NR 810.45(2)(b)2.
2. The maximum removal efficiency that can be verified through direct integrity testing used with the membrane filtration process under the conditions in
par. (c).
NR 810.45(2)(c)
(c) Challenge testing. The membrane used by the system shall undergo challenge testing to evaluate removal efficiency, and the water supplier for the system shall report the results of challenge testing to the department. Challenge testing shall be conducted according to the criteria in subds. 1 to
7. Systems may use data from challenge testing conducted prior to January 5, 2006, if the prior testing was consistent with the following criteria:
NR 810.45(2)(c)1.
1. Challenge testing shall be conducted on either a full-scale membrane module, identical in material and construction to the membrane modules used in the system's treatment facility, or a smaller-scale membrane module, identical in material and similar in construction to the full-scale module.
NR 810.45(2)(c)2.
2. Challenge testing shall be conducted using
Cryptosporidium oocysts or a surrogate that is removed no more efficiently than
Cryptosporidium oocysts. The organism or surrogate used during challenge testing is referred to as the challenge particulate. The concentration of the challenge particulate, in both the feed and filtrate water, shall be determined using a method capable of discretely quantifying the specific challenge particulate used in the test; gross measurements such as turbidity may not be used.
NR 810.45(2)(c)3.
3. The maximum feed water concentration that may be used during a challenge test is based on the detection limit of the challenge particulate in the filtrate and shall be determined according to the following equation:
Maximum Feed Concentration = 3.16 × 106 × (Filtrate Detection Limit)
NR 810.45(2)(c)4.
4. Challenge testing shall be conducted under representative hydraulic conditions at the maximum design flux and maximum design process recovery specified by the manufacturer for the membrane module.
NR 810.45(2)(c)5.
5. Removal efficiency of a membrane module shall be calculated from the challenge test results and expressed as a log removal value according to the following equation:
LRV = LOG10(Cf) - LOG10(Cp)
Where:
LRV = log removal value demonstrated during the challenge test; Cf = the feed concentration measured during the challenge test; and Cp= the filtrate concentration measured during the challenge test. Equivalent units shall be used for the feed and filtrate concentrations. If the challenge particulate is not detected in the filtrate, the term Cp is set equal to the detection limit for the purpose of calculating the LRV. An LRV shall be calculated for each membrane module evaluated during the challenge test.
NR 810.45(2)(c)6.
6. The removal efficiency of a membrane filtration process demonstrated during challenge testing shall be expressed as a log removal value (LRVC-Test). If fewer than 20 modules are tested, then LRVC-Test is equal to the lowest of the representative LRVs among the modules tested. If 20 or more modules are tested, then LRVC-Test is equal to the 10th percentile of the representative LRVs among the modules tested. The percentile is defined by (i/(n+1)) where i is the rank of n individual data points ordered lowest to highest. If necessary, the 10th percentile may be calculated using linear interpolation.
NR 810.45(2)(c)7.
7. The challenge test shall establish a quality control release value (QCRV) for a non-destructive performance test that demonstrates the
Cryptosporidium removal capability of the membrane filtration module. This performance test shall be applied to each production membrane module used by the system that was not directly challenge tested in order to verify
Cryptosporidium removal capability. Production modules that do not meet the established QCRV are not eligible for the treatment credit demonstrated during the challenge test.
NR 810.45(2)(c)8.
8. If a previously tested membrane is modified in a manner that could change the removal efficiency of the membrane or the applicability of the non-destructive performance test and associated QCRV, additional challenge testing to demonstrate the removal efficiency of, and determine a new QCRV for, the modified membrane shall be conducted and submitted to the department.
NR 810.45(2)(d)
(d)
Direct integrity testing. Systems shall conduct direct integrity testing in a manner that demonstrates a removal efficiency equal to or greater than the removal credit awarded to the membrane filtration process and meets the requirements described in
subds. 1. to
6. In this subsection, a direct integrity test means a physical test applied to a membrane unit in order to identify and isolate integrity breaches, including one or more leaks that could result in contamination of the filtrate.
NR 810.45(2)(d)1.
1. The direct integrity test shall be independently applied to each membrane unit in service. A membrane unit is defined as a group of membrane modules that share common valving that allows the unit to be isolated from the rest of the system for the purpose of integrity testing or other maintenance.
NR 810.45(2)(d)2.
2. The direct integrity method shall have a resolution of 3 micrometers or less, where resolution is defined as the size of the smallest integrity breach that contributes to a response from the direct integrity test.
NR 810.45(2)(d)3.
3. The direct integrity test shall have a sensitivity sufficient to verify the log treatment credit awarded to the membrane filtration process by the department, where sensitivity is defined as the maximum log removal value that can be reliably verified by a direct integrity test. Sensitivity shall be determined using the approach in either this
subd. 3. a. or
b. as applicable to the type of direct integrity test the system uses.
NR 810.45(2)(d)3.a.
a. For direct integrity tests that use an applied pressure or vacuum, the direct integrity test sensitivity shall be calculated according to the following equation:
LRVDIT= LOG10(Qp/(VCF × Qbreach))
Where:
LRVDIT= the sensitivity of the direct integrity test; Qp= total design filtrate flow from the membrane unit; Qbreach= flow of water from an integrity breach associated with the smallest integrity test response that can be reliably measured, and VCF = volumetric concentration factor. The volumetric concentration factor is the ratio of the suspended solids concentration on the high pressure side of the membrane relative to that in the feed water.
NR 810.45(2)(d)3.b.
b. For direct integrity tests that use a particulate or molecular marker, the direct integrity test sensitivity shall be calculated according to the following equation:
LRVDIT= LOG10(Cf)-LOG10(Cp)
Where:
LRVDIT= the sensitivity of the direct integrity test; Cf= the typical feed concentration of the marker used in the test; and Cp= the filtrate concentration of the marker from an integral membrane unit.
NR 810.45(2)(d)4.
4. Systems shall establish a control limit within the sensitivity limits of the direct integrity test that is indicative of an integral membrane unit capable of meeting the removal credit awarded by the department.
NR 810.45(2)(d)5.
5. If the result of a direct integrity test exceeds the control limit established under
subd. 4., the system shall remove the membrane unit from service. Systems shall conduct a direct integrity test to verify any repairs, and may return the membrane unit to service only if the direct integrity test is within the established control limit.
NR 810.45(2)(d)6.
6. Systems shall conduct direct integrity testing on each membrane unit at a frequency of not less than 3 times each day that the membrane unit is in operation. The department may approve less frequent testing, based on demonstrated process reliability, the use of multiple barriers effective for
Cryptosporidium, or reliable process safeguards.
NR 810.45(2)(e)
(e)
Indirect integrity monitoring. Systems shall conduct continuous indirect integrity monitoring on each membrane unit according to the criteria in
subds. 1. to
5. In this subsection, indirect integrity monitoring means monitoring some aspect of filtrate water quality that is indicative of the removal of particulate matter. A system that implements continuous direct integrity testing of membrane units in accordance with the criteria in
par. (d) 1. to
5. is not subject to the requirements for continuous indirect integrity monitoring. Water suppliers for systems shall submit a monthly report to the department summarizing all continuous indirect integrity monitoring results triggering direct integrity testing and the corrective action that was taken in each case.
NR 810.45(2)(e)1.
1. Unless the department approves an alternative parameter, continuous indirect integrity monitoring shall include continuous filtrate turbidity monitoring.
NR 810.45(2)(e)2.
2. Continuous monitoring shall be conducted at a frequency of no less than once every 15 minutes.
NR 810.45(2)(e)3.
3. Continuous monitoring shall be separately conducted on each membrane unit.
NR 810.45(2)(e)4.
4. If indirect integrity monitoring includes turbidity and if the filtrate turbidity readings are above 0.15 NTU for a period greater than 15 minutes, or 2 consecutive 15-minute readings above 0.15 NTU, direct integrity testing shall immediately be performed on the associated membrane unit as specified in
par. (d) 1. to
5.
NR 810.45(2)(e)5.
5. If indirect integrity monitoring includes a department-approved alternative parameter and if the alternative parameter exceeds a department-approved control limit for a period greater than 15 minutes, direct integrity testing shall immediately be performed on the associated membrane units as specified in
par. (d) 1. to
5.
NR 810.45(3)
(3) Second stage filtration. Public water systems receive 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a separate second stage of filtration that consists of sand, dual media, GAC, or other fine grain media following granular media filtration if the department approves. To be eligible for this credit, the first stage of filtration shall be preceded by a coagulation step and both filtration stages shall treat the entire plant flow taken from a surface water or GWUDI source. A cap, such as GAC, on a single stage of filtration is not eligible for this credit. The department shall approve the treatment credit based on an assessment of the design characteristics of the filtration process.
NR 810.45(4)
(4) Slow sand filtration as secondary filter. Public water systems are eligible to receive 2.5-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a slow sand filtration process that follows a separate stage of filtration if both filtration stages treat entire plant flow taken from a surface water or GWUDI source and no disinfectant residual is present in the influent water to the slow sand filtration process. The department shall approve the treatment credit based on an assessment of the design characteristics of the filtration process. This subsection does not apply to treatment credit awarded to slow sand filtration used as a primary filtration process.
NR 810.45 History
History: CR 09-073: cr.
Register November 2010 No. 659, eff. 12-1-10.
NR 810.46
NR 810.46 Inactivation toolbox components. NR 810.46(1)(a)(a) CT is the product of the disinfectant contact time (T, in minutes) and disinfectant concentration (C, in milligrams per liter). Water suppliers for systems with treatment credit for chlorine dioxide or ozone under
sub. (2) or
(3) shall calculate CT at least once each day, with both C and T measured during peak hourly flow as specified in
s. NR 809.563 (1), Table R.
NR 810.46(1)(b)
(b) Water suppliers for systems with several disinfection segments in sequence may calculate CT for each segment. In this section, “disinfection segment" means a treatment unit process with a measurable disinfectant residual level and a liquid volume. Under this approach, water suppliers for systems shall add the
Cryptosporidium CT values in each segment to determine the total CT for the treatment plant.
NR 810.46(2)(a)(a) Public water systems receive the
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for chlorine dioxide by meeting the corresponding chlorine dioxide CT values found in
s. NR 810.56 for the applicable water temperature, as described in
sub. (1).
NR 810.46(2)(b)
(b) Systems receive the
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for ozone by meeting the corresponding ozone CT values found in
s. NR 810.61 for the applicable water temperature.
NR 810.46(3)
(3) Site-specific study. The department may approve alternative chlorine dioxide or ozone CT values to those referenced in
sub. (2) on a site-specific basis. The department shall base this approval on a site-specific study a water supplier for a system conducts that follows a department-approved protocol.
NR 810.46(4)
(4) Ultraviolet light. Public water systems receive
Cryptosporidium,
Giardia lamblia, and virus treatment credits for ultraviolet (UV) light reactors by achieving the corresponding UV dose values shown in
s. NR 810.62. Water suppliers for the systems shall validate and monitor UV reactors as described in
pars. (b) and
(c) to demonstrate that they are achieving a particular UV dose value for treatment credit.
NR 810.46(4)(a)
(a) UV dose table. The treatment credits listed in the dose table in
s. NR 810.62 are for UV light at a wavelength of 254 nm as produced by a low pressure mercury vapor lamp. To receive treatment credit for other lamp types, water suppliers for the systems shall demonstrate an equivalent germicidal dose through reactor validation testing, as described in
par. (b). The UV dose values in this table are applicable only to post-filter applications of UV in filtered systems and to unfiltered systems.
NR 810.46(4)(b)
(b)
Reactor validation testing. Systems shall use UV reactors that have undergone validation testing to determine the operating conditions under which the reactor delivers the UV dose required in
par. (a), also known as the validated operating conditions. These operating conditions shall include flow rate, UV intensity as measured by a UV sensor, and UV lamp status.
NR 810.46(4)(b)1.
1. When determining validated operating conditions, water suppliers for the systems shall account for the following factors: UV absorbance of the water; lamp fouling and aging; measurement uncertainty of on-line sensors; UV dose distributions arising from the velocity profiles through the reactor; failure of UV lamps or other critical system components; and inlet and outlet piping or channel configurations of the UV reactor.
NR 810.46(4)(b)2.
2. Validation testing shall include the following: Full scale testing of a reactor that conforms uniformly to the UV reactors used by the system and inactivation of a test microorganism whose dose response characteristics have been quantified with a low pressure mercury vapor lamp.
NR 810.46(4)(b)3.
3. The department may approve an alternative approach to validation testing.
NR 810.46(4)(c)1.1. Water suppliers for the systems shall monitor their UV reactors to determine if the reactors are operating within validated conditions, as determined under
par. (b). This monitoring shall include UV intensity as measured by a UV sensor, flow rate, lamp status, and other parameters the department designates based on UV reactor operation. Water suppliers for the systems shall verify the calibration of UV sensors and shall recalibrate sensors in accordance with a protocol the department approves.
NR 810.46(4)(c)2.
2. To receive treatment credit for UV light, systems shall treat at least 99.9% of the water delivered to the public during each month by UV reactors operating within validated conditions for the required UV dose, as described in
pars. (a) and
(b). Systems shall demonstrate compliance with this condition by the monitoring required under
subd. 1.
NR 810.47
NR 810.47 CT table for giardia when using free chlorine at 0.5
°C or lower.
NR 810.47 History
History: CR 09-073: cr.
Register November 2010 No. 659, eff. 12-1-10.
NR 810.48
NR 810.48 CT table for giardia when using free chlorine at 5
°C.
NR 810.48 History
History: CR 09-073: cr.
Register November 2010 No. 659, eff. 12-1-10.
NR 810.49
NR 810.49 CT table for giardia when using free chlorine at 10
°C.
NR 810.49 History
History: CR 09-073: cr.
Register November 2010 No. 659, eff. 12-1-10.
NR 810.50
NR 810.50 CT table for giardia when using free chlorine at 15
°C.
NR 810.50 History
History: CR 09-073: cr.
Register November 2010 No. 659, eff. 12-1-10.
NR 810.51
NR 810.51 CT table for giardia when using free chlorine at 20
°C.
NR 810.51 History
History: CR 09-073: cr.
Register November 2010 No. 659, eff. 12-1-10.
NR 810.52
NR 810.52 CT table for giardia when using free chlorine at 25
°C.
NR 810.52 History
History: CR 09-073: cr.
Register November 2010 No. 659, eff. 12-1-10.
NR 810.53 History
History: CR 09-073: cr.
Register November 2010 No. 659, eff. 12-1-10.
NR 810.54 History
History: CR 09-073: cr.
Register November 2010 No. 659, eff. 12-1-10.
NR 810.55 History
History: CR 09-073: cr.
Register November 2010 No. 659, eff. 12-1-10.
1Systems may use this equation to determine log credit between the indicated values: Log credit = (0.001506 × (1.09116)Temp) × CT.
NR 810.56 History
History: CR 09-073: cr.
Register November 2010 No. 659, eff. 12-1-10.
NR 810.57 History
History: CR 09-073: cr.
Register November 2010 No. 659, eff. 12-1-10.
NR 810.58 History
History: CR 09-073: cr.
Register November 2010 No. 659, eff. 12-1-10.
NR 810.59 History
History: CR 09-073: cr.
Register November 2010 No. 659, eff. 12-1-10.
