31086 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142

[WH–FRL–6989–5]

RIN 2040–AD17

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations: Filter Backwash

Recycling Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, EPA is

finalizing the Filter Backwash Recycling

Rule (FBRR). The purpose of the FBRR

is to further protect public health by

requiring public water systems (PWSs),

where needed, to institute changes to

the return of recycle flows to a plant’s

treatment process that may otherwise

compromise microbial control. Today’s

final rule addresses a statutory

requirement of the 1996 Safe Drinking

Water Act (SDWA) Amendments to

promulgate a regulation which

‘‘governs’’ the recycling of filter

backwash water within the treatment

process of PWSs.

DATES: This regulation is effective

August 7, 2001. As discussed in the

supplementary information section and

consistent with sections 1412(b)(10) and

1445 of SDWA, regulated entities must

comply with this rule starting December

8, 2003. For judicial review purposes,

this final rule is promulgated as of 1

p.m. eastern time on June 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Public comments, the

comment/response document,

applicable Federal Register documents,

other major supporting documents, and

a copy of the index to the public docket

for this rulemaking are available for

review at EPA’s Office of Water Docket:

Docket W–99–10 Final Filter Backwash

Recycling Rule, 401 M Street, SW., Rm.

EB57, Washington, DC 20460 from 9:00

a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday

through Friday, excluding federal

holidays. For access to docket materials

or to schedule an appointment, please

call (202) 260–3027.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical inquiries, contact Jeffery

Robichaud, Office of Ground Water and

Drinking Water (4607), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20460; telephone (202) 260–2568.

For general information contact the Safe

Drinking Water Hotline, Telephone

(800) 426–4791. The Safe Drinking

Water Hotline is open Monday through

Friday, excluding Federal holidays,

from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern

Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated

entities. Entities potentially regulated by

the FBRR are public water systems that

use surface water or ground water under

the direct influence of surface water

(GWUDI), practice conventional or

direct filtration, and recycle spent filter

backwash, thickener supernatant, or

liquids from dewatering processes.

Regulated categories and entities

include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry ..................................................................................... Public Water Systems that use surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water.

State, Local, Tribal or Federal Governments ........................... Public Water Systems that use surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by the FBRR. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this rule. Other types of entities not

listed in this table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

facility is regulated by this action, you

should carefully examine the definition

of PWS in § 141.2 of title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations and § 141.76 of

today’s final rule. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of the FBRR

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding section entitled

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of abbreviations/acronyms used

in this document:

AWWA American Water Works

Association

AWWSCo American Water Works

Service Company

°C Degrees Celsius

CCR Consumer Confidence Report

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CPE Comprehensive Performance

Evaluation

DAF Dissolved Air Flotation

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESWTR Enhanced Surface Water

Treatment Rule

FBRR Filter Backwash Recycling Rule

FR Federal Register

gpm Gallons per Minute

GWUDI Ground Water Under the Direct

Influence of Surface Water

HRRCA Health Risk Reduction and

Cost Analysis

ICR Information Collection Request

IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface

Water Treatment Rule

IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis

LT1ESWTR Long Term 1 Enhanced

Surface Water Treatment Rule

MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level

Goal

NDWAC National Drinking Water

Advisory Council

NPDWR National Primary Drinking

Water Regulation

NODA Notice of Data Availability

NTTAA National Technology Transfer

and Advancement Act

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PBMS Performance-based Measurement

System

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act

PWS Public Water System

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

SAB Science Advisory Board

SBA Small Business Administration

SBAR Small Business Advocacy

Review

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SDWIS Safe Drinking Water

Information System

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Table of Contents

I. Summary

A. Why is EPA Promulgating the Filter

Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR)?

B. What are Filter Backwash Water, Sludge

Thickener Supernatant, and Liquids

from Dewatering Processes?

C. What is Cryptosporidium?

D. What are the Health Concerns

Associated with Cryptosporidium?

E. Does this Regulation Apply to My Water

System?

F. How will this Regulation Protect Public

Health?

II. Background

A. What is the Statutory Authority for the

FBRR?

B. What is the Regulatory History for the

FBRR?

C. How were Stakeholders Involved in the

Development of the FBRR?

D. What did the April 10, 2000 Proposal

Contain?

III. Discussion of Today’s Filter Backwash

Recycling Rule Requirements

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 31087

A. Where does the FBRR Specify that

Recycle Must be Returned?

B. What Reporting does the FBRR Require

of Conventional Filtration Systems that

Recycle?

C. What Reporting does the FBRR Require

of Direct Filtration Systems that Recycle?

D. What is the Compliance Schedule for

the FBRR?

E. What Public Notification and Consumer

Confidence Report Requirements are

contained in the FBRR?

IV. State Implementation

A. What Special State Primacy

Requirements does the FBRR contain?

B. What State Information Collection,

Recordkeeping and Reporting

Requirements does the FBRR contain?

C. How Must a State Obtain Interim

Primacy for the FBRR?

V. Economic Analysis (Health Risk

Reduction and Cost Analysis)

A. What are the Costs of the FBRR?

B. What are the Household Costs of the

FBRR?

C. What are the Benefits of the FBRR?

D. What are the Incremental Costs and

Benefits of the FBRR?

E. Are there Benefits From the Reduction

of Co-Occurring Contaminants?

F. Is there Increased Risk From Other

Contaminants?

G. What are the Uncertainties in Risk,

Benefit and Cost Estimates for the FBRR?

H. What is the Benefit/Cost Determination

for the FBRR?

VI. Other Requirements

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

D. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

E. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

F. Executive Order 12898: Environmental

Justice

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

H. Consultations With the Science

Advisory Board, National Drinking

Water Advisory Council, and the

Secretary of Health and Human Services

I. Executive Order 13132: Executive Orders

on Federalism

J. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and

Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

K. Likely Effect of Compliance With the

FBRR on the Technical, Financial, and

Managerial Capacity of Public Water

Systems

L. Plain Language

M. Executive Order 13211: Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

N. Congressional Review Act

VII. References

I. Summary

A. Why Is EPA Promulgating the Filter

Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR)?

When a facility recycles filter

backwash water, it reintroduces

contaminants back into treatment

processes. Poor recycle practices can

degrade influent water quality and

impair treatment process performance.

The 1996 Amendments to the Safe

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) require

EPA to promulgate a regulation that

‘‘governs’’ the recycle of filter backwash

water within a treatment plant (42

U.S.C. 300g–1(b)(14)). Today’s final rule

addresses filter backwash water and two

additional recycle streams of concern,

sludge thickener supernatant and

liquids from dewatering processes. The

Agency believes that establishing such a

regulation will improve performance at

filtration plants by reducing the

opportunity for recycle practices to

adversely affect plant performance in a

way that would allow microbes such as

Cryptosporidium to pass through into

finished drinking water.

B. What Are Filter Backwash Water,

Sludge Thickener Supernatant, and

Liquids From Dewatering Processes?

Throughout today’s final rule, when

the word recycle is used as a noun it

refers to the three recycle streams (filter

backwash water, sludge thickener

supernatant, and liquids from

dewatering processes) regulated under

the FBRR.

Filter backwashing is an integral part

of treatment plant operation. When

filters need to be cleaned, water must be

returned back up through the filtration

media with sufficient force to separate

particles from the filter media. The

resulting water which was pushed back

through the filter in the cleaning process

is referred to as filter backwash water or

spent filter backwash water. It contains

many of the particles that were trapped

in the filter during operation, including

coagulants, metals, and microbes such

as Cryptosporidium. Several studies

have documented a range of

Cryptosporidium oocysts concentrations

in spent filter backwash from nondetects to over 15,000 oocysts/100 L,

(EE&T, 1999).

Sedimentation basins and clarifiers

are constructed to remove particles from

a treatment process through gravity

settling. When these units are employed

to treat recycled water, the ‘‘clear water’’

that exits the units after particles have

been allowed to settle out is called

sludge thickener supernatant. While the

sludge at the bottom of sedimentation

basins and clarifiers contain the

majority of the Cryptosporidium oocysts

entering a unit, recent research has

documented a range of concentrations of

Cryptosporidium oocysts in thickener

supernatant from 82 to 420 oocysts/100

L (EE&T, 1999).

Finally, some filtration plants employ

dewatering processes to remove water

from waste solids in order to reduce the

solids volume to be disposed. This

‘‘sludge’’ typically comes from

sedimentation basins and clarifiers and

contains only one to two percent solids.

The dewatering units press or centrifuge

the sludge, removing liquids from

solids, which increases the solids

volume up to 90 percent. The liquids

that are removed are referred to as

liquids from dewatering processes.

Since nearly all particles and solids are

removed in sludge or slurry form from

a treatment plant, the sludge or slurry

will contain a substantial amount of the

Cryptosporidium oocysts which have

entered the plant since the dewatering

unit was last cleaned. If this sludge or

slurry is dewatered, there exists

significant potential that the liquids

from dewatering may contain elevated

levels of Cryptosporidium oocysts.

Although the Agency is unaware of

specific effluent liquid oocyst data from

dewatering processes, influent slurries

(consisting of sedimentation basin

sludges) have been shown to contain a

range of Cryptosporidium oocyst

concentrations, even as high as 2,600

oocysts/100 L (EE&T, 1999).

It should be noted that process solids

recycle flows from softening and contact

clarification units are not covered by

today’s final FBRR. However, if

softening systems or contact

clarification systems recycle any of the

three recycle flows covered by the FBRR

(filter backwash water, sludge thickener

supernatant, and liquids from

dewatering processes) then they must

meet the requirements of the FBRR for

these three recycle flows.

C. What Is Cryptosporidium?

Cryptosporidium is a protozoan

parasite found in humans, many other

mammals and also in birds, fish and

reptiles. It is common in the

environment and widely found in

surface water supplies (Rose, 1988;

LeChevallier and Norton, 1995;

Atherholt et al., 1998; EPA, 2000a). In

the infected animal, the parasite

multiplies in the gastrointestinal tract.

The animal then excretes oocysts of the

parasite in its feces. These oocysts are

tiny spore-like organisms 4 to 6 microns

in diameter (too small to be seen

without a microscope) which contain

the sporozoites (infective form). The

oocysts of Cryptosporidium are very

resistant to adverse factors in the

31088 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

environment and can survive dormant

for months in cool, dark, moist soil or

for up to a year in clean water. When

ingested by another animal, they can

reproduce in the intestinal tract and

start a new cycle of cryptosporidiosis

illness. Cryptosporidiosis is primarily a

waterborne disease, but

cryptosporidiosis has also been

transmitted by consumption of

contaminated food, unhygienic diaper

changing practices (and other person-toperson contact), and contact with young

farm animals.

Cryptosporidium oocysts are

relatively resistant at normal

temperatures and are not easily killed

by commonly used disinfectants. Oocyst

infectivity appears to persist under

normal temperatures, although oocysts

may lose infectivity if sufficiently

cooled or heated (EPA, 2000a). For

example, Fayer (1994) discovered that

cleaned oocysts in distilled water

heated to 72.4 °C for 1 minute and to

64.2 °C for two minutes were not

infective to mice. Fayer and Nerad

(1996) found that cleaned oocysts in

distilled water cooled to ¥20 °C for

eight hours and 70 °C for 1 hour were

not infective to mice. However, oocysts

may remain viable after freezing (Fayer

and Nerad, 1996). The oocysts are

relatively unaffected by chlorine and

chloramines in the concentrations that

are used for drinking water treatment.

They are also resistant to the effects of

60 percent alcohol and many

disinfectants commonly used in the

home or animal husbandry.

D. What Are the Health Concerns

Associated With Cryptosporidium?

When someone is infected with

Cryptosporidium, symptoms can

include watery diarrhea, stomach

cramps, nausea, loss of appetite, and a

mild fever. This disease is called

cryptosporidiosis and is a major cause

of reported waterborne disease

outbreaks from rivers, lakes, waterparks,

and swimming pools. The symptoms of

cryptosporidiosis begin an average of

seven days after infection. Persons with

a normal, healthy immune system can

expect their illness to last for two weeks

or less, with constant or intermittent

diarrhea. Even after symptoms cease, an

individual can still pass

Cryptosporidium in the stool for up to

two months and may be a source of

infection for others. Cryptosporidiosis is

not treatable with antibiotics so

prevention of infection is critical.

People with weakened immune systems

(those with HIV/AIDS, on cancer

chemotherapy, or those who have

received organ transplants) may have

cryptosporidiosis for a longer period of

time, and it can be life-threatening.

Small children, pregnant women, or the

elderly infected with cryptosporidiosis

can quickly become severely

dehydrated.

E. Does This Regulation Apply to My

Water System?

Today’s final rule applies to all public

water systems that:

• Use surface water or ground water

under the direct influence of surface

water (GWUDI);

• Utilize direct or conventional

filtration processes; and

• Recycle spent filter backwash

water, sludge thickener supernatant, or

liquids from dewatering processes.

F. How Will This Regulation Protect

Public Health?

EPA has determined that the presence

of microbiological contaminants is a

health concern. If finished water

supplies contain microbiological

contaminants, disease outbreaks may

result. Of the 12 waterborne

cryptosporidiosis outbreaks that have

occurred at drinking water systems

since 1984, three (Carollton, GA, 1987;

Talent, OR, 1992; and Milwaukee, WI,

1993) were linked to contaminated

drinking water from water utilities

where waste stream recycle was

identified as a possible cause (Craun,

1998; EPA, 2000a). The largest of the

known outbreaks occurred in

Milwaukee and was responsible for over

400,000 illnesses and 50 deaths (Hoxie,

et al., 1997; MacKenzie et al., 1994);

other known outbreaks have occurred in

smaller communities and have involved

many fewer people.

The Surface Water Treatment Rule

(SWTR) and Interim Enhanced Surface

Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) (63 FR

69478, December 16, 1998) set

enforceable drinking water treatment

technique requirements to reduce the

risk of waterborne microbiological

disease including Cryptosporidium from

surface water. Today’s final rule

provides further necessary protection

against Cryptosporidium for systems

that practice recycle.

Today’s rule ensures that the 2-log

Cryptosporidium removal requirement

established in the IESWTR and

proposed in the Long Term 1 Enhanced

Surface Water Treatment Rule

(LT1ESWTR) (65 FR 19046, April 10,

2000) is not jeopardized by recycle

practices. The rule requires (with some

exceptions) that recycle be returned

through the processes of a system’s

existing conventional or direct filtration

(as defined in § 141.2 of the CFR) that

the Agency has recognized capable of

achieving 2-log (99 percent)

Cryptosporidium removal. Today’s rule

also ensures that systems and States will

have the recycle flow information

necessary to evaluate whether sitespecific recycle practices may adversely

affect the ability of systems to achieve

2-log Cryptosporidium removal. Surges

of recycle flow returned to the treatment

plant may adversely affect treatment

systems by creating hydraulically

overloaded conditions (when plants

exceed design capacity or Stateapproved operating capacity) that can

lower performance of individual units

within a treatment plant resulting in

lowered Cryptosporidium removal

efficiency.

II. Background

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for

the FBRR?

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA

or the Act), as amended in 1986,

requires EPA to publish a maximum

contaminant level goal (MCLG) for each

contaminant which, in the judgement of

EPA, ‘‘may have any adverse effect on

the health of persons and which is

known or anticipated to occur in public

water systems’’ (Section 1412(b)(3)(A)).

MCLGs are to be set at a level at which

‘‘no known or anticipated adverse effect

on the health of persons occur and

which allows an adequate margin of

safety’’ (Section 1412(b)(4)).

The Act was again amended in

August 1996, resulting in the

renumbering and augmentation of

certain sections with additional

statutory language. New sections were

added establishing new drinking water

requirements. Section 1412(b)(14)

requires EPA to promulgate a regulation

to govern the recycling of filter

backwash water within the treatment

process of a public water system. The

Amendments require EPA to promulgate

such a regulation no later than four

years after the date of the enactment of

the SDWA Amendments of 1996 unless

this type of recycling has been

addressed by EPA’s Enhanced Surface

Water Treatment Rule prior to the

deadline.

B. What Is the Regulatory History for the

FBRR?

The practice of filter backwash

recycling has not previously been

addressed in drinking water rules

promulgated by the Agency. As noted

earlier, the 1996 Amendments to the

SDWA, required EPA to promulgate a

regulation governing the recycling of

filter backwash water. The Agency first

presented information regarding filter

backwash practices, data, and health

risks in the November 3, 1997, Interim

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 31089

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

Notice of Data Availability (NODA) (62

FR 59486). In this NODA, EPA indicated

that while both the SWTR and

forthcoming IESWTR contained

treatment technique requirements

designed to address microbial pathogens

such as Cryptosporidium, neither the

SWTR or IESWTR addressed filter

backwash recycling practices. In the

NODA, EPA indicated that it did not

plan to include separate provisions for

regulating recycling of filter backwash

water in the IESWTR, but planned to

develop a regulation to address filter

backwash recycling in conjunction with

the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface

Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR).

The proposed LT1ESWTR and FBRR

were published on April 10, 2000 (65

FR 19046).

C. How Were Stakeholders Involved in

the Development of the FBRR?

The Agency initially conducted a

broad literature search to gather

research papers and information on the

occurrence of Cryptosporidium and

other materials in recycle flows. The

literature search also sought information

on how recycling practices may impact

plant efficiency. The Agency worked

with American Water Works

Association (AWWA), the American

Water Works Service Company

(AWWSCo.), and Cincinnati Water

Works to develop twelve issue papers

on commonly generated recycle flows.

These papers are found in the docket of

today’s final rule (EE&T, 1999).

EPA began outreach efforts to develop

the FBRR in the summer of 1998. Two

public stakeholder meetings, announced

in the Federal Register, were held on

July 22–23, 1998, in Lakewood,

Colorado, and on March 3–4, 1999, in

Dallas, Texas. In addition, EPA held

several formal and informal meetings

with stakeholders, trade associations,

and environmental groups. Small entity

representatives also contributed

valuable input as part of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel process.

The FBRR SBREFA panel was initiated

in April of 1998 and officially convened

in August of 1998. The panel’s

recommendations were incorporated

into today’s final rule.

During rule development EPA

considered a range of different options.

In addition to those found in the

proposed rule, EPA also considered

mandatory treatment of recycle streams

and a ban on all recycle flows, but

ultimately did not select these options.

EPA determined that the rule would

apply to the three largest recycle flows

at treatment plants (spent filter

backwash, sludge thickener supernatant,

and liquids from dewatering processes),

which constitute 98 percent of recycle

flow at an average system.

In early June 1999, EPA mailed an

informal draft of the FBRR preamble to

approximately 100 stakeholders who

attended either of the public stakeholder

meetings. Members of trade associations

and the SBREFA panel also received the

draft preamble. EPA received valuable

comments and stakeholder input from

15 State representatives, trade

associations, environmental interest

groups, and individual stakeholders.

During the comment period for

today’s rule, the Agency held a public

meeting in Washington, DC on April 14,

2000. Additionally, the proposed rule

was either presented or discussed in

nearly 50 meetings across the U.S. (EPA,

2000i). Finally, EPA requested

stakeholder comments by mailing

approximately 200 copies of the

proposed rule to stakeholders requesting

comment. EPA received 67 comments

from a variety of stakeholders including

States, municipalities, Tribes, elected

officials, consultants, trade groups, and

private industry. These comments were

reviewed and evaluated while

developing today’s final rule. Responses

to all of the comments are found in

EPA’s Response to Comment Document

for the FBRR (EPA, 2000j).

D. What Did the April 10, 2000 Proposal

Contain?

The April 10, 2000 proposal (65 FR

19046) contained the Filter Backwash

Recycling Rule provisions as well as the

LT1ESWTR provisions. The proposed

rulemaking package was entitled, ‘‘The

Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water

Treatment and Filter Backwash Rule;

Proposed Rule’’ (EPA, 2000b). The

Agency intends to promulgate the

LT1ESWTR in a future Federal Register

announcement, separate from today’s

final rule. The FBRR provisions of the

proposal applied to all surface water

and GWUDI systems which recycle

regardless of population served. The

proposal included the following

requirements:

—Spent filter backwash water, sludge

thickener supernatant, and liquids

from dewatering processes were

required to be recycled prior to the

point of primary coagulant addition

unless the State specified an

alternative location;

—Conventional filtration systems with

20 or fewer filters that recycle spent

filter backwash water, sludge

thickener supernatant, or liquids from

dewatering processes without

treatment or equalization were

required to perform a one month, onetime recycle self assessment. The

proposed self assessment required

hydraulic flow monitoring and certain

data to be reported to the State. Upon

review of these data, the State could

require that modifications be made to

the recycle practice in order to protect

public health; and

—Direct filtration systems recycling to

the treatment process were required to

provide detailed recycle treatment

information to the State. Upon review

of this data, the State could require

that modifications be made to the

recycle practice in order to protect

public health.

These three requirements have been

modified in today’s final FBRR as

described in the following section.

III. Discussion of Today’s Filter

Backwash Recycle Rule Requirements

A. Where Does the FBRR Specify That

Recycle Must Be Returned?

1. What Does Today’s Rule Require?

The Agency’s goal is to address risks

associated with certain recycle practices

in the least burdensome, most effective,

and simplest means possible.

Accordingly, today’s final rule requires

that recycled filter backwash water,

sludge thickener supernatant, and

liquids from dewatering processes must

be returned to a location such that all

processes of a system’s conventional or

direct filtration, as defined in § 141.2,

are employed. Systems may apply to the

State if they want to recycle at an

alternate location.

2. What Was the Rationale and Basis for

the Proposed Requirement?

The Agency proposed that spent filter

backwash water, sludge thickener

supernatant, and liquids from

dewatering process be recycled prior to

the point of primary coagulant addition

unless the State specified an alternative

location. In establishing this proposed

requirement, EPA had two goals in

mind. First, the Agency believes it is

important that recycle practices be

conducted in a manner that does not

upset the chemical treatment and

coagulation process vital to the

performance and contaminant removal

capability of a filtration plant. Second,

the Agency also believes treatment

plants must assure that

Cryptosporidium oocysts in recycled

water, as well as source water, receive

the full benefit of well-operated

treatment processes to achieve at least 2-

log Cryptosporidium removal.

As indicated in the proposal, close to

80 percent of the systems which recycle,

currently return recycle prior to the

rapid mix unit and coagulation stage of

31090 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

the treatment plant. Studies from many

researchers (Patania et al., 1995;

Edzwald and Kelly, 1998; Bellamy et al.,

1993; Conley, 1965; Robeck et al., 1964;

and Trussell et al., 1980) indicate that

proper coagulation is paramount to

optimal performance of treatment

plants. In fact, pilot scale work

performed by Dugan et al. (1999)

showed that coagulation has a

significant influence on the log removal

of Cryptosporidium.

The ability for conventional and

direct filtration plants to remove

Cryptosporidium under appropriate

coagulation conditions was

demonstrated through eight studies

(Patania et al., 1995; Nieminski and

Ongerth, 1995; Ongerth and Pecoraro,

1995; LeChevallier and Norton, 1992;

LeChevallier et al., 1991; Foundation for

Water Research, 1994; Kelly et al., 1995;

and West et al., 1994) that were

described in greater detail in the

proposal for today’s final rule (EPA ,

2000b). These eight studies

demonstrated that conventional and

direct filtration plants which employed

coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation

(in conventional filtration only), and

filtration steps had the ability to achieve

at least 2-log removal of

Cryptosporidium when meeting specific

turbidity limits. These studies formed

the basis for the Agency’s development

of turbidity limits (0.3 NTU 95 percent

of the time and a 1 NTU maximum)

associated with the 2-log treatment

technique in the IESWTR and the

proposed LT1ESWTR. As noted earlier,

none of the studies evaluated the

practice of recycling on treatment

performance.

In order to minimize the impacts of

recycle on chemical treatment,

minimize hydraulic disruption within

the treatment processes due to recycle,

and provide the appropriate level of

treatment necessary to achieve at least

2-log removal of Cryptosporidium in

recycle flows, the Agency believed it

necessary to include as part of the

proposed FBRR, a specific recycle

return location requirement, while also

allowing systems the ability to establish

alternate recycle locations as approved

by the State.

3. What Major Comments Were

Received on the Proposal?

Many commenters agreed with the

proposal and noted that requiring

recycle to be returned prior to the point

of primary coagulant addition was

appropriate. Several others noted that

recycle should be allowed concurrent

with the point of primary coagulant

addition. Still others, most notably

EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB),

indicated that because of the sitespecific characteristics of recycle,

defining a single acceptable recycle

return location was inappropriate since,

in some circumstances, it could reduce

the performance of the treatment

system. Finally, a few commenters

expressed concern regarding workload

implications for States if too many

requests for alternate recycle locations

are received.

4. What Was the Basis for Revising the

Proposal?

After evaluating the data submitted by

commenters, EPA believes that the goal

of this rule can be achieved more

efficiently by slightly modifying the

return location requirement. Rather than

requiring recycle to be returned to a

specific location, today’s final rule

requires recycle flows to pass through

all processes of the system’s

representative treatment as defined in

§ 141.2 in order for conventional and

direct filtration systems which recycle

to maintain 2-log Cryptosporidium

removal credit. For most systems, this

requirement would allow the return of

recycle concurrent with the point of

primary coagulant addition. Today’s

final rule continues to allow States the

opportunity to approve alternative

recycle return locations for systems on

a system-specific basis. Conventional

filtration is defined in § 141.2 of the

Code of Federal Regulations as a series

of processes including coagulation,

flocculation, sedimentation, and

filtration resulting in substantial particle

removal. Direct filtration is defined in

§ 141.2 of the Code of Federal

Regulations as a series of processes

including coagulation and filtration but

excluding sedimentation resulting in

substantial particle removal. As noted

earlier, the ability for conventional and

direct filtration plants to remove

Cryptosporidium has been demonstrated

in many studies. These studies

demonstrated that conventional and

direct filtration plants which employed

coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation

(in conventional filtration only), and

filtration processes, had the ability to

achieve 2-log removal of

Cryptosporidium while meeting specific

turbidity limits. EPA firmly believes

these studies demonstrate a minimum of

2-log Cryptosporidium removal only

when water passes through all processes

of conventional or direct filtration

treatment. Some studies have shown

that when recycle is performed

properly, namely when recycle is

returned through all processes of the

plant’s existing treatment system and

normal plant operations are not

disrupted with hydraulic surges or

increased overall plant flow, the return

of recycle does not perceptively impair

plant treatment with respect to

Cryptosporidium or turbidity removal

(Levesque et al., 1999 and Cornwell and

MacPhee, 2001). Because continuing to

ensure at least 2-log Cryptosporidium

removal is the goal of this provision,

EPA believes it appropriate to require

that recycle be returned at least through

existing processes which the Agency

has determined to have the ability to

achieve 2-log Cryptosporidium removal,

instead of requiring that recycle be

returned to a discrete location.

The Agency continues to recognize

that some systems may be able to

achieve 2-log or higher Cryptosporidium

removal when recycling to other

locations within the treatment plant.

Therefore, the final rule continues to

include a provision that States may

approve alternate recycling locations for

systems on a case-by-case basis.

However, the Agency dropped an

explicit requirement in the proposal that

systems must apply to the State for

approval of the change in recycle

location before the system implements

it, as the Agency believes that such a

requirement is implicit in the regulatory

language for today’s final rule, and

unnecessary as systems are unlikely to

make a change to their location without

approval from the State.

B. What Reporting Does the FBRR

Require of Conventional Filtration

Systems That Recycle?

1. What Does Today’s Rule Require?

The Agency’s goal is to address risks

associated with recycle practices in the

least burdensome, most effective, and

simplest means possible. Accordingly,

today’s final rule requires that systems

that practice conventional filtration and

recycle spent filter backwash, sludge

thickener supernatant, or liquids from

dewatering processes, notify the State in

writing that they practice recycle. When

notifying the State, systems must also

provide the following information:

—A plant schematic showing the origin

of all recycle flows, the hydraulic

conveyance used to transport them,

and the location where they are

recycled back into the plant; and

—Typical recycle flow in gallons per

minute (gpm), highest observed plant

flow experienced in the previous year

(gpm), design flow for the treatment

plant (gpm), and the State-approved

operating capacity for the plant where

the State has made such

determinations.

Additionally, systems must collect

and maintain the following information

for review by the State, which may, after

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 31091

evaluating the information, require a

system to modify their recycle location

or recycle practices:

(1) Copy of the recycle notification

and information submitted to the State;

(2) List of all recycle flows and the

frequency with which they are returned;

(3) Average and maximum backwash

flow rate through the filters and the

average and maximum duration of the

filter backwash process in minutes;

(4) Typical filter run length and a

written summary of how filter run

length is determined (headloss,

turbidity, time etc.);

(5) The type of treatment provided for

the recycle flow; and

(6) Data on the physical dimensions of

the equalization and/or treatment units,

typical and maximum hydraulic loading

rates, type of treatment chemicals used

and average dose and frequency of use,

and frequency at which solids are

removed from treatment units where

such units are used.

These requirements are identical to

the requirements for direct filtration

systems that recycle, as described in

Section III.C. They are discussed in

separate preamble sections because in

the proposed rule, separate and distinct

requirements for the two types of

systems were proposed.

2. What Was the Rationale and Basis for

the Proposed Requirement?

The Agency proposed that

conventional filtration systems with

fewer than 20 filters that do not provide

treatment or equalization of their

recycle streams would be required to

develop a flow monitoring plan for

submittal and approval by the State,

conduct a month of flow monitoring,

and develop and submit a selfassessment report to the State. The State

would then be required to make a

determination of whether modifications

to a system’s recycle practice should be

required.

This component was designed to

assist States in addressing the potential

negative impact of hydraulic surge on

treatment performance. The first

component of today’s final rule requires

that recycle flows proceed through all

steps of the treatment processes to

ensure 2-log removal of

Cryptosporidium. However, hydraulic

surge can still upset treatment

performance even when recycle is

treated by all necessary steps of a

treatment process (e.g., surges that cause

hydraulic flow to exceed design or

operating capacity).

Because of the high volume of water

and short duration of a filter backwash

recycle event (typically about 15

minutes long), a large volume of water

may surge through the treatment plant.

This hydraulic surge can potentially

overload treatment capability by

challenging the ability of each process

within a system including the filters.

Some studies have demonstrated

(Glasgow and Wheatley, 1998; McTigue

et al., 1998; and Myers et al., 2000) that

increasing loading rates through surges

to filters can have an adverse effect on

finished water quality. McTigue et al.,

reported that when filter loading rates in

a pilot plant were doubled from 2 gpm

to 4 gpm instantaneously,

Cryptosporidium counts in finished

water jumped from non detect to 18

oocysts/100 L. When filter loading rates

were doubled from 4 gpm to 8 gpm

instantaneously, Cryptosporidium

counts in finished water jumped from

non detect to 50 oocysts/100L, resulting

in a reduction in performance from 5-

log Cryptosporidium removal to 3.5-log

Cryptosporidium removal. Pilot work

completed by Myers et al., showed that

when hydraulic surges occurred,

particle counts increased. When

hydraulic flow was instantaneously

increased from 2 gpm to 3 gpm, particle

counts rose from 17 particles/mL to 27

particles/mL. When the flow was raised

from 2 gpm to 4 gpm, particle counts

rose from 17 particles/mL to 36

particles/mL. Many commenters to the

IESWTR noted that increased loading

rates to filters (in excess of approved

design rates) would contribute to poor

performance of filters (EPA, 1998l).

Although hydraulic surging can have

a adverse effect, systems that practice

equalization or treatment of their

recycle streams can mitigate the effect

that recycle may have on the

performance of the treatment systems.

Limited data (Cornwell and Lee, 1996)

have shown that equalization of recycle

streams minimizes the risk of hydraulic

upset. Proper equalization can serve to

avoid abrupt changes in the flow rates

and the water quality. Several studies

have recommended maintaining recycle

flow at or below 10 percent of the plant

flow (Cornwell and Lee, 1994; McGuire,

1997; Pederson and Calhoun, 1995; and

Levesque et al., 1999).

Treatment reduces the number of

microbial constituents a recycle flow

may reintroduce into the primary

treatment process and therefore, reduce

the risk associated with passing oocysts

if hydraulic surges occur. Work by a

variety of individuals (Grubb and

Arnold, 1997; Levesque et al., 1999; and

Parker et al., 1999;) has demonstrated

the utility of treatment of recycle

streams prior to being returned to the

primary treatment plant. In addition, as

indicated previously, some studies have

shown that when recycle is performed

in accordance with the requirements of

the FBRR, Cryptosporidium removal is

not impaired, even without separate

treatment of recycle streams.

Given the variety and site-specific

nature of recycle practices throughout

the country, the Agency believed it

necessary to require conventional

filtration systems to notify States that

they practice recycle, and provide

information the State could utilize to

evaluate whether a treatment plant may

be susceptible to hydraulic disruptions

as a result of recycling.

In the proposal, the Agency attempted

to identify the subset of systems that

would be most susceptible to hydraulic

surges by only requiring that systems

without equalization or treatment

(referred to as ‘‘direct recycle’’) meet the

reporting requirements. The Agency

further limited the applicability of these

requirements (including a one-time

requirement to submit a recycle selfassessment) to those direct recycle

systems that employ 20 or fewer filters

to meet production requirements during

a selected month, and recycle spent

filter backwash water, thickener

supernatant, and/or liquids from

dewatering process within the treatment

process. The self-assessment required

that a monitoring plan, one month of

hydraulic flow monitoring, and a selfassessment report containing additional

recycle information be submitted to the

State. After reviewing the selfassessment, the State would have been

required to make a determination

whether to require modifications to a

system’s recycle practice in order to

protect public health and report the

determination to EPA. The selfassessment was designed to provide the

State with adequate information to make

this determination.

3. What Major Comments Were

Received?

The Agency received many comments

on the Direct Recycle Reporting in the

proposed rule. The proposed rule only

applied to conventional filtration plants

which did not practice equalization or

treatment of recycle and which utilized

fewer than 20 filters to meet demand.

Many commenters believed that the

operational values used in the analysis

conducted by the Agency to arrive at a

20 filter cut-off did not accurately

represent the true range of values

witnessed throughout the country.

Similarly, many commenters noted that

excluding systems that treat or equalize

recycle flows was inappropriate because

of the lack of clearly defined, widelyused parameters for the definitions of

equalization and treatment of recycle.

31092 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

The Agency also received significant

comment on the proposed hydraulic

flow monitoring associated with this

requirement. Many commenters

disagreed with the appropriateness of

hydraulic flow monitoring, citing a

range of problems with the process

including the amount of data which

would be collected, determining the

month in which monitoring should take

place, and the time of day monitoring

should take place. States noted that

submittal of self-assessment reports and

requirement for a State determination

would result in an increased burden,

and, that given resource limitations,

could be problematic.

4. What Was the Basis for Revising the

Proposal?

After evaluating the information

submitted by commenters, EPA believes

that the goal of this requirement can be

achieved more efficiently by slightly

modifying this requirement. Rather than

requiring only certain conventional

filtration systems to develop, obtain

State approval of, and implement a

hydraulic flow monitoring program, the

Agency believes that all conventional

filtration systems that practice recycle

can assemble existing information on

recycle flow volumes, treatment/

equalization and other parameters that

is adequate for States to evaluate

whether recycle modifications are

necessary. Some of the information

would be reported by all affected

systems to the State, which will

facilitate State identification of those

systems where recycle practices warrant

closer scrutiny. Additional information

would be maintained on-site by the

system and available to the State for

review.

Today’s final rule now applies to all

conventional filtration systems that

recycle. In requiring only those systems

that did not provide treatment or

equalization of their recycle streams and

which utilized less than 20 filters to

comply with the proposed requirement,

the Agency was attempting to identify

the subset of systems where hydraulic

surge was a particular risk. Given the

wide variability among system

operations as noted by commenters, the

Agency believes it to be more protective

of public health to require all

conventional filtration systems to

comply.

The Agency has also modified flow

monitoring and the self-assessment

portions of the requirement in the

proposal. EPA established hydraulic

flow monitoring as a means for

developing information to evaluate

whether hydraulic surge may cause a

plant to exceed its operating capacity

and threaten treatment performance.

The self-assessment was intended to

serve as a vehicle for providing this

information and additional recycle data

to the State. The comments highlighted

the technical concerns and burden

associated with having systems conduct

the flow monitoring, develop the selfassessment, and duplicate existing

information submitted to the State. EPA

believes this same goal can be achieved

more efficiently with a modified

approach. Today’s final rule requires

systems to notify the State that they

practice recycle, and include, along

with a schematic of the system’s recycle

process, four key pieces of information

(typical recycle flow (gpm), highest

observed plant flow experienced in the

previous year (gpm), design flow for the

treatment plant (gpm), and the Stateapproved operating capacity for the

plant where the State has made such

determinations). This information will

be submitted to the State, so States may

evaluate whether recycle practices have

the potential to cause a hydraulic surge

that may cause a plant to exceed its

operating capacity. Systems will not be

required to perform flow monitoring,

but will still be required to collect

certain additional recycle data (as

described previously) and keep it on file

for State review during sanitary surveys,

other inspections (e.g., comprehensive

performance evaluations (CPEs)), or

other State activities, rather than submit

it in a special report to the State. An

ancillary benefit of this modification is

significantly reduced burden for

systems and States because of the

removal of the monitoring, associated

monitoring plan, and State approval

provisions.

C. What Reporting Does the FBRR

Require of Direct Filtration Systems

That Recycle?

1. What Does Today’s Rule Require?

The Agency’s goal is to address risks

associated with recycle practices in the

least burdensome, most effective, and

simplest means possible. Accordingly,

today’s final rule requires that systems

that practice direct filtration and recycle

spent filter backwash, sludge thickener

supernatant, or liquids from dewatering

processes, notify the State in writing

that they practice recycle. When

notifying the State, systems must also

provide the following information:

—A plant schematic showing the origin

of all recycle flows, the hydraulic

conveyance used to transport them,

and the location where they are

recycled back into the plant; and

—Typical recycle flow (gpm), highest

observed plant flow experienced in

the previous year (gpm), design flow

for the treatment plant (gpm), and the

State-approved operating capacity for

the plant where the State has made

such determinations.

Additionally, systems must collect

and maintain the following information

for review by the State, which may, after

evaluating the information, require a

system to modify their recycle location

or recycle practices:

(1) Copy of the recycle notification

and information submitted to the State;

(2) List of all recycle flows and the

frequency with which they are returned;

(3) Average and maximum backwash

flow rate through the filters and the

average and maximum duration of the

filter backwash process in minutes;

(4) Typical filter run length and a

written summary of how filter run

length is determined (headloss,

turbidity, time etc.);

(5) The type of treatment provided for

the recycle flow; and

(6) Data on the physical dimensions of

the equalization and/or treatment units,

typical and maximum hydraulic loading

rates, type of treatment chemicals used

and average dose and frequency of use,

and frequency at which solids are

removed from treatment units where

such units are used.

These requirements are identical to

the requirements for conventional

filtration systems that recycle, as

described in Section III.B. They are

discussed in separate preamble sections

because in the proposed rule, separate

and distinct requirements for the two

types of systems were proposed.

2. What Was the Rationale and Basis for

the Proposed Requirement?

The Agency proposed that all direct

filtration systems that recycle submit a

report to the State that would include

information on recycle practices. The

State would then be required to make a

determination of whether modifications

to a system’s recycle practice would be

required.

This component was designed to

assist States in addressing the potential

negative impact of hydraulic surge and

inadequate treatment on direct filtration

treatment performance. The first

component of today’s final rule requires

that recycle flows be returned to an

appropriate place in the treatment

system to ensure that they are given

adequate treatment and achieve 2-log

removal of Cryptosporidium. However,

the practice of recycle can still upset

treatment performance if not performed

properly. Consequently, the Agency

developed the direct filtration system

requirements to address the following

two concerns.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 31093

First, as discussed with respect to

conventional filtration systems that

recycle, during the short duration of a

filter backwash recycle event (typically

about 15 minutes long), a large volume

of water may surge through the

treatment plant. This surge can

potentially overload treatment

capability by challenging the ability of

each step within a system (e.g., surges

that cause hydraulic flow to exceed

design or operating capacity). Reduced

filter efficiency can lead to

Cryptosporidium oocysts passing

through to the finished water.

Second, treatment of recycle streams

is of utmost importance for direct

filtration systems. By definition, direct

filtration does not have a sedimentation

or solids removal step in the primary

treatment train. Any solids which enter

the process either are deposited on the

filter or travel through the filter. If the

recycle flow is not adequately treated

before being returned to the primary

treatment train, significant numbers of

the oocysts captured on a filter during

a filter run will be returned to the plant.

These oocysts are again loaded onto the

filters, increasing the risk that

disinfectant-resistant pathogens such as

Cryptosporidium can slip through

filtration, thereby posing a public health

risk.

Given the variety and site-specific

nature of recycle practices throughout

the country, the Agency believed it

necessary to require direct filtration

systems to notify States that they

practice recycle, and provide

information the State could utilize to

evaluate whether a treatment plant may

be susceptible to hydraulic disruptions

as a result of recycling, and whether the

existing recycle practices sufficiently

address potential health risks. This

information would allow States to focus

resources and prioritize systems where

recycle may be a concern.

3. What Major Comments Were

Received?

Many States commented that

information required to be submitted as

part of the proposed Direct Filtration

Reporting was in many cases

duplicative of information already

available to the State. States also noted

that submittal of direct filtration reports

would result in an increased burden,

and that given resource limitations this

could be problematic.

Additionally, several commenters,

including the EPA’s Science Advisory

Board, noted that it would be unlikely

for a direct filtration system to continue

operations and recycle without

employing a solids removal step in the

recycle train. EPA agrees that this would

be true for systems that recycle on a

more or less continuous basis. EPA

based assumptions on data from an

AWWA Fax Survey (AWWA, 1998)

which indicated that eight percent of

direct filtration systems that recycled

used equalization but not treatment.

EPA believes that the Direct Filtration

Reporting requirement of today’s final

rule will allow systems and States to

evaluate recycle practices and

determine whether existing recycle

practices sufficiently address potential

health risks.

4. What Was the Basis for Refining the

Proposal?

After evaluating the information

submitted by commenters, EPA believes

that the goal of this requirement can be

achieved more efficiently by slightly

modifying this requirement. Rather than

requiring direct filtration systems to

prepare and submit a report on the

adequacy of recycle flow treatment, the

Agency believes that these systems can

notify the State that they recycle and

submit some basic flow information.

The direct filtration systems would

assemble and maintain on-site

additional information on recycle flow

volumes and treatment/equalization and

other parameters that is adequate for

States to determine if recycle

modifications are necessary.

The final rule requires systems to

notify the State that they practice

recycle, and include, along with a

schematic of the systems recycle

process, four key pieces of information

(typical recycle flow (gpm), highest

observed plant flow experienced in the

previous year (gpm), design flow for the

treatment plant (gpm), and if applicable

the State-approved operating capacity

for the plant). This information will be

submitted to the State, so States may

evaluate whether recycle practices have

the potential to cause a hydraulic surge

that may cause a plant to exceed its

operating capacity. Systems would still

be required to collect certain additional

recycle data (as described previously)

and keep it on file for State review

during sanitary surveys, other

inspections (e.g., CPEs), or other State

activities rather than submit it in a

special report to the State. An ancillary

benefit of this modification is

significantly reduced burden for

systems and States.

D. What Is the Compliance Schedule for

the FBRR?

1. What Does Today’s Rule Require?

Section 1412(b)(10) of SDWA

provides that systems must comply with

new drinking water rules 36 months

after promulgation unless the

Administrator determines that an earlier

time is practicable. The Administrator

or an authorized State may extend the

compliance date by an additional 24

months if capital improvements are

necessary.

The Agency developed the

requirements of today’s final FBRR to

provide flexibility for States and

systems to implement and comply with

the rule. Today’s final rule requires that

systems must recycle spent filter

backwash water, thickener supernatant,

or liquids from dewatering processes

through the processes of a system’s

existing conventional or direct filtration

system as defined in § 141.2 or an

alternate recycle location approved by

the State no later than June 8, 2004.

Systems that need to make capital

improvements to modify their recycle

location must complete activities by

June 8, 2006. The Agency believes that

granting an additional 24 months to the

compliance date is appropriate under

1412(b)(10). The Agency estimates that

as many as 400 systems are expected to

make changes to their recycle location

and will require additional time to

secure financing for their capital

improvements. These improvements

may include preliminary planning

activities, development of alternatives,

selection of consultants and contractors,

receipt of State approval and/or permits,

and finally installation of new piping,

pumps, processes, and instrumentation.

The reporting requirements of today’s

final rule must be completed no later

than December 8, 2003. The schedule

for submitting the reporting contained

in today’s final rule was slightly

modified from the proposal to maintain

a consistent order of activities and to

ensure that systems submit basic recycle

information to the State prior to the

compliance date for the recycle return

location requirement. These reporting

requirements were established pursuant

to the authority of Section 1445 of

SDWA to ensure that States have the

appropriate information from systems to

determine compliance with the recycle

return location requirement of today’s

final rule.

2. What Major Comments Were

Received?

As discussed in the previous sections,

the Agency received significant

comment on all three proposed

provisions. Today’s final rule includes

some modifications of the proposed

provisions, and the compliance

schedule has been adjusted accordingly.

One argument made by several

commenters was that EPA should not

require systems or States to undertake

31094 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

activities before three years from the

date a rule is promulgated because it

would result in ‘‘early implementation’’

of the rule. EPA notes that the recycle

return location requirement of today’s

final rule does not require compliance

until June 8, 2004, three years after

promulgation of the rule in the Federal

Register as required by Section

1412(b)(10) of SDWA. Only minimal

reporting is required, pursuant to the

authority of Section 1445 of SDWA, at

two and a half years after promulgation

of today’s final rule.

Several commenters indicated that

guidance documents would play an

important role in implementing and

understanding the requirements of the

FBRR. In addition to an implementation

guidance manual, the Agency is

currently developing additional

guidance to aid systems and States in

complying with the FBRR. EPA intends

to solicit input from a variety of

stakeholders during the development of

the guidance documents, and will

ensure that the documents undergo

significant technical review by industry

experts.

E. What Public Notification and

Consumer Confidence Report

Requirements Are Contained in the

FBRR?

Today’s final rule modifies the Public

Notification (PN) requirements found in

Appendix A and B of subpart Q of Part

141 to include two public notification

requirements associated with the FBRR.

Today’s final rule establishes public

notification of a Tier 2 treatment

technique violation for failure to comply

with the requirements of § 141.76(c) of

today’s final rule. Additionally, the

FBRR establishes public notification of

a Tier 3 monitoring and testing violation

for failure to notify the State and

include the appropriate information

collected as part of § 141.76(b) or failure

to collect and maintain recycle

information as part of § 141.76(d).

Today’s rule does not specifically

modify the Consumer Confidence

Report (CCR) Requirements found in

subpart O of part 141. However,

consumer confidence reports must

contain any violations of treatment

techniques or requirements of NPDWRs

as specified in § 141.153(d)(6) and

§ 141.153(f). This includes any such

violations of the FBRR.

Updated CCR and PN appendices can

be found on the Agency’s website at

http://www/epa.gov/safewater/

tables.html.

IV. State Implementation

A. What Special State Primacy

Requirements Does the FBRR Contain?

Today’s final rule contains one

special primacy requirement that a State

must meet in order to receive primacy

for the rule. A State’s application must

contain a description of the proper rules

or other authority possessed by the State

to use Sanitary Surveys, comprehensive

performance evaluations (CPEs), other

inspections or other activities to

evaluate recycle data maintained by

systems, and require modifications to

recycle practices as necessary. The

Agency recognizes that there are

numerous mechanisms a State could use

to evaluate recycle practices including

Sanitary Surveys, CPEs, and other

inspection. However, a State must also

have the authority to require systems to

modify recycle practices after an

evaluation has been completed. The

proposed rule contained two additional

special primacy requirements, which

related to approval of recycle locations

other than prior to the point of primary

coagulant addition and to recycle selfassessments. However, both of these

special primacy requirements were

related to recycle provisions that have

been modified as a result of comments

on the proposal. Resultant changes to

the recycle provisions have obviated the

need for these two special primacy

requirements, since recycle is no longer

required to be returned prior to the

point of primary coagulant addition and

recycle self-assessments have been

removed from the final rule.

B. What State Information Collection,

Recordkeeping and Reporting

Requirements Does the FBRR Contain?

Today’s final rule includes no specific

State information collection, reporting,

or recordkeeping requirements. The

proposal included State reporting

requirements; however changes to the

final FBRR provisions (as a result of

comments on the proposed rule) have

obviated the need for the State selfassessment determination and direct

filtration determination reports since

these requirements are no longer

contained in the final rule. Furthermore,

the Agency decided to remove the State

reporting requirement associated with

the recycle return location as a result of

comments on the proposed rule.

However, today’s rule modifies § 142.14

to require States to keep on file systemspecific decisions made under § 141.76

such as approval of alternate recycle

locations.

C. How Must a State Obtain Interim

Primacy for the FBRR?

To maintain primacy for the Public

Water Supply Supervision (PWSS)

program and to be eligible for interim

primacy enforcement authority for

future regulations, States must adopt

today’s final rule. A State must submit

a request for approval of program

revisions that adopt the revised MCL or

treatment technique and implement

regulations within two years of

promulgation, unless EPA approves an

extension per § 142.12(b). Interim

primacy enforcement authority allows

States to implement and enforce

drinking water regulations once State

regulations are effective and the State

has submitted a complete and final

primacy revision application. To obtain

interim primacy, a State must have

primacy with respect to each existing

NPDWR. Under interim primacy

enforcement authority, States are

effectively considered to have primacy

during the period that EPA is reviewing

their primacy revision application.

V. Economic Analysis (Health Risk

Reduction and Cost Analysis)

This section summarizes the Health

Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis in

support of the FBRR as required by

section 1412(b)(3)(C) of the 1996 SDWA.

In addition, under Executive Order

12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,

EPA must estimate the costs and

benefits of the FBRR. EPA has prepared

an estimate of the costs and benefits to

comply with the requirements of this

Executive Order and the SDWA Health

Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis

(USEPA, 2001). This final analysis will

be published on the Agency’s web site,

at http://www.epa.gov/safewater. It can

also be found in the docket for this

rulemaking.

EPA has estimated the total

annualized cost for implementing the

FBRR and analyzed the total benefits

that result from the rule. Total annual

costs for the rule are estimated at either

$5.84 million or $7.2 million in 2000

dollars, depending on whether a three

percent or a seven percent discount rate

is used to annualize capital and start-up

costs. The cost estimate includes capital

costs for treatment changes and start-up

and annual labor costs for reporting

activities. More details, including the

basis for these estimates and alternate

cost estimates using different cost of

capital assumptions are described later

in this section. The benefits associated

with the FBRR are discussed

qualitatively, but remain unquantified

because of data limitations.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 31095

A. What Are the Costs of the FBRR?

In estimating the costs of today’s final

rule, the Agency considered impacts on

public water systems and on States

(including territories and EPA

implementation in non-primacy States)

and Tribes. The FBRR will result in

increased costs to public water systems

for reading and understanding the rule,

reporting recycle practices to the State,

and capital improvements to recycle

return locations at up to 400 systems.

States will also face implementation

costs associated with reading and

understanding the rule, obtaining

primacy, and evaluating system’s

recycle reports and recycle practices.

The recycle provisions apply to all

surface water and GWUDI systems that

recycle filter backwash, thickener

supernatant, or liquids from dewatering.

EPA estimates that the annualized cost

of today’s final rule will be $5.84

million or $7.2 million (annualized

using a three percent or seven percent

discount rate respectively). Total capital

and associated O&M costs associated

with modifications to recycle locations

at an estimated 371 systems are $45.2

million, and represent $5.5 million or

$6.8 million annually (annualized over

20 years using a three percent or seven

percent discount rate, respectively). The

recycle return provision of today’s final

rule accounts for 95 percent of total

annualized costs. Public Water System

expenditures for all provisions are

greater than 99 percent ($5.8 million at

a three percent discount rate or $6.7

million at a seven percent discount rate)

of total annualized costs; State

expenditures make up less than 1

percent ($0.07 million at a three percent

discount rate or $0.098 million at a

seven percent discount rate). The

national estimate of annual system costs

for the recycle provisions is based on

estimates of system-level costs for the

rule and estimates of the number of

systems expected to incur each type of

cost.

Although EPA has evaluated the cost

to drinking water systems and States of

all provisions of the rule, there are some

costs that the Agency was not able to

quantify such as indirect costs to

systems. These costs may result if States

require systems to make additional

changes to their recycle practice based

on the data collected under this rule.

Additionally, there are uncertainties

surrounding rule assumptions that may

affect the quantified cost estimates. For

example, EPA estimated the number of

systems that may be affected by this rule

based on survey information. If the

surveys underestimated the numbers of

systems required to change the return

location of their filter backwash, then

the cost of this requirement would be

underestimated. However, it is also

possible that the surveys overestimated

the number of systems required to make

changes and this would result in an

overestimation of rule costs.

B. What Are the Household Costs of the

FBRR?

The mean annual cost per household

is $0.19 and the total annual cost per

household is less than $1.70 for 99

percent of the 31.4 million households

potentially affected by today’s final rule.

The remaining one percent of

households will experience a range of

costs between $1.70 and approximately

$100 per year. Only 321 of the 31.4

million households potentially affected

by the FBRR (.00001 percent) are

expected to incur costs of approximately

$100 per year.

C. What Are the Benefits of the FBRR?

The primary benefits of today’s final

rule come from reductions in the risk of

illness from microbial pathogens in

drinking water. In particular, FBRR

focuses on reducing the risk associated

with disinfection resistant pathogens,

such as Cryptosporidium.

Available literature research

demonstrates that increased hydraulic

loading or disruptive hydraulic

currents, such as may be experienced

when plants exceed State-approved

operating capacity or when recycle is

returned directly into the sedimentation

basin, can disrupt filter (Cleasby, 1963;

Glasgow and Wheatley, 1998; McTigue

et al., 1998) and sedimentation (Fulton,

1987; Logsdon, 1987; Cleasby, 1990)

performance. However, the literature

does not quantify the extent to which

performance can be lowered and, more

specifically, does not quantify the

decrease in Cryptosporidium removal

that may be experienced during direct

recycle events. Specifically, there is a

lack of treatment performance data to

accurately model the oocysts removal

achieved by individual full-scale

treatment processes and the impact

recycle may have on treatment unit

Cryptosporidium removal and resulting

finished water quality. However, as

indicated previously, some studies have

shown that when recycle is performed

in accordance with the requirements of

the FBRR, Cryptosporidium removal is

not impaired.

The goal of the FBRR is to reduce the

potential for oocysts getting into the

finished water and causing cases of

cryptosporidiosis. Other disinfectionresistant pathogens may also be

removed more efficiently due to

implementation of these provisions.

Exposure to other pathogenic protozoa,

such as Giardia, or other emerging

microbial pathogens is likely to be

reduced by the this rule as well.

In addition to preventing illnesses,

this rule is expected to have other nonhealth related benefits. These benefits

result from avoiding non-health related

costs associated with waterborne

disease outbreaks. During an outbreak,

local governments and water systems

must issue warnings and alerts and may

need to provide an alternative source of

water. Systems also face negative

publicity and possibly legal costs.

Businesses have to supply their

customers and employees with

alternative sources of water and some,

especially restaurants, may even have to

temporarily close. Households also have

to either boil their water, purchase

water, or obtain water from another

source. The monetary costs associated

with an outbreak can be difficult to

quantify and will vary with respect to a

host of criteria. However, one study of

a Giardia outbreak in Luzerne County,

Pennsylvania estimated these nonhealth related outbreak costs to be quite

significant (Harrington et al., 1985). This

study estimated losses to individuals

due to actions taken to avoid the

contaminated water at between $19

million and $49 million, in 1984

dollars. ($31M–$81M in 2000$). Losses

due to averting actions for restaurants

and bars totaled $1 million and $0.6

million for schools and other

businesses, in 1984 dollars. The burden

for government agencies was $230,000

and the outbreak cost the water utility

an estimated $1.8 million, again in 1984

dollars.

D. What Are the Incremental Costs and

Benefits of the FBRR?

Analytical limitation in the estimation

of monetized benefits for the FBRR

prevented the Agency from

quantitatively describing the

incremental benefit of the various

regulatory alternatives considered for

this rulemaking. The RIA supporting the

final FBRR provides detailed

information on the incremental costs of

various rule components.

E. Are There Benefits From the

Reduction of Co-Occurring

Contaminants?

Improvements in recycle practices

may also reduce exposure to Giardia

lamblia and emerging disinfection

resistant pathogens, such as

microsporidia, Toxoplasma, and

Cyclospora. The frequency and extent

that FBRR would reduce risk from these

other contaminants has not been

quantitatively evaluated because the

31096 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Agency lacked removal efficiency data

for these various technologies as well as

co-occurrence data.

F. Is There Increased Risk From Other

Contaminants?

The Agency has not identified any

increased risk from other contaminants

as a result of promulgating the FBRR.

G. What Are the Uncertainties in Risk,

Benefit and Cost Estimates for the

FBRR?

EPA has included a detailed

discussion of the possible sources of

uncertainty in risk, benefit and cost

estimates in the cost-benefit analysis. As

noted earlier, the risk and benefits have

been expressed qualitatively for this

rule, and associated sources of

uncertainty include occurrence of

Cryptosporidium oocysts in source

waters and finished waters, reduction of

Cryptosporidium oocysts due to

improved treatment, viability and

infectivity of Cryptosporidium oocysts,

and the characterization of risk.

Uncertainty associated with costs

include assumptions with respect to

changes a system might make to their

point of recycle, assumptions about

costs of labor, maintenance, and capital,

and the number of systems expected to

undertake certain activities. The Agency

believes that the qualitative risks and

benefits, and the quantitative costs have

been accurately portrayed. Discussions

and analysis of risks, benefits, and costs

indicate where uncertainty may be

introduced and to the extent possible,

the effect uncertainty may have on

analysis (EPA, 2001).

H. What Is the Benefit/Cost

Determination for the FBRR?

The Agency has determined that the

benefits of the FBRR justify their cost on

a qualitative basis. The FBRR will

reduce the potential for improper

recycle practices to upset treatment

plant performance during recycle

events. Today’s rule will therefore help

prevent Cryptosporidium oocysts and

other contaminants from entering

finished drinking water supplies and

causing endemic illness or costly

waterborne disease outbreaks.

The Agency strongly believes that

returning Cryptosporidium to the

treatment process in recycle flows, if

performed improperly, can create

additional public health risk. Therefore,

the Agency is requiring that recycle

flows be returned to the point such that

all steps of a system’s conventional or

direct filtration will be employed to

ensure that the system continues to

achieve at least a 2-log removal of

Cryptosporidium. As indicated

previously, some studies have shown

that when recycle is performed in

accordance with the requirements of the

FBRR, Cryptosporidium removal is not

impaired. Additionally, today’s rule also

will aid States and systems by ensuring

that they have the requisite information

to evaluate whether a treatment plant

may be susceptible to hydraulic

disruptions as a result of recycling, and

whether the existing recycle practices

sufficiently addresses potential health

risks.

VI. Other Requirements

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency

to prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis of any rule subject to notice

and comment rulemaking requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute unless the agency

certifies that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small

governmental jurisdictions.

The RFA provides default definitions

for each type of small entity. It also

authorizes an agency to use alternative

definitions for each category of small

entity, ‘‘which are appropriate to the

activities of the agency’’ after proposing

the alternative definition(s) in the

Federal Register and taking comment. 5

U.S.C. 601(3)–(5). In addition to the

above, to establish an alternative small

business definition, agencies must

consult with SBA’s Chief Counsel for

Advocacy.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s rule on small entities, EPA

considered small entities to be PWSs

serving fewer than 10,000 persons. This

is the cut-off level specified by Congress

in the 1996 Amendments to the Safe

Drinking Water Act for small system

flexibility provisions. In accordance

with the RFA requirements, EPA

proposed using this alternative

definition in the Federal Register (63 FR

7620, February 13, 1998), requested

comment, consulted with the Small

Business Administration (SBA), and

expressed its intention to use the

alternative definition for all future

drinking water regulations in the

Consumer Confidence Reports

regulation (63 FR 44511, August 19,

1998). EPA has thus used this

alternative definition in this final rule.

After considering the economic

impacts of today’s final rule on small

entities, I certify that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with section 603 of the

RFA, EPA prepared an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the

proposed rule (see 65 FR 19046, 19126–

27), and convened a Small Business

Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to

obtain advice and recommendations

from representatives of small entities

that would potentially be regulated by

the rule in accordance with section

609(b) of the RFA. A detailed discussion

of the Panel’s advice and

recommendations is found in the Panel

Report found in the docket for today’s

final rule (EPA, 1998k). A summary of

the Panel’s recommendations is

presented in the proposal (65 FR 19046,

19127–19130).

EPA originally developed an IRFA

and convened an SBAR Panel because

one of the preliminary alternatives being

evaluated by the Agency was a ban on

the recycle of spent filter backwash.

This preliminary alternative would have

resulted in substantial costs to all

conventional and direct filtration

systems that practiced recycle including

small entities. After development of the

IRFA and completion of the SBAR

Panel, the Agency determined that a ban

on recycle was not an appropriate

alternative and removed it from

consideration. The Agency re-evaluated

the economic effects on small entities

after publication of the April 10, 2000

FBRR proposal and was able to certify

that today’s final rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Of the 3,840 small entities potentially

affected by the FBRR, 93 percent are

expected to incur average annualized

costs of less than $50. This equates to

approximately 0.001 percent of average

annual revenue. The remaining 7

percent (278 systems) are expected to

incur average annualized costs of

approximately $2,200, or 0.08 percent of

average annual revenue. The Agency

has included a detailed description of

this analysis in the Regulatory

Flexibility Screening Analysis prepared

for the final rule (USEPA, 2000f).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Office of Management and Budget

has approved the information collection

requirements contained in this rule

under the provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

and has assigned OMB control number

2040–0224. The information collected

as a result of this rule will allow the

States to determine appropriate

requirements for specific systems, in

some cases, and to evaluate compliance

with the rule. For the first three years

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 31097

after the effective date of the FBRR, the

major information requirements are the

required notification to States by

systems that recycle, including a plant

schematic and flow information that

must accompany the notification. The

information collection requirements in

section 141.76, for systems, and section

142.14, for States, are mandatory. The

information collected is not

confidential.

The preliminary estimate of aggregate

annual average burden hours for the

first three years after the effective date

of the FBRR is 66,363. For systems these

hours consist of reading and

understanding the rule, mobilization

and planning, and preparation of the

State notifications. For States these

hours consist of reading and

understanding the rule, obtaining

primacy, mobilization and planning,

and staff training. The annual average

aggregate cost estimate over the first

three years is $0 for capital, and $0 for

operation and maintenance. The burden

hours per response annually is 8.4

hours. The frequency of response

(average responses per respondent) is

4.0 annually. The estimated number of

likely respondents is 1,986 (the product

of burden hours per response,

frequency, and respondents does not

total the annual average burden hours

due to rounding).

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information; processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

The OMB control number(s) for the

information collection requirements in

this rule will be listed in an amendment

to 40 CFR part 9 in a subsequent

Federal Register document after OMB

approves the ICR.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and Tribal governments and the private

sector. Under UMRA section 202, EPA

generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures by State, local,

and Tribal governments, in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

Before promulgating an EPA rule, for

which a written statement is needed,

section 205 of the UMRA generally

requires EPA to identify and consider a

reasonable number of regulatory

alternatives and adopt the least costly,

most cost-effective or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost effective or least

burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted.

Before EPA establishes any regulatory

requirements that may significantly or

uniquely affect small governments,

including Tribal governments, it must

have developed, under section 203 of

the UMRA, a small government agency

plan. The plan must provide for

notifying potentially affected small

governments, enabling officials of

affected small governments to have

meaningful and timely input in the

development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for the State, local and

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year. The

estimated annual cost of this rule is

$5.84 million at a three percent discount

or and $7.2 million at a seven percent

discount rate. Thus today’s rule is not

subject to the requirements of sections

202 and 205 of the UMRA.

EPA has determined that this rule

contains no regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect

small governments. Of the 1,574 small

government entities potentially affected

by the FBRR, 93 percent are expected to

incur average annualized costs of less

than $50 dollars. This equates to

approximately 0.002 percent of average

annual revenue. The remaining 7

percent (114 systems) are only expected

to incur average annualized costs of

approximately $2,200 dollars or 0.09

percent of average annual revenue.

Thus, today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of section 203 of UMRA.

Nevertheless, EPA has tried to ensure

that State, local, and Tribal governments

had opportunities to provide comment.

EPA consulted with small governments

to address impacts of regulatory

requirements in the rule that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. As discussed next, a

variety of stakeholders, including small

governments, were provided the

opportunity for timely and meaningful

participation in the regulatory

development process. EPA used these

opportunities to notify potentially

affected small governments of regulatory

requirements being considered.

EPA began outreach efforts to develop

the FBRR in the summer of 1998. Two

public stakeholder meetings, which

were announced in the Federal

Register, were held on July 22–23, 1998,

in Lakewood, Colorado, and on March

3–4, 1999, in Dallas, Texas.

Stakeholders include representatives of

State, local and Tribal governments,

environmental groups and public and

private public water systems. In

addition to these meetings, EPA has

held several formal and informal

meetings with stakeholders including

the Association of State Drinking Water

Administrators. A summary of each

meeting and attendees is available in the

public docket for this rule. EPA also

convened a Small Business Advocacy

Review (SBAR) Panel in accordance

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA), as amended by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (SBREFA) to address small

entity concerns including those of small

local governments. The SBAR Panel

allows small regulated entities to

provide input to EPA early in the

regulatory development process. In

early June 1999, EPA mailed an

informal draft of the FBRR preamble to

the approximately 100 stakeholders who

attended one of the public stakeholder

meetings. Members of trade associations

and the SBREFA Panel also received the

draft preamble. EPA received valuable

suggestions and stakeholder input from

15 State representatives, trade

associations, environmental interest

groups, and individual stakeholders.

The majority of concerns dealt with

31098 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

reducing burden on small systems and

maintaining flexibility.

To inform and involve Tribal

governments in the rulemaking process,

EPA presented the FBRR at three

venues: the 16th Annual Consumer

Conference of the National Indian

Health Board, the annual conference of

the National Tribal Environmental

Council, and the EPA/Inter Tribal

Council of Arizona, Inc. tribal

consultation meeting. Over 900

attendees representing Tribes from

across the country attended the National

Indian Health Board’s Consumer

Conference and over 100 Tribes were

represented at the annual conference of

the National Tribal Environmental

Council. At the first two conferences, an

EPA representative conducted two

workshops on EPA’s drinking water

program and upcoming regulations,

including the FBRR.

At the OGWDW/Inter Tribal Council

of Arizona meeting, representatives

from 15 Tribes participated. The

presentation materials and meeting

summary were sent to over 500 Tribes

and tribal organizations. Additionally,

EPA contacted each of the 12 Native

American Drinking Water State

Revolving Fund Advisors to invite

them, and representatives of their

organizations to the stakeholder

meetings described previously.

During the comment period for

today’s final rule, the Agency held a

public meeting in Washington DC on

April 14, 2000 (EPA,2000d).

Additionally, the proposed rule was

either presented or discussed in nearly

50 meetings across the US. Finally, EPA

mailed approximately 200 copies of the

proposed rule to stakeholders requesting

comment. EPA received 67 comments

from a variety of stakeholders including

24 States, 21 municipalities, one Tribe,

one elected official, two consultants,

eight trade groups, and four private

industries.

In addition, EPA will educate, inform,

and advise small systems, including

those run by small governments, about

the FBRR requirements. The Agency is

developing plain-English guidance that

will explain what actions a small entity

must take to comply with the rule. Also,

the Agency has developed fact sheets

that concisely describe various aspects

and requirements of the FBRR. These

fact sheets are available by calling the

Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800–

426–4791.

D. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

As noted in the proposed rule, section

12(d) of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

(NTAA), Public Law No. 104–113,

Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272), directs

EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business

practices) that are developed or adopted

by voluntary consensus standards

bodies. The NTAA directs EPA to

provide Congress, through the Office of

Management and Budget, explanations

when the Agency decides not to use

available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

This action does not involve technical

standards. Therefore, EPA did not

consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards. We did not receive

any comments identifying potentiallyapplicable voluntary consensus

standards that we should consider using

either.

E. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993) the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

1. Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or Tribal governments or

communities;

2. Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

3. Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof, or;

4. Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of the Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory

action.’’ As such, this action was

submitted to OMB for review. Changes

made in response to OMB suggestions or

recommendations have been

documented in the public record.

F. Executive Order 12898:

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 establishes a

Federal policy for incorporating

environmental justice into Federal

agency missions by directing agencies to

identify and address disproportionately

high and adverse human health or

environmental effects of its programs,

policies, and activities on minority and

low-income populations. The Agency

has considered environmental justice

related issues concerning the potential

impacts of this action and consulted

with minority and low-income

stakeholders.

On March 12, 1998, the Agency held

a stakeholder meeting to address various

components of pending drinking water

regulations and how they may impact

sensitive sub-populations, minority

populations, and low-income

populations. Topics discussed included

treatment techniques, costs and benefits,

data quality, health effects, and the

regulatory process. Participants

included national, State, Tribal,

municipal, and individual stakeholders.

EPA conducted the meetings by video

conference call between 11 cities. This

meeting was a continuation of

stakeholder meetings that started in

1995 to obtain input on the Agency’s

drinking water programs. The major

objectives for the March 12, 1998

meeting were:

—Solicit ideas from stakeholders on

known issues concerning current

drinking water regulatory efforts;

—Identify key issues of concern to

stakeholders, and;

—Receive suggestions from stakeholders

concerning ways to increase

representation of communities in EPA

regulatory efforts.

In addition, EPA developed a plainEnglish guide specifically for this

meeting to assist stakeholders in

understanding the multiple and

sometimes complex issues surrounding

drinking water regulation.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1) Is determined to be economically

significant as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and; (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 31099

the planned rule on children and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

While this final rule is not subject to

the Executive Order because it is not

economically significant as defined in

Executive Order 12866, we nonetheless

have reason to believe that the

environmental health or safety risk

addressed by this action may have a

disproportionate effect on children. As

a matter of EPA policy, we therefore

have assessed the environmental health

effects of Cryptosporidium on children.

The results of this assessment are

contained in cost-benefit analysis

supporting the FBRR (EPA, 2001). A

copy of the analysis and supporting

documents is available for public review

in the Office of Water docket at 401 M

St. SW., Washington, DC.

The risk of illness and death due to

cryptosporidiosis depends on several

factors, including age, nutrition,

exposure, genetic variability, disease

and immune status of the individual.

Mortality resulting from diarrhea shows

the greatest risk of mortality occurring

among the very young and elderly

(Gerba et al., 1996). For

Cryptosporidium, young children are a

vulnerable population subject to

infectious diarrhea (CDC 1994).

Cryptosporidiosis is prevalent

worldwide, and its occurrence is higher

in children than in adults (Fayer and

Ungar, 1986).

Cryptosporidiosis appears to be more

prevalent in populations such as

infants, that may not have established

immunity against the disease and may

be in greater contact with

environmentally contaminated surfaces

(DuPont, et al., 1995). An infected child

may spread the disease to other children

or family members. Evidence of such

secondary transmission of

cryptosporidiosis from children to

household and other close contacts has

been found in a number of outbreak

investigations (Casemore, 1990; Cordell

et al., 1997; Frost et al., 1997). Chapell

et al., (1999) found that prior exposure

to Cryptosporidium through the

ingestion of a low oocyst dose provides

protection from infection and illness.

However, it is not known whether this

immunity is life-long or temporary. Data

also indicate that either mothers confer

short term immunity to their children or

that babies have reduced exposure to

Cryptosporidium, resulting in a

decreased incidence of infection during

the first year of life. For example, in a

survey of over 30,000 stool sample

analyses from different patients in the

United Kingdom, the 1–5 year age group

suffered a much higher infection rate

than individuals less than one year of

age. For children under one year of age,

those older than six months of age

showed a higher rate of infection than

individuals aged fewer than six months

(Casemore, 1990).

EPA has not been able to quantify the

health effects for children as a result of

Cryptosporidium-contaminated drinking

water. However, the result of the FBRR

will be a reduction in the risk of illness

for the entire population, including

children. Because available evidence

indicates that children may be more

vulnerable to Cryptosporidiosis than the

rest of the population, the FBRR would,

therefore, result in greater risk reduction

for children than for the general

population.

H. Consultations With the Science

Advisory Board, National Drinking

Water Advisory Council, and the

Secretary of Health and Human Services

In accordance with section 1412 (d)

and (e) of the SDWA, the Agency

discussed or submitted possible FBRR

requirements to the Science Advisory

Board, National Drinking Water

Advisory Council (NDWAC), and to the

Secretary of Health and Human Services

and requested comment from the

Science Advisory Board (SAB) on the

FBRR.

On March 13th and 14th, 2000 in

Washington, DC, the Agency met with

the Science Advisory Board during

meetings open to the public where

several of the Agency’s drinking water

rules were discussed. A copy of the

SAB’s comments are found in the

docket (EPA, 2000n).

On May 10th, 2000 in San Francisco,

California, the Agency presented the

FBRR to NDWAC. A copy of the

materials presented to the NDWAC as

well as the charge presented to the

council are found in the docket (EPA,

2000g). A copy of NDWAC’s

recommendations are also found in the

docket (NDWAC, 2000).

EPA invited the Secretary of Health

and Human Services to the April 14th,

2000 informational meeting regarding

the proposed Long Term 1 Enhanced

Surface Water Treatment and Filter

Backwash Rule and consulted with the

Center for Disease Control (CDC) during

June 20, 2000 and October 10, 2000,

conference calls with the Center’s

Working Group on Waterborne

Cryptosporidiosis. The meeting notes

for these calls are found in the docket

for today’s rule (CDC, 2000b). CDC’s role

as an Agency of the Department of

Health and Human Services is to

provide a system of health surveillance

to monitor and prevent outbreak of

diseases. With the assistance of States

and other partners, CDC guards against

international disease transmission,

maintains national health statistics,

provides immunization services and

supports research into disease and

injury prevention.

Only SAB provided substantive

comments on the FBRR. SAB had

several recommendations including

recommending against requirements

that would alter the design of direct

recycle systems and recommending

against requiring that washwater flows

be recycled ahead of the point of

coagulant addition. Today’s final FBRR

is consistent with the recommendations

of the SAB.

I. Executive Order 13132: Executive

Orders on Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’

This final rule does not have

federalism implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. Today’s final

rule does not have a substantial direct

effect on local and State governments

because it is not expected to impose

substantial direct compliance costs. The

rule imposes annualized compliance

costs of approximately $3.78 or $4.64

million (at 3 percent and 7 percent

discount rates, respectively) per year for

local and State governments. Only $0.07

or $0.98 million (at 3 percent and 7

percent discount rates respectively,) of

these costs are attributable to States,

while $0.64 or $0.82 million (at 3

percent and 7 percent discount rates,

respectively) is attributable to

approximately 1,575 local governments

serving fewer than 10,000 persons and

the remaining $4.7 million or $5.8

million (at 3 percent and 7 percent

discount rates, respectively) is

attributable to approximately 980 local

governments serving 10,000 or more

persons. Furthermore, the rule does not

31100 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

have a substantial direct effect on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government as specified in

Executive Order 13132 because the rule

does not change the current roles and

relationships of the Federal government,

State governments and local

governments in implementing drinking

water programs. Thus, Executive Order

13132 does not apply to this rule.

Although the Executive Order does not

apply to this rule, EPA did consult with

State and local officials in developing

this rule. In addition to our outreach

efforts described earlier, on May 30,

2000, the Agency held a meeting in

Washington, DC with ten

representatives of elected State and

local officials to discuss how new

Federal drinking water regulations

(FBRR, LT1ESWTR, Ground Water Rule,

Radon Rule, Radionuclides Rule, and

Arsenic Rule) may affect State, county,

and local governments. Throughout the

consultation, stakeholders asked EPA

for clarification of basic concepts and

rule elements. EPA addressed these

issues throughout the consultation and

provided background and clarification

to promote better understanding of the

issues. For example, stakeholders asked

EPA to describe what Cryptosporidium

is and how individuals are diagnosed

with cryptosporidiosis. A detailed

summary of this consultation meeting

and the concerns raised is found in the

docket (EPA, 2000h). No significant

concerns were raised regarding the

FBRR.

J. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

On November 6, 2000, the President

issued Executive Order 13175 (65 FR

67249) entitled, ‘‘Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments.’’ Executive Order 13175

took effect on January 6, 2001, and

revokes Executive Order 13084 (Tribal

Consultation) as of that date. EPA

developed this final rule, however,

during the period when Executive Order

13084 was in effect; thus, EPA

addressed Tribal considerations under

Executive Order 13084.

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian Tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the Tribal

governments or EPA consults with those

governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected Tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian Tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian Tribal governments, nor will it

impose substantial direct compliance

costs on them. This rule will affect

fewer than 22 of the 987 (2 percent) total

tribal drinking water systems. Of these

22 systems, 20 are estimated to incur

annualized compliance costs of less

than $50 per year or 0.001 percent of

average annual revenue. The remaining

two systems are estimated to incur

annualized compliance costs of

approximately $2,200 per year or 0.08

percent of average annual revenue.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

K. Likely Effect of Compliance With the

FBRR on the Technical, Financial, and

Managerial Capacity of Public Water

Systems

Section 1420(d)(3) of the SDWA as

amended requires that, in promulgating

a NPDWR, the Administrator must

include an analysis of the likely effect

of compliance with the regulation on

the technical, financial, and managerial

capacity of public water systems. This

analysis can be found in the FBRR costbenefit analysis (EPA, 2001).

Overall water system capacity is

defined in EPA guidance (EPA, 1998j) as

the ability to plan for, achieve, and

maintain compliance with applicable

drinking water standards. Capacity has

three components: technical,

managerial, and financial.

Technical capacity is the physical and

operational ability of a water system to

meet SDWA requirements. Technical

capacity refers to the physical

infrastructure of the water system,

including the adequacy of source water

and the adequacy of treatment, storage,

and distribution infrastructure. It also

refers to the ability of system personnel

to adequately operate and maintain the

system and to otherwise implement

requisite technical knowledge.

Managerial capacity is the ability of a

water system to conduct its affairs to

achieve and maintain compliance with

SDWA requirements. Managerial

capacity refers to the system’s

institutional and administrative

capabilities. Financial capacity is a

water system’s ability to acquire and

manage sufficient financial resources to

allow the system to achieve and

maintain compliance with SDWA

requirements. Technical, Managerial,

and Financial capacity can be assessed

through key issues and questions,

including:

Technical Capacity

Source water adequacy ........................................................................... Does the system have a reliable source of drinking water? Is the

source of generally good quality and adequately protected?

Infrastructure adequacy .......................................................................... Can the system provide water that meets SDWA standards? What is

the condition of its infrastructure, including well(s) or source

water intakes, treatment, storage, and distribution? What is the infrastructure’s life expectancy? Does the system have a capital improvement plan?

Technical knowledge and implementation ........................................... Is the system’s operator certified? Does the operator have sufficient

technical knowledge of applicable standards? Can the operator effectively implement this technical knowledge? Does the operator

understand the system’s technical and operational characteristics?

Does the system have an effective operation and maintenance program?

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 31101

Managerial Capacity

Ownership accountability ....................................................................... Are the system owner(s) clearly identified? Can they be held accountable for the system?

Staffing and organization ........................................................................ Are the system operator(s) and manager(s) clearly identified? Is the

system properly organized and staffed? Do personnel understand

the management aspects of regulatory requirements and system

operations? Do they have adequate expertise to manage water system operations? Do personnel have the necessary licenses and certifications?

Effective external linkages ...................................................................... Does the system interact well with customers, regulators, and other

entities? Is the system aware of available external resources, such

as technical and financial assistance?

Financial Capacity

Revenue sufficiency ................................................................................ Do revenues cover costs? Are water rates and charges adequate to

cover the cost of water?

Credit worthiness .................................................................................... Is the system financially healthy? Does it have access to capital

through public or private sources?

Fiscal management and controls ............................................................ Are adequate books and records maintained? Are appropriate budgeting, accounting, and financial planning methods used? Does the

system manage its revenues effectively?

Generally, systems affected by this

rule are not required to make significant

modifications to the treatment process

to meet FBRR requirements. Therefore,

most systems are not expected to

experience a significant impact on their

technical, financial, or managerial

capacity.

L. Plain Language

Executive Order 12866 requires each

agency to write its rules in plain

language. Readable regulations help the

public find requirements quickly and

understand them easily. They increase

compliance, strengthen enforcement,

and decrease mistakes, frustration,

phone calls, appeals, and distrust of

government. Of the several techniques

typically utilized for writing readably,

using a question and answer format, and

using the word, ‘‘you’’ for whoever must

comply, do the most to improve the look

and sound of a regulation. The preamble

for today’s final rule uses the first

principle and was developed using a

plain language question and answer

format. Today’s final rule language does

not use these principles since the rule

only modifies or adds to existing

regulatory language that is in the

previous regulatory language format.

However, EPA has made every effort to

write the rule in as clear, concise, and

unambiguous manner as possible.

M. Executive Order 13211: Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May

22, 2001)), provides that agencies shall

prepare and submit to the Administrator

of the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, a Statement of

Energy Effects for certain actions

identified as ‘‘significant energy

actions.’’ Section 4(b) of Executive

Order 13211 defines ‘‘significant energy

actions’’ as ‘‘any action by an agency

(normally published in the Federal

Register) that promulgates or is

expected to lead to the promulgation of

a final rule or regulation, including

notices of inquiry, advance notices of

proposed rulemaking, and notices of

proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a

significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866 or any successor

order, and (ii) is likely to have a

significant adverse effect on the supply,

distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that

is designated by the Administrator of

the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs as a significant energy action.’’

We have not prepared a Statement of

Energy Effects for this final rule because

this rule is not a significant energy

action, as defined in Executive Order

13211. While this rule is a significant

regulatory action under Executive Order

12866, it is not likely to have a

significant adverse effect on the supply,

distribution, or use of energy.

N. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule

will be effective August 7, 2001.

VII. References

American Water Works Association. 1998.

Spent Filter Backwash Water Survey.

Atherholt, T., LeChevallier, M., Norton, W.,

and Rosen, J. 1998. Effect of rainfall on

Giardia and crypto. J.AWWA (90:9:66–80).

Bellamy, W., Cleasby, J., Logsdon, G., and

Allen, M. 1993. Assessing Treatment Plant

Performance. J. AWWA (85:12:34–38).

Bellamy, Bill and Carlson, Ken. 1998.

Assessing the Impact of Steady-State and

Surge Recycling on Process Performance.

Casemore, D. 1990. Epidemiological aspects

of human cryptosporidiosis. Epidemiol.

Infect. (104:1–28).

CDC 1994. Addressing Emerging Infectious

Disease Threats: A Prevention Strategy for

the United States. Executive Summary. P.

1–3.

CDC 2000a. CDC Morbidity and Mortality

Weekly Report. Surveillance for

Waterborne-Disease Outbreaks—United

States, 1997–1198, v. 49, N. SS–4, May 26,

2000.

CDC 2000b. Notes from June 20, and October

10, 2000, CDC Working Group on

Waterborne Cryptosporidiosis

Teleconference. October 10, 2000.

Chappell, C., Okhuysen, P., Sterling, C.,

Wang, C., Jakubowski, W., and Dupont, H.

1999. Infectivity of Cryptosporidium

Parvum in Healthy Adults with Preexisting Anti-C. Parvum Serum

Immunoglobulin G. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg.

(60:1:157–164).

Cleasby, J., Williamson, M., and Baumann, E.

1963. Effect of Filtration Rate Changes on

Filtered Water Quality. J. AWWA

(55:7:869–880).

31102 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Cleasby, J. 1990. Filtration, Chapter 8, IN: (F.

Pontius, ed) Water Quality and Treatment.

AWWA, Denver, 57pp.

Conley, W. 1965. Integration of the

Clarification Process. Proceedings AWWA

Annual Conference.

Cordell, R., Thor, P., Addiss, D., Theurer, J.,

Lichterman, R., Ziliak, S., Juranek, D., and

Davis, J. 1997. Impact of a massive

waterborne cryptosporidiosis outbreak on

child care facilities in metropolitan

Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Pediatr Infect Dis J.

(16:639–44).

Cornwell, D. and M. Macphee, 2001. ‘‘Effects

of Spent Filter Backwash Recycle on

Cryptosporidium Removal.’’ Journal of the

American Water Works Association:

93(04): 153–162.

Cornwell, D. and Lee, R. 1994. Waste Stream

Recycling: Its Effect on Water Quality. J.

AWWA (86:11:50–63).

Cornwell, D., and Lee, R. 1996. Treatment

Options for giardia, Cryptosporidium, and

Other Contaminants in Recycled Backwash

Water. Proposal to AWWARF. (Cited in

Cornwell 1997 as Cornwell and

LeChevallier 1996).

Cornwell, D. 1997. Treatment of Recycle and

Backwash Streams. Water Residuals and

Biosolids Management: WEF/AWWA,

11pp.

Craun, Gunther. 1998. Memorandum from G.

Craun to U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (M. Negro), dated 10/26/98.

Waterborne outbreak data 1971–1996,

community and noncommunity water

systems.

Dugan, N., Fox, K., Miltner, R., Lytle, D.,

Williams, D., Parrett, C., Feld, C., and

Owens, J. 1999. ‘‘Control of

Cryptosporidium Oocysts by Steady-State

Conventional Treatment’’. Proceedings of

the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

6th National Drinking Water and

Wastewater Treatment Technology

Transfer Workshop, Kansas City, MO

(August 2–4, 1999), 19 pp.

Dupont, H., Chappell, C., Sterling, C.,

Okhuysen, P., Rose, J., and Jakubowski, W.

1995. The Infectivity of Cryptosporidium

parvum in Healthy Volunteers. N. Engl. J.

Med. (332:13:855–859).

Edzwald, J., and Kelley, M. 1998. Control of

Cryptosporidium: From Reservoirs to

Clarifiers to Filters. Water Science and

Technology (37:2:1–8).

Environmental Engineering & Technology,

Inc. 1999. Background Papers on Potential

Recycle Streams in Drinking Water

Treatment Plants. AWWA, 73 pp.

EPA.1989a. Drinking Water; National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Total

Coliforms (including Fecal Coliforms and

E. Coli); Final Rule. 54 FR 27544, June 29,

1989.

EPA.1989b. National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations: Filtration, Disinfection;

Turbidity, Giardia lamblia, Viruses,

Legionella, and Heterotrophic Bacteria;

Final Rule (SWTR). 54 FR 27486, June 29,

1989.

EPA/SAB 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting

Priorities and Strategies for Environmental

Protection. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Science Advisory Board (A–101),

Washington, DC. Report No. SAB–EC–90–

021 (September).

EPA.1991. Guidance Manual for compliance

with the filtration and disinfection

requirements for public water systems

using surface water sources. Washington,

D.C., 574 pp. [Also published by AWWA].

EPA.1993. Methods for the Determination of

Inorganic Substances in Environmental

Samples. Environmental Monitoring

Systems Laboratory. Cincinnati, OH 45268.

August. 169 pp. 600 /R–93–100.

EPA.1994. January 10, 1994 letter from Jim

Elder, Director, Office of Ground Water and

Drinking Water to John H. Sullivan, Deputy

Executive Director, AWWA, 5 pp.

EPA.1996. National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations; Monitoring Requirements for

Public Drinking Water Supplies; Final

Rule. 61 FR 24354, May 14, 1996.

EPA.1997. National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations: Interim Enhanced Surface

Water Treatment Notice of Data

Availability. 62 FR 59486. EPA–815–Z–97–

001.

EPA.1998a. National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations: Interim Enhanced Surface

Water Treatment; Final Rule. 63 FR 69477,

December 16, 1998. EPA 815–Z–98–009.

EPA.1998b. Cryptosporidium and Giardia

Occurrence Assessment for the Interim

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.

Prepared for the Office of Ground Water

and Drinking Water, Washington, DC by

Science Applications International

Corporation, McLean, VA, 185 pp.

EPA.1998c. National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations: Disinfectants and Disinfection

Byproducts; Final Rule. 63 FR 69389,

December 16, 1998.

EPA.1998d. Addendum to the Drinking

Water Criteria Document for Giardia.

Prepared for Office of Water, Office of

Science and Technology, U.S. EPA,

Washington, D.C., by ARCTECH, Inc.,

1999. Gunther F. Craun & Associates.

271pp.

EPA.1998e. Demographic Distribution of

Sensitive Population Groups. Final Report.

Prepared by SRA Technologies, Inc., Falls

Church, VA. Work Assignment No. B–11/

22 (SRA 557–05/14: February 24).

EPA.1998f. National Primary Drinking Water

Regulation: Consumer Confidence Reports;

Final Rule. 63 FR 44511, August 19, 1998.

EPA.1998g. Revision of Existing Variance

and Exemption Regulations To Comply

With Requirements of the Safe Drinking

Water Act. 63 FR 43833, August 14, 1998.

EPA.1998h. Announcement of the Drinking

Water Contaminant Candidate List; Notice.

63 FR 10273, March 2, 1998.

EPA.1998i. Revisions to State Primacy

Requirements to Implement Safe Drinking

Water Act Amendments; Final Rule. 63

Federal Register 23362.

EPA.1998j. Guidance on Implementing the

Capacity Development Provisions of the

Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of

1996. EPA Document Number: 816–R–98–

006.

EPA.1998k. Final Report of the SBREFA

Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on

EPA’s Planned Proposed Rule: Filter

Backwash Recycling, 76 pp.

EPA.1998l. Response to Comment Document

for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water

Treatment Rule.

EPA.1999a. Drinking Water Criteria

Document for Viruses: An Addendum.

Prepared for Health and Ecological Criteria

Division, Office of Science and Technology

by ISSI, Inc., Silver Spring, MD. Final Draft

265 pp. (EPA/822/R/98/042: January 15).

EPA.1999b. Drinking Water Criteria

Document for Enteroviruses and Hepatitis

A: An Addendum. Prepared for Health and

Ecological Criteria Division by Nena

Nwachuku, Office of Science and

Technology. Final Draft 173 pp. (EPA/822/

R/98/043: January 15).

EPA. 1999c. Regulatory Impact Analysis for

the Proposed Long Term 1 Enhanced

Surface Water Treatment and Filter

Backwash Rule. EPA 815–R–00–005. 222

pp.

EPA.1999d. Water Industry Baseline

Handbook, 462pp (First Edition: March 2,

1999).

EPA.1999e. Meeting Summary: Long Term 1

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

(LT1ESWTR) and Filter Backwash Recycle

Rule (FBR). Dallas, TX. March. 11 pp.

EPA.1999f. Stakeholder Meeting Summary:

Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water

Treatment Rule and Filter Backwash

Recycle Rule. Denver, CO. July. 67 pp.

EPA.2000a. Occurrence Assessment for the

Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water

Treatment and Filter Backwash Recycle

Rule, (EPA/815/R/00/019).

EPA.2000b. National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations: Long Term 1 Enhanced

Surface Water Treatment and filter

Backwash Rule; Proposed Rule. 65 FR

19046. April 10, 2000. (EPA/815/Z/00/01).

EPA.2000c. Regulatory Impact Analysis for

the Filter Backwash Recycle Rule, (EPA/

815/R/00/022).

EPA.2000d. Summary of the Proposed Long

Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment

and Filter Backwash Rule. April, 14, 2000.

EPA.2000e. Application of the Microbial

Framework to LT2ESWTR FACA Options,

M/DBP FACA Meeting, June 1, 2000.

EPA.2000f. Regulatory Flexibility Screening

Analysis for the Filter Backwash Recycling

Rule, September 26, 2000.

EPA.2000g. Proposed Long Term 1 Enhanced

Surface Water Treatment and Filter

Backwash Rule (LT1FBR) Issues for the

National Drinking Water Advisory Council.

April 20, 2000.

EPA.2000h. Meeting Summary, Government

Dialogue on EPA’s Upcoming Drinking

Water Regulations, May 30, 2000.

EPA.2000i. Representative List of Meetings

Attended where Presentations were Made

or where Materials were Handed out

(LT1ESWTR and FBRR).

EPA.2000j. Response to Comment Document

for the Filter Backwash Recycle Rule.

EPA.2000k. Estimated Per Capita Water

Ingestion in the United States. Office of

Science and Technology. February, 2000.

EPA 2000l, Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface

Water Treatment Rule Data Set from the

Round 1 Monitoring (1987–92) of the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Information System.

EPA.2000m. M/DBP FACA Meeting

Materials. June 1–2, 2000.

EPA. 2000n. SAB Commentary on EPA’s

Draft Proposal for LT1ESWTR and FBRR.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 31103

EPA–SAB–DWC–COM–00–004. May 23,

2000.

EPA 2000o. National Primary Drinking Water

Regulation: Public Notification Rule; Final

Rule. 65 FR 25982, May 4, 2000.

EPA.2001. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the

Filter Backwash Recycle Rule. Fayer, R.

and Ungar, B. 1986. Cryptosporidium spp.

and cryptosporidiosis. Microbial Review.

(50:4:458–483).

Fayer, R. 1994. Effect of high temperature on

infectivity of Cryptosporidium parvum

oocysts in water. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.

60:2732–2735.

Fayer, R., and T. Nerad. 1996. Effects of low

temperatures on viability of

Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts. Appl.

Environ. Microbiol. 62:1431–1433.

Foundation for Water Research. 1994.

Removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts by

water treatment processes. Foundation for

Water Research, Britain. April.

Frost, F., Craun, G., Calderon, R., and Hubbs,

S. 1997. So many oocysts, so few

outbreaks. J. AWWA (89:12:8–10).

Fulton, P. 1987. Upgrading Filtration to Meet

Pending Standards. Public Works (August:

68–72).

Gerba, C.P., J.B. Rose and C.N. Haas (1996).

Sensitive populations: who is at the

greatest risk? International Journal of Food

Microbiology: 30(1–2), 10pp.

Glasgow, G. and Wheatley, A. 1998. The

Effect of Surges on the Performance of

Rapid Gravity Filtration. Wat. Sci. Tech.

(37:2:75–81).

Grubb, T. and Arnold, S. 1997. Filter

Backwash Reuse: Treatment by Dissolved

Air Floatation. Proceedings AWWA

Annual Conference, 15pp.

Harrington W., Krupnick, A.J., and W.O.

Spofford. ‘‘The Benefits of Preventing an

Outbreak of Giardiasis Due to Drinking

Water Contamination.’’ EPA/Resources for

the Future Report.

Hoxie, N., Davis, J., Vergeront, J., Nashold, R.,

and Blair, K. 1997. Cryptosporidiosisassociated mortality following a massive

waterborne outbreak in Milwaukee,

Wisconsin. Amer. J. Publ. Health

(87:12:2032–2035).

Kelley, M., Warrier, P., Brokaw, J., Barrett, K.

and Komisar, S. 1995. A Study of Two U.S.

Army Installation Drinking Water Sources

and Treatment Systems for the Removal of

Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Proceedings

AWWA Annual Conference.

LeChevallier, M., Norton, W., and Lee, R.

1991. Giardia and Cryptosporidium spp. in

filtered drinking water supplies. Appl.

Environ. Microbial. (57:9:2617–2621).

LeChevallier, M., and Norton, W. 1992.

Examining relationships between particle

counts and Giardia, Cryptosporidium and

turbidity. J. AWWA (84:120:54–60).

LeChevallier, M., and Norton, W. 1995.

Giardia and Cryptosporidium in raw and

finished water. J. AWWA (87:9:54–68).

Levesque, B.L., Tobiason, J., Parmenter, W.,

and J. Edzwald 1999. Filter Backwash

Recycle: Quality Characteristics and

Impacts on Treatment. Proceedings AWWA

Annual Conference.

Logdson, G. 1987. Evaluating Treatment

Plants for Particulate Contaminant

Removal. J. AWWA (79:9:82–92).

MacKenzie, W.R., N.J. Hoxie, M.E. Proctor,

M.S. Gradus, K.A. Blair, D.E. Peterson, J.J.

Kazmierczak, D.G. Addiss, K.R. Fox, J.B.

Rose, and J.P. Davis. 1994. A massive

outbreak in Milwaukee of Cryptosporidium

infection transmitted through the public

water supply. New England Jour. Med.

331(3):161–167.

McGuire, M.J., Analysis of Fax Survey

Results. Prepared for American Water

Works Association, Government Affairs

Office, Washington, D.C. Jan. 26, 1997.

McTigue, N., LeChevallier, M., Arora, H., and

Clancy, J. 1998. National Assessment of

Particle Removal by Filtration. AWWARF.

Denver, 256pp.

Myers, Tony, Skadsen, Janice and Sanford,

Larry. 2000. Coping with Filter Backwash

Recycle in Water Treatment. AWWA 2000

Annual Conference ProceedingsInnovation for the New Millennium,

AWWA, Denver, 11pg.

NDWAC, 2000. National Drinking Water

Advisory Council Meeting Minutes and

Recommendations, June 14, 2000.

Nieminski, E., and Ongerth, J. 1995.

Removing Giardia and Cryptosporidium by

Conventional Treatment and Direct

Filtration. J. AWWA (87:9:96–106).

Ongerth, J., and Pecoraro, J. 1995. Removing

Cryptosporidium Using Multimedia Filters.

J. AWWA. (87:12: 83–89).

Parker, D.Y., Leonard, M.J., Barber, P., Bonic,

G., Jones W., and Leavell, K.L., 1999.

Microfiltration treatment of filter backwash

recycle water from a drinking water

treatment facility. Proceedings, AWWA

Water Quality Technology Conference.

Patania, N., Jacangelo, J., Cummings, L.,

Wilczak, A., Riley, K., and Oppenheimer,

J. 1995. Optimization of Filtration for Cyst

Removal. AWWARF. Denver, 178pp.

Pederson & Calhoun, 1995. Do You Recycle?

Results of AWWA’s Recycle Practices

Survey. AWWA.

Robeck, G., Dostal, K., and Woodward, R.

1964. Studies of Modification in Water

Filtration. J. AWWA (56:2:198–213).

Rose, J.B., 1988, ‘‘Occurrence and

Significance of Cryptosporidium in water,

J. AWWA 80(2):53–58.

Trussell, R., Trussell, A., Lang, J., and Tate,

C. 1980. Recent Developments in Filtration

System Design. J. AWWA (72:12:705–710).

West, T., Danile, P., Meyerhofer, P., DeGraca,

A., Leonard, S., and Gerba, C. 1994.

Evaluation of Cryptosporidium Removal

through High-rate Filtration. Proceedings

AWWA Annual Conference, June. Pp 493–

504.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

40 CFR Part 141

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Indians-lands, Intergovernmental

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 142

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Chemicals, Indians-lands, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Water

supply.

Dated: May 23, 2001.

Christine Todd Whitman,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 9—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 9

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y;

15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671;

21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318,

1321, 1326–1330, 1324, 1344, 1345 (d) and

(e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,

1971–1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241,

242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2,

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1,

300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq.,

6901–992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657,

11023, 11048.

2. In § 9.1 the table is amended by

adding under the indicated heading the

new entry in numerical order to read as

follows:

§ 9.1 OMB Approvals under the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

* * * * *

40 CFR citation OMB control No.

*****

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations

 

141.76 ............................. 2040–0224

** ***

PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

3. The authority citation for part 141

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2,

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4,

300j–9, and 300j–11.

4. Subpart H is amended by adding

§ 141.76 to read as follows:

§ 141.76 Recycle Provisions.

(a) Applicability. All subpart H

systems that employ conventional

filtration or direct filtration treatment

and that recycle spent filter backwash

water, thickener supernatant, or liquids

from dewatering processes must meet

the requirements in paragraphs (b)

through (d) of this section.

31104 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

(b) Reporting. A system must notify

the State in writing by Decemeber 8,

2003, if the system recycles spent filter

backwash water, thickener supernatant,

or liquids from dewatering processes.

This notification must include, at a

minimum, the information specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) A plant schematic showing the

origin of all flows which are recycled

(including, but not limited to, spent

filter backwash water, thickener

supernatant, and liquids from

dewatering processes), the hydraulic

conveyance used to transport them, and

the location where they are reintroduced back into the treatment

plant.

(2) Typical recycle flow in gallons per

minute (gpm), the highest observed

plant flow experienced in the previous

year (gpm), design flow for the

treatment plant (gpm), and Stateapproved operating capacity for the

plant where the State has made such

determinations.

(c) Treatment technique requirement.

Any system that recycles spent filter

backwash water, thickener supernatant,

or liquids from dewatering processes

must return these flows through the

processes of a system’s existing

conventional or direct filtration system

as defined in § 141.2 or at an alternate

location approved by the State by June

8, 2004. If capital improvements are

required to modify the recycle location

to meet this requirement, all capital

improvements must be completed no

later than June 8, 2006.

(d) Recordkeeping. The system must

collect and retain on file recycle flow

information specified in paragraphs

(d)(1) through (6) of this section for

review and evaluation by the State

beginning June 8, 2004.

(1) Copy of the recycle notification

and information submitted to the State

under paragraph (b) of this section.

(2) List of all recycle flows and the

frequency with which they are returned.

(3) Average and maximum backwash

flow rate through the filters and the

average and maximum duration of the

filter backwash process in minutes.

(4) Typical filter run length and a

written summary of how filter run

length is determined.

(5) The type of treatment provided for

the recycle flow.

(6) Data on the physical dimensions of

the equalization and/or treatment units,

typical and maximum hydraulic loading

rates, type of treatment chemicals used

and average dose and frequency of use,

and frequency at which solids are

removed, if applicable.

5. Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part

141 is amended by adding a new entry

‘‘8.’’ in numerical order under I.A. to

read as follows:

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—NPDWR VIOLATIONS AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING PUBLIC NOTICE 1

Contaminant

MCL/MRDL/TT violations 2 Monitoring and testing procedure violations

Tier of public

notice required Citation Tier of public

notice required Citation

1. Violations of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR): 3

A. Microbiological Contaminants

*******

8. Filter Backwash Recycling Rule violations ........................................... 2 141.76 3 141.76

*******

Appendix A—Endnotes

1. Violations and other situations not listed in this table (e.g., reporting violations and failure to prepare Consumer Confidence Reports), do not

require notice, unless otherwise determined by the primacy agency. Primacy agencies may, at their option, also require a more stringent public

notice tier (e.g., Tier 1 instead of Tier 2 or Tier 2 instead of Tier 3) for specific violations and situations listed in this Appendix, as authorized

under § 141.202(a) and § 141.203(a).

2. MCL—Maximum contaminant level, MRDL—Maximum residual disinfectant level, TT—Treatment technique.

3. The term Violations of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) is used here to include violations of MCL, MRDL, treatment

technique, monitoring, and testing procedure requirements.

* * * * *

6. Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 141 is amended by revising B and entry ‘‘7.’’ under B. to read as follows:

APPENDIX B TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—STANDARD HEALTH EFFECTS LANGUAGE FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Contaminant MCLG 1 mg/L MCL 2 mg/L

Standard health

effects language

for public

notification

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR):

*******

B. Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment

Rule (IESWTR) and Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR) violations:

*******

7. Cryptosporidium (IESWTR/FBRR).

*******

Appendix B—Endnotes

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 31105

1. MCLG—Maximum contaminant level goal.

2. MCL—Maximum contaminant level.

* * * * *

PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

IMPLEMENTATION

7. The authority citation for Part 142

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2,

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4,

300j–9, and 300j–11.

8. Section 142.14 is amended by

removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the end of

the paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A)(7) and

revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A)(8) and

adding paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A)(9) to read

as follows:

§ 142.14 Records kept by States.

(a) * * *

(4) * * *

(ii) * * *

(A) * * *

(8) Section 141.75(b)(2)(iv)—Any

decision to allow reduced reporting by

a filtered public water system; and

(9) Section 141.76—Any decisions

made to approve alternate recycle

locations, require modifications to

recycle return locations, or require

modifications to recycle practices.

* * * * *

9. Section 142.16 is amended by

adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:

§ 142.16 Special primacy requirements.

* * * * *

(i) Requirements for States to adopt

40 CFR part 141, § 141.76 Recycle

Provisions. In addition to the general

primacy requirements enumerated

elsewhere in this part, including the

requirement that the State provisions

are no less stringent than the federal

requirements, an application for

approval of a State program revision

that adopts 40 CFR part 141, § 141.76

Recycle Provisions must contain the

information specified in this paragraph:

(1) State practices or procedures. (i)

Section 141.76(d) of this chapter—States

must have the proper rules and

authority to use Sanitary Surveys,

comprehensive performance evaluations

(CPEs), other inspections, or other

activities to evaluate recycle data

maintained by systems under

§ 141.76(d) of this chapter and require

modifications to recycle practices.

(ii) [Reserved]

(2) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 01–13776 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P