FINAL REPORT
                                
                                
                             of the
                                
                                
           SBREFA Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
                                
                                
                 on EPA's Planned Proposed Rule:
                                
                                
                  FILTER BACKWASH RECYCLE RULE
                                
                                
                        October 19, 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.   INTRODUCTION

2.   SCOPE AND STATUTORY BACKGROUND AND POSSIBLE RULE  COMPONENTS

3.   APPLICABLE SMALL BUSINESS DEFINITIONS

4.   PROFILE OF THE AFFECTED INDUSTRY

5.   SUMMARY OF OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

6.   SUMMARY OF SER COMMENTS

7.   PANEL FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
     7.1  Number of Small Entities
     7.2  Record Keeping, Reporting and Other Compliance
          Requirements
     7.3  Interaction with Other Federal Rules
     7.4  Regulatory Alternatives
     7.5  Other Comments

ATTACHMENT A   Filter Backwash Rule Small Entity Representatives
               (SERs)
               Tele-conference Summary: April 28, 1998

ATTACHMENT B   Filter Backwash Rule Small Business Advocacy
               Review Panel Tele-Conference Summary: September
               22, 1998

ATTACHMENT C   Small Entity Represenatitve Written Comments
1.   INTRODUCTION

     This report is presented by the Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel (hereafter referred to as SBAR Panel or Panel)
convened for the proposed rulemaking on the Filter Backwash
Recycle Rule (FBR) that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA
or Agency) is currently developing.  On August 21, 1998, EPA's
Small Business Advocacy Chairperson convened this Panel in
accordance with Section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). Section 609(b) requires convening
a review panel prior to the publication of the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) that an agency is required to prepare
under the RFA.  In addition to its chairperson, the Panel
consists of the Director of the of the Standards and Risk
Management Division in the Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water (OGWDW) within EPA's Office of Water, the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of
Management and Budget, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.

     This report provides the scope and statutory background of
the FBR, a brief description of possible rule components, a
description of the number and types of entities potentially
affected by the rule, a summary of outreach activities, and the
comments and recommendations of the small entity representatives
(SERs).  In addition, Section 609(b) of the RFA directs the SBAR
panel to report on the comments of SERs and make findings
regarding the key elements of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) under section 603 of the RFA.  The key elements
addressed in an IRFA (See  603(b) 3, 4, 5 and 603(c)) are:

    The number and types of small entities to which the proposed
     rule will apply;
    Possible reporting, record keeping, and other compliance
     provisions of the proposed rule, including the classes of small
     entities which will be subject to the requirements and the type
     of professional skills necessary for preparation of the reports
     or records;
    Other relevant federal rules which may duplicate, overlap,
     or conflict with the proposed rule; and
    Any significant alternatives to the regulatory components
     under consideration which accomplish the stated objectives of
     applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic
     impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
                                
     The completed Panel report is provided to the agency issuing
the proposed rule and included in the rulemaking record.   The
agency is to make changes to the draft proposed rule, the IRFA
for the proposed rule, or the decision on whether an IRFA is
required taking into consideration information in the Panel
report.

     The Panel's findings and discussion are based on information
available at the time this reported was drafted and EPA is
continuing to conduct analyses relevant to the proposed FBR.  The
Agency expects additional information will be developed or
obtained as part of the rule development process.  Any options
the Panel identifies for reducing the regulatory impact on small
entities may require further analysis and/or data collection to
ensure that the options are practicable, enforceable,
environmentally sound and consistent with the statute authorizing
the proposed rule.

2.   SCOPE AND STATUTORY BACKGROUND AND POSSIBLE RULE COMPONENTS

     The purpose of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is to
protect public health by ensuring that the tap water in the
United States is safe for consumption.  Section 1412(b)(1)(A) of
the SDWA requires EPA to establish National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for contaminants that may have an adverse
public health effect, are known to occur in public water systems
with a frequency and at levels of public health concern, and that
present a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction.
Congress also required under Section 1412(b)(14) that EPA develop
a Filter Backwash Recycling Rule governing the recycle of filter
backwash within the treatment process of public water systems.
Under these provisions, EPA has the responsibility to develop a
FBR to assure public health protection.  The rule will require
all public water systems which utilize filtration, regardless of
size, to meet new requirements. In addition, EPA may include in
this rule additional requirements, such as regulating certain
waste streams (e.g. lab wastes).

     EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) is
responsible for developing the FBR.  OGWDW is working with
stakeholders to develop the proposed rule by August of 1999 and a
final rule by the statutory deadline of August of 2000.  The FBR
Development and implementation  may also involve local, tribal,
and state governments.

     The Agency's goal in developing the FBR is to provide
protection from disease-causing microbial pathogens for community
and non-community public water systems (PWSs) that recycle filter
backwash.  Recycling filter backwash and other waste streams may
increase the concentration of microbial pathogens and other
contaminants in plant influent and these increased concentrations
of pathogens to the filters may threaten filter performance and
finished water quality. Recycling large volumes of backwash water
may also hydraulically overload the sedimentation basin and
filters.  To achieve EPA's goal of protecting public health, the
rule may establish a framework that develops risk control
strategies, including best management practices, or govern filter
backwash by flow equalization or recycle flow  treatment
requirements.

     OGWDW has identified a number of potential regulatory
components that may be included in the proposed rule.  These
components will be developed in more detail in the course of the
Agency's internal regulatory development process and through
discussions with stakeholders, including SERs.  EPA expects that
a number of systems will be required to implement at least some
of the components to comply with the final rule.  The particular
components a system may be required to implement will vary based
upon site-specific conditions to a system and existing state
requirements.  The following sections provide a brief description
of potential backwash treatment rule components.

2.1  Ban on Recycle
     
     One  way to mitigate the potential risks posed by recycling
filter backwash and other waste streams is to ban the practice
altogether. In evaluating this approach, EPA is considering and
analyzing several factors: 1) whether there are sufficient data
on the severity of recycling impacts for a broad range of
treatment plant configurations, raw water types, and geographic
locations to justify a ban; 2) the implications of such a ban  in
areas where limited water resources make conservation a
significant concern; 3) the alternative disposal options for
recycle waters, e.g., discharge to a surface water or disposal to
a sewer; 4) whether recycle water can be treated before it is
reintroduced to the plant influent, which may be able to
significantly reduce the additional risk created by recycling
untreated filter backwash water and other waste streams; and 5)
the economic impacts of such an approach.  Based on available
information regarding existing alternatives (and related costs),
EPA is not leaning toward proposing such a ban but is including
it for analytical purposes only, to demonstrate one end of the
continuum of possible options with the other end of the
analytical continuum being no action.

2.2  Installation of Process Control Testing Equipment

     To monitor the quality of water being recycled, recycle flow
water quality [e.g. turbidity] can be measured and compared to a
target value.  If that measured value exceeds the target value, a
signal is sent to the control system or operator to change
operations so that recycle does not  cause excessive turbidity to
be carried through the treatment processes to the filters. Three
types of process control equipment that can be used in this
situation are a Zetameter, particle counter, or streaming current
monitor.

2.3  Replacement of Recycle Flow Valving and/or Pumps

     Some systems may currently have in place recycle systems
that have inadequate valving, piping, or pumps.  This substandard
equipment can lead to an uncontrolled or under-controlled recycle
flow being reintroduced at the headworks of the plant that can
cause excessive turbidity to be carried through the treatment
process to the filters.

     Although no major structural improvements are necessary,
improvements for pumping, valving, minor piping, some controls
for monitoring flows to minimize the impact of recycle flows, and
electrical considerations to meter recycle flows back into the
water flow at a constant rate are items which would be considered
under this option.

2.4  Require that Recycle Flows be Introduced at the Head of the
Plant

     Recycle waters are introduced to the treatment train at
various points, including the head of the plant, the flocculation
basin, post-rapid mix, and the sedimentation basin. It may be
appropriate to introduce recycle waters only at the head of the
plant, prior to any treatment unit process, to ensure that the
recycle waters pass through as many contaminant removal processes
as possible.  This will help to maximize removal of microbial
pathogens and ensure the highest possible quality finished water
is produced.
2.5  Require Flow Equalization for all Recycle Water

     Utilities may reintroduce or recycle filter backwash water
to the plant influent as the process occurs.  For example, during
filter backwash, the backwash water is pumped up gradient and
reintroduced at the head of the plant to the plant influent as it
exits the filter bed. This operational practice can reintroduce
large volumes of contaminant-laden backwash water to the plant
influent in a short period of time, thereby increasing the
concentration of  microbial contaminants in the plant influent.

     Under  flow equalization, a limit might be  set on the
percentage volume of recycle water that could be introduced in
the plant influent.  A 5 percent flow equalization requirement,
for example, would require  that 95 percent of a plant's influent
be source water and 5 percent (as a maximum) of the influent be
recycled waters.  The equalization percentage would be set to
control the concentration of microbial pathogens in the plant
influent.  During operational upsets or source water quality
events, the flow equalization requirement will help ensure that a
"spike" of microbial pathogens in the plant influent will not be
caused by the recycling and/or that concentrations of microbial
pathogens in source water will not be increased by recycling.

2.6  Require Additional Treatment of Filter Backwash and Other
Recycle Waters
     
     To evaluate whether treatment of filter backwash and other
waste streams is appropriate prior to recycle, a performance
measure for treatment efficiency must be established. Performance
measures may be based on application of specific technologies to
treat recycle waters or based on attaining a particular level of
treatment performance (e.g. log removal of contaminants).   The
Agency believes the following technologies may be viable
treatment candidates:

2.6.1  Sedimentation with Polymer

     Sedimentation  with polymer addition can achieve significant
particulate and microbial pathogen removal at much higher
overflow rates than sedimentation alone.  However, the overflow
rates for filter backwash may still be lower than those used in
conventional sedimentation basin operation.  There also is a
question as to the size of the basin that might be required.  As
with sedimentation alone, land availability, the cost of
constructing large basins, and the amount of backwash water
produced are important factors to consider in evaluating this
approach.
          
2.6.2 Conventional Treatment (Coagulation, Flocculation, and
Sedimentation)

     Utilities could rely on a small conventional filtration
treatment train alongside the main treatment plant to treat
recycle waters.  This treatment would provide very good removal
of particulate and microbial pathogens; the quality of the
effluent might often be better than that of the source water.
The applicability of this treatment scheme may be constrained by
land availability and the infrastructure construction
costs(flocculation basin, sedimentation basin, and filters).  The
filter backwash water produced by  a conventional or direct
filtration treatment scheme would have to be removed and
disposed.  However, it may be easier to obtain a permit to
dispose of this small volume of backwash than it would for the
backwash of the full-size plant.

2.6.3  Dissolved Air Flotation

     Dissolved air flotation (DAF) has been used extensively in
Europe and is being installed at full-scale water treatment
plants in this country.  The technology has three advantages over
traditional treatment schemes:  1) DAF requires little space for
a unit with sufficient capacity; 2) the loading rates for DAF
units are higher than those of conventional filtration allowing
for smaller and less costly infrastructure; and 3) for most
waters, DAF can remove at least as much particulate matter as
conventional settling.  Although the applicability of DAF is
limited by the specific gravity of the contaminants, contaminants
in filter backwash and other waste water streams have low
specific gravities (if the converse were true, these particles
and pathogens would have settled out in the primary sedimentation
basin).   DAF may well be an applicable treatment for most
backwash waters and other recycle streams.

2.6.4   Membranes
     Membranes are a pressure driven thin-film barrier used for
the removal of a range of particles from dissolved  ions to
turbidity.   Nano-filtration (NF) systems typically consist of
spiral-wound NF membrane elements assembled in a parallel
formation on skids.  NF is a diffusion controlled process capable
of removing divalent salts, as well as turbidity and pathogens
(Taylor and Jacobs, 1996).  NF systems typically operate at feed
pressures between 70 and 150 psi, and reject over 90 percent of
hardness forming ions and between 50 to 70 percent of dissolved
solids.

     NF is often used in combination with other treatment
techniques.  Physical pretreatment, including microfiltration,
and multi-media filters, is often used to reduce influent
particulate concentration and to protect the NF membranes.
Chemical pretreatment, including anti-scalants and coagulants, is
also often employed.  Some groundwaters and most surface water
systems will require pretreatment to control fouling.  In some
cases extensive pretreatment (i.e., coagulation and filtration)
may be needed prior to NF.

2.7  Flow Equalization Monitoring

     If flow equalization is chosen, utilities would need to
monitor the plant influent and recycle flows to ensure the
recycle percentage is not exceeded.  Utilities would also need to
keep  records to demonstrate compliance with the flow
equalization requirement.  A continuous flow monitor might be
installed in with the influent stream and the recycle stream.  A
remote recording device could display flow volumes to the
operator in the control room.  Continuous flow monitoring devices
are widely used and available; plant personnel would need to
calibrate the device for reliable operation.

2.8  Monitoring Treatment Unit Performance

     The influent and effluent water quality to and from recycle
treatment units may be monitored.  If the treatment standard
provides for the removal of a percentage of  influent solids, a
surrogate parameter, such as turbidity, could be monitored.  If
the treatment standard is an "exit" standard (e.g. the water
quality leaving the treatment unit must meet a minimal turbidity
standard) then only the effluent quality would need to be
monitored.  Use of a surrogate parameter to indicate performance
is necessary in either scenario, since continuous monitoring for
pathogens is not possible.  Turbidity is generally thought to be
an indicator of treatment performance.

2.9 Monitoring for Log Removal Credit

     This monitoring option would only apply if the final
regulation established a specific log removal level (of
particulate, turbidity, Giardia lamblia, oocysts, etc.) for a
particular target.  For example, the final rule may require that
recycle water achieve 2 log removal (i.e. treatment removes 2
logs of Giardia) before it can be recycled.  The regulation would
assign a specific log removal credit to each treatment
technology. The performance of the processes would be evaluated
on a routine basis.  The frequency of this evaluation would be a
major factor in the burden associated with this as well as other
monitoring approaches.

2.10 Infrastructure Construction

     Utilities may need to construct infrastructure to meet the
requirements of the final rule.  EPA developed preliminary cost
estimates for potential infrastructure requirements.  A
description of potential construction needs is provided below.

2.10.1  Piping to the Head of the Plant

     If the final rule requires that utilities recycle filter
backwash and other recycle waters to the head of the plant, some
utilities may need to install additional piping and pumping
capacity to convey the recycle flows.

2.10.2    Flow Equalization

     A flow equalization requirement may necessitate the
construction of additional recycle water storage tanks or holding
ponds.

2.10.3  Treatment

     If treatment of recycle flows is required, the costs of
constructing treatment facilities and maintaining them would
generate additional costs for utilities.

2.11   Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements

     Reporting and record keeping requirements are dependent on
the structure and requirements of the final regulation; at this
time, it is difficult to develop a complete list of potential
requirements.  It is probable, however, that the recycle flow and
plant influent flow will have to be recorded and kept on file for
compliance determinations.  If recycle treatment is required it
is also probable that a water quality parameter will have to be
monitored, recorded, and kept on file for compliance
determinations (turbidity is a likely candidate).

3.   APPLICABLE SMALL BUSINESS DEFINITIONS

     EPA's authority under SDWA extends to all "public water
systems." The law applies the term "public water system" to water
utilities and a wide range of businesses (e.g., campgrounds,
factories, and schools).  As part of the 1996 SDWA amendments,
Congress expressly addressed the issue of system size and
included several provisions for small system regulatory relief
for  systems serving 10,000 or fewer people and/or systems
serving 3,300 or fewer people.  OGWDW believes it is appropriate
to define a small system as one that serves 10,000 or fewer
people.  However, the Small Business Administration (SBA)
regulations typically define a small business in terms of either
total revenues or total employees.  Under SBA's definition, a
"small," privately-owned water utility would be one with revenues
of less than $5,000,000.  Under the RFA, a "small" governmental
entity is one with a jurisdiction of 50,000 or fewer people.
Data from the Community Water System Survey (CWSS) indicate that
the median revenue of a community water system serving between
3,300 and 10,000 people is $605,000.  Systems serving less than
10,000 people would actually have annual revenues well below $5
million.  The proposed EPA definition of a small water system as
one serving 10,000 or fewer people is therefore narrower than the
SBA definition for small business and the RFA definition of a
small government entity.  However, OGWDW believes the proposed
definition is appropriate both because of the statutory
provisions of the SDWA, and because it believes this definition
appropriately distinguishes public water systems that have
stronger technical expertise and revenue sources from those that
do not.

4.   PROFILE OF THE AFFECTED INDUSTRY

     As noted above, EPA's authority under the SDWA extends to
all public water systems.  A public water system provides piped
water for human consumption. Based on information identified in
the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Stage 1 Disinfectant
and Disinfection Byproduct Rule (DBPR), there are 5,165 public
water supply systems that use surface water and ground water
under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI).  In
addition, analysis for the Stage 1 DBPR identified 7,628 ground
water systems that filter.  The term "public water systems"
applies not only to water utilities, but also to a wide range of
privately or publicly owned businesses and entities that provide
drinking water (e.g., campgrounds, factories, restaurants, and
schools).
     
     Public water systems are classified as community (C), non-
transient non-community (NTNC), or transient non-community (TNC)
systems.  Descriptions of the types of systems are given below.

     Community Water Systems
     Community systems provide drinking water to at least 15
     service connections used by year-round residents or that
     regularly serve at least 25 year-round residents.

     Non-Transient Non-Community Water Systems
     NTNC systems serve at least 25 of the same people at least
     six months of the year and include entities such as schools,
     factories, and hospitals.

     Transient Non-Community Water Systems
     TNC systems, such as campgrounds and motels, serve transient
     populations.

5.   SUMMARY OF OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

     To facilitate regulation development, EPA has actively
involved stakeholders in the rule development through various
outreach activities.

      To develop a list of small entity representatives (SERs)
who could provide input into a series of drinking water
regulations that are currently under development, OGWDW consulted
with trade associations, EPA regional offices, state drinking
water programs, individuals who have attended stakeholder
meetings, foundations, and the Small Business Administration.
This effort produced a list of representatives of small water
utilities and other entities that provide drinking water
ancillary to their primary business.  EPA invited 24 SERs
representing systems that use surface water or ground water under
the influence of surface water that would be directly affected by
the LT1 and Filter Backwash Recycle (FBR) rules to participate in
the consultation process.  These SERs were drawn from several
sources, including the previously mentioned list of SERs, and
additional references from trade associations and EPA regional
offices.  OGWDW also included one ADrinking Water System Circuit
Rider,@ i.e. an individual who does not directly own a system but
provides technical and compliance assistance to small systems.
Table 1 lists the names of the 16 SERs who agreed to participate
and the organizations they represent. The table also lists the
dates of the tele-conference calls in which each SER
participated.
     
     
 Table 1.  Small Entity Representatives & Meeting Participation

                                                          
 Name          Organization                        4/28/  9/25/
                                                   98     98
                                                          
 Dan Boyce     Water and Light Department, East      X       
               Grand Fork, MN
                                                          
 Doug Evans    Salt Lake County Service Area #3,     X       
               UT
                                                          
 Danny         Blanding City Water Treatment         X       
 Flemming      Plant, UT
                                                          
 Charlie       Water Treatment Plant, Allum          X       
 Holbrook      Creek, WV
                                                          
 Chris Kramer  Bayfield, CO                          X       
                                                          
 Al Lamm       Thief River Falls Municipal           X       
               Utilities, MN
                                                          
 Tom McFeron   Nashville Water Treatment Plant,      X       
               IL
                                                          
 Albert        Brooklyn Tapline Co., Inc., UT        X       
 Ricksecker
                                                          
 Tom Sakry     International Falls Water Utility,    X      X
               MN
                                                          
 Jim Sheldon   Cedar-Knox Rural Water Project, NE    X       
                                                          
 Paul Torok    Seeley Lake, Missoula County Water    X      X
               District, MT
                                                          
 J.D.          City of Escalon, CA                          X
 Hightower
                                                          
 Michael Knox  Cherrydale Valley & Rockdale Water            
               District, MA
                                                          
 Gary Fluckey  Green River WTP, UT                           
                                                          
 Gary Walter   Tuolumne Utilities District, CA       X       
                                                          
 Tom Weathers  Glencoe Water Department, IL          X      X

     EPA convened a tele-conference with SERs on April 28, 1998,
in Washington, D.C.  The purpose of the meeting was to discuss
SDWA and SBREFA, as well as to introduce upcoming rules that are
relevant to disinfection and microbial protection at surface
water systems.  While the meeting focused on the FBR and LT1
rules, the SERs also received a brief overview of the planned
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and Stage 2
Disinfection Byproduct Rule.  The tele-conference served
specifically to provide SERs with summaries of the data that
support rule development; engage SERs in analysis and discussion
of the implications of the data; solicit additional data,
especially actual experience with costs and how the cost burdens
estimated by EPA compare to the SERs experience; discuss EPA's
next steps for rule development, data analysis, and SER
involvement; and identify additional parties who may be
interested in future meetings.    EPA encouraged the SERs to ask
questions and provide feedback and comments throughout the tele-
conference and to provide written comments after the meeting.  A
summary of that meeting is included as Attachment A.

     On September 17, 1998, the Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel for the FBR distributed additional information to the FBR
SERs for their review.  On September 25, the Panel held a
teleconference to discuss the FBR. The additional materials
described the regulatory approaches being considered by EPA, and
preliminary unit cost estimates associated with the regulatory
approaches.  A summary of the September 25 SBAR Panel
Teleconference is found in Attachment B.  The SERs were asked to
review the materials and provide additional comment to the Panel
in writing by October 2, 1998.  The SERs were asked to comment
specifically on the aspects of the possible regulatory approaches
which they believed were "most helpful" and "least helpful". They
were also offered the opportunity to make oral comments  in a
teleconference on September   25, 1998.
     In addition to SER outreach, the Agency held a general
stakeholder meeting (i.e. open to  the public) on the FBR on
July 23, 1998, in Denver, Colorado, where EPA presented potential
regulatory approaches for discussion.  Small entity
representatives participated in this meeting and small system
concerns were among the issues discussed.  OGWDW is planning one
additional stakeholder meeting to solicit additional input
regarding possible regulatory structure and potential impacts the
FBR may have on regulated systems.  The meetings will be held in
Washington, DC, prior to proposal of the FBR.

     EPA has also organized a Small System Data Needs Working
Group.  The group is comprised of representatives from the
American Water Works Association, Association of State Drinking
Water Administrators, National League of Cities, National
Resources Defense Council, and National Rural Water Association.
Established in the spring of 1997, the group held six meetings,
from March through December, to discuss the availability of water
quality and financial data for small systems that are needed to
support the FBR and other drinking water regulations.
                                
6.   SUMMARY OF SER COMMENTS
                                
     The following is a summary of written comments received from
the SERs, after the April 28, 1998 teleconference, organized by
topic, and a summary of oral comments received during the
September 25, 1998 teleconference.  OGWDW received eight sets of
written comments from SERs.  Table 2 provides a record of the
commenters, the date the comments were received by OGWDW, and the
number of pages of comments. The comments are summarized in the
text following Table 2 with topics bolded in the text.  Written
comments received from the SERs based on information provided to
SERs on September 17, and discussed in the September 22
Conference Call have been provided to the Panel.  Oral comments
made by the SERs in the April 28, 1998 and September 25, 1998
teleconferences are summarized in the meeting summaries of
Attachments A and B.   The Panel  received additional comments
from three SERs as a result of the new material distributed by
the Panel  and the September 25 teleconference.  These are listed
at the end of Table 2.

Table 2.  Written Comments Received on the Development of the FBR
                                
                                               
 Comment      Name         Date of Comment     Number of
 Letter                                          Pages
                                               
    1     Tom Weathers         5/11/98             4
                                               
    2     Doug Evans           5/18/98             2
                                               
    3     Al                   5/19/98             1
          Ricksecker
                                               
    4     Dan Boyce            5/19/98             3
                                               
    5     Jim Sheldon          5/19/98             4
                                               
    6     Thomas               5/19/98             4
          McFeron
                                               
    7     Gary Walter          5/20/98             4
                                               
    8     Thomas Sakry         5/28/98             2
                                               
    9     Thomas Sakry         9/28/98             3
                                               
   10     Tom Weathers         10/1/98             3
                                               
   11     Danny                10/5/98             2
          Fleming
                                
6.1  SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS

     The following is a summary of comments received from the
SERs, organized by the topic.

Need for Regulation

     A SER raised concerns about the need for a filter backwash
rule because of the inconclusive results of research into the
effects of recycling backwash water.  The SER cited a 1993 AWWARF
report, which found that while both study plants showed a raw
water particle increase during recycle, filtered water was not
impacted.  [Note: The report also found that filter backwash
water and sedimentation basin sludge can have very high
concentrations of Giardia and Cryptosporidium cysts, and
recommended sedimentation with low overflow rates to reduce these
concentrations prior to recycle.] This SER recommended that a
greater regulatory emphasis not be placed on this area. He
further stated that, especially for small systems, some simple
steps such as flow equalization and/or sedimentation may be all
that are necessary.

     Another SER commented that the people in his community do
not see the costs and benefits of this type of regulation the way
that EPA does.  He cited the example of a community with an
antiquated system (dating back to 1912) where the community has
nonetheless "had no visible health problems."  He believes that
epidemiological studies of environmental health risk are
especially susceptible to  exaggerated reporting and that the
financial and emotional consequences of such stories can be
"staggering."  The SER suggested that people in communities like
his might be more supportive of public health strategies that
emphasize individual responsibility rather than expensive
government regulation.

Ban on Recycle

     Three of the SERs indicated that their plants do recycle
filter backwash, three indicated that theirs do not.  Generally,
those who currently recycle were opposed to a ban, with some
indicating that it would create serious financial hardship, while
those who do not currently recycle supported a ban either because
of the potential health risks or because of the potential cost
and technical difficulty, especially for   small systems, of
avoiding these risks.

     One of the SERs who doesn't recycle stated his doubts that
recycling backwash water is as important to small systems as for
larger ones.  The SER commented that disposal is less likely to
present a major problem for smaller systems which tend to be
located in more sparsely populated areas.  In addition, this SER
stated that there may be less of an objection to returning once-
used backwash water to the surface source than there might be to
water with highly concentrated contamination.

     Another SER commented that his plant does not recycle filter
backwash, but pumps it to the municipal sewage lagoon.  This
SER's operation discharges clarifier and softener blowdown
directly to sludge detention ponds, with excess water from the
ponds being pumped to the city wastewater system.  The SER went
on to list a number of technical problems that he had encountered
with recycling backwash while working at another plant.  He noted
that it takes alot of operator attention to maintain anything
approaching consistent influent water quality, even with on-line
turbidimeters on the recycle, constant flow monitoring, a variety
of recycle pump capacities, and a fully staffed and equipped lab.
He concluded that the best method is to avoid recycle whenever
possible in high TOC, variable turbidity surface water sources.

     A third SER indicated that it generally would not be
economically feasible for a small plant to recycle backwash while
still maintaining suitable water quality.  He indicated strong
opposition to recycling backwash because of high levels of
aluminum, DBPs, Giardia, and other parasites and bacteria.  At
the same time he suggested that each case should be handled and
evaluated individually in recognition of the importance of water
conservation in some areas.

     The SERs that do currently recycle had a different
perspective.  One  stated that the only practical alternative (if
recycling is banned) would be to send the backwash to the local
sewage treatment plant, and that would be very expensive based on
experience with costs for sludge discharge.

     Another indicated that there would be a significant increase
in chemical usage to make up for the recirculation effect and
estimated the additional cost at $18,000/year.  He further
indicated his relief that a complete ban on recycling was
apparently not likely.

     Another SER indicated that while a backwash rule  might be a
big problem for  large systems which would have high capital
costs to comply, small package plants like his usually deal with
backwash in a better way to minimize the health effects of
recycling.  He noted that most small package plants recycle to
the head of the plant.

     Finally, a SER representing a water district with many small
systems commented that in California and other western states
where water use is periodically restricted for conservation
purposes, increased quantities of disposal water (that may result
from process changes to meet the new turbidity requirements)
create a conflicting message for the public and may lead to
pressure for increased use of recycling.  This SER further stated
that recycling of the water to mitigate this impact adds a
significant expense to the small system.  He did not indicate how
many of his systems practice recycling.

Require That Recycle Flows Be Introduced at the Head of the Plant

     A SER stated that recycling to the head of the plant should
be mandatory for any recycling.  Another SER stated that most
small systems recycle to the beginning of the process.  There was
no disagreement that this was good engineering practice if
recycling was to be done at all.

Require Flow Equalization for all Recycle Water

     Sedimentation
     A SER stated that some sedimentation occurs in his recycling
basin because of detention time (about six hours) caused by flow
equalization, despite the fact that overflow through the fixed
orifice begins as a backwash starts.

     Another SER stated that as a result of changing from alum to
Ultrion 8155 and optimizing filter performance and sludge removal
practices, the average turbidity of finished water has been
reduced from .25 to .06 NTU.  Based on settleability tests, they
have determined that a 10-minute settling period after each
backwash is appropriate.

     Finally, as noted previously, a SER who questioned the need
for greater regulatory emphasis on backwash recycle at all
nonetheless agreed that simple steps  such as flow equalization
and/or sedimentation might be appropriate for small systems.

     Sedimentation with Polymer
     A SER stated that polymer addition could be accomplished
with little problem.

     Coagulation/Flocculation/Sedimentation
     A SER remarked the addition of a separate treatment plant
for recycling seems cost prohibitive.  Another SER agreed that
this is not a practical alternative. A third SER commented that
the costs to monitor, pipe, equalize, coagulate, flocculate, and
settle recycle water would be very difficult for small plants
with limited staff.  This SER thought that recycling of backwash
would only be worthwhile in arid regions.

     Dissolved Air Flotation
     A SER stated that Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) seems
practical for new plants, but was not sure of its feasibility in
retrofitting existing facilities.

     Membranes
     A SER stated that membranes are impractical for treating
backwash water and other recycle streams because of fouling.
Another SER commented that package plants include more and more
permutations of membrane technologies.  The SER asked how
membrane systems that produce a constant concentrate, sometimes
at high ratios to effluent would be effected by the FBR.

     Flow Equalization Monitoring
     A SER recommended that if a small system is capable of
demonstrating proper equalization with its recycle system, that
it should not have to do any more monitoring.  The SER felt that
installing automatic monitoring would be difficult and costly.
The SER recommended keeping the process simple; the SERs system
consists of a simple hole two inches in diameter cored in the
wall of the backwash retention basin.  The SER further stated it
takes about six hours for a filter wash to drain through this
hole, allowing some settling to occur.  The SER explained that
overflow rates can easily be determined from backwash volume,
holding basin volume, and the time it takes to empty the basin.
This flow can then be compared to plant minimum influent flows to
determine maximum recycled flow.  The SER recommended that as
long as this calculates to a rate not exceeding 5 percent of
plant influent, then the system should be deemed compliant.

Other Comments:
    A SER commented that, in general, there will be some
     economic impacts to small systems in additional staff times and
     responsibilities, but to small systems, every additional man hour
     has a significant impact on the finances of the entity and its
     customers.
    One SER commented that EPA's estimate of backwash water
     volume as  3 to 6 [OMB-fax cut-off is this acceptable] percent of
     total production is low.  In this SER's experience, backwash
     flow, including a rinse cycle, amounts to 9 to 11 percent of
     production.  This SER also noted that California limits recycle
     flows to 10% of production.
    One SER stated that recycle streams such as lab sinks and
     floor drains should be banned.  Another indicated that some of
     the 19 waste streams listed by EPA, "seemed like good candidates
     for control," but preferred to see these addressed through an
     individual system approach, with assistance from state and
     federal health authorities.
    One SER noted that his cost for a recycle basin 70'L by 25'
     W by 12' D was approximately $135,000 in 1975. [The Panel notes
     that this is considerably higher than EPA's estimates for recycle
     basin costs.]

6.2  SUMMARY OF ORAL COMMENTS (9/25 TELECONFERENCE)

     A SER voiced his concerns that a general rule governing all
systems would be proposed, but added his approval of EPA's
attempts to identify specific problem areas.

Ban on Recycle

     A SER commented that his plant considered the cost of
"wasting" all of its filter backwash water. Wasting the filter
backwash water means that none of it will be recycled or reused
in the plant.  The SER's system has a design flow of 1.7 mgd and
an average flow of 0.16 to 0.17 mgd.  However, in the summertime,
the flow is very close to the design flow.  To waste the backwash
water, the system would have to build a piping system that sends
the backwash water to a lagoon three miles up the road; a lift
station of a wastewater treatment plant.  This method would cost
the system $1.052 per thousand gallons.  The system would waste
an average of 100,000 to 120,000 gallons per day.

     A SER inquired which waste streams were being considered by
EPA with regards to a ban.  The SER stated that his facility only
recycles filter to waste and no other waste streams.

     A SER concurred that labs should be prohibited from
recycling water from floor and lab drains and roof drains.  He
recommended that solids should be considered in the ban as well.

Require That Recycle Flows Be Introduced at the Head of the Plant

     A SER commented that backwash water should be recycled to
the head of the plant to obtain full treatment.

Require Flow Equalization for all Recycle Water

     A SER inquired about the flow equalization methods used by
other SERs.  A SER responded that in the past his system was
slugging whole backwash, however the system recently installed a
bigger basin and bleeds in backwash flow at a rate of 3% of raw
water influent flow.

     Another SER commented that flow equalization is the best
method for dealing with filter backwash water because it is easy
to accomplish and the best alternative in terms of costs.
     One SER stated that their backwash recovery system includes
three compartmental parts on a 6" slope. Each compartment is
lower than the previous compartment, allowing for gravity flow,
thereby reducing energy costs.  The water flows through each
compartment by a 4" x 4" hole.  This creates a baffling effect
slowing the flow of the filter backwash water and allowing
sedimentation to occur.  The SER noted that recycling from this 3
compartment basin was not performed during backwash operations.
The final compartment in this treatment train provides access to
a recycling pump 6 feet above the compartment floor.  This
provides room between the filter backwash water and the sludge
blanket on the bottom of the compartment. The filter backwash
water is recycled to the head of the plant.  The SER noted that
the average source water turbidity is 1.4 NTU and the recycle
water turbidity is 0.9 NTU.

     Another SER stated that to equalize filter backwash flow, he
made modifications to an existing basin.  Although a basin was in
place, a plug flow to the headworks still existed to recycle
backwash because of insufficient capacity in the basin.
Originally, backwash water was pumped from the basin overflow
weir to the head of the plant.  To increase capacity and reduce
the percent of filter backwash being recycled, a two inch core
was drilled in the wall of the basin. The hole regulates the flow
out of the basin that is pumped to the headworks.  The position
of the hole reduces the standing volume retained in the basin.
By lowering the standing volume, the filter of backwash water
does not overflow from the basin. Additionally, the two inch hole
equalizes the recycle backwash by restricting flow from the
basin, and allowing some settling.
Issues Affecting Cost and Burden

     One SER responded that his system uses three filters at 500
gpm and one pump which pumps 1100 gpm.  The optimum performance
of the plant is 1250 gpm and the system runs one pump at a time.
They shut the resurge off, thus no backwash is recirculated into
the system.  The backwash flows back into a basin, for flow
equalization.

     A SER commented that it was not cost effective for his
system to backwash water.  His plant put in a drainfield at a
cost of $60,000, which included the decant tank and electronic
pump. The drainfield is at a depth of 6 ft; 2 ft below the frost
level. His system has a design flow of 1.2 mgd with a yearly
average flow of 400,000 gallons per day.

     A SER commented that his plant was built in 1927 and they
obviously don't have any plans of building a basin and thus would
have a difficult time evaluating costs.

Other Comments

    A  SER commented that his greatest concern is in regards  to
     the lack of  viability in testing for Cryptosporidium.  He stated
     that he has seen nothing in print that demonstrates the viability
     of Cryptosporidium and other protozoan testing.  He stated that
     in order to Asell this rule@ to the community, he must first
     identify a clear problem.

    A  second  SER reiterated that there was little research  to
     substantiate the need for the testing and quoted an article from
     the May, 1998 issue of AWWARF which presented a view that testing
     was not viable.

    A  SER commented on an issue of Water Week, that discusses a
     Maryland  based contractor for the CDC exploring alternative
     options to testing, such as a flow cytometer method.

7.   PANEL FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

     The  Panel's  findings  and discussions  are  based  on  the
information  available at the time this report was drafted.   EPA
is  continuing  to  conduct analyses relevant to  developing  the
rule, and additional information may be obtained via this process
and  from public comment on the rule.  Any options the Panel  has
identified  for  reducing the rule's regulatory impact  on  small
entities  may require further analysis and/or data collection  to
ensure  the  options are practical, enforceable,  environmentally
sound, and consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act.

     When  EPA originally convened this Panel on August  21,  SBA
stated  its  belief that the Panel had been convened prematurely.
At  that  time,  EPA  had  not yet prepared  for  the  SERs  cost
estimates  for the various regulatory options However, this  data
was  provided to the SERs on September 17.   Based on this  data,
the Panel had a particularly useful conversation with the SERs on
September  25 regarding the accuracy of the costs. SBA encourages
the  Agency to convene future Panels when more technical and cost
information about the rule has been developed.  This would permit
significant  and timely comments from the SERs during  the  sixty
day Panel deliberations.

     7.1  Number of Small Entities

     No commenters questioned the information provided by EPA on
the number and types of small entities which may be impacted by
the FBR.  Because EPA maintains the national Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS) database, with information about all
public water systems in the country, the Panel believes EPA has
good information on the covered number of surface water systems,
most of which use filtration and thus will be covered by this
rule.  EPA's estimate of the number of ground water systems that
filter (7,628) is also based on information contained within
SDWIS and the 1995 Community Water Survey.  Most of these systems
are small (i.e., serve <10,000 people).
     
     7.2  Record Keeping, Reporting and Other Compliance
Requirements

          EPA provided cost and burden estimates concerning the
regulatory components, where appropriate.  Necessarily these
costs are in the early stages of development and require
refinement.  In response to the costs and burdens presented, SERs
had several concerns in meetings which were elaborated on in
written comments. These are summarized in the preceding section.
The Panel suggests that EPA carefully consider all of these
comments as it refines its cost and burden estimates.

          The Panel  notes that two of the regulatory components
developed by EPA were deemed by SERs to be too costly for small
systems to implement (ban on recycle, installation of additional
treatment trains).  These are discussed further below under
regulatory alternatives.
     The Panel also notes a common concern raised by most of the
SERs.  Small systems often do not have operators on duty full
time and/or their operators often have other duties besides
operating the treatment plant.  The Panel urges EPA to keep this
limitation in mind as it develops options, and to try to minimize
the burden placed on systems whose operators are already tasked
with other time-consuming requirements.

7.3  Interaction with Other Federal Rules

          No comments were received regarding interaction,
overlap or conflict with other federal rules. The Panel notes,
however, that the FBR, LT1, and DBP Stage 1 rules will affect
small systems simultaneously.  EPA should analyze the net impact
of all of these rules and consider regulatory options that would
minimize impacts on small systems.

7.4  Regulatory Alternatives

     EPA presented several regulatory alternatives for this rule
to SERs and SERs commented on each of these.  A description of
each alternative, along with Panel recommendations, is provided
below.

     Ban on Recycle - The Panel notes the concerns of those SERs
that currently recycle regarding a ban on recycle of filter
backwash water.  These concerns included the expense of  filter
backwash disposal and the economic and operational concerns of
western and southwestern drinking water systems which depend on
recycled flow to maintain adequate supply.  The Panel strongly
recommends that EPA explore alternatives to an outright ban on
the recycle of filter backwash and other recycle flows. [OMB-
Note change back to the previous strikeout version]  Discussions
during the September 25, 1998 conference call focused on a
possible ban on other, generally lower volume flows such as lab
floor drains, roof drains or sediment basin solids.  Some SERs
agreed that a ban on recycle of some of these flows would be
appropriate.  The Panel recommends that EPA further investigate
the extent to which such waste streams are currently being
recycled, their potential for public health risk, and the impacts
to small systems of banning their reuse.

     Recycle to the Head of the Plant - The Panel notes that SERs
supported a requirement that all recycled water be reintroduced
at the headworks of the plant;this was considered an element of
sound engineering practice. The Panel recommends that EPA
consider including such a requirement in the proposed rule.  EPA
should also investigate whether there are small systems for which
such a requirement would present a significant financial or
operational burden.
     Flow Equalization - The Panel also notes that SERs generally
agreed with the appropriateness of flow equalization for filter
backwash that is being recycled.  Several SERs noted this was
standard practice.  Commenters supported the concept of flow
equalization as a means to minimize backwash water hydraulic
surges and the "slugged" reintroduction of contaminants to the
plant.   Several SERs indicated that they had discontinued their
previous practice of introducing slugged loads of recycled
backwash.  The Panel notes that there are various ways of
achieving flow equalization and suggests that specific
requirements remain flexible.  The experience of one SER who
implemented equalization merely by drilling a hole in the
backwash retention basin wall provides an example of how systems
can achieve results by using simple and cost-effective means.

     Installation of Treatment - The Panel notes the concerns of
SERs regarding the installation of additional treatment, solely
for the purpose of treating filter backwash water and/or recycle
streams.  While SERs believed the installation of a separate
treatment train to treat recycled backwash water would not be
financially viable  for small  systems, they did support
consideration of some form of settling or sedimentation of
recycled water before sending it back to the head of the plant.
EPA presented preliminary costs of various treatment scenarios in
an effort to gauge capital improvement costs for small systems
under such a possible component.  For the most part, SERs felt
that costs were accurate, but noted that these costs may not be
affordable for small systems.

     Finally,  the Panel discussed an alternative approach under
which, rather than specifying a uniform set of requirements that
applied to all systems, the rule would establish a procedure for
identifying high priority or high risk systems, assessing the
elements of these systems' operational practices that may be
creating a risk, and incrementally modifying their operations to
address the risk on a system-specific basis. This  approach would
be consistent with the perspective of several SERs who noted the
complexity and variability of treatment practices across systems
and the difficulty of specifying a uniform set of treatment
requirements that would be appropriate for every system. . The
Panel strongly supports this approach and recommend that EPA give
it serious consideration.

     7.5  Other Comments

     One SER suggested that a phased or multi-tiered approach be
considered allowing different phase-in periods for smaller
systems to comply with the rule.  The Panel encourages EPA to
consider such a phased implementation or tiering approach in the
development of this rule.
     
     The Panel also recommends that EPA specifically examine
whether these regulatory alternatives affect package water
systems differently than other water systems, and  consider any
such differences when developing the FBR.

          
     Finally, the Panel notes the concerns of SERs regarding the
limited evidence of public health problems resulting from current
backwash practices.  At the same time, the Panel notes that EPA's
general approach is to be precautionary and address potential
problems as well as fully documented ones.  SERs did not disagree
that improper recycle of backwash could jeopardize system
performance and generally supported simple measures, such as
recycle to the head of the plant and some degree of
sedimentation, as good engineering practice.  The Panel agrees
that such measures are appropriate to address the potential
public health threat from improper recycle of filter backwash.

                          ATTACHMENT A
                                
                                
FILTER BACKWASH RECYCLE RULE SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES (SERs)
                     TELECONFERENCE SUMMARY

  LONG TERM 1 ENHANCED SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE AND FILTER
                      BACKWASH RECYCLE RULE
   SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES (SERs) CONFERENCE CALL SUMMARY

Date:          April 28, 1998

Location:      USEPA / Washington, DC / WIC Rm #4

Time:          9:30 am- 1:45 pm

Note:                    This summary is intended to supplement
                    the presentation material distributed by EPA
                    prior to the Small Entity Representative
                    Conference Call. This summary follows the
                    general chronology of the call, however it is
                    not intended to represent the minutes of the
                    call.

   Call
   Participants:                   SERs:          Danny Fleming
                              Paul Torok
                              Jim Sheldon
                              Tom McFeron
                              Dan Boyce
                              Al Lamm
                              Tom Sakry
                              Tom Weathers
                              Charlie Holbrook
                              Gary Walter
                              Al Ricksecker
                              Doug Evans
                              Chris Kramer
                                       AWWA:      Alan Roberson
                              Steve Via
                                     EPA:         Jon Bender
                              (Cincinnati)
                              Valerie Blank
                              Bill Hamele
                              Tom Kelley
                              Ephraim King
                              Stuart Miles-McLean
                              Steve Potts
                              Jeff Robichaud

Speaker: Tom Kelly

     Introductions:

Mr. Kelly indicated that EPA believes that the Small Entity
Representatives (SERs) understand their industry and appreciates
the time SERs are able to contribute to the Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW).   The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) dictates that to ensure
participation of small entities in the rulemaking process, EPA
must contact small entities defined as small businesses, small
non-profits, and small communities.  The OGWDW is defining
"small" as a public drinking water system serving less than
10,000 people.  The purpose of today's meeting is to get "the
ball rolling", provide information on the Long Term 1 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1), Filter Backwash Recycling
Rule (FBRR) and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and to hear the
input of SERs.  SERs who are members of professional
organizations are encouraged to keep the organization informed of
the process, however for the purpose of this process SERs are to
participate as individuals rather than as group representatives.
The goal of EPA is to write a "smart" rule which provides maximum
results at minimum cost.

     SBREFA Background:

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) was passed in 1980.  The
rule states that agencies must gather information on the
potential economic impacts a proposed rule may have on small
businesses.  The agency must then publish an initial analysis of
their findings called the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  In
1996 Congress amended the RFA to include SBREFA.  SBREFA requires
agencies to convene a federal panel to review the potential
impacts that a proposed regulation may have on small entities.
The federal panel includes the representatives of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Small Business Administration (SBA),
and EPA.  This panel will convene in approximately one month to
review the comments provided by the participants of today's
meeting.  This federal panel will prepare a report which will be
put into the public record at the time of the regulation's
proposal.

Speaker: Ephraim King

Mr. King presented an overview of the LT1, FBRR and SBREFA which
followed the general course of the packet summarizing his
presentation (overhead outlines in the information package
provided for SERs prior to the conference call).  There are a
total of seven microbial disinfection byproducts  (M-DBPs) rules:

       Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR);
       Stage 1 Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR);
       Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1);
       Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR);
       Ground Water Disinfection Rule;
       Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(LT2ESWTR); and the
       Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR).

Mr. King's discussion focused on two of the seven M-DBP rules,
the LT1 and the FBRR.  The concern is to ensure microbial
protection without compromising public health protection from
DBPs.  This process is referred to as a microbial/disinfection
byproduct "risk-risk tradeoff."

Mr. King presented the chronology of the M-DBP process, thus far,
beginning with the 1979 TTHM Rule which established a 100mg/L
criteria for source water plants serving a population larger then
10,000.  The 1989 Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) applied
microbial protection to all systems and set requirements for
Giardia and viruses.  In addition the SWTR established
requirements for filter performance, as well as set turbidity
requirements at no more than 5 NTU and 0.5 NTU for 95% of the
time.  In the early nineties EPA Science Advisory Board concluded
that microbials  are the public's greatest health threat spurring
the regulatory negotiations involving utilities, public health,
States, and environmental groups.  Based on these negotiations an
M-DBP Committee met and proposed the IESWTR, Stage 1 DBPR, and
ICR in 1994.  The 1996 SDWA Amendments basically affirmed
previous convictions and set new deadlines.  EPA then rechartered
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) M-DBP Committee and the
result was the 1997 M-DBP FACA agreement in principles.   In 1998
DBP limits for all systems that disinfect will be established and
enhanced coagulation to remove total organic carbon (TOC) will be
required.

The discussion then focused on the LT1.  The IESWTR applies to
systems serving a population greater than 10,000, while the LT1
is basically an analogue to the IESWTR for microbial protection
applicable to systems serving 10,000 or less people.  The purpose
of the LT1 is to improve microbial protection under the existing
SWTR as well as to prevent increased microbial risk as small
systems comply with the Stage 1 DBPR.  The LT1 consists of three
key provisions.  The rule strengthened turbidity requirements to
1 NTU (down from 5 NTU) and 0.3 NTU for 95% of the time (down
from 0.5 NTU). In addition,  LT1 requires  monitoring and
evaluation of individual filters as well as provisions for
disinfection byproduct benchmarking.  The FBRR is necessary due
to the fact that every 72 hours systems must be backwashed and a
safe solution on what to do with the recycled water must be
established.  Both the LT1 and the FBRR may have a significant
impact on systems serving a population under 10,000 and EPA
requests that SERs focus on the following three areas when
formulating their comments and concerns: (1) technical
feasibility, (2) economic feasibility, and (3) alternatives.

     Issues and Responses:

         It was asked if the maximum of 1 NTU was set in stone
          and what science existed to back up such a limit.  EPA
          responded that currently the measurement is not a
          regulatory requirement, however it is likely to become
          one once the LT1 is promulgated.  EPA has three
          requirements: (1) maximum contaminant level goal
          (MCLG), (2) maximum contaminant level (MCL), and (3)
          that the level established is feasible.  The MCLG for
          Giardia, viruses, and perhaps Cryptosporidium is zero.
          The MCL may be equal to the MCLG if it is technically
          feasible.  The goal is to get as close to the MCLG as
          possible while ensuring public safety and health.  EPA
          has studied large systems and has determined that the
          majority of large systems can meet these goals.  EPA is
          now attempting to determine if small systems are
          capable of meeting these goals as well.

         A question was raised inquiring about the time limits
          of the FBRR.  EPA stated that there are no specific
          time limits, however the rule will be regulated by the
          year 2000.

         It was asked if the monitoring requirements for filters
          would require online electrical charting or require
          operators.  EPA responded that if this particular
          requirement is extended then online electrical charting
          will be necessary.

Speaker: Jeff Robichaud

Mr. Robichaud addressed turbidity and its importance as the most
common indicator of filter performance.  The topics and general
guideline of Mr. Robichaud's presentation begin on overhead
number eight and continue through page thirteen of the overhead
package SERs received prior to the conference call.  It is
important to note that there are two separate and distinct sets
of turbidity provisions in the LT1, (1) the combined filter
effluent provisions and (2) the individual filter provisions.

The combined filter effluent provisions will be similar to those
found in the SWTR although the maximum turbidity level is lowered
to 1 NTU and the monthly 95% value lowered to 0.3 NTU.

The individual filter provisions require continuous monitoring of
turbidity at each filter within a system.  The following four
requirements are based on these monitoring results:

         A monthly exceptions report must be submitted to the
          State for individual filters if the turbidity is
          greater than 1 NTU for two consecutive measurements
          fifteen minutes apart or if the turbidity level is
          greater than 0.5 NTU for two consecutive measurements
          fifteen minutes apart at the end of the first four
          hours of filter operation.

         A filter profile must be produced for individual filter
          noted exceptions reports for which the reason for poor
          performance was not obvious.

         Facility conducts a filter self assessment for an
          individual filter if turbidity is greater than 1 NTU
          for two consecutive measurements (15 minutes apart) at
          any time during the month for three consecutive months.

         State or third party conducts a CPE if any individual
          filter has turbidity levels greater than 2 NTU for two
          consecutive measurements (15 minutes apart) at any time
          during the month for two consecutive months.

Mr. Robichaud discussed what the provisions will mean to SERs and
addressed four areas of possible burden: (1) record keeping, (2)
reporting, (3) CPE/CCP process, and (4) upgrading existing
systems and designing new treatment.  Mr. Robichaud stressed that
the majority of the burden would lie in complying with new
individual filter provisions because they will necessitate online
turbidity meters with transfer capabilities and storage capacity,
as well as labor for the reporting process.  It was also noted
that the CPE/CCP process will be especially useful for older
systems and those systems that may have difficulty meeting the
new compliance NTU requirements.

Mr. Robichaud requested that SERs respond to EPA regarding the
cost assumptions.  SERs are asked to highlight labor, unit, and
supply costs.  SERs are asked to indicate in their comments
whether or not EPA has addressed all issues pertaining to small
systems, for example storage capabilities.
     
     Issues and Responses:

         Concerns were raised that the filter provisions are a
          labor intensive process and that capital investment is
          inevitable to achieve the limits established by the
          provisions.  EPA acknowledged that there would be
          associated labor costs, with the individual filter
          provisions, as well as capital investment for some
          SERs' portion of systems.  EPA reiterated the
          importance of providing feedback regarding cost and
          labor assumptions.

         SERs inquired about the basis for the individual filter
          monitoring.  EPA responded that the provisions are
          based on research by David Cromwell which demonstrated
          that looking at individual filter performance is
          extremely beneficial.  John Bender's research showed
          that there is significant room for improvement of
          existing filter systems.  John Bender made an offer to
          SERs to set up a separate call to discuss the research.

         A question was asked if there would be exceptions to
          the turbidity requirements.  EPA responded that at this
          time there are no plans to include exceptions to the
          turbidity requirements.

         It was asked if the NTU limit pertained to the first
          four hours following a backwash.  EPA has set that as a
          requirement in the IESWTR for large systems, and will
          evaluate its applicability to small systems. EPA is
          willing to work with SERs to determine if it is
          feasible for systems serving under 10,000 people.

         Comments were made by SERs regarding the length of the
          implementation process and the need for some type of
          education process directed at town council and board
          members explaining the need for new regulations and
          justification for new expenditures.  Town councils
          often are not aware that the rules are constantly
          changing.  EPA is planning on putting together a fact
          sheet which will focus on filtration geared toward this
          type of individual.  EPA requests that SERs notify EPA
          on who should be notified and contacted regarding this
          type of information.  Several SERs suggested that
          information should also be geared toward the customer.
          EPA has suggested that perhaps they could provide the
          language to the systems that they then could pass along
          to their customers.
         A SER asked how the rule would effect systems using
          automatic backwash systems and whether or not these
          type of filters are being considered individual
          filters.  EPA has not yet made any decisions on how to
          classify this type of unique filter and would
          appreciate if SERs could outline their concerns and
          comments so an informed decision can be made regarding
          the matter.

         EPA requested that SERs not limit their comments to
          implementation issues.  If there are limits SERs feel
          are unattainable please let EPA know.

Speaker: Steve Potts

Mr. Potts presented an overview of the mechanics of disinfection
benchmarking and of how it functions requiring utilities to
characterize current disinfection practice over a period of time
and calculate microbial inactivation.  Mr. Potts' discussion
followed the general course of overheads fifteen through
nineteen.  Discussions on how to calculate a benchmark are
available in Sections 3.2 and 5.5.5 of the Surface Water
Treatment Rule Guidance Manual.  Mr. Potts has offered to provide
this information to SERs requesting this information in their
written comments to EPA.  The discussion focused on how
disinfection benchmarking works, who would be required to create
a profile, who would be required to calculate a benchmark, and
examples of significant changes to disinfection practices.
Particular attention was paid to the cost assumptions burden,
with EPA requesting SERs' comments for two categories:  labor
rate assumptions and utility activities.  EPA is interested in
knowing if these assumptions accurately reflect the experience of
small system operators and managers (located on pages 12 and 13
of the Information for Small Entity Representatives Regarding the
LT1 and the FBRR packet presented to SERs prior to the conference
call).

     Issues and Responses:

         A question was asked whether the measurements were a
          benchmark or a goal and whether it will be used by
          States or utilities.  EPA responded that the levels
          would be the lowest monthly average to comply with DBP
          Stage 1 and they would be applicable to both States and
          utilities.

         A SER asked about the frequency of the TTHM sampling.
          EPA stated that currently the sampling would occur on a
          quarterly basis at four places within the distribution
          system (not at the plant).  EPA will not be identifying
          specific places for sampling.  However this area is
          still open for discussion.  A SER asked if this applied
          to systems with fewer than 35 connections.  EPA
          believes that all systems will have to take a look at
          this.  The microbial rule establishes a tool for
          evaluation of current levels and considers how
          implementation will effect them.

         A SER suggested using the watershed approach and EPA
          encouraged SERs to share any technical knowledge they
          may have about this approach in their response
          comments.
         It was asked if EPA is looking at different small
          system size categories.  It was suggested that EPA
          consider an alternate time frame for extremely small
          systems.  EPA realizes that important differences in
          size exist in systems serving below 10,000 people and
          is considering options on how to deal with the
          numerical differences.  EPA indicated input by SERs
          would be of great value.

         Comments were made by several SERs about a variety of
          different projects.  The Alliance Project is a
          cooperative effort between systems and the State Health
          Lab in Utah.  The state lab does all the testing at 50%
          of the cost, however it was pointed out by a SER that
          even for 35 to 50 connections this option would still
          be very expensive.  EPA suggested that another approach
          could be to get a representative sample which would be
          the average of three or four samples.  Several SERs
          responded that their states do not allow averaging.
          EPA has requested that state averaging information be
          outlined and included in SERs' comments.  Another
          project that was discussed was the Environmental
          Quality Incentive Programs (EQIP) of the Farming Bill
          which incorporates cost sharing for improving the water
          quality in a particular area and once again EPA has
          asked for information to be sent to them from
          knowledgeable SERs.

Speaker: Bill Hamele

Mr. Hamele lead a discussion focusing on the Filter Backwash
Recycle Rule.  The presentation focused on the reasons and need
for the rule, as well as treatment options.  The last portion of
Mr. Hamele's presentation addressed the cost and burden issues
associated with the rule. The general course of the discussion is
outlined on overheads twenty-one through thirty-six.  The FBRR
focuses on how particles travel throughout the treatment plant
and looks at the whole unit process.  A report by David Cromwell,
and associated data, clearly demonstrates that recycling filter
backwash and the waste streams will increase the concentration of
microbial pathogens (e.g. Giardia lamblia cysts, Cryptosporidium
oocysts) and other contaminants in plant influent.  Current
recycling practices are extremely varied and EPA will focus on
current practices of large systems to assess if they pertain to
small systems.  The presentation discussed three operational
requirements and best management practices of the rule: (1)
introduce recycle flow at the head of the plant, (2) consider
flow equalization at the recycle stream, and (3) ban on recycle.
EPA asked several questions directed at SERs about implementation
steps and burden these operational requirements may generate and
in the case of the ban on recycling what other disposal options
may be available.

The discussion then focused on treatment of the recycle flow
stream and what treatment performance measure would be needed.
Treatment of the recycle flow stream may require an ancillary
treatment process and SERs were asked to comment on the relative
implementation requirements and burden for the two performance
measures.  Possible viable treatment technologies, such as
sedimentation, dissolved air flotation (DAF), and membrane
filtration, were the next topics of the discussion.  EPA
requested input on whether other treatment technologies should be
examined, the feasibility of employing these treatment
technologies, and any data on current recycling practices and the
occurrence of contaminants in backwash water.  EPA requested
input on any other information SERs believe is relevant.

Cost and burden issues were addressed and presented on pages 33
to 36 of the overheads.  A request was made of SERs to consider
all questions in this section and respond to the issues in
written comments to EPA.  Input to EPA on any technical data
about any of the technologies presented would be appreciated and
will be shared with all SERs.

      Issues and Responses:

         Concerns were raised regarding potentially high costs
          associated with the FBRR and EPA acknowledged that
          there will be some expenses, but they will consider
          what the best possible options are for the regulations.
          The goal is to have the smartest rule while spending
          the least amount of money, without compromising public
          health.

         A SER mentioned that in California smaller systems have
          to connect to a sewer system or discharge to a holding
          tank, but they are permitted to introduce their water
          back to a stream.  California has been able to make
          exceptions and created some variations to the rules
          based on a system's size.  SERs from other states said
          that they were also allowed to discharge to holding
          tanks and expel into streams, but only if certain
          levels of turbidity and particular standards were
          achieved.  EPA responded that the NPDES requirements
          will be studied on a state-by-state basis.  A comment
          was made that perhaps something to consider is the log
          removal at the plant.  If the plant has a 4 log
          removal, backwash would not be an issue.  Other
          comments were made that perhaps a 6 log removal was in
          order.  Recirculation was also brought up as an option,
          however the problem with recirculation would be the
          high expense.

         SERs commented that no problem seems to exist with
          coagulation due to the iron in the backwash.

         A question was asked if States will have flexibility
          for issuing a variance to systems.  EPA responded that
          they will look into the matter and let SERs know.

         Comments were made addressing filter-to-waste and how
          it plays into backwash and what to do with the process.
          EPA has stated that the issue is addressed, but is not
          the focus of the regulation based on available data.

Speaker: Valerie Blank

Ms. Blank expressed appreciation on behalf of EPA for SERs' time
and cooperation.  Ms. Black presented the following chronology of
the SBREFA process.

     Chronology of the Process:

     The following is the chronology of the SBREFA process:
     
              A package of background information was sent to
               SERs prior to the SERs conference call.

              The SERs conference call was held April 28, 1998.

              OGWDW will provide a summary of the issues raised
               at the conference call to SERs.
     
              Comments need to be returned to the OGWDW by May
               19, 1998, by SERs addressing the questions
               highlighted in the Information for Small Entity
               Representatives Regarding the Long Term 1 Enhanced
               Surface Water Treatment Rule and Filter Backwash
               Recycle Rule distributed to SERs prior to the
               conference call.  Both the LT1 and FBRR comments
               can be sent to:
                              Steve Potts (4607)
                              401 M Street, SW
                              Washington, DC 20460.
               
               Faxed comments to Steve Potts at (202) 401-6135 or
               E-mailed comments to potts.steve@epa.gov are
               welcome.  Comments from SERs conference call
               should be included in the written comments, as
               well as a written indication of intent to attend
               the Stakeholder's Meetings scheduled in July
               (Denver) and December (Washington, DC).  The exact
               dates and times will be determined.

              Notes from today's conference call and the
               comments from SERs will be incorporated into a
               Convening Report  and given to SERs and Federal
               Review Panel.

              The Federal Review Panel will convene
               approximately in mid-June.

              The Federal Review Panel will meet with SERs
               through a conference call and ask  for further
               comments at the end of June (time and date to be
               determined).

              The panel will issue their report 60 days after
               convening.

              The National Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) will be
               published in September, 1999, followed by a 90 day
               public comment period.
          
              The FBRR and the LT1 will be finalized in August
               and November of the year 2000, respectively.

Action Items:

         EPA will provide SERs with any documents they may not
          have received prior to the call.  Please let EPA know
          what the packet is lacking.

         EPA will provide SERs with questions pertaining to cost
          issues as they relate to turbidity.

         EPA will put together a fact sheet geared toward
          members of city boards and councils.

         EPA will share any technical data or input it receives
          from SERs regarding the technologies presented in the
          FBRR discussion with all SERs.

         EPA will keep interested SERs informed of the upcoming
          Stakeholder Meetings with exact dates and times to be
          determined.

                                
                          ATTACHMENT B
                                
                                
FILTER BACKWASH RECYCLE RULE SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY REVIEW PANEL
                     TELECONFERENCE SUMMARY
                  FILTER BACKWASH RECYCLE RULE
   SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES (SERs) CONFERENCE CALL SUMMARY

Dates:
                                                       Friday,
                                                       September
                                                       25, 1998
     
Location:      USEPA / Washington, DC / Rm #1001

Time:          4:00 pm - 5:30 pm

Note:               This summary is intended to supplement the
               presentation material distributed by EPA prior to
               the Small Entity Representative Conference Call.
               This summary follows the general chronology of the
               call, however it is not intended to represent the
               minutes of the call.

Call Participants:                 SERs:          J.D. Hightower
                              Paul Torok
                              Tom Weathers
                              Tom Sakry
          OMB/OIRA:           Jim Laity
                    SBA:      Kevin Bromberg
                              Damon Dozier
                              Kay Ryan
          EPA:
                              Bill Diamond
                              Rochelle Grover
                              Bill Hamele
                              Tom Kelly
                              Ephraim King
                              Stuart Miles-McLean
                              Steve Potts
                              Jeff Robichaud
                                        

Introduction:

The participating SERs were asked by the Panel to express any
general feelings or concerns regarding the rules prior to the FBR
discussion.  A SER commented that his greatest concern is in
regards to the lack of  viability in testing for Cryptosporidium.
He stated that he has seen nothing in print that demonstrates the
viability of Cryptosporidium and other protozoan testing.  He
stated that in order to "sell this rule" to the community, he
must first identify a clear problem.
A second SER reiterated that there was little research to
substantiate the need for the testing and quoted an article from
the May, 1998 issue of AWWARF which presented a view that testing
was not viable.  Ephraim King responded that the nature of the
methods being used, such as the IFA, are not powerful enough and
that the EPA recommends Method 1622 as an alternative more
powerful method.  The AWWSC and MWDSC are currently developing
more viable PCR methods.  A SER commented on an issue of Water
Week, that discusses a Maryland based contractor for the CDC
exploring alternative options to testing, such as a flow
cytometer method.
Mr. King responded that the EPA is absolutely exploring these
issues, however the EPA has reasons to believe that some filter
backwash operating practices (i.e, slugs) are not appropriate and
do not constitute  acceptable engineering practices.  For this
reason, EPA will be governing the practice of filter backwash.  A
SER commented that source water, whether from a recycle stream or
not, needs to be treated.

A SER inquired about the flow equalization methods used by other
SERs.  A SER responded that in the past his system was slugging
whole backwash, however recently the system has installed a
bigger basin and bleeds in at 3% of backwash flow.  Another SER
responded that his system uses three filters at 500 gpm and one
pump which pumps 1100 gpm.  The optimum performance of the plant
is 1250 gpm and the system runs one pump at a time.  They shut
the resurge off, thus no backwash is recirculated into the
system.  The backwash flows back into a basin, for flow
equalization.

Mr. King commented that EPA is attempting to identify scenarios
which may potentially be a problem, however EPA is not
considering a ban on backwash.  A SER voiced his concerns that a
general rule governing all systems would be proposed.   The SER
added his approval of EPA's attempts to identify specific problem
areas.

A SER commented that it was not cost effective for his system to
backwash water.  His plant put in a drainfield at a cost of
$60,000, which included the decant tank and electronic pump. The
drainfield is at a depth of 6 ft; 2 ft below the frost level. His
system has a design flow of 1.2 mgd with a yearly average flow of
400,000 gallons per day.  Another SER commented that his
community was in the process of building a surface water
treatment plant primarily for irrigation.  A third SER commented
that his plant was built in 1927 and they obviously don't have
any plans of building a basin.

A SER commented that his plant considered the cost of "wasting"
all of its filter backwash water. Wasting the filter backwash
water means that none of it will be recycled or reused in the
plant.  The SER's system has a design flow of 1.7 mgd and an
average flow of 0.16 to 0.17 mgd.  However, in the summertime,
the flow is very close to the design flow.  To waste the backwash
water, the system would have to build a piping system that sends
the backwash water to a lagoon three miles up the road; a lift
station of a wastewater treatment plant.  This method would cost
the system $1.052 per thousand gallons.  The system would waste
an average of 100,000 to 120,000 gallons per day.

Another SER commented that flow equalization is the best method
for dealing with filter backwash water because it is easy to
accomplish and the best alternative in terms of costs.

One SER stated that their backwash recovery system includes three
compartmental parts on a 6" slope. Each compartment is lower than
the previous compartment, allowing for gravity flow, thereby
reducing energy costs.  The water flows through each compartment
by a 4" x 4" hole.  This creates a baffling effect slowing the
flow of the filter backwash water and allowing sedimentation to
occur.  The SER noted that recycling from this 3 compartment
basin was not performed during backwash operations.  The final
compartment in this treatment train provides access to a
recycling pump 6 feet above the compartment floor.  This provides
room between the filter backwash water and the sludge blanket on
the bottom of the compartment. The filter backwash water is
recycled to the head of the plant.  The SER noted that the
average source water turbidity is 1.4 NTU and the recycle water
turbidity is 0.9 NTU.

Another SER stated that to equalize filter backwash flow, he made
modifications to an existing basin.  Although a basin was in
place, a plug flow to the headworks still existed to recycle
backwash because of insufficient capacity in the basin.
Originally, backwash water was pumped from the basin overflow
weir to the head of the plant.  To increase capacity and reduce
the percent of filter backwash being recycled, a two inch core
was drilled in the wall of the basin. The hole regulates the flow
out of the basin that is pumped to the headworks.  The position
of the hole reduces the standing volume retained in the basin.
By lowering the standing volume, the filter of backwash water
does not overflow from the basin. Additionally, the two inch hole
equalizes the recycle backwash by restricting flow from the
basin, and allowing some settling.

A SER inquired which waste streams were being considered by EPA.
The SER stated that his facility only recycles filter to waste.
Ephraim King commented that these operational practices seem
reasonable and EPA does not anticipate the regulations to
influence these practices.  Bill Hamele presented a list of all
identified waste streams.  The following is a complete list:

1.   Sedimentation basin solids
2.   Filter backwash water (untreated, treatment supernatant and
     solids)
3.   Filter to waste
4.   Thickener supernatant (treated and untreated)
5.   Mechanical dewatering device pressate
6.   Membrane concentrate
7.   Ion exchange regeneration water
8.   Ion exchange rinse water
9.   Spent GAC wash and transport water
10.  Sludge drying bed decant and underflow
11.  Monofill leachate/stormwater
12.  Lagoon decant
13.  Analysis waters
14.  Sample lines and sinks
15.  Leakage
16.  Floor and lab drains
17.  Roof drains
18.  Process overflows
19.  Packing water

A SER concurred that labs should be prohibited from recycling
water from floor and lab drains and roof drains.  He recommended
that solids should be considered in the ban as well.  Another SER
commented that backwash water should be recycled to the head of
the plant to obtain full treatment.  EPA reiterated that they are
taking a common-sense approach with the FBR.

The deadline for written SER comments is Friday, October 2, 1998.