatment Rule (SUTR) specifies overall hinimrl
removal/inactivation efficiencies by filtration and disinfection for
Giardia cysts and viruses. The SUTR uses the "CT' concept to predict
inactivationefficiencies of microorganisms by disinfection. "CT"
represents the product of contact or exposure time ('Tnj and the
concentration of disinfectant ("C') during di.sinfection. The Guidance
Manual suggests design, operating and performance criteria for specific
surface water quality conditions to provide compliance with the SUR.
Appendix C oftheGuidance Manual recommended guidelinesforthe
determination of contact time(T,J for thedisinfection of drinkingwater. .
f,, is the time defined to assure 90 that
percent of the water that'enters . .
the disinfection chamber will remain for at 'least T,, minutes. This.
appendix recommendsadditional procedures which may be used for consistent
determination of the C and T for systems using disinfection by ozone.
Ozone has unique characteristicsand warrants special consideration
for estimating inactivationefficiencies. In developing these recommended
procedures, €PA addressed the following complications thatare specific to
ozone dislnfection and distinguish it from other typical disinfection
processes.
- Despite the long operational experience with ozone disinfet-
tion, the data regarding performance of ozoneas a disinfectant
are rather limited. Most of the available inactivation rate
data are derived from laboratory conditions which are sub-
stantially different than full scale continuous operat.ion,
generally more so than for other disinfectants.
From a technical point of view, disinfection of drinking water
byozone is more complicated than disinfection by other common
disinfectantsbecauseof ozone's uniquegas-liquid mass
transfer characteristics. Ozone requires sophisticated mass
transfer equipment to introduceit into water, because of the
relatively low ozone concentration in the feed gas. Ozone i s
a .powerful oxidant, that reacts rapidly with' organic and
inorganic substances present in the water and undergoes auto-
decomposition. Therefore, it's residual is much less stable
than, that of other disinfectants and dissipates rapidly.

0.1-1
f

- Ozonecontactorsexhibltmore diversified typesof flow


configurations relative to the flow pattern In contactors for
the other disinfectants. The flow configuration often ranges
from an almost continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) to an
almost ideal plug flow.configuration, makingthe determination
of contact time for ozonation more complex than .for other
disinfectants.
- Ozone contactors areclosed vessels because o f ozone's toxlci-
ty. The contactors have limited access for measurement of the
ozone concentration profile within thecontactor; Gas bubbles
also may interfere with the determination o f the dissolved
ozone concentration, i f the bubbles are entrapped during
tamp1 i ng
- Ozone techno1 ogy is s.ti1 1 evolving and new types of ozone
contactors are being developed. These guidelines should not
setunnecessaryobstacles that will Inhibitcnglneering
progress and preventinnovative designs of disinfection
systems.
..
EPA's procedures for determining C and T for disinfection with ozone
differ from those recornended for systemsuslng chlorine, chlorunjnes or
chlorinedioxideas disinfectants.' The CT evaluation procedures
presented in previous chapters of the Guidance Manual are not appropriate
for ozone disinfection because they would result in excessive ozone
dosages. Excessive ozone doses result in high energy requirements and
costs and may lead to unnecessary production o f ozonation by-products
which may have associatedhealth risks. Additionally, excess dissolved or
entrained ozone should be destroyedor removed before reaching the first
drinking water consumer or plant personnel, in order to prevent health
risks. Therefore, excessive dosage of ozone may require 8n additional
unit operation to destroy the remainingresidual ozone.' T h i s process is.
expensive and may not be necessary if guidelines .such 'as those presented
in this section are used for compliance with theS U R .

0.1.2 M c t i v e s o f the Recommended Guidelines


The recommended guidelines were developed assure to compliance w i t h
the SWTR for the whole range of rates, flow flow configurationsand water
quality conditions that may be encountered with ozone disinfectfon of
drinking water. The prlmary goal o f these gu1delines.is to assure
compliance w l t ht h e S U R even under'worstcase"condltlons..Ylthout
compromlslng this. prlmary goal , these guideilnes were developed to, meet
the followlng crlterla:

1. Slmpliclty: The guldellnes . f o r selectlncontact t i m e (T) and


i
concentratlon (C) have t o be r a s l l y un erstood by practltlo-
ners, even by those whodo not have an englneerlng background.
2. Implementatlon: The procedure t o estlarate concantratlon and
tlme should be e a s l l y Implemented, even by water u t l l l t l e s t h a t
have only l l m l t e d eng'lneerlng and t e c h n o ~ o g l c r ~ m a n s .
3. Economics: The guldellnes
should be designed t o arlnlmlze
c a p i t a l and operating costs and t o ~ l n l m l t eozone confunaptlon.
The guldellnesshould be f l e x l b l @ enough t o allow systems t o
take advantage of s i t e s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r l s t l c s o f t h e t r e a t e d
water and the varlousdesigns o f ozone contactors.

0.1.3 EPA's Amroach i n S e t t i n a t h e Recommended Guldelines


EPA i s awate that the current technological knowledge I s l n f u f f l c l e n t
to formulate a consistent and efficient slngle set :of general rules that .
w l achieve these confllcting goals
i and s t i l l guaranteecompllance w i t h
the SWTR. Therefore, EPA developed t w o alternatlvesets 6 f guidelines
t h a t systems may use depending on thelr technologicdl resources:
- A l t e r n a t i v e 1: General guidelines whichassure'compllance'with
the SWTR regardless of the slte speclfic conditi,ons,
- A l t e r n a t l v e 2: A sophisticatedevaluationprocedurethat water
u t l l l t l e s may use t o take advantage o f t h e l r s l t e s p e c l f i c .
condl tlons.
These guidellnesareconsideredto be state-of-the-art. As more
lnformatlon becomes avail able, 'more accurate approaches and models may be .
developed. A brlef descrlption of the current alternatives follows.'

-
A l t e r n a t i v e 1 GeneralGuldelines
T h l s a l t e r n a t l v e c o n s l s t s o f a simple set o f general guldel1ne.s t h a t
assure compl iance with the SWTR even under worst case condltlons. These
' guidelines were developed t o emphaslre generality and simp1 icity.
However, they may not r e s u l t i n t h e lowest cost alternative($).
The second and third sections of this Appendix contain detailed
descriptions of thegeneral guidelines. Section 0.2 .contains procedures
to estimate the contact time(1) and Section 0.3 contiins procdures to '
calculate the concentration (C) in ozone contactors based on simple
' measurements of some parameters. Thr basis for these general guide1 ines .-

.
1s di scussed in two papers (Lev and Reg1 1, 1990a. b) .
.*-
1-

-.'.
-
-
ternative 2 Site Saeeific Evrlu&tian P t a c e m
This alternative consists ofa more sophisticated set of evaluation
procedures to characterize performance
the of,ozone contactors and thereby
take advantage of site specific conditions. €PA recomnends that systems
be given opportunityto' prove by further experimental and analytical data
that the performance of their ozone contactors are better than the
performance predicted by the first alternative, thereby allowing a system '*

to minimize costs while providing adequate treatment.


Section 0.4 outlines recommended procedures for demonStrating that .
Ozone contactors achieve better performance than that predicted by the
first alternative.

0.1.4 I m i c a l Ozone Dlsinfection Units


Several types of ozone contactors are currently.in use .for disinfec-
...
tion of drinking water in the United'States. Other types of contactors
are being designed or are being used for disinfection o f treated sewage
effluents. The following characteristics i1lustra.te the diversity of
ozone contactors: . .
- The capacity of ozonation systems ranges from less than
mil 1 ion gal 1 ons per day(mgd) up to 600 mgd.
1

- The volume of ozone contactorsranges' from less than 35 cubic


feet up to more than 35,000 cubic feet for a single chambers.
- The ozone gas stream may be introduced into the water by
several waysincluding porous diffusers, submerged
turbines and
gas injectors.
- Ozone contactors includesingle or multiplegas/liquid contact
chambers.

0.1-4.
Four t y p l c a l ozone contactors currently In use or I n deslgn I n the
UnitedStatesare shown onFlgures0-1through 0-4. Flgure 0-1 presents
8 schematic o f an 8splratlng turblne COnt8CtOr. operatlng I n countercur-
rent flow. A t u r b l n ea g l t a t o r i s used t o Introduce the ozone Intothe
contactor rnd to mix the llquld phase. Thls u n i t aay serve 8s the first
ozone chamber I n a serles of chambers or as a single chamber.The unlt
shown In t h i s f i g u f e i s from the Hackensack Water Company's Haworth Plant
a t Haworth, New Jersey. The turbine chamber 1s followed b y a reactive
chamber t o provlde additional contact tlme. Studies conducted I n the full
scaleturblneagltatedcontactordemonstratedthat even'when the ozone
demand was high,thedlssolved ozone concentrrtlon was almostconstant
throughout the. contactor as a r e s u l t of the vlgorous action o f the turblne
. (Schwartz e t a1 , 1990).
The 600 mgd ozone system o f t h e c i t y of Los Angeles I s comprised of
four parallel contactors each consisting of SIX chambers. A schematlc of.
one o f these contactors I s presented on Figure 0-2. (Stolarik and
Christie, 1990) As indicated on t h i sf i g u r e :
- An oxygen stream containing a few percent. by weight o f ozone
1s compressed through bubble diffusers Into the first and t h i r d
chambers of the contactor.
- The second and fourth chambers are used toprovldecontact
time, wlthoutsupplyingrddftlonrl gas t o t h e l l q u l d stream.
- The s l z e o f the first threegas/liquldcontact
20,400 cubic f e e t each.
chambers ' I s

- The f i f t h and s i x t h chambers are the ozonated water channel and


the rapld mlxer basins.
- The l i q u l d andgas streams I n t h e f l r s t and t h l r d chambers flow
I n a counter-current pattern; the gas .stream f l o w s upward and
the water stream flows downward.

As i 1l u s t r a t e d on Figure 0-3, a s l m i l ar deslgn approach was taken by


t h eC i t y o f Tucson, Arizona. This
contactor I s comprised o 'f f i v e
. chambers, a l o f which a r e equipped w i t h gas dlffusers. The s l x t h chamber
- hasno d i f f u s e r s , The f l o wi n a l l SIX chambers i s counter-current flow.
These counter-current chambers a r e separated by narrower co-current 1 i.quid
cha'nnels i n which the w a t e r f l o w s 'upward t o the in1,et o f the next chamber.

0.1-5
i

The EastBayHunicipalUtilityDistrictOakland,Californiais. .

currently designing two 60 W d ozone contactors, the first of which I s to.


be operational in 1991. As illustrated on Figure 0-4, the contactor
includes three ozone grs/liquid chambers followed by three morereactive
chambers to provide addi.tiona1 contact time. The first and third chambers
are counter-current rnd the sacond chamber 1s co-current. In the latter,
the water rnd the gas bubbles flow in the same direction.- Hydrogen
peroxide can be added at the outlet of the contactor to dissipate any .
residual dissolved ozone.
The following types of contactors already
are used in other parts of
the world, but have not yet been installed in the United States:
- The Deep U Tube contactor shown on Figure 0-5, is comprised o f
two concentric flow tubes. Water and gas streams are intro-
duced at the top of theinner tube and the mi'xture is pumped
10 to 30 meters downwards at a velocity greater than the rise
rate of the gas. After reaching the very bottom of' the
contactor the mixture flows up in the Outer section of the
contactor. The Deep U-tube is basical1y.a co-currentoperation ,

taking advantage of the increased mass transfer at high


pressures.
The'Static Mixer(shown on Figure 0-6) consists of a,flow tube
equipped with baffles to produce efficient contact between the
liquid and the gas streams. This installation is gaining .-
popularity in Europe particularly for small and medium size
disinfection units. Here the flowis basically co-current, the
liquid and gas flow is in the same direction, through a tube I

equipped withbaffles thatcreate turbulenceand thus increases


the rate of gas-1iquid mass transfer. The ozone is applied to
the water prior to themixer either through an eductor or a
diffuser. Following dissolution through the mixer, the water
flows through a pipeline in pl.ug flow. .

- Some contactors, particularly for disinfection o f wastewater


effluents, use packed beds to increase mass transfer. Co-
current or counter-current flow configuration may be used.

The guidelines were developed to represent four different flow


conditions in ozone contactois. However, other types of contactors or , , '

flow conditions maystill use the same guidelines if the features o f .the
gas-Uquid flowconfi.guration as presented in Section 0.4 o f this appendix
are taken .into account.

0.1-6
f
RAW WAT€R INLET

r
EF f LUEWT

. .

FIGURE 0 - 1 - * TUR@INIE OZONE CONTACTOR,


HAWORTH WATER TREATMENT PLANT
HACKENSACK, N3
I I . . e e I
WATER
l 1 l 1 l l

e 1

"' *
I
e
8

79 f: OZONE FEED GAS SPLIT. 21

FIGURE 0-2 - MULTIPLE-CHAMBER, OZONE SYSTEM, LOS-ANGELES AOUEOUCT


FILTRATION PLANT, STOLARIK et al. (1988) ,--q

.-_---
..

-
FIGURE 0-3 MULTIPLE-CHAMBER OZONE SYSTEM, CITY
OF TUCSON, ARIZONA, JOOST et rl. (1@89)

t
"a%
I- I
:
5
4

I t I

.. .*

- \ t
INLET OF WATER

FIOURE 0-5 - SCHEMATIC OF THE DEEP U-TUBE OZONE


' CONTACTOR,ROUSTAN ot rl. (lS87)
..

1.

FIGURE 0-6 - SCHEMATIC O F IN-LINE STATl'C MIXER


. .
..
0.2 DETERMINATION OF CONTACT TIME (T

0.2.1 WkU *

The' hydraulic characteristics in ozone contactors range from an


almost Continuous Stirred-Tank Reactor (CSTR) to an ideal plug flow
configuration. Because theTIo approach may notbe adequate for datemain-.
ing the inactivation provided for systems resembling a CSTR, and because
the T,, approach is overly conservativein other cases, EPA reconmends the
following three numerical methods topredict the contact time (1) in ozone
contactors:

110 : The T,o method discussed In Appendix C (and in Section 0.2.2) is


a good measure to characterize the contact time in most cases.
However, this method reduces thepossibility o f complying with the
SWTR for systems that bave relativelyhigh back-mixing and require
high inactivation levels.
Segregated Flow Analysis (SFA): (See Section0.2.6) This i s an alter-' '

native procedure to calculate the disinfection contact time. This


procedure is appl Icable only to systems that have good data from
tracer studies of high resolution as explained in Section 0.2.6.
CSTR: The Continuously Stirred-Tank Reactor (CSTR) method described
in Section 0.2.5, assumes the ozone contactor behaves as a CSTR.
This procedure is extremely conservative.However,noapparent
simplified analysis is currently available to make it less conserva-
tive. The CSTR approach should be used only when:
- Other predicting techniques are not recomnended,
- The required inactivation level. is very low, o r
- for other
Systems cannot afford to get good tracer study data
methods.

Systems may choose theoptimal method for their situation based on


the available data to perform thecalculations. A discussion of each'fs
presented belqw.

0.2.2 Analysis
The simplest methodo f calculating the contact time,T, of microor-
ganisms in a contactor is by the T,o approach. T,, is defined as the
detention time to assure that 90 percent o f the liquid that enters the
0.2-1
,,. .

contactor Will remain at teast t,, minutes in the contactor, A system


achieving a CTl0 corresponding toX percent Inactivation, will assure that
90 percent - o f the water passing through the contactor i s receiving at .
least X percent inactlvation, while 10 percent o f the waterwill receive
' less than X percent inactivation.

When conducting a'rtep-Input tracer study, T,, is the time interval'


required for the outlet tracer concentrationachieve to 10 per.cent of its
ultimate response, following an.inlet step addition. App&jx.C of this
manual contains proceduresto conduct and evaluate tracer studiesfor the
determination o f T,*. Appendix C also containsprocedures t o esflmate the
T,, of contactors based on their baffling conditions and flow configura-
tfon.
The results of tracer studies conducted on several ozone contactors
(Stolarik and Christie, 1990, Schwattz et el, 1990, Rosenbeck et a i , 1989)
indicate that high quality tracerdata onozone contactors can be obtained
and that T,, can be estimated withhigh precfsion, ,but to a lesser degree
when Tlo is less than oneminute.
f,, is a good measure of the contact time in most contactors and the
safety margin provided by using T,o compensatesforthe inferior perfor- .
--
>

* mance of contactors with a high degree of short-circuiting and backmixing


...
_ I

. relative to contactors that approach plug flow conditions. (see Lev and
Regli, 1990a, for further detail ;) However, for contactors with a high
degree of short-circuiting a need to provide a high level of inactiva-
tion, this safety margin fails to compensate for effect
theof backmixing. . .
In such cases, approximately 10 percent of the waterpassing through the
' contactor receives significantly less than the inactivation indicated by
cf,. In these cases, either the SFA or the CSTR approach should be' used
for determining the contact time.
The recommended alternatlves for determining the contact time (7) for
various conditions of ,Tlo versus hydraulic detention time (HOT) are
presented fn Table 0-1. HDT is determined by dividing the.liquid volume
of the contactorby the rate of flow through the contactor. A S illustrat-
- ed in this table:

0.2-2
...

TABLE 0-1
Recomended Proceduresto Calculate the
Disinfection Contact lime(1)

- .
Recomnded
Methods: W O ' 1-f,,
,' '

$FA'*' ' $FA'"

CSTR'3' CSTR'" CSTR'"

Notes:

--
1. Required level of inactivation 4 n logs o f either G i a r d i a
lamblia
cysts
viruses
or whichever value is greater; ..
I I 1 ive organisms in outlet o f ozone contactor and
1, # live organisms in inlet to ozone contactor

2.. High resolution tracer characterization


o f the otone'contactor
rrmsfL be available.
3. The CSTR method is extremely conservativeand should be avoided
when a1 ternat ive approachesare possible.

..

..
- The T,, method I s rpp'llcabte for systems that are required t o
achleve less than 8 2.5-109 lnactlvation o f Elprdia cysts even
I f the'flow COnflgUratiOn in thelr ozone contactor rpproaches ,

that of a CSTR, such as dlrlnfection I n contattort using '


turbine agi tators.
- 'Likewise, the T,, approach I s rpproprlrte for systems demon-
stratlng T d HOT greater than 113 regardless of the required
level o f d!sinfectlon.
- Systems for which the T,, approach Is appropriate to have the
optlon ofapplying elther theSFA or CSTR analysls. The method
resultlng In the hlghest T value, or thereby the lowest Cvalue
may thenbe fol 1 owed.
The SFA or CSTR should be used in 1 leu of T,, when the:
- Level of inactlvation required for Elardia cystsand/or viruses
is 2.5-l.og or higher
- T,dHDT i s less than 1/3.

Systems should be aware that the2.5-log lnactlvation guidellne refers to


the Inactivation provided by the ozone systemaloneregardless of '

. . inactivation provided by other dislnfectants. For example, if a system


requlres an overall inactivation o f 3-log and provides 1-log lnactlvation . ....
c
by chlorine, then a 2-log inactivation I s required by ozone and the T,,
*..
approach can be used. Le

Examples for applying the different methods calculatlon


of for T are -.,.
i i

Included In Sectlon 0.2.8.

. 0.2.3 jddltlonal Considerations forI,& Multlole Chamber Contactors


Thls section provldes guidelines for computlng T,, for several
contactort I n serles. The main shortcoming of the Tl0 approach I s the.
Inherent non-linearity of thlsmeasure. In contrast to theHDT, which is
a linear measure, TIo's o f Individual subunlts do not sum up t o give the
.
T,, o f the overall unl t For example:
- The HOT of two equal CSTRs In series is exactly twice the HDT
of eachCSTR.
- The T, for the same twoCSTRs In series I s more than twicethe
sum o f the individual .T,,'s.

0.2-3
Thls ralses some practlcal questions:
- How should the T,, of a multiple-chamber contactor be deter-
mined using tracer studies?
- Is It necessary to conduct lndlvidual tracer studies for each
chamber or I s It sufflclent to conduct overall
an study of the
whole contactor?
- How can'the contact t h e o f one chamber be detemlned based on
the T,, o f the overall system?
Conducting tracer studies o f indlvidual chambers in a mlttple
chamber ozone contactor is llkely to be difficult. In addition, an
analysis conducted by Lev and Regli (1990a) Indicates that the computation
o f the contact. time (1) based on tracer studles of indlvldual
the chambers
. I s likely to lead to overdesign. The excess volume o f a system deslgned .
by summing the TtOs of the separate chambers be mayup to 9.5 times'higher
than one designed by the overall 1,; approach. Therefore, EPA recommends
the use of an overall tracer study o f the whole contactor,' In order to
lower operation costs and toavoid overly complex tracer studies.
Disinfection credits for a multiple chamber contactorbe based should
only on the active chambers, those which have a detectable ozone resldual,
Based on the recommendation to use overall tracer studles, guidelines are
needed for determining the disinfection credit for the active part o f a
system based on overall tracer studies. The average concentrationin the
individual chambers of a multiple-chamber systemmay deviate considerably
from one another. Therefore, systems must be able to assign contact
times for eachchamber.
,Lev and Reg1 i, (1990a) evaluated the consequencesof uslng a 1 inear
approxfmat ion based on relative contact chamber volumes and overall T,, of
the contactor to determine the contact time ofindividual chambers in an
ozone contactor:

0.2-4
. *
c

Where:
I An
floachukr
. approximation for the contact time o f one
chamber. . -.

TlO. t o t r l = T,,, o f the entiremu1 ti-chamber ozone contactoras


determined by tracer studies
.-
Vchrrkr = Volume o f the individual chamber
"totrl = Overall volume o f the mu1 ti -chamber ozone conta-
. ctor

They demonstrated that such linear'extrapolation may lead to an underesti-


mate of the required1. This underestimate can be significant when the
concentration in the different chambers deviate considerably from' each
other. This would be the case when'theresidual ozone concentration in
one chamberi s reko.
Considering the various safety marglns that are included in the T,,,
approach, and considering thepractical complexity involved in conducting
-.
separate tracer studies,EPA recommends the use of the linear ipproxima-
.-
tion described in Equation 1 provided that the volume of the portion of
thecontactorthathaszero residual ozone is' lessthanhalfofthe . ._*
h

overall volume of the ozonecontactor:


V i N C t l v e c h r k J " t o t r 1 < 0.3

Where:
Vinrctive a r = The volume o f the chambers in the' contactor
where the ozoneconcen$ration is. zero
Vtotrl = The volume of the chambers witha residual

The following examples illustrate the computation of the overall


* inactivation performance o f multiple-chambersystems using the linear
approximation.of Equation 1:

- . An'ozone contactorhas three chambers in series. Each chamber


has a volumeo f 353 cubic feet.

0.2-5
- The average ozone concentratlon i n each chamber i s :
- First chamber: C,-0 w/L ozone.
- Secondchamber: Cpl mg/L ozone.
- Thlrd chamber; C, 4 . 5 ng/L ozone.
- C,, C and C, arethe average conontratlons, determined as
descrfbed i n Section 0.3.
- The ut11 1t y measured T,, = 5 lnln for the
tactor.
entl re 'brone con-

- The volumetricfractlon
-
of the chamber
which has no orone
residual I s V,/(V +Y2+V ) ) 0.33 which 1s less thanthe 0.5
guideline.Thereiore ft i s permisslble t o use Equatlon i i n
order t o estimatethe CT achieved I n the ozone contactor.
I
.
- The total CT achieved by the ozone contactor is:

CT = (11[(5)(10)/(30)1 + (0*5)[(5)(10)/(30)] 2.5


- The CT achieved by the ozone contactor i s 2.5 mg-min/L.
Example 0.2-2 Linear amroximation not a m 1 icable
- An ozone contactorconslsts of:
- A chamber w i t h a volume o f 70 cubicfeet
w i t h a turbine agi tator
and equipped

- Followed by a second' chamber w i t h a volume of 200 cubic


feet.
- The first chamber has an ozone reoldual of 0.5 q / L and the
second chamber has an ozone residualofzero
- -
The Tl0,total 8 min for both chambers at the peak flow rate
-
i s 200/270 -
The volumetricfraction of the chamber w i t h no ozone residual
0.74 whlch i s greaterthen 0.5 o f thetotal
volume, Therefore,the use of Equation 1 t o approximate the
T,o of the chamber thatcontalns an ozone residual I s not
recommended.
- The system may estimate I t s performance by either the CSTR
approach takinginto accountonly thedetention time of the
first chamber or conduct tracer studies of the flrst chamber.

0.2-6
i
*
0.2.4 Alternative Analvsis ofDisinfection Kinetics
The CSTRand'the $FA rpproaches utilize the Chick-Yatsoninactivation
rule directly rather than relying on the CT rpproach. The 'following
section describes this alternative rpproach to represent the disinfection
kinetics.
The Guidance Manual recomnends that systems should calculate the
inactivation level In their disinfection contactors by the C? approach.
Table 0-2 presents CT data corresponding specified
to inactivation levels
of giardia cysts and viruses by ozone. An a1 ternative way topresent the
same information is by tables of the kinetic coefficlents used to
calculate the CTvalues.
The CT values presented in Table 0-2 were calculated based on batch-
reactor experimental information that was fitted into a logarithmic
correlation according to a first order Chick-Watson's rule (Chick', 1907;
. .
Watson 1908; and Hoff, 1987):
log( I/Io) -k CT (2)
Where:
1/10 Survival ratiooftheGiardiacystsor viruses
c - Residual concentration of ozone in mg/L
J - Exposuretime in min.
k - A 'kinetic coefficient
which characterizesthe
specific rate of inactivation o f the aicroorgan- *

isms at the appropriate temperature and pH.


Solving Equation 2 for k yields:

Equation 3 can beused to calculate kvalues corresponding to theCT


values in Table 0-2. Table 0-3 summarizes these4cvalues. Equation 3 may
also be used to translform inactivation levels(I&) to CTvalues and vice
versa.
The following exampleillustrates the use of the values presented in
Table 0-3 tocalculate,the performance o f multiple-chamber ozone
contactors:

0.2-7
...

Example '0.2-3 ?!ultiD!e-chrmberQzgm Contactor


- An ozofie contactor'consists o f three chambers in series .
- Temperature is S C.
- The flrst chamber has a 10 .percent rurvlval ratio for Giardia
cysts, or (111,) = 0.1. which rlso corresponds.to 90 percent
inactivation
- The
second
chamber
has an I/I, = 0.07 1
.

- The third chamber has an I& =.0,.03


- The total inactivation may be calculated by either sumning
CT's
or summing logs o f inactivation, as presented .below.
- Summing CT's:
- At 5 C the k for Eiardia'cysts - 1.58
- The survival fractions are:
First Chamber = 0.1
Second Chamber 0.07
Third Chamber 0.03
--
- Therefore, the CT values in each o f the chambers are:
- First chamber:
CT -log( I/Io)/k 4.-109 (0.1) /(1.58) 0.63
- Second chamber:
CT * -log (I/Io)/k log (0.07)/1.58.= 0.73
- Third chamber:
CT -lOg(I/I~)/k -109 (0.03)/1.58 - 0.96
- Total CT is : 0.63 t 0.73 + 0.96 - 2.32
- As inddcated in Table 0-2, a CT o f 2.32 is sufficient to
achieve a 3-log inactivationof'Eiardb cysts.
- Summing logs o f inactivation:
First chamber: -log (I/I,) = -log(O.l) - 1
-
-'

- Second ch,amber:,- l o g ( I/&,) -log (0.07) 1.15

0.2-8
TABLE 0-2
Cl VALUES FOR . -
' INACTIVATION BY OZONE

..
0.5 log 0.48 0.32 0.23 ,O* 16 0.12 0.08
.-
1 log 0.97 0.63 0.48 .O. 32 . 0.24 0.16'

1.5 log 1.5 0.95 0.72 0.48 0.36 0.24

2 log 1.9 1.3 0.95 0.. 63 0.48 0.32 '

2.5 log ' 2.4 1.6 1.2 0.79 0.60 0.40

3 log 2.9 1.9 1.4 0.95 0.72 0.48

Virus
Inactivation
2 log 0.9 0.6 0.5 '0.3 0.25 ' 0.15

3 log ' 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.:25

4 log 1.8 1.2 1.o 0.6 0.5 0.3


TABLE 0-3
k,Values for Ozone 'Inactivation'''

TEMPERATURE (C) eLslLlL 29 25

Inactivation 1.03 1.58 2.08 3.12 4. ri' 6.25


o f E i a t d i q cysts
Inactivation 2.22 3.33 4.00 6.67 8.00 13.3
o f Viruses

-
k -log(I/I,,)/(Cl) in L/mg-min. When Chick's rule is repre-
sented by the formula In(I/I ) -K CT (In stands for the
natural logarithm) then kshoufd be calculated by k.= 2.303(K)
-
-
Third chamber: -log(I/I,) - -log (0.03) 0 1.52
The total logs of inactivation is: . .
c

-1Og (I/Io) 0 1 + 1-15 + f.52 I


. 3.67,
- The 3.67-log inactivation o f Giardia cystsI s higher than
the required 3-109 inactivation

0.2.5 m u s h S t i r r e d - m e t o r (CSTRI AParoa,&


The CSTR method assumes that the f l o w configuration in the ozone .
contactor approaches that of completely stirred reactor. In most cases,
this calculation method is the most conservative approach. Studies by
Schwartz et a1 (1990) suggest that well-operated turbine contactors
approach ideal CSTR characteristicsand the CSTR calculation is appropri -
ate. In some cases, CSTR calculations offer theonly apparent method to
evaluate the performance of the ozone contactors. CSTR calculations
should be used under the following conditions i f systems have no other
means for demonstrating the inactivation efficiency.
- Tracer data are not available,
- The required inactivation level is greater than 2.5-109;
ozone disinfection is applied in a single chamber contactor
with T,dHDT 1/3.
- If glther the requiredinactivation level is less than 2.5-log
p~ Td
, HDT > 1/3 then the inactivatfon predicted by CT, is
appropriate provided that tracer data areavailable. If kigh
resolution tracer data areavailable then the SFA method can
be applied regardless of the level of inactivation required or
the ratio ofT,dHDT.
In some cases, systems may actually‘receive mort’ credit by using the
CSTR approach thenby using the T,, approach. High& credits’result when
a low level of ozone disinfection such as 0.5-log is requlred and’mixed ’

cont actors areused.


When using theCSTR approach, the inactivation performance shouldbe
evaluated for virusesand Eiardla cysts, regardless o f which required CT
is higher. : This recommendation results from the influence of. flow
characteristics on contactor performance, as discussed in Section 0.2.7.
. . The perf0,rmance equation
for
a CSTR is based on two important
assumptions:
. . 0.2-9
1. . The concentration of disinfectant and ~icroorganitms Is
homogeneously distributed in the contactor.
2, First order Chick-Watson's law applies. That is, the rate of
inactivation of the microorganismsIs approximately proportion-
al to the concentration the.
of microorganisms and the concen-
tration ofdisinfectant.
The performance ofa CSTR contact chamberIt given by:
-
(I/Io) l/(l + 2.3OJ(k)C(HDT)] -. , (4)
Where:
k - kinetic coefficient for microorganism inactivation
(k values are listed in Table 0-4 (L/mg-min)]
(I/Io) - Survival ratio of organisms
C Averqge
concentration of disinfectant (mg/L)
-
0 . .

HOT Hydraulicdetentiontime (min)

Equation 4 may also be used to calculate the ozone concentrationthat


is required to achieve a specified'level of inactivation for a given HOT
or to compute the HDT required to achievea desired.inactivation level for
a given ozone concentration. Equation 5 restates Equation 4 for use in
determining C or HDT

C(HDT) [l-(I/Io)]/[2~303 k (I/Io)J (5)

The effects of mixing on improving disinfection effectiveness be may


very significant in CSTR contactors, and are not accounted for in this
model.
Examples demonstrating how to calculate the operating conditions
necessary to meet the required Inactivation levels by the CSTR approach
are included in Section 0.2.8.2.

0.2.6 Seareaated Flow Analvsls t S F A l


SFA is a methodthat i s often used to characterize chemical
reactions. Better approximations may be determined through analysis and
modelling o f the specific detai1.s of the flow pattern in the' ozone

0.2-10
contactor, but such modell ing cannot be done based on tracer studies
alone, as the SFAcan. Comprehensive descriptions of the SFA can found be
in several r.eferences includingLevenspiel (1972) and Seinfeld and Lapidus
(1984). The SFA assumes that the inactivation in a contactor 'can be
'. determined by the product of the probabilities of two events: the
probability distributioh for water to remain In the contactor; and the * ..
probability distribution for organisms to survive as they pass throuQh the
a -

contactor.
The first probability function describes the chancesof 8 microor-
ganism remaining in the contactorfor a specified time period. The water
passing through the contactorhas a probability distribution, determined
by tracer studfes which indicate the detention time for each fraction o f
the flow through thecontactor.
The second probabilityfunction describes the chances aofmicrobio-
logical species surviving following exposure to a disinfectant for a
certain amount of time. This probability function is given by the
modified Chick's equation: (I/Io) 10*kc'. Each fraction of the flow would
. have a different "t" for which this equation would apply. For example, a
virus that is exposed for 1 minute to C-1 mg/L ozone when k-1 L/mg-min has ..,

. 0.1 (IO percent) chances to survive..


The following illustrates the intuitive origin of the SFA approach:
- The flow in an imaginary contactor may be viewed by flow tines.
1
-.

- A microorganism that is introduced at time t-0 will follow one


of these flowlines.
- for simplicity, consider that only four flow lines exist as
represented on Figure 0-7.
- A microorganism that is introduced in the feed to the contactor
has some probability (Pl) of following any one of these four
1ines.
- The microorganism will then remain for a specific detentfon
time, characteristic of each flow line, in the contactor. .
- This concept is .presented schematically on Figure 0-7, where
the flow lines are represented by four different tubes whose
..
.
lengths (or detention times) correspond to the lengthsof t h e
flow lines on Figure 0-7.

0.2-11
- Microorganisms that are introduced into various tubes have
different probabilities ofsurvival (PZ), because of dlfferent
susceptibilities to disinfectionin each of thesetubes..
..
- The product of the probabil ity that a microorganism wit 1 be
carried into a specific tube (Pl) times the probability of
survival after being exposed,to the hostile environment for the
appropriate time (P2) is the robability that a microorganism
!
introduced into the feed in et will 91t out alive f r o m a
specific tube (Pl) (P2). .-
for example, if 20 percent of the flow I s directed into the first
flowline and I/Io for this fraction of the flow 0.25, equalsa microorgan-
ism has (0.2)(0.25) or a 5 percent chance'of emerging alive from this
specificflowline.Thetotalsurvival 'of microorganismsthatare
introduced into the Inlet to the entire contactor can be computed by
summing up all four survival probabilities.(Pl)(P2).
Complete examples for the application of the SFA are included in
Section 0.2.8.3. For SFA to be applied; a high resolution tracer study
must be available. The requirements for a high'resolution tracer study
are : ..
- Appropriate time distribution of sampling points.
- Limited degree of scatter.in sample points.
The first requirement is to have several sample points prior to the
occurrence of T,, and less frequent sampling points thereafter. Several
sampling points prior toT,, are essential to.get an accurate representa-
tion o f what is occurring in the early. flowthrough the contactor, when
organisms are most likely to exit the contactor while still viable. The
second requirement if for a limited degree'of scatterbetween the sample.
points. The plotted curve should ideallybe continuous to allow for more
accurate integration to predict thesurvival of microorganisms.

0.2.7 pel ative Inactivation o f G i a r d i a Cvsts and Virus=


In most cases, when the CT required for the inactivation o f Giardia ..
cysts i s greater than the CT required for the inactivation of viruses, .
compliance with the inactivation requirements for Giardia cysts will

0.2-12
A, fLOW LlNLS IN A CONTACTOR
I

WUT

OUTPUT

0 . SCHEMATIC RLPRLSENTATION O f THE fLOW LINES

C. SURVIVAL P R O B A B l l I l Y FOR A N ORGANISM

i 16/320 2/10 .1/4


2 4/10 1/8 16/320
3 1/10 1/16 2/320 *

4 3/10 1/32 '


2/3Zp
SUM 1 311320

..

FIGURE 0 - 7 - PRINCIPLE OF SEGREGATED FLOW ANALYSIS


assure compliance with the virus
inactivation requirements, Specifically,
this is true .when':

The SUTR, however, requiresa higher level o f inactivation of viruses


than Giardiacysts.' Therefore, ozone contactors that are charaCtrrized by
a high degree of turbulence will find that, as the flow configuratlon
approaches that of a CSTR (T,dHDT < 1/3), compliance with the virus
inactivation requirements maybe a more demanding task than meeting the
inactivation requirements for G i a r d i a cysts. Consequently, an ozone
contactor that. has a T,dHDT < 1/3 and a low (I/I,) should be checked for
. compliance with the inactivation of viruses as well as for cysts. Another
way to understand this is that as the inactivation indicated by CT,,
increases, the 10 percent of the water passing through the contactor with
less contact time than T,, becomes more significant for iowering the
overall inactivation efficiency for all the water passing through the
contactor,

0.2.8 Jxambles o f Determinina Contact Time (11


This section presents examples for the application of. thethree
- -
general approaches l,,, SFA, and CSTR for determining contact time.

0.2.8.1 Evaluafion Usina T,,


The following four examples illustrate when theTlo approach should '

be used and when alternate approaches are appropriate. Procedures for.


calculating the required ozone residual based on the T,, approach are
outlined in the examples.

Example 0.2-4 m t i v a t i o n Reauired >2.5-1oq


The Haworth Water Treatment Plant, Hackensack, New Jersey, uses a
turbine qtone chamber followed by a contact chamber to provide
additional
contact time. A schematic o f the contactor is shown on Figure 0-1. The
treatment .plant provides filtration after the ozone cantactor. For the
purposes o f this example, a1 though i t is not the case for Hackensack,
the

0.2-13
. % [/

ozone system must provide disinfection for 2-log fiiardia and 3-log virus
inactivation to supplementfiltration. The following conditlons apply: . . *

Water Temperature 0.5 C


CT for 2-109 Giardia = 1.9 mg-min/L
CT for 3-log virus = 1.4 mg-min/L
- A tracer study was conducted on oneo f the four ozone contact-
ors. Figure 0-8 depicts the chart recorder of the raw data
. that were collected during the tracer study.
- The HOT at the flow rate o f the study was 20'ainutes. and the
T,, occurs at 11 min.
. '

_.
- The 1,dHDT of 0.55, is greater than
approach Val idfor thissystem.
1/3, making the T,,

- The CT for $fardip inactivation is the controlling CT because


it is greater than theCT for virus inactivation.
- Using the T,, o f 11 min, the residual needed to meet the CT
requirement of 1.9 mg/L-min is determined as follows: .

- As a result of using the T approach, the system must maintain


an ozone concentrationo f b.17 mg/L in the contactorto provide ..
.the necessary dlslnfection.
The applicati'on o f the S A method for this contactoris presented in
Section 0.2.8.3. .

Example 0.2-5 l o w Detention Time. Inactivatlon Reauired ~2.5-1oq


A system usingslow sand filtration must provide disinfection for1- , -

log Giardia cyst and 2-log virus inactivation. The .system has an ozone
contactor equipped witha turbine mixer. The folloiing conditions apply;
Water Temperature = 25 c .
CT for l-log Eiardia
CT for 2-109 virus
=
-
0.16 mg-min/L
0.15 mg-min/L

- The CT for Giardia.cyst inactivation is greater than CTthe


vi.rus inactivation and is therefore the controlling CT.
for

- A tracer study was conducted for the


resulted i n a T,, of 30 seconds.
ozone contactor 'and

. . 0.2-14
.
- The HOT of the contactorat the flow rate of the
study was 150

-
seconds.
- -
Thus T,dHDf 30/150 0.2, is less than 113, however, because
therequiredinactivation i s lest than 2 , 5 4 o g , the T,,
evaluation for this systemi s appropriate.
- Based on theT,, evaluation, the residual needed to meet the CT

-
requirement is determined as follows:

- CT 0.16 mg-min/L
C 9.16 ma-minll
0.5 min
- 0.32 mg/L

- Thus, according to this approach, the system must provide' an


ozone concentration of 0.32 mg/L to meet the inactivation
requirements.
- Because of the low T,dHDT value for this system, the CSTR
approach is an alternative for determiningC. This example is
presented in Section 0.2.8.2.

Example 0.2-6 l o w Detention Time. Inactivation 'Reauired >2.5-109


An unfiltered water system must provide disinfection for a 4-log
inactivation of viruses and a 3-log inactivation o f Giardia cysts. The
ozone system usesa single chamber .turbine contactor for,disinfection:
- The hydraulic detention time measuredat peak flow rate is 30
minutes and T,, determined by a tracer study is 9 minutes.
- The T approach i s not recommended for this system because
T dHD? of 0.3 is less than1/3 and the requiredlevel of 4-log
virus inactivation is higher than the2.5-log level.
- SFA or the more conservativeCSTR calculatfons may be used to
determine the required ozone concentration for this system.
Examples o f the CSTR and SFA calculations are presented in
Sections 0.2.8.2 and 0.2.8.3, respectively.
Example 0.2-7 Hiah Detention Time. Inactivation Reauired <2.5-loq
The Sturgeon Bay Water Treatment system (Rosenbeck, 1989) .uses a
series of two submerged turbine ozone contactors followed by a reactive
chamber to disinfectground water:
- The results of a tracer study conducted on one o f the mixed
contactors is shown on Figure 0-9.
- The T, from this study is approximately 30 seconds while tho
hydraulic detention time is 62 seconds.
0.2-15
- T d H o T m 30/62 = 0.48 which Is reater than 1/3.
I
tbe T,@ approach Is approprlrte or thlssystem.
Therefore,

In this case, the SFA method Is not recomnended as an alternative to


the T,, approach because of the nlnimal detentlon times Inethe contactor.
With such a short period for the collectlon of simples, the data are
lnsufficlent for the SFA method. The resolution of the tracer studies,
apparent in Figure 0-9, will lead to an .overly,contervatlve'estiutate of
the inactivation if differentiation is conducted by 8 forward algorithm.

0.2.8.2 Evaluations Usina CSTR Calculatiou


The following two examples
demonstrat? the CSTR approach. One illus-
. trates the benefit of the CSTRanalysls over the T,, analysis. The other
identifies conditions for whichCSTR. theapproach
. . Is not practical.

Example 0.2-8 b w Detention Time. Inactivation Reauired (2.5-10q


The system identified in Example 0.2-5 is a slow .sand filtration.
plant, using ozone to provide for a 1-109 Eiardla cyst inactivation.
Chlorine provides the 2-109 virus Inactivation. Because the level of
inactivation required from ozone disinfectionis less'than e2.5-109, the
system may 'choose any method for the detdrmlnation of * the
. contact time.

- A tracer study conducted on the ozone contactor resulted in a


T,, of 30 tec for a. HDT o f 1.50 sec.
.

- The fraction of T,dHOT


indicating that the CSTR
is 0.2, which Is less than 1/3,
approach may be appropriate.
- Chlorine provides disinfectfon for the viwses, therefore the
will
CSTR calculation for the ozone disinfectfon requirements
' be based on Elardlq cyst inactivation.
- The following conditions apply:
Water Temperature m 25 C
* CT for 1-1,og Giardia cyst 0.16 rirg-min/L

*.- .* .0.2-16
-7 . : .3-
z
0

iw
0
Z
- 0
0
W
c3
E
0

2 . .

8N
' 3
fa
0
z

10 30 so 170
.

- The parameters are determined as follows:


+
1. From Table 0 - 3 , ,,k, 6.25 for CT 0.16 min/L at 25c - *

2. For 1-109 inactivation, I/I, 0.1


3. HOT - 150 see or 2.3 min
- C is detertiined as follows:
C(HDT) - .
(0.9]/[(2.303)(6.25)
C- 0.625/2.5 - (0.l)J
0.25 mg/L
- 0.625 mg-min/L

Thus, according to the CSTR approach, the system must provide an


ozone concentration of0.25 mg/L to meet the inactivation requirements.
For this case, the systemwould prefer to use the CSTR approach rather
than the T,, approach since the T,o approach would require a 0.32 mg/L
ozone residual, as shown in Example 0.2-5.

Example 0.2-9 L o w Detention lime. Inactivation Reauired >2.5-l0q


An unfiltered water system must provide disinfection for 4-109
inactivation 'of viruses and 3-log inactivation of Bardia cysts. The
system uses a single chamber turbine ozone contactor. Hydraulic'detention
time measuredat peak flow rateis 30 minutes and T,, determined by tracer
studies is 9 minutes. T,dHDT i s less than 1/3 and greater than 2.5-log
inactivation is required, therefore the T,, approach should not be used.
The CSTR or SFA methods areappropriate.

- The CSTR calculation must be conducted forboth Giardia cysts


and viruses to determine the controlling parameter
-
-
-
k cysts -
Compute the C required for inactivationof $fardid cysts:
6.25 (Table 0 - 3 ) .
For 3-log inactivation, 1/10 - 0.001
-
-
Using the CSTR equation:
C(HD1) (1-0.001]/[2.303(6.25)(0.001) J 69.5 mg-min/L
C - (69.5'mg-min/L)/(30 min) - 2.3 mg/L

.
-
-
IC,,,- -
Compute the required C for Inactivation of viruses:
- 13.3 (Table 0-3)
For 4-log Inactivation I/Ie = 0.001
-
-
Applying the CSTR Equation:
- 0.0001]/[(2.303)
-
C(H0T) [1
C (326 mg-mln/L)/(30 min) 10.8 q / L - (6.25) (O.OOOl)]

As indicated, virus Inactivation i s the controlling parameter,


326 q-min/L
.-

requiring a C of 10.8 mg/L. Because of thehlgher ozone residual needed


for the virus inactivation, this example illustrates why systems shbuld
verify compliance with theinactivation requirements for viruses as we11
as for the inactivation requirementsfor Giardia cysts. Since'obtaining
an ozone residual of 10.8 mg/L is unrealistic, this example illustrates
how stringent disinfection conditionscan become assumingCSTR character-
istics. Consequently, the SFA would result in a more feasible residual'
requirement for this system.

0.2.8.3 m u a t l o n s Usina SF4


The S A method canbe conducted on spread sheets. Table 0-4presents
the calculation procedure in spread sheet notations for a step tracer
input:
- ThefirstcolumnofTable 0-4 representsthe sequenti,al
numbering o f consecutive tracerstudy measurements ordigital
measurement points fed into the. computer.
- The second column represents the time Interval that elapsed
between the step change in tracer concentration and' the
sampling o f the specific tracerpoint.
- The third column represents the tracereffluent concentration
at a point in time determined by the analyzer (spectropho-
tometer conductivity meter, etc.) reading.
- The fourth column represents the tracer response on a of
scale
0-1. where 0 corresponds tobackground reading of theanalyzer
and 1 to ultimate response after a long time interval. In
other words, it is C /t&, where ,C, is the tracer concentra-
tion in the outlet 8 the contactor and C,, is the baseline
tracer concentration in the inlet.

0.2-18
si!q .
F(0.

n tn hn fn' I I,A0

TRACER CURVE FROM STEP INPUT *

NOTE: GUIDANCE FOR CONDUCTING TRACER


STUDIES IS GIVEH IN APPENDIX C

TABLE 0 - 4 -SPREAD SHEET NOTATIONS OF SEGREGATED FLOW


ANALYSIS FOR A STEP TRACER
..
. _.

- The fifth column represents the fornard derivative of the


F(t) response. It is the slope of the tracer curve at a
specific t iae interval, or the rate rt which CC/,,
with respect to time
by forward evaluation of the derivative: E(t) -ctian e t
at different intervals in time. .kote t!at
[f(t+dt)-
F(t)]/dt the E(t) curve i s shifted by half a dt 'toward the
origin.
. .
- This method of differentiation introduces an inherent safety'
margin to the calculation. Systems can reduce this safety
*
.,.

a-
~

*-.
margin by collecting more tracerpoints at the initial period
of the tracer response, when. .the response is starting to
increase.
- This period has the largest effect on the accuracy of the
tracer analysis becausemost of the contribution to total
the
survival of microorganisms comes from the organisms
that remain
only for short timeinterval in the contactor.
- The sixth columnreprese'nts Chick's inactivation rule, computed
at the concentration and the appropriate
- -
The seventh column represents thesurvival expectancy function
(Es(t) E(t)(lO"e') which is the product of columns5 and 6.
- The eighth column represents the organism survival in each
segment passing through the contactor,It is also known as the
integral o f the survival expectancy function (Et presented in
the 7th column).
- The survival ratio (I/I,,) is ' the sum of column 8. This
represents the sum of organi3m. survival In all the water
segments passing through the contactor.
- Table 0-4 illustr'ates only one f o k of performing the integra- -
tion i .e., quadratic integration). Other integration methods
I
can a so be used.
- The corresponding'log inactivation and the corresponding
calculated CT may be computed by the procedures outlined in
Section 0.2.4.

The following examples illustrate the use of the SFA method to


calculate conditionsin ozone contactors, and a situation where SFA cannot
be used.

Example 0.2-10 Jurbi ne Cont acm


As noted in Example 0.2-4, the ozone system at Haworth Water
Treatment Pl ant, uses a turbine ozone chamber foll owed by a react.i ve
0.2-19
:.--
chamber to provlde.addltlona1 contact tlme. A tracer study was conducted
onone o f the COntaCtOrS r e s u l t i n g I n a T,, Value o f 11, minutes for a HOT
of 20 minutes.Uslngthe same condltlons as the above c l t e d ixample, the
..
SFA w l
i beconducted on t h et r a c e r data. The f o l l o w i n gI l l u s t f a t e s a
step by step procedure f o r conducting a SFA:

- The d l g i t l z e d t r a c e r response (f(1)) I s deplcted I n Figure 0-10


as a function of t ( 1 ) where:
.- .
- I stands for the consecutlve numbering o f randomly chosen
points from .the tracer study chart, and
- t ( i ) i st h e correspondingtimecoordlnate.
- The slope o f the tracer curve, also
expectancy
function,
knownas the density of the
E ( t ) approximated
by the
following
equation I s depicted i n Flgure 0-10.
E(i) - [F(i+l)-F(i)l/[t(~+l)-t(l)]
- The d i g i t i z e dp o l n t s were n o tt r a n s l a t e dI n t o
i n order t o avoidnumeric comprornlses. '
a smooth curve

- The survival expectancy (Es(t)) was then calculated by Es(i)=Et


(i)( 10*kc"i') andsummed togivethesurvivalratio ( I / I o ) as
shown i n Table 0-5.
-
-
Figure 0-11 depictstheintegration
ozone residual i s C 0.15 mg/L.
f o r conditions where the

- The c u m u l a t i v es u p i v a lr a t l oi s 0.00982 which I s below 0.Oi


assuringcompliance wit.h the 2-109 o r 99 percent inactivation
requirement forGiardiacysts. A s u r v i v a l .r a t i o of cO.01
corresponds t o an inactivation of greater than 99 percent o r
2-109.
The residual value determined from this method I s lowerthan C-0.17 *

mg/L predictedbythe T, approach presented i n Example 0.2-4. Although


t h i s example only shows a small d i f f e r e n c e I n C values needed, other cases
may r e s u l t i n a greater reduction of C compared t o t h e C r e s u l t i n g from
the T,, approach.

0.2-20
. *
TABLE 0-5
Segregated Flow Analysls .
.
*

o f an Ozone Dlslnfactlon Contactor at Hackensack .

0 0.0 0.000 0.000 1,000 0 00000 . - 0.00000


1 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.708 0.00000 0.00000 '

2 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.502 0.00000 0 00000


3 0.0 0.000 0 000 0.355 0.00000 0.00000
4 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.252 0.00000 0.00000
5 0.0 0.000 0.002 0.178 0.00043 0.00013
6 0.3 0.002 0.014 0.126 0.00173 0.00035
6.5 0.5 .O.004 0.013 0.106 0,00143' 0.00215
7 2.0 0.016 0.008 0.089 0.00072 0.00072 .
0. 3.0 0.024 0.016 0.063 0.00102 .0.00204 .
9 5.0 0.040 0.024 0.045 0.00108 0.00324
10 8.0 0.065 0.032 0.032 0.00102 0.00408
11 12.0 0.097 0.056 0.022 0.00127 0.00889
12 19.0 0.153 0.00090
0.016
0.056 ' 0.00630
13 26.0 0.210 0.040 0.011 0.00045 0.00225
14 31 . O 0.250 0.040 0.008 0.00032 0.00160
15 36.0 0.290 0.048 0.006 0.00029 0.00174
16 42.0 0.339 0.073 0.004 0.00027 0.00243
. 17 51 .o 0.411 0.065 0.003 0.00018 0.00144
. 18 59.0 0.476 0.081 0.002 0.00016 0.00160
19 69.0 0.556 0.044 0.001 0.00006 0.00066
21 80.0 0.645 0.040 0.001 0.00003 0.00030
23 90.0 0.726 0.016 0.000 0.00001 0.00004
25 94.0 0.758 0.016 0.000 0.00000 0.00000
27 98.0 0.790 0.017 0.000 0.00000 0 00000
34 113.0 0.911 0.004 0.000 0.00000 0.00000
36 114.0 0.919 0.016 0.000 0.00000 0.00000.
' 41 124.0 1.000 0.000 0.000 0 ~00000 0.00000 '

45 124.0 1.0000 0.000 0.000 0.00000 . 0.00000


s(E,)Pt. + - I/I, 0.00982
. SEGREGATED FLOW ANALYSIS
' SURVIVAL OF CYSTS (c=O.lS, k ~ 1 . 0 3 )

-.
__... .

II
a
P

i
r'
0
0
P

X
Y
U

-
~-
c
v)
w
0.5

p' .'

0.2

FIGURE 0-1 1
. .
- SEGREGATED FLOW -'qALYSIS OF OZONE CONTACT CHAMBER bi. I , -x...
0.2.9 ESTIMATING T . .

The results of this section are turmrdritcd in Figure , 0 4 2 . The .


decision tree shows the appllcable methods o f estimating f for each
approach, and provides a quick m a n s to compare alternativesand mdkc d
selection.

0.2-21
I

* I
NO

FIGURE 0 - f 2 - DECISION TREE FOR ESTIMATING T


' 0.3 .DETERMINATION OFOZONE CONCENTRATION (C)

0.3.1 Jntroductiu
This section presents ways to wasure or estimate the- ozone
concentration, C, for the calculation of CT. Analternative,more 0

elaborate concept, requiring better characterlzation of thehydrodynamics


of the ozone contactor Is presented in Section 0.4 of this appendix.
€PA recommends use. of the averagedlssolvtd ozone concentration in
the water for C for all types of ozone contactors. The average concentra-
tion may be determinedby m e of following methods:
1. Direct measurement of the concentration profile of dissolved
ozone in each contact chamber
2. Indirect prediction of the average concentration by assuming
a seto f conservative correlations betweenan observed variable
such as the concentration of ozone in the outlet from the ozone
chamber and the average concentration within the ozone chamber.

The application of these methods to estimate the average concentra-


tion should take into account the gas/liquid flow configuration in the .
ozone contactor. The next section presents a short discussion of the
types of liquid/gas contact in ozone chambers, followed by two sections
that describe the methods to estimate the average concentration in the
chamber based on simple measurements.

Classification of Ozone Chamber2


Ozone contactors currently in use or in design stage in the US may
be classified into four types of flow configurations as illustrated on.
Figure 0-13. This, o f course, does not preclude the use of other types
of
contactors. The four configurations areas follows:

1. ContinuouslyStirred-TankReactor (CSTR):
Ozone contactors using turbine agitators, where the water may
be,considered uniformly mixed as shown on Figure 0-13, diagram
1.' Studies conducted in a full scale turbine contact chamber
indicate that turbine contactors may. be considered Uniformly

0.3-1
i

mixed (Schwartz.et, a1 , 1990) This study was conducted in the


first contact chamber under conditions of high ozone demand.
Therefore, it is assumed that under less stringent kinetic
can be considered uniform-
conditions, turbine contactors still
ly mixed. '

2. Counter-Current Flow Chambers


In these chambers, the water flows opposite the direction
of, -
the gas bubbles. For example, the first and third chambers in
the Cos-Angeles ozonetrert~nent system,as shown on Figure0-2.
3. Co-Current F1 ow Chambers
. .
In these 'chambers, the gas bubbles and the water flowin the
same direction. For example, the Deep U-Tube contactor shown
in Figure 0-5 and the Static Hixer contactor. This is the case
also for theconventional gas/l iquid contact chambers such as
the second contact chamberin the configuration designed for
the East Bay MUD water disinfectionsystem, as shown on Figure
0-4
4. Reactive Flow Chambers . .
In these chambers, no gas (and ozone) is.being introduced into .
.
the chamber or conduitThe second and fourth thambers of the
Los Angeles water disinfection system are reactive chambers
(Figure 0-2).

0.3.2 Qirect Measurement of€


Direct measurement of the dissolved ozone concentration is the
preferred method to determine the ozone concentration in ozone contact
chambers. However,verylittle full scaleexperience is currently
available with this type ofmeasurement. Some guidelines were developed
based on the limited studies conducted at the Haworth, NJ (Schwartz et a1 .
1990) and Los Angeles water treatment systems (Stolarik and Christie, .
1990). Theguidelinesdeveloped for direct'measurementofozone
concentration in the liquid phaseare detailed in the following sections.

' Anal Yte Each Chamber SeDaratel y


Every chamber ofa multiple-chamber unit should be analyzed separate-
ly. Different chambersin series exhibit different ozoneconsumption rates
and reactivities .and, therefore, are likely to have different dissolved
ozone profi 1 es.

0.3-2
1 TURBINE CHAMeEA

2. COUNTER-CURRENT
CHAMBER

3 . CO-CURRENT CHAMBER

.
4 . REACTIVE FLOW L d
CHAMBER
L: Llquid
0 : Gar

.
Avoid Interference From Gas Bubbles
Gas bubbles may strongly interfere with the measurement of Ozone
concentration, particularly if some bubbles arecarried into the sampling ,

. taps. Thisinterferencemaybereduced by directingthe tamp1irig port .-.

opposite to the direction of the bubble flk In order to prevent gas from ."

entering the sampling tube. Additionally, the operator should verify, by , ."*
4. .
visual inspection, that the sample water does not contain gas bubbles. v
9.-

Systems using in-situ ozone analyzers should be careful to prevent


direct contact of gas bubbles with the measuring probe Iwhich s usually 9
gas permeable membrane. Such contact may bias'the measurements and give
high results.

binimize Distan~geto Qrone Analvzers


Minimize the distance frpm the sampling ports to the analyzer Ozone
to limit ozoneconsumption by reducing agents in the water. This
conslderat ion is particularly important when evaluating the concentration ..
,' profile in chambers with high ozone demand such as the first chamber .in
multiple-chamber units.

provide ProDer SDacial Distribution


. ..d
-i..
-~.. ~

The vertical profile of the ozone concentration in ozone contact -F


1 %.
chambers should be measured in at least five vertical locations and at .-
.s .

least two differenthorizontal locations for eachvertical sampling point


: withinthecontact chamber. Each sample shouldrepresent thetime
averaged concentration at the specificlocation. This may be achieved by
sampling a large volumeof water into a contafner and analyzlng the water
by the indigo trisulfonate method (Bader and Hoigne, 1982). In-situ.
measurement of ozone should be carriedout over a sufficient timeinterval
to suppress temporal fluctuations. Such instruments should be initially
calibrated by the indigo trisulfonatemethod. Facilities that have more
than 25 percent deviation between the average concentration at two
horizontal locations should collect addltlonal measurements at a third
location. The average of a1 1 measurements may tie taken as the average
concentration of dissolved ozone in the ozone contact chamber. For
systems with a .'symmetrical vertical distrlbutlon of ozone Concentration
the vertical. sampling points should be equidistant. Systems with an
,asymmetrical distribution of avallable sarnpllng points can perform an
integration of the data, to estimate the rverage concentration in the '

chamber. An example of this1s given at the end of this section..


Some contact chambers, such as the Deep U-Tube chambers, static
mixers and reactive flow chambers havehigha length to width ratio, where
the length of the chamberin the directionof fluid flow is greater than
four times the cross section length. These chambers have more uniform
radial concentration profiles, el iminoting the need to hasure the
,

concentration at various vertical or horizontal locations. Therefore,


measuring the concentration profileat several points along the flowpath
should be sufficient to accurately. determine the average concentration.
I

Select Reoresentative Locations


All sampling positions should be placed in representative locations,
-. -
avoiding stagnant zones and zones near thewall. Measurements in stagnant '

' locations will lead to low values of the average reqidual concentrations. .
While measurements at the wall may result in, either an underestimate or
overestimate of theresidual depending on the ozone flowpattern.
Systems having twoor more identical parallel ozone contact chambers
may determine the average ozone concentration by measuring the concentra-
tion profile at one horizontal location in each contact chamber. These
systems should, however,show by dual or triplehorizontal measurements in
at1,east one of the parallel chambers that the measurement in the
particular horizontal location adequately represents the concentration
profile in the contact chamber.

amDle 0.3-1
A system with a co-current chamber with dimensions
of 10' X 10' x 20'
was sampled to determine the average concentration in the chamber. In
accordance with the recommended guidelines, the' following samples' were
. .
taken:

0.3-4
.. .

Ozone
Water Residual (mg/L)
PeDth (ftl
2 +io . *T
6 0.17 0.15
' 10 0.15 0.14
14 0.3 0.25
18 0 ..6 , 0.65
- The horizontalsampling point measurementsare within 25
percent of each otherindicating that no additionalhorizontal
tamp1 ing is needed. Figure 0 4 4 r shows thetamplrlng. locations
andresulting
theozone profile. - .
- Average the H and H sampling points to determine C,. :
C,, = (0.1 t b . 1 5 + b . l 5 + 0.3 + 0.6 t 0.12 + 0.17 +?.14 +
O.& t 0.65)/10 = 0.26. C,,,,'aquals 0.26 mg/L; which is C for
the chamber

D a m D l e 0.3-2
A system with a co-current chamber .and the same dimensions of the *

system in Example 0 . 3 - 1 has sampling results as follows:


* . . '

OzoneWater Residual (ma/L)


QeDth
(ftl
2
--
H
0.f
Ai-
' 0.12
ll!aLa&
0.11 5.1.
8 0.16 , 0.14 0.15
14 0.27 0.3 0..285
.I 6
18
0.70
0.62
* 0.73
:0.61
0.715
0.615
..
(')Average - (H, t H,)/2

- The sampling points


* .
are not verticaily equidistant so the
system will plot theaverage ozone concentration o f the
horizontal sampling ,pointsversus depth to calculate the area
under the curve. This approach should only be used if. the,
sampling points cover the range of the waterdepth.
.- As shown on Figure 0-14b, the area under the curve is deter-
mined for the range of depths sampled fr'om 2 to 18 ft. .
- Several methods can be used 'for calculating the area includ-
i ng :
- Measurement with a planimeter
- Mathematical methods such as:
- Simson's Rule . .
- Runge Kutta

0.3-5
SAMPLING LOCATIONS OZONE PROFILC

I I I I I
11 0.2 0.8 1.0 (al@!l)

a. EOUlOISlAWT SAMPLING OZONE CO~CENTRATION

SAMPLINO LOCATIONS ozone PROFILE


0 I-
- h

'0 2 I ' 8 0 10 It 0 0.2 0.G 1.0 (mgil)

b. SKEWED SAMPLIWG OZOClE C'ONCENT'RATION

-
FIGURE 0 4 4 DIRECT MEASUREMENTS FOR DETERMINING C
is in units of */Loft.
The area under the curve C, is deter-
mined as:
area tma/L-ftl
range of depthsampled (ft)
For this data, use o f a planimeter results in an area of 5.44
mg/L-ft, with the concentrationdetermined as follows:

- -
..
5.44 ma/L ft = 0.34 mg/L
18 ft 2 ft .-

Fstimatina C Based on Residual Heasurpments at the Outlet


. 0'.3.3
For many systems,measuring ozoneprofiles in their ozone chamber may
be impractical becauseof physicalconstraints. These systems may
estimate C in the chamber based on measurements of the ozone residual at
the outlet from the chamber. €PA has established correlationsfor
'different types of gas-liquid contact configurations currently in use in
ozone contactors. These relationshi'ps were derived based on conservative
assumptions regarding the type of flow configuration .in the contactor. .
.
'

Due to the highly reactive nature o f ozone the values for C vary slightly
. between first chambers and subsequent chambers. The recommended
concentrations for first and subsequent chambers are summarized in Table
0-6.

0.3.3.1 first Chambers


A first chamber is the chamber in which ozone is initially intro-
duced. In establishing guidelines fordetermining C values for the first
ozone contact chamber, the followingitems were considered:
1. The relationship between C and the outlet concentration in the
first chamber of a multiple-chamber system (or singlechamber].
may be very sensitive to the reaction order of the ozone
consumption kinetics.
. The average concentrationin the contactor maybe less than 10
percent of the outletconcentration. This was demonstrated in
pilPt plant studies conducted in a multiple chamber system by
Stolarik and Christie, 1990. Therefore, general relationships
. between the residual ozone concentration at the outlet from a
first (orsingle)ozonecontact chamber and the average
concentration i,n this .chambercannot be developed.

0.3-6
..
TABLE 0-6
CORRELATIONS TO PREDICT C BASfp - .
. *r

ON OUTLET OZONE CONCENTRATIONS

FLW CONFIGURATION

-
CO-CURRENT
COUNTER-CURRENT
REACT I VE
TURBINE FLOU . FLW -.- FLOW

First Chamber
C PARTIAL(~) PARTIAL'^) NOT
CREDIT CREDIT APPLICABLE

1. Definitions:
C Characteristic
Concentration (mg/L)

cwt Dissolved ozone concentration at the outlet from the chamber(mg/L)


Cin Concentration of ozone at the inlet to the chamber(mg/L)

2. l-log o f virus inactivation providing that, C > 0.1 mg/L and 1/2-l0g Giardia
cysts inactivation providing that ,C > 8.3 q/L. '

3. Alternatively, C may equal the averageconcentrati'on as evaluated by the direct .


measurement method (Section 0.3.2).
2. The rate of disinfectlonof vlruses (coliphage) by ozone often
decreases with respect to contact time whereby the fni tial
inactivation rate It very frst m d deteriorates afterwards.
3. Pilot plant experiments reported by Wolfe et a1 , ,( 1989)
* suggest that the inactlvrtion of organisms Including MS2
bacteriophages,murit cysts, R2A bacteria and E. Coli,
in the first chamber of a multiple-chamber reactor is very
rapid even whenhigh ozone d m n d waters are used.

Considering these items, EPA recoraaends a general guiaeline of


crediting the first ozone chamber with CT credits .equivalent to 1-log
virus inactivation and 0.5-log E i a r m cyst Inactivation, provlded that
the residual concentration measured at the outlet from the first contact
chamber exceeds 0.1 mg/L and 0.3 mg/L, respectively, regardless of the.
contactor configuration. However, this guideline does assume .that the
volume of the first chamberi s, equal to thevolume of subsequentchambers.
The credit for 1-log virus inactivation at an outlet residual of 0.1 mg/L
may appear conservative with respect to HS2 bacteriophage data, however, '

only limited data for ozoneinactivation of theanimal viruses of concern


is currently available. Preliminary test results indicate khat bacterio-
phage may not be an appropriate indicator for virus inactivation.by ozone
(Finch, 1990).
Systems may prove higher performance of their first contact chambers
by measuring the concentration profiles in the first chamber, as outlined , u

in Section 0.3.2 or ,by applying the more sophistic'ated methods that are
presented in Section 0.4.

0.3.3.2 w s e a u e n t u m b e r s
. The correlations In fable 0-6 are based on analysis of thedissolved
concentration profilein Iiquid/gas contacting chambers. All correlations
rely on the accurate measurement o f ozone concentration outside of the
gas/liquid contacting regime. Concentrations at the outlet from the ozone
. contact chambers canbe measured accurately without interferences from the
ozone bubbles.. The correlations represent the highest possible estimate
of C . that can be supported without site-specific test data. These
estimates are conservative and systems may choose to determineC based on

0.3-7
direct measurement of theconcentration profilein the contactchamber,'or
use one of the procedures reconmendedin Section 0.4.
Correlations were ,developed for the four types of flow configura-
tions:
-- Turbine
Counter Current Flow
- Co-currentFlow
- ReactiveFlow
.-

Iiuhm
For turbinechambersorrigorouslymixedchambers,the flow
characteristics in the chamber approach that o f a CSTRand,.therefore, the
concentration at the outlet from the contactor (Cwt) is assumed to be
representative o f the dissolved concentration of ozonein the liquid phase
(C). Currently, contactors using turbine agitators appear toapprox.imate
CSTR characteristics '(Schwartz et a1 1990). Other systems with f,,,/HDT
values less than0.33 may use the samecorrelations.. This correlation is
applicable to every chamber,including turbine contactors used for first.
chambers or as a single chamber contactor.
The measurement of ozone concentration in the gas phase is a possible
alternative for determining C although such correlations will be highly
. site specific. A procedure to develop site specific correlations between
the average ozone concentration and the off-gas concentrationis presented . .
' in Section 0.4.2.1.

counter-Current FW
In counter-current flow, the water flows opposite to the direction
of bubble rise. Measurement of the concentrationprofile in such systems
revealed that the concentration in the liquid phase uniformly increased
with depth in the ozone chamber as shown in Figure 0-15. The maximum
concentration in the chamber is achieved near the water outlet fromthe
ozone chamber.
Heasurement of the ozone concentrationin an ideal plug flow chamber
reveals that the average concentration is only 25 to 50 percent o f the
outlet concentration' for these chambers under'typical operating condi -
tions. Add'itional contributions to the average concentration
that are n o t
accounted for by the plug flow analysis, include the contribution of
0.3-8
..

TOP

X
c
0
ul
0
a
w
c
z
8OTTOM I
INCREASES

TOP

t
c
Q
w
0
a
w
c
a
3

8OtTOM

DISSOLVEDOZONERESIDUAL

I
. . PROFILE
8 . CO-CURRENT FLOW

FIGURE 0-15.0zoi.c~CONCENTRATION PROFILES


.
turbulence and the,contribution of theinlet concentration. Based on these
considerations, EPA reconmends the useof one-half the outlet concentra-
tion of ozoneas an estimate forC. .
The measurement of ozone concentrationin the off gas, is a possible
alternative for determining the average ozone concentration although the
correlations will be highly site specific. A procedure to develop site
specific correlations between the average ozone concentrationand the off-
gas concentration is presented in Section 0.4.2.1.

o-Current F1 ow
In co-current flow, both' the water and gas flow' in the same
direction. Theozoneconcentration profile in co-currentoperation
increases until it reaches a maximum and then decreases along the contact
chamber as shown on Figure 0-15. The dissolved ozone concentration
increases at the beginning of the column due to dominant mass transfer
from the ozone rich bubbles. Then the gas phase becomes depleted of ozone
and the impact of ozone consumption in the liquid phase. dominates the '

ozone profile. C can be estimated as the concentrationo f dissolved ozone


at the outlet or by the average of the inlet and outlet concentrations o f
dissolved ozone, whichever is higher. This estimate should still be
conservative, particularly for systems exhibitinghigh transfer efficien-
cies.
The measurement of ozone concentration in the off gasis a possible
* altepnative for determining the average ozone concentration although the
correlations will be highly site specific: A procedure to develop site
specific correlations between the average ozone concentration and the off-
gas concentration is presentedin Section 0.4.2.1.

Reactive F1 ow
In ozone chambers operated in a reactive .flow configuration, the
water contains dissolved ozone residual from previous chambers but no
additional ozone is being introduced. Reactive flow chambers are used:
for other disinfectants, suchas chlorine, chlorine dioxide
and chloramin-
es; for the decay of ozone followinga contactor or a static mixer; and
for combining ozone with hydrogenperoxide.

0.3-9
,. *.. *.
For static mixers, the mixer acts 8s a turbine chamber with the
pipeline following the mixer acting as the reactive chamber. The pipeline
is in effect the second chamber and the guldelines In Table 0-6 apply for '

the determination of C. The contact time


* In the pipeli,ne can be
calculated by assuming plug flow.
In order to be consistent with the recomendrtlons for monitoring
other disinfectants in reactive flow chambers, and,in order to assure
compliance under worst case conditions, the use of the residual outlet
from the chamber),C( is recommended as8 conservatdve measureof C. The
CT for reactive flow chambers may be estimated by dividi.ng the chamber
into subunits, measuring the concentration at the end o f each subunit, and
adding the CT credits.
*Estimates ofC based on the outlet concentration were conservatively
developed based on avail able test data. EPA's recommended values for C
are summarized in Table 0-6. A system may choose to perform additional
testing for direct measurement of ozone residuals to support a higher
value, if appropriate. In addition, a reactive. flow chamber may be .
subdivided into smaller unitswith ozone measurements at the end of each
unit t o improve CT credit.

0.3.4 btimatina F;
The results of this section are sunmarired in' Figure 0-16. The .
decision tree shows the applicable methods estimating
of C 'for each flow
configuration, and provides a quick means to compare alternativesand make
a selection.

. .

. 0.3-10
. .. ..+ . --.
I""
c=ccuroR 1

NOTES 1. CREDIT FOR 1-log MRUS W E N Can > 0.1 mg/L


. AN0 0.5 -lag INACllVAnW
WEN C u , > O.hg/L FOR FIRST CHAMSRS. . I

2. OETERMlNATlON OF CAVOIN SECTION 0.3.2 AND VourlH IN SECTION 0.4.2


3. FOR FIRST OR SUBSEQUENT CI ?AMBERS.

FIGURE 0-16- DECISION TREE FOR ESTIMATING. C


. .
0.4 SITE-SPEC IF IC EVALUATION OF OZONE CONTACTORS

0.4.1 fntroduction
The second set of guidelines is designed to prevent systems from
costly over-design and use of overdoses of ozone, by performing site
specific characterization of their ozone contactors. This approach was
partially utilized in the previous two sections by r e c o m n d i n g a direct
measurement of the ozone concentration profile and by allowing systems to
use the SFA or CSTR approaches. In this section the site specific
evaluation procedure will be further developed by presenting additional
options to improve disinfection credits simplify
or monitoring procedures.
EPA recommendsthefollowingthreealternativesforsite specific
eval uat i ons :
- E.stimating C by measurement of another variable
-- Model ing performance of field scale operation
Use of microbial indicator studies
C may be estimated by measuring an easily uionitored (observable) *

variable. Systems should develop site specific correlations between C and


another observable parameter such as the gas or llquid concentration
exiting (Cwt) the .chamber and monitor this observable parameter instead
of C. Guidelines to develop such site specific correlations presented
are
in Section 0.4.2
Model 1 ing the performance of
full scale operationsis an a1 ternative
'

to the separate C and T approach. The first procedure separated the


analysis into two separate issues related to 'determining C and T.
Extensive modellingof thesystem may predict higher inactivationlevels,
even for the sade C and T. EPA recommends that systems construct'
mathematical models of their ozone contactorspredictto the disinfection
performance, provided that the models are confirmed by experimental
observation of the actual ozone concentration profile in the contact
chambers, as dfscussed in Section 0.4.3.
Microbial indicator studiesmay be used to determine theinactivation
of viruses and Giardia cysts in ozone contactors. EPA recomnends that
systems be allowed to evaluate the performance of their disinfection
systems by spiking a pilot of the contactorwith an indicator microorgan-
. ism and predicting the actual inactivation of.Eiardia cystsand viruses
0.4-1
based on the inactivation of the indicator microorganisms. Guidelines to
conduct such pi lot scale performance evaluations arepresented i.n Section
. .
0.4.4.

0.4.2 Site SOeCific Correlation of C with an Observable Variable ..w.:-.


*-.-
Section 0.3 recommends determining theconcentration of Ozone in . 2 3 .

contactors by one of thefollowing ways:


1. Measure theconcentration profile in the chambers and determine
the average dissolved ozone concentration forC.
2. Measure the dissolved. concentration of ozone In' the water
outlet from each chamber (C, ) and estimate C by the correla-
tions presented in Tables 0-8.

This section presents an alternative method to determine C.


The SWTR requires unfi 1tered systems toreport a daily CT for their
disinfection systems. Similar requirements may be specified by the
'

Primacy Agency for filtered systems. Measuring the concentration In the


'

ozonechamberseach day may be difficult. Determiningthe ozone


concentration in a chamber by continuous or daily measurements of other
_' variables is probably preferable. Likewise, many systems may prefer to
monitor the'otone concentration in the off gas (Ymt) or via the applied
ozone dose rather than monitor.,C However, based on available data, .a
non-site specific correlationbetween the average ozone concentration in
the chamber and an observable variable other than C, could not be
devel oped.
€PA encourages systemsto develop such site specific correlationsand
use them instead o f the general procedures. These correlations may be
developed in one of thefollowing ways:
1. Determinesitespecific.correlations between C and another
variable that canbe easily monitored. Heasureyhe variable,
estimate C and then use the correlations presented in Tables'
0-6 to pre%;'ct C.
2. Determine site specific correlations directly between C and
another variablesuch as the ozone concentration In the o f f gas
(Yout) or CWt. Measure that variable and estimate C.

0.4-2
Correlatio.ns between C or, C and ameasurable parameter may vary in
complexity from a simple empirical linear correlation to a highly
sophisticated mathematical model accounting for the ozone concentration
profile in the contact chamber. Development of appropriate correlations
depends on the engineering capabilities of the utility. .Therefore, EPA
does not recommend any particular mathematical relationships. However,
the following sections present guidelines to rss*lst systems. In-developing
appropri ate correlat ions. . .

brrelations for Soecific C h a m b


The correlations should refer to a specific contact chamber and
should be verified to fit the perfomance of this chamber. For example, a
correlation for the first chamber should not 'be ustd to predict C in the
second chamber of a mu1tiple-chamber system.

k v e l o o i n a the Correl at ion


When fitting the correlation with
experimental data, a recordof the
following variables should be kept:

a. Water flow rate


b. Gas flow rate
C. Ozone concentration in the gas feed
d. Ozone transfe'r efficiency
d. Water temperature and pH
e. Concentrations of all major .inorganic' reducing agents;
if they constitute a substantial.proportion o f the total
ozone demand, such as iron( 1.1) and manganese, TOC, *

alkal in-ity and turbidity.


f. C,, or. whateveris being correlated
9. The measurable variables such as ozone dosageor ,C,

The system should alsorecord the dependent (C or Cat) and indepen-


dent measurable variables.

.0.4-3
4
The correlation should be evaluated with at least I 90 percent *
confidence level. Since confidence margins are very sensftfve . t o the
>g,
number o f observations used to develop therelationship, this &irement
." ,.
will prevent the use of correlations are thatbased on 8 1 imited amount of dfi r

"r;p
i € b ~
observations. On the other hand, because systems usually make daily
records of most of the parameters needed to develop a correJation, the
number of observations will usually be very high, thereby, providing a
high confidence level for thecorrelation. Simple proceduresto determine
confidence intervals are presented in statistlcal textbooks.
The correlation mustbe checked periodically, such as monthly, as an
additional precaution against unexpected shifts in water conditions.
The correlationshould be applied only to conditions thatare within
the parametric range for which the correlation was developed, as noted. in
the second guideline. Interpolation is permitted but extrapolation is
not. Correlations developed during the winter timeshould not be used to .
evaluate performance in the summer.
€PA believes that by permitting such correlations, systems will be
.a
encouraged to apply sophisticated mathematical models in order to decrease ,P-.
.s:
the confidence interval and administer smaller doses of .orone. €PA also 'Iu'.

*a

expects that systems will develop correlationsbetween C .in the


. contactors '
%
and measurable parameters to simplify theiroperations. Small or lesser
equtpped systems will then be able touse these relation'ships to estimate
the performanceof their ozonecontactors. EPA intends to follow advances
in this field and issue updated examples and guidelines regarding the
selection of efficient site specific correlations. .

0.4.2.1 ytilirina Off-Gas Measurements


In ozone contactors, the gas and 1 iquid streams equil ibrate when.the
contact between the gas and liquid is intimate enough-and for sufficient
time, otherwise the concentration in the water phase will be much lower
than the equilibrium concentration. It can be assumed that close to
equilibrium conditions are reached, when the transferefficiency in' the
contactors is greater than, 85 percent ((Y,,,-Yw)/Yfn >. 0.85). When the
' . transfer efficiency i s greater than 85'percent,.sysSems may use solubility

0.4-4
constant data to calculate CWt from the contactor, based on the ozone
concentration in the offgas. fhis may lead toa slight over estimate of
the concentrationin the liquid phase but this over estimate is justified,
in view of the better reliability of gas phase measurements.
Henry's constants for ozone at various temperatures arepresented in
Table 0-7. The residual concentration of ozonemay be estimated by:

Where:
you, - The concentration of ozone in the gas phase (ppm
volume or partial pressure-atm)
-
c,t. - The concentration of ozone in the liquid phase
(mg/L 1
H = Henry's constant (atm/mg/L)
When applying off-gas model1 iq, 1iquid phase measurements must' be
madeperiodicallytocheckthecorrelation, as theozonetransfer
efficiency has a high impact on the results of this correlation.
Systems must be cautioned against the use of off-gas measurements
formultiplechambercontactors with a common headspace. As noted
previously, modelling must be specific to individual chambers. Thus, if
a contactor has a commonhead space between chambers, na distinction can
be made as to the concentration in each chamber. Therefore, off-gas
measurements for modelling are recommended for use with single chamber
contactors.

fxamDl e 0.4-I
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California conducted
off-gas monitoringon a single chamber co-current flowpilot contactor to
determine the dissolved ozone concentration:
-' Operating conditions were as follows':
source water: Colorado River
feed gas ozone ,concentration= 2 percent by weight
-
off gas ozone concentration 0.185 p.ercent by weight
(or 0.123 percent by volume)

0.4-5
- transferefficiency 90.8 percent
- temperature = 16.5 C . .
z

-
-
observed ozone residual = 1.04 mg/L
- Henry's constant 16.5.C 0.001179 rtm/mg/L
- The ozone residual estimated from the off gas concentration
is:
CY*H,/, - 0.00123/0.001179
= 1.04 mg/L
- The measured residual is the same' IS that predicted by ,the
off-gas measurementindicating thatthis approachis appropri-
ate for thissystem.

Example 0.4-2 1 - t
A system using two counter-currentcontact chambers in series wants
to,predict,,C in the second chamber by the concentration of ozone in the.
. off-gas (Y,), Daily observations of thepertinent parameters during the
first month of operatio'n are presented in Table 0-8.

- The'system chose to correlate


correl at i on.
CWt and ,Y, by linear empirical

- The daily observations,and the best linear fit arepresented


in Figure 0-17.
- The 90 percent confidence interval is presented by the lower
line in Figure 0-17.
- The system may use the 90 percent confidence level line to
estimate,,C based on measurements of.Y.,
..

- For example whenY,


= 0.36 mg/L.
- 0.4 percent then the systemmay use .,C

- Al'though the best estimate is ,C,


should predict C,, = 0.36 mg/L.
- 0.4 mg/L, the system

- Now,
the recommendedguide1 ine of C C,,/2 - -
according to.Table 0-6, the system may predict C using
(0.36)/2 0.18 mg/L. -
- The system measures the ozone concentration at the chamber
outlet monthly, to check themodel correlation.
TABLE 0-7
* HENRY'S CONSTANTS FOR OZONE"'

Water
Temperature
(OC 1
Henry's Constant Henry's Constant
' - atm/ma/l ozone1
0 1,940 0.00073
5 2,180 0.00082
10 2,480 0.00093
15 2,880 '0.00108 *

20 3,760 0,00141
25 4,570 0.00171
5,980 30 0.00224

~~

NOTE: EPA, 1986


i
TABLE 00.8
Emp?rl crl Correl a t ion
Between C, m d Y,

hut L
t Ism3
0.5 0.5 2.0 20 2.0
0.43 0.47 2.8 1s 2.0
0.38 0.41 2.5 17 . 2- 0
0.4 0.39 2.3 18 2.0
0.32 0.28 2.4 18 2.0
0.17 0.2 2.6 20 2.0
0.23 0.25 2.0 20 2.0
0.32 0.27 2.4 21 1.9
0.27 0.29 2.0 18 1.9
0.2 . 0.18 2.0 17 2.0
0.22 0.2 1.9 18 2.1
' 0.30 0.33 1.8 20 2.0 .
0.32 0.34 1.9 17 2.0
0.28 0.27 1.9 . 18 .1.8
0.29 0.32 2.5 18 . 1.9
0.4 0.42 2.4 19 1.9
0.47 * 0.45 2.3 19 1.8
0.35 0.37 2.4 21 1.9
0.30 0.29 1.9 19 1.8
0.20 0.17 1.9 19 1.8
0.15 1.19 2.0 ' 19 2.0
0.12 0.20 1.9 2.0
0.17 0.17 1.9 1.9
0.14 0.16 2.0 2.0
0.13 0.12 1.9 18 , 2.0
0.25 0.27 1.9 17 2.0
0.29 0.32 1.9 18 2.1
0.30 0.29 1.8 17 2.0
0.22 0.20 1.9 17 2.0
0.22 0.20 1.9 18 1.9
C
0
c.
*4
9
c
u
C

. .
. .

0.2
Ott p s coni:c:raf i o r a UkiJ
t a d

FIGURE 0-17- EXAMPLE OF EMPIRICAL CORRELATION OF


RESIDUAL OtONE..AND OFF GAS
- If thls system had the means to monitor the concentration
profile in the contactor rnd determine C directly it could
develop a correlation between C and Y, instead o f usin9 Table
0-6.

0.4.3 Bodelina the Performance ofFull Scale O m r a t l o w .


Horeextensivesitespecific mathematicalmodelling of the actual
. ...
-*-,

performance of the ozone contactor may determine higher inactivation ?


--
-.x
..

*.
levels than those determined by the separate C and T approach..therrfore,
systems should be allowed to use such advanced laodrlling, provided that
these models areconfirmed by direct measurement o f the dissolved ozone
profile in the contactor. Only after themodel is confirmed to correctly
estimate the concentration profile in the contactor can it be used to
estimate the inactivation performance of the contactor. Systems with
multiple chamber contactors must develop models for each of the chambers.
Various typesof mathematical models for reaction-diffusionsystems
were reported (Danckwerts,1976) and some were shownto be applicable for
ozone contactors (Gurol and Singer, 1982). This. section deliberately
avoids giving preferenceto any type o f mathematical modelling in order to
encourage engineering innovations. The guidelines presented below may.
help systems to select appropriatemodelling that will be consistent with
-
”...
the requirements of the SWTR. .-

The model should account for the ozone demand o f the water being .
treated in the contactor. The rate of ozone reaction and decomposition ’

should be based on batch experiments, on-site pilot plant Columns, or


f u l l -scale measurements.
The model should represent the actual flow distributionin the ozone
contact chambers by incorporating a dispersion term and/or a three.
dimensional velocity distribution termin the contactor.
The modelled profileof theconcentration of dissolved ozone in the
contactor should fit the actual distributton .of dissolved ozone, as
verified by direct measurements., with a variation of less than 10 to 20
percent. This difference between themodel and measured residual allows
for the inherent inaccuracies in measuring the actual ozone residual The
mathematically modelled cgncentration profile should not be used without
comparing it with actual measurements. Even elaborate mathematical model’s i
. .

0.4-7
arenotconsldered rellable enough t o estlmatethe
concentration
d l s t r l b u t l o n sodf l s s o l v e d gasses i n complex gas/liquld operatlons,
wlthout additional verlfleatlon of the rctual concentratlon proflle I n the
contactor.
I n a d d l t l o n t o t h e above guldellnes, the model may a l t o account for
other phenomena t h a t may affectthe performance o f the ozone contact’ .
chambers, such as: theeffects of varylngbubbledlrmeterdurlng Its
movement ttiroughthecontactor,theeffectofstagnantregions I n the
contactor and the v!rlation of the hydrostatic pressure.
For example, a system may use the two m lf
l theorycoupledwith
reaction kinetics to estimate the performance o f an ozone contact chamber.
Using the two .
-
L dC/dr
fi
l
mtheory the relevant dlfferentlal equatlons
Mt + Mr + Md
are:

L dI/dZ Md - KC1
Where:
C = Concentrationofdissolved ozone (mg/L)
G = Gas f l o w ratepercrosssectlonofthecontactor (m2.Kg
. gas/mln)
I = Concentration o f t h e t a r g e t microorganism ( i i a r d b o rviruses)
L * Water f14w rate per cross section area of the reactor (Kg w a t -
er/mln.m )

Y = Concentratlon o f ozone i n the gas phase (mg/L)


z = length coordinate of the contactor
M t = An expresslonfor ozone transferfromthebubble phase t o the ,

water phase. For example, k,a(C -C) where k,a stands for the
volumetrlc mass transfer coe/flcdent, C, ,re
resentsthe
P
i n t e r f a c i a l c o n c e n t r a t l o n o f ozone, given by so u b i l l t y data
(Tab1 e 0- IO).
Mr = A? expression f o r the r a t e o f ozone consumption I n t h e water
due t o auto-decomposition and the ozone demand o f t h e t r e a t e d
.
w a t e r . For example, Mr- k,C -k,(C) (R) Where k, and k, are
k i n e t i cc o e f f i c i e n t s , and R representsthevariable ozone
demand, such as TOC. An additional equation may be required t o
represent the variation of R along the contactor.
0.4-8
(c--
An expression forthe dispersionby turbulence and bubble f l o w . .
?ld
o f dis3olved ozone in the specific contactor. For example, t
Dd*C/dz the dispersion coefficient (0) may be evaluated by’.
analysis of tracerstudy data. The third equation describing
the microorganism concentration(dI/dt) should incorporatethe
coefficient
dispersion same (0). 2

KCI- Chick’s inactivation term (K-2.303k, where k = Chick-Watson‘s


..-.
-a

inactivation Coefficient presentedin Table 0-4, C represents


the local concentration of ozoneand I represents the concen-
tration of microorganisms) -
The validity of these equations is subject to the appropriate
boundary conditions at the bottom and top of thecontactor. The signso f
the various termsdepend on the definitionof. coordinates and the typeof
flow configurattqn (co-current or counter-currentnow configuration).

6.4.4 Hicrobial Indicator Studies to Model Inactivation Contactorr


Accordingtotherecommendations in Appendix G , systemsmay
. demonstrate the actual performance of a disinfection system rather than .
rely on the CT approach. The procedures out1 ined in Appendix G recommend
the use of Giardia muris cysts as indicators of U r d i a inactivation and
bacteriophage (MS2) as indicators for virus inpctlvation by disinfection
in general.However, recentdata indicatethat MS2 phages may be
substantiallymoresensitive to, ozone disinfectionthanpathogenic
viruses, and therefore are not a good indicatorfor determining adequate
: ozonation conditions for inactivating pathogenic viruses (Finch, 1990).
Additional research i s needed to determltie’ which coliphage species, if
any, can be used as an appropriate indicator for virus inactivation by
ozone. Pilot scale inactivation experiments using appropriate indicator
microorganisms ‘can serveas powerful tools to ,indicate the performanre o f .
the ozone contactors. This .section contains guidelines for conducting
indicator ‘studies. At this time, full-scale testing ‘with indicator
organisms is not feasible because o f the high volume of organisms needed
and the concern for introducing organisms into the finished water.
However, with’ the developmentof naturally occurring indicators such as
resistant species ofcoliphage, demonstration on the f u l h c a l e l e v e l may
be feasible in.”the future.

. .
0.4-9
Systems may determine the performance of theirdlsinfectlon basins
by demonstrrtlng 'levels of inrctlvrtion of indicator microorganisms such
as Eiardia murfs cysts, or other indicator microorganisms provided that
such demonstrations are based on solid engineering principles. The
following steps can beused for conducting indicatorstudies:

1. Exoerimenu
ch
On-site batch disinfection experiments rare e c m e n d e d wlth treated
water spiked with indicatormic'roorganisms to determine the lnactivatlon
kinetics of the indicator used in the pilot scale experiments. Hicroor-
ganisms should be used as Indicators preferably in the range where' the
inactivation kinetics approximateChlck's law'. Thls protocol assumes that
within the desired Inactivation range, the inactivation kinetics wilt
approximate Chick's law. I b i s important to note that other disinfection
kinetic models , not yet apparent, may be developed to more accurately
predictozoneinactivationefficiencythantheChick-Watson model.'.
'. Evidence that other models may be more appropriate is shown with data r

generated by several researchers for different organisms '(Wolfe, R.L. et .


al, 1989; finch G . , et a1 1988; finch G . and Smith, O.W. 1989).

2. PilotScaleIndicatorLxDerimentt
Pilot-scale experiments should then be conducted using Identical
strains o f biological indicators to those used in the batch experiments.
The pilot-scale experiments should be repeated under identical gas and
water flow conditions with and without introducing ozone into the gas
stream. The actual performance may then be calculated by subtracting the .
inactivation achieved in the control experiment (without ozone) from the
inactivation achieved In the ozone dislnfectionexperiments.

3. 1 1 i n
Systems may choose direct or indirect methods to interpret the
inactivation performance of ozone contactors based on indicator studies.
The direct method is more conservative and simple while the indirect
method i s more accurate but requires mathematical model1 i n g o f the
cootactors. The two procedures are outlined below:

0.4-10
..

a . Determine k, where k i s Chick-Yatson's i n a c t l v a t i o n


I d
c o e f f l c i e n t o the i n i c r t o r microorganlsm) from batch
test data wfth the expression:

( I/IO),d,crror
S u r v i v a lr a t l oo fi n d l c r t o r mlcroorganism
8S batch
determined
by experiments;
C = Dlssolved ozone concentrrtlon I n the batch
experlment (mg/L)
t = t l m e (mlnutes)elapsedfrom thebeginnlng
of the batch experlment
Note: This assumes that the inactivatlon data w l
i provide a
reasonable f i t f o r t h i s equatlon. I f t h l s I s not true,
then the followlng i s not appl.icable and other relatlon-
shipsshould be developed.
b. Determine t hdel s i n f e c t l o n performance o f t h pe i l o t
s c a l e d l s l n f e c t l o n system on the indicator microorganism
( 1/10) indicrtor'
c.CalculatetheinactivationofEiardlqcystsorvlruses
), , I / I( using the appropriate k' values from fable .O-3:
log(I/Itj) = 109(I/Io)ind,e,tor (k'/k,) 8 *(kt ' k) (7) --
I

109 (I/IO). = log (I/IO)lndlmtor (kl < k) (8)

Thisequatlon still represents an approxlmation because It neglects '

dispersioneffects. The laws used I nd e r l v i n gt h e above equationsare


based on conservative slmllarity approaches. Yhen the
indlc.ator
microorganlsm i sl e s sr e s i s t a n tt o ozone dislnfectionthanthetarget
organf sm (k, > k) , thentheplugflowoperatlon.representsthe more
conservrtlvepredlctlon approach. Equatlon 7 I s basedon the assumption
that the flow conflguration I n the chamberapproaches plug flow. Yhen the.
Indicator mlcroorganism I s more vulnerable then the target riricroorganism , .
(k, > k) thenthe CSTR approach provides a more conservativeestimate.
Equation 4 represents a conservative approximation t o t h e CSTR s i m i l a r i t y

0.4-11 '
.. .

rule. A lore accurate determination o f the inactivation perfonpance of


the contactorrnay,be calculated by the following apprO8ch:

2. Jndirect determination of the disinfection n e r f o m


a. Determine k, (where k isChick-Watson's inactivation
coefficient of the indicator microorganism) from batch
test data with the expression: '

log( 1/10) ld,cr;or -k&t


where :
( I/IO),d(crtor
Survival ratio of indicator&cro-organisms

C - as determined'by batch experiments.


Dissolved ozone concentration in the batch
experiment (mg/L)
t time (minutes) elapsed from the beginning
of the batch experiment
b. Determine the disinfection. performance of the pilot
scale inactlvation level of the indicator
microorganism
(I/lO)
Indlcr;or*

e. Determinethe actual concentrationprofile in the


disinfection chamber (see Section 0.3.2).
d. Construct mathematital
a model that estimatesthe
concentration profile in the contactor as discussed in
Section 0.4.3
e. Confirm the fiathematical model by fitting its parameters
such as dispersion or kinetic coefficients to describe
accurately the concentration profile of ozone in the
contactor and the overall inactivation of theindicator
. microorganism. A model thatpredictswithin 10-20.
percent theInactivation of the .indicator microorganism
and the concentrationprofile o f dissolved ozone tn the
contactor would be considered to be valid and can be
used by incorporating k values from Table 0-3 to
estimatethe inactivation of cysts or viruses in
the contactor.

0.4-12
4

REFERENCES

Badcr, 'H. 8nd 3. Hoigne, Determination of Ozone in Water b i the Indigo '
Method, A Submitted Standard Method, Ozone: Science and Engineering, pp
449-456, 1982, 9
Carns, K, Design of East Bay Hunicipal Utility District ozone disinfection .
plants in Oakland Ca., presented at €PA workshop on Ozone CT, Cincinnati, '
OH., Feb. 1990
Chick, H., An investigationof the laws
of disinfection, J. Hygiene, 8, 92
( 1908)
Danckwerts, P.V. Gas Liquid Reactions, McGraw Hill Inc. (1976)
Finch, C.R., Smith, D.W., Stiles, M.E., Dose Response of ficherichla
in Ozone Demand-free PhosphateBuffer, Water Research Vol. 22, No.12, pp.
1563-1570, 1988.
Finch, G., University of Alberta, Canada, Private Communication (1990).
. .
Hoff, 3 . C. , Strengths and weaknesses of using CT values. to evaluate
disinfection practice, in assurance of adequate disinfection, orX - T or
not C-T, AWWA seminar proceedings, Annual AWWA Conference, Kansas City,
pp. 9 (1987)
Gurol M.D. and P.C. Singer, Kinetics o f ozone decomposition, A dynamic
approach , Env. Sci . b Tech. , 16, 377 (1982) .
Joost, R.Dcr L.A. Jackson and L.J. Bollyky, Optimizationofozone
contactors for drinking water disinfection, Proceedings:of the 9th Ozone
World Congress, L.J. Bollyky, Editor, New York, NY, vol 1, pp. 551 (1989).
Lev, 0. and S. Reg1 i , Compliance of ozone disinfection systems
with the
Surface Water Treatment Rule, Selection of characteristic exposure time
(T), submitted to J. of Env. Eng. ASCE (1990a)
Lev, 0. and S. Aegli, Compliance of ozone disinfection systemswith the
Surface Water Treatment Rule, Selection of characteristic concentration.
(C), submitted to 3. of Env. Eng. ASCE (1990b)
Levenspiel , O., Chemical Reaction Engineering,2nd ed. Wiley, New York, NY
, (1972).
Perry R . H . , Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook, 'McGraw Hill Book
Company, New York, NY (1963)
Richards, 0. A. and Fleischman, M., Ozone transfer to aqueous systems i n
' a static mixer, 2nd Symposium on ozone technology, Montreal, Canada, R. G.
Rice, P. Pichet and M. A. Vincent, eds, p. 57 (1975).

c
Rice, R. EPA, Inpreprratlon, Source Document: OzoneTreatmentof
Drinklng .Water, EPQ625/1-86/021
Rosenbeck, G.1, McMahon Associates, Inc. Prlvate comnunlcatfon (1989)
Schwartr, B. , Hackensack WaterCompany; Prlvate comnunlcatlon(1989)
Schwartz, B., L.C. Fung and C. N. Weng, Dctermlnatlon of ozone concentra-
tion In turbine contactor, presented at '€PA Workshop on Ozone CJ,
Clncinnatl, OH, , Feb.. 1990 .-
Seinfeld 3, H. and Lapidus L. , Matheaatlcrl methods In Chcalcal' Englneer-
Ing, Vol. 3, Process Modeling Estlmation and Identiflcatlon, Prentice Hall
Inc. (1984).
Stolarik, G.L. and J. D. Christie, Projection of ozone C-T values, Los
Angeles Aqueduct Filtration Plant, presented at I n k Ozone Assoc, Conf, ,

Monroe, Mich., April 1987.


Stolarik, G.L. and 3. 0. Christie, Projection of ozone C-T values, .Los
Angeles Aqueduct Flltration Plant, presented at EPA workshop on OzoneCT,
Cincinnati, OH. , Feb. 1990
..
Treybal, R.E. , Mass-transfer operatlons, McGraw-HI11Book Company, 3rded.
. ( 1980)

Watson, H . E . , A note on the varlatlon of the rate of disinfection with


change i n the concentration of thedislnftctant, 3. Hygiene, 8, 536 (1908)'
Wolfe, R.L, M . H . Stewart, K.N. Scott and M. J. HcGuire, Inactivation- o f
Giardia Muris and indicator organismsseeded in surface.water suppliesby
.
peroxone and ozone, Env. Sci and Tech. , 23, 744 (1989)
' Yuteri C. and Curol ,M.b. Evaluation of kinetic parameters for the
oronation of organic micropollutants,Yat. Sei. & Tech. 21, 465 (1989)

Potrebbero piacerti anche