[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 654-786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4]
[[Page 653]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 2 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2006 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 654]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142
[EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0039; FRL-8013-1]
RIN 2040--AD37
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 2 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations that require the use of treatment techniques, along with
monitoring, reporting, and public notification requirements, for all
public water systems that use surface water sources. The purposes of
the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) are to
protect public health from illness due to Cryptosporidium and other
microbial pathogens in drinking water and to address risk-risk trade-
offs with the control of disinfection byproducts.
Key provisions in the LT2ESWTR include the following: source water
monitoring for Cryptosporidium, with a screening procedure to reduce
monitoring costs for small systems; risk-targeted Cryptosporidium
treatment by filtered systems with the highest source water
Cryptosporidium levels; inactivation of Cryptosporidium by all
unfiltered systems; criteria for the use of Cryptosporidium treatment
and control processes; and covering or treating uncovered finished
water storage facilities.
EPA believes that implementation of the LT2ESWTR will significantly
reduce levels of infectious Cryptosporidium in finished drinking water.
This will substantially lower rates of endemic cryptosporidiosis, the
illness caused by Cryptosporidium, which can be severe and sometimes
fatal in sensitive subpopulations (e.g., infants, people with weakened
immune systems). In addition, the treatment technique requirements of
this regulation will increase protection against other microbial
pathogens like Giardia lamblia.
DATES: This final rule is effective on March 6, 2006. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of March 6, 2006. For judicial
review purposes, this final rule is promulgated as of January 5, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0039. All documents in the docket are listed on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water
Docket is (202) 566-2426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel C. Schmelling, Standards and
Risk Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC
4607M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-5281; fax number:
(202) 564-3767; e-mail address: [email protected]. For general
information, contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, telephone number:
(800) 426-4791. The Safe Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern time.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Who Is Regulated by This Action?
Entities potentially regulated by the LT2ESWTR are public water
systems (PWSs) that use surface water or ground water under the direct
influence of surface water (GWUDI). Regulated categories and entities
are identified in the following chart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Public Water Systems that use
Governments. 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 this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. 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 public water system in Sec. 141.3 of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations and applicability criteria in Sec.
141.700(b) of today's rule. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of the LT2ESWTR to a particular entity, consult one of
the persons listed in the preceding section entitled FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Abbreviations Used in This Document
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AWWA American Water Works Association
[deg]C Degrees Centigrade
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CFE Combined Filter Effluent
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COI Cost-of-Illness
CT The Residual Concentration of Disinfectant (mg/L) Multiplied by the
Contact Time (in minutes)
CWS Community Water Systems
DAPI 4',6-Diamindino-2-phenylindole
DBPs Disinfection Byproducts
DBPR Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule
DE Diatomaceous Earth
DIC Differential Interference Contrast (microscopy)
EA Economic Analysis
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
GAC Granular Activated Carbon
GWUDI Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water
HAA5 Five Haloacetic Acids (Monochloroacetic, Dichloroacetic,
Trichloroacetic, Monobromoacetic and Dibromoacetic Acids)
ICR Information Collection Rule (also Information Collection Request)
ICRSS Information Collection Rule Supplemental Surveys
[[Page 655]]
ICRSSM Information Collection Rule Supplemental Survey of Medium
Systems
ICRSSL Information Collection Rule Supplemental Survey of Large Systems
IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Log Logarithm (common, base 10)
LRAA Locational Running Annual Average
LRV Log Removal Value
LT1ESWTR Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
LT2ESWTR Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MG Million Gallons
M-DBP Microbial and Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts
MF Microfiltration
NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PE Performance Evaluation
PWS Public Water System
QC Quality Control
QCRV Quality Control Release Value
RAA Running Annual Average
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RO Reverse Osmosis
SAB Science Advisory Board
SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SWAP Source Water Assessment Program
SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule
TCR Total Coliform Rule
TTHM Total Trihalomethanes
UF Ultrafiltration
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. Who Is Regulated by This Action?
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. Why Is EPA Promulgating the LT2ESWTR?
B. What Does the LT2ESWTR Require?
1. Source water monitoring
2. Additional treatment for Cryptosporidium
3. Uncovered finished water storage facilities
C. Will This Regulation Apply to My Water System?
III. Background Information
A. Statutory Requirements and Legal Authority
B. Existing Regulations for Microbial Pathogens in Drinking
Water
1. Surface Water Treatment Rule
2. Total Coliform Rule
3. Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
4. Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
5. Filter Backwash Recycle Rule
C. Concern with Cryptosporidium in Drinking Water
1. Introduction
2. What is Cryptosporidium?
3. Cryptosporidium health effects
4. Efficacy of water treatment processes on Cryptosporidium
5. Epidemic and endemic disease from Cryptosporidium
D. Specific Concerns Following the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR
E. New Information on Cryptosporidium Risk Management
1. Infectivity
2. Occurrence
3. Analytical methods
4. Treatment
F. Federal Advisory Committee Recommendations
IV. Explanation of Today's Action
A. Source Water Monitoring Requirements
1. Today's rule
a. Sampling parameters and frequency
b. Sampling location
c. Sampling schedule
d. Plants operating only part of the year
e. Failing to monitor
f. Providing treatment instead of monitoring
g. Grandfathering previously collected data
h. Ongoing watershed assessment
i. Second round of monitoring
j. New source monitoring
2. Background and analysis
a. Sampling parameters and frequency
b. Sampling location
c. Sampling schedule
d. Plants operating only part of the year
e. Failing to monitor
f. Grandfathering previously collected data
g. Ongoing watershed assessment
h. Second round of monitoring
3. Summary of major comments
a. Sampling parameters and frequency
b. Sampling location
c. Sampling schedule
d. Plants operating only part of the year
e. Failing to monitor
f. Providing treatment instead of monitoring
g. Grandfathering previously collected data
h. Ongoing watershed assessment
i. Second round of monitoring
j. New source monitoring
B. Filtered System Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements
1. Today's rule
a. Bin classification
b. Bin treatment requirements
2. Background and analysis
a. Basis for targeted treatment requirements
b. Basis for bin concentration ranges and treatment requirements
3. Summary of major comments
C. Unfiltered System Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements
1. Today's rule
a. Determination of mean Cryptosporidium level
b. Cryptosporidium treatment requirements
c. Use of two disinfectants
2. Background and analysis
a. Basis for Cryptosporidium treatment requirements
b. Basis for requiring the use of two disinfectants
c. Filtration avoidance
3. Summary of major comments
D. Options for Systems to Meet Cryptosporidium Treatment
Requirements
1. Microbial toolbox overview
2. Watershed control program
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
3. Alternative source
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
4. Pre-sedimentation with coagulant
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
5. Two-stage lime softening
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
6. Bank filtration
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
7. Combined filter performance
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
8. Individual filter performance
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
9. Demonstration of performance
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
10. Bag and cartridge filtration
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
11. Membrane filtration
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
12. Second stage filtration
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
13. Slow sand filtration
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
14. Ozone and chlorine dioxide
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
15. Ultraviolet light
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
E. Disinfection Benchmarking for Giardia lamblia and Viruses
1. Today's rule
2. Background and analysis
3. Summary of major comments
F. Requirements for Systems with Uncovered Finished Water
Storage Facilities
1. Today's rule
[[Page 656]]
2. Background and analysis
a. Types and sources of contaminants in open reservoirs
b. Regulatory approaches to reduce risk from contamination in
open reservoirs
c. Definition of uncovered finished water storage facility
3. Summary of major comments
G. Compliance Schedules
1. Today's rule
2. Background and analysis
3. Summary of major comments
H. Public Notice Requirements
1. Today's rule
2. Background and analysis
3. Summary of major comments
I. Reporting Source Water Monitoring Results
1. Today's rule
2. Background and analysis
3. Summary of major comments
J. Analytical Methods
1. Analytical methods overview
2. Cryptosporidium methods
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
3. E. coli methods
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
4. Turbidity methods
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
K. Laboratory Approval
1. Cryptosporidium laboratory approval
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
2. E. coli laboratory approval
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
3. Turbidity analyst approval
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
L. Requirements for Sanitary Surveys Conducted by EPA
1. Today's rule
2. Background and analysis
3. Summary of major comments
M. Variances and Exemptions
1. Variances
2. Exemptions
V. State Implementation
A. Today's Rule
1. Special State primacy requirements
2. State recordkeeping requirements
3. State reporting requirements
4. Interim primacy
B. Background and Analysis
C. Summary of Major Comments
VI. Economic Analysis
A. What Regulatory Alternatives Did the Agency Consider?
B. What Analyses Support Today's Final Rule?
C. What Are the Benefits of the LT2ESWTR?
1. Nonquantified benefits
2. Quantified benefits
a. Filtered PWSs
b. Unfiltered PWSs
3. Timing of benefits accrual (latency)
D. What Are the Costs of the LT2ESWTR?
1. Total annualized present value costs
2. PWS costs
a. Source water monitoring costs
b. Filtered PWSs treatment costs
c. Unfiltered PWSs treatment costs
d. Uncovered finished water storage facilities
e. Future monitoring costs
f. Sensitivity analysis--influent bromide levels on technology
selection for filtered plants
3. State/Primacy agency costs
4. Non-quantified costs
E. What Are the Household Costs of the LT2ESWTR?
F. What Are the Incremental Costs and Benefits of the LT2ESWTR?
H. Are there Increased Risks From Other Contaminants?
I. What Are the Effects of the Contaminant on the General
Population and Groups within the General Populations that Are
Identified as Likely to be at Greater Risk of Adverse Health
Effects?
J. What Are the Uncertainties in the Risk, Benefit, and Cost
Estimates for the LT2ESWTR?
K. What Is the Benefit/Cost Determination for the LT2ESWTR?
L. Summary of Major Comments
1. Cryptosporidium occurrence
a. Quality of the ICR and ICRSS data sets
b. Treatment of observed zeros
2. Drinking water consumption
3. Cryptosporidium infectivity
4. Valuation of benefits
a. Valuation of morbidity
b. Valuation of lost time under the enhanced cost of illness
(COI) approach
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations or Low-Income
Populations
K. Consultations with the Science Advisory Board, National
Drinking Water Advisory Council, and the Secretary of Health and
Human Services
L. Plain Language
M. Analysis of the Likely Effect of Compliance with the LT2ESWTR
on the Technical, Financial, and Managerial Capacity of Public Water
Systems
N. Congressional Review Act
VIII. References
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. Why Is EPA Promulgating the LT2ESWTR?
EPA is promulgating the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) to further protect public health against
Cryptosporidium and other microbial pathogens in drinking water.
Cryptosporidium is a protozoan parasite that is common in surface water
used as drinking water sources by public water systems (PWSs). In
drinking water, Cryptosporidium is a particular concern because it is
highly resistant to chemical disinfectants like chlorine. When
ingested, Cryptosporidium can cause acute gastrointestinal illness,
which may be severe and sometimes fatal for people with weakened immune
systems. Cryptosporidium has been identified as the cause of a number
of waterborne disease outbreaks in the United States (details in
section III.C).
The LT2ESWTR supplements existing microbial treatment regulations
and targets PWSs with higher potential risk from Cryptosporidium.
Existing regulations require most PWSs using surface water sources to
filter the water, and those PWSs that are required to filter must
remove at least 99 percent (2-log) of the Cryptosporidium (details in
section III.B). As explained in the proposal for today's rule (68 FR
47640, August 11, 2003) (USEPA 2003a), new data on the occurrence,
infectivity, and treatment of Cryptosporidium in drinking water
indicate that existing regulations are sufficient for most PWSs. A
subset of PWSs with greater vulnerability to Cryptosporidium, however,
requires additional treatment.
In particular, recent national survey data show that the level of
Cryptosporidium in the sources of most filtered PWSs is lower than
previously estimated, but also that Cryptosporidium levels vary widely
from source to source. Accordingly, a subset of filtered PWSs has
relatively high levels of source water Cryptosporidium contamination.
In addition, data from human health studies indicate that the potential
for Cryptosporidium to cause infection is likely greater than
previously recognized (details in section III.E). These findings have
led EPA to conclude that existing requirements do not provide adequate
public health protection in filtered PWSs with the highest source water
Cryptosporidium levels. Consequently, EPA is establishing risk-targeted
additional treatment requirements for such filtered PWSs under the
LT2ESWTR.
[[Page 657]]
For PWSs that use surface water sources and are not required to
filter (i.e., unfiltered PWSs), existing regulations do not require any
treatment for Cryptosporidium. New survey data suggest that typical
Cryptosporidium levels in the treated water of unfiltered PWSs are
higher than in the treated water of filtered PWSs (USEPA 2003a). Thus,
Cryptosporidium treatment by unfiltered PWSs is needed to achieve
comparable public health protection (details in section III.E).
Further, results from recent treatment studies have allowed EPA to
develop standards for the inactivation of Cryptosporidium by ozone,
ultraviolet (UV) light, and chlorine dioxide (details in section IV.D).
Based on these developments, EPA is establishing requirements under the
LT2ESWTR for all unfiltered PWSs to treat for Cryptosporidium, with the
required degree of treatment depending on the source water
contamination level.
Additionally, the LT2ESWTR addresses risks in uncovered finished
water storage facilities, in which treated water can be subject to
significant contamination as a result of runoff, bird and animal
wastes, human activity, algal growth, insects, fish, and airborne
deposition (details in section IV.F). Existing regulations prohibit the
building of new uncovered finished water storage facilities but do not
deal with existing ones. Under the LT2ESWTR, PWSs must limit potential
risks by covering or treating the discharge of such storage facilities.
Most of the requirements in today's final LT2ESWTR reflect
consensus recommendations from the Stage 2 Microbial and Disinfection
Byproducts (M-DBP) Federal Advisory Committee. These recommendations
are set forth in the Stage 2 M-DBP Agreement in Principle (65 FR 83015,
December 29, 2000) (USEPA 2000a).
B. What Does the LT2ESWTR Require?
1. Source Water Monitoring
The LT2ESWTR requires PWSs using surface water or ground water
under the direct influence (GWUDI) of surface water to monitor their
source water (i.e., the influent water entering the treatment plant) to
determine an average Cryptosporidium level. As described in the next
section, monitoring results determine the extent of Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements under the LT2ESWTR.
Large PWSs (serving at least 10,000 people) must monitor for
Cryptosporidium (plus E. coli and turbidity in filtered PWSs) for a
period of two years. To reduce monitoring costs, small filtered PWSs
(serving fewer than 10,000 people) initially monitor just for E. coli
for one year as a screening analysis and are required to monitor for
Cryptosporidium only if their E. coli levels exceed specified
``trigger'' values. Small filtered PWSs that exceed the E. coli
trigger, as well as all small unfiltered PWSs, must monitor for
Cryptosporidium for one or two years, depending on the sampling
frequency (details sections IV.A).
Under the LT2ESWTR, specific criteria are set for sampling
frequency and schedule, sampling location, using previously collected
data (i.e., grandfathering), providing treatment instead of monitoring,
sampling by PWSs that use surface water for only part of the year, and
monitoring of new plants and sources (details in section IV.A). The
LT2ESWTR also establishes requirements for reporting of monitoring
results (details in section IV.I), using analytical methods (details in
section IV.J), and using approved laboratories (details in section
IV.K).
The date for PWSs to begin monitoring is staggered by PWS size,
with smaller PWSs starting at a later time than larger ones (details in
section IV.G). Today's rule also requires a second round of monitoring
to begin approximately 6.5 years after the first round concludes in
order to determine if source water quality has changed to a degree that
should affect treatment requirements (details in section IV.A).
2. Additional Treatment for Cryptosporidium
The LT2ESWTR establishes risk-targeted treatment technique
requirements to control Cryptosporidium in PWSs using surface water or
GWUDI. These treatment requirements supplement those established by
existing regulations, all of which remain in effect under the LT2ESWTR.
Filtered PWSs will be classified in one of four treatment
categories (or ``bins'') based on the results of the source water
Cryptosporidium monitoring described in the previous section. This bin
classification determines the degree of additional Cryptosporidium
treatment, if any, the filtered PWS must provide. Occurrence data
indicate that the majority of filtered PWSs will be classified in Bin
1, which carries no additional treatment requirements. PWSs classified
in Bins 2, 3, or 4 must achieve 1.0- to 2.5-log of treatment (i.e., 90
to 99.7 percent reduction) for Cryptosporidium over and above that
provided with conventional treatment. Different additional treatment
requirements may apply to PWSs using other than conventional treatment,
such as direct filtration, membranes, or cartridge filters (details in
section. IV.B). Filtered PWSs must meet the additional Cryptosporidium
treatment required in Bins 2, 3, or 4 by using one or more treatment or
control processes from a ``microbial toolbox'' of options (details in
section. IV.D).
The LT2ESWTR requires all unfiltered PWSs to provide at least 2-log
(i.e., 99 percent) inactivation of Cryptosporidium. If the average
source water Cryptosporidium level exceeds 0.01 oocysts/L based on the
monitoring described in the previous section, the unfiltered PWS must
provide at least 3-log (i.e., 99.9 percent) inactivation of
Cryptosporidium. Further, under the LT2ESWTR, unfiltered PWSs must
achieve their overall inactivation requirements (including Giardia
lamblia and virus inactivation as established by earlier regulations)
using a minimum of two disinfectants (details in section IV.C).
3. Uncovered Finished Water Storage Facilities
Under the LT2ESWTR, PWSs with uncovered finished water storage
facilities must take steps to address contamination risks. Existing
regulations require PWSs to cover all new storage facilities for
finished water but do not address existing uncovered finished water
storage facilities. Under the LT2ESWTR, PWSs using uncovered finished
water storage facilities must either cover the storage facility or
treat the storage facility discharge to achieve inactivation and/or
removal of 4-log virus, 3-log Giardia lamblia, and 2-log
Cryptosporidium on a State-approved schedule (details in section.
IV.F).
C. Will This Regulation Apply to My Water System?
The LT2ESWTR applies to all PWSs using surface water or GWUDI,
including both large and small PWSs, community and non-community PWSs,
and non-transient and transient PWSs. Wholesale PWSs must comply with
the requirements of today's rule based on the population of the largest
PWS in the combined distribution system. Consecutive PWSs that purchase
treated water from wholesale PWSs that fully comply with the monitoring
and treatment requirements of the LT2ESWTR are not required to take
additional steps for that water under today's rule.
III. Background Information
The sections in this part provide summary background information
for
[[Page 658]]
today's final LT2ESWTR. Individual sections address the following
topics: (A) Statutory requirements and legal authority for the
LT2ESWTR; (B) existing regulations for microbial pathogens in drinking
water; (C) the problem with Cryptosporidium in drinking water; (D)
specific public health concerns addressed by the LT2ESWTR; (E) new
information for Cryptosporidium risk management in PWSs; and (F)
recommendations from the Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee for the
LT2ESWTR. For additional information on these topics, see the proposed
LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003a) and supporting technical material where cited.
A. Statutory Requirements and Legal Authority
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA or the Act), as amended in 1996,
requires EPA to publish a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) and
promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR) with
enforceable requirements for any contaminant that the Administrator
determines may have an adverse effect on the health of persons, is
known to occur or has a substantial likelihood of occurring in public
water systems (PWSs) with a frequency and at levels of public health
concern, and for which, in the sole judgement of the Administrator,
regulation of such contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for
health risk reduction for persons served by PWSs (section 1412
(b)(1)(A)).
MCLGs are non-enforceable health goals and are to be set at a level
at which no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of
persons occur and which allows an adequate margin of safety (sections
1412(b)(4) and 1412(a)(3)). EPA established an MCLG of zero for
Cryptosporidium under the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(IESWTR) (63 FR 69478, December 16, 1998) (USEPA 1998a). In today's
rule, the Agency is not making any changes to the current MCLG for
Cryptosporidium.
The Act also requires each NPDWR for which an MCLG is established
to specify a maximum contaminant level (MCL) that is as close to the
MCLG as is feasible (sections 1412(b)(4) and 1401(1)(C)). The Agency is
authorized to promulgate an NPDWR that requires the use of a treatment
technique in lieu of establishing an MCL if the Agency finds that it is
not economically or technologically feasible to ascertain the level of
the contaminant (sections 1412(b)(7)(A) and 1401(1)(C)). The Act
specifies that in such cases, the Agency shall identify those treatment
techniques that would prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on
the health of persons to the extent feasible (section 1412(b)(7)(A)).
The Agency has concluded that it is not currently economically or
technologically feasible for PWSs to determine the level of
Cryptosporidium in finished drinking water for the purpose of
compliance with a finished water standard. As described in section
IV.C, the LT2ESWTR is designed to protect public health by lowering the
level of infectious Cryptosporidium in finished drinking water to less
than 1 oocyst/10,000 L. Approved Cryptosporidium analytical methods,
which are described in section IV.K, are not sufficient to routinely
determine the level of Cryptosporidium at this concentration.
Consequently, the LT2ESWTR relies on treatment technique requirements
to reduce health risks from Cryptosporidium in PWSs.
When proposing an NPDWR that includes an MCL or treatment
technique, the Act requires EPA to publish and seek public comment on
an analysis of health risk reduction and costs. This includes an
analysis of quantifiable and nonquantifiable costs and health risk
reduction benefits, incremental costs and benefits of each alternative
considered, the effects of the contaminant upon sensitive
subpopulations (e.g., infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly,
and individuals with a history of serious illness), any increased risk
that may occur as the result of compliance, and other relevant factors
(section 1412(b)(3)(C)). EPA's analysis of health benefits and costs
associated with the LT2ESWTR is presented in the Economic Analysis of
the LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2005a) and is summarized in section VI of this
preamble. The Act does not, however, authorize the Administrator to use
a determination of whether benefits justify costs to establish an MCL
or treatment technique requirement for the control of Cryptosporidium
(section 1412(b)(6)(C)).
Finally, section 1412(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires EPA to
promulgate a Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
within 18 months after promulgation of the LT1ESWTR, which occurred on
January 14, 2002. Consistent with statutory requirements for risk
balancing (section 1412(b)(5)(B)), EPA is finalizing the LT2ESWTR in
conjunction with the Stage 2 DBPR to ensure parallel protection from
microbial and DBP risks.
B. Existing Regulations for Microbial Pathogens in Drinking Water
This section summarizes existing rules that regulate treatment for
pathogenic microorganisms by PWSs using surface water sources. The
LT2ESWTR supplements these rules with additional risk-targeted
requirements, but does not withdraw any existing requirements.
1. Surface Water Treatment Rule
The Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) (54 FR 27486, June 29,
1989) (USEPA 1989a) applies to all PWSs using surface water or ground
water under the direct influence (GWUDI) of surface water as sources
(i.e., Subpart H PWSs). It established MCLGs of zero for Giardia
lamblia, viruses, and Legionella, and includes the following treatment
technique requirements to reduce exposure to pathogenic microorganisms:
(1) Filtration, unless specific avoidance criteria are met; (2)
maintenance of a disinfectant residual in the distribution system; (3)
removal and/or inactivation of 3-log (99.9%) of Giardia lamblia and 4-
log (99.99%) of viruses; (4) maximum allowable turbidity in the
combined filter effluent (CFE) of 5 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU)
and 95th percentile CFE turbidity of 0.5 NTU or less for plants using
conventional treatment or direct filtration (with different standards
for other filtration technologies); and (5) watershed protection and
source water quality requirements for unfiltered PWSs.
2. Total Coliform Rule
The Total Coliform Rule (TCR) (54 FR 27544, June 29, 1989) (USEPA
1989b) applies to all PWSs. It established an MCLG of zero for total
and fecal coliform bacteria and an MCL based on the percentage of
positive samples collected during a compliance period. Coliforms are
used as an indicator of fecal contamination and to determine the
integrity of the water treatment process and distribution system. Under
the TCR, no more than 5 percent of distribution system samples
collected in any month may contain coliform bacteria (no more than 1
sample per month may be coliform positive in those PWSs that collect
fewer than 40 samples per month). The number of samples to be collected
in a month is based on the number of people served by the PWS.
3. Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) (63 FR
69478, December 16, 1998) (USEPA 1998a) applies to PWSs serving at
least 10,000 people and using surface water or
[[Page 659]]
GWUDI sources. Key provisions established by the IESWTR include the
following: (1) An MCLG of zero for Cryptosporidium; (2) Cryptosporidium
removal requirements of 2-log (99 percent) for PWSs that filter; (3)
more stringent CFE turbidity performance standards of 1.0 NTU as a
maximum and 0.3 NTU or less at the 95th percentile monthly for
treatment plants using conventional treatment or direct filtration; (4)
requirements for individual filter turbidity monitoring; (5)
disinfection benchmark provisions to assess the level of microbial
protection that PWSs provide as they take steps to comply with new DBP
standards; (6) inclusion of Cryptosporidium in the definition of GWUDI
and in the watershed control requirements for unfiltered PWSs; (7)
requirements for covers on new finished water storage facilities; and
(8) sanitary surveys for all surface water systems regardless of size.
The IESWTR was developed in conjunction with the Stage 1
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR) (63 FR
69389, December 16, 1998) (USEPA 1998b), which reduced allowable levels
of certain DBPs, including trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids, chlorite,
and bromate.
4. Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
The Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( LT1ESWTR)
(67 FR 1812, January 14, 2002) (USEPA 2002a) builds upon the microbial
control provisions established by the IESWTR for large PWSs through
extending similar requirements to small PWSs. The LT1ESWTR applies to
PWSs that use surface water or GWUDI as sources and that serve fewer
than 10,000 people. Like the IESWTR, the LT1ESWTR established the
following: 2-log (99 percent) Cryptosporidium removal requirements by
PWSs that filter; individual filter turbidity monitoring and more
stringent combined filter effluent turbidity standards for conventional
and direct filtration plants; disinfection profiling and benchmarking;
inclusion of Cryptosporidium in the definition of GWUDI and in the
watershed control requirements for unfiltered PWSs; and the requirement
that new finished water storage facilities be covered.
5. Filter Backwash Recycle Rule
The Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR) (66 FR 31085, June 8,
2001) (USEPA 2001a) requires PWSs to consider the potential risks
associated with recycling contaminants removed during the filtration
process. The provisions of the FBRR apply to all PWSs that recycle,
regardless of population served. In general, the provisions include the
following: (1) PWSs must return certain recycle streams to a point in
the treatment process that is prior to primary coagulant addition
unless the State specifies an alternative location; (2) direct
filtration PWSs recycling to the treatment process must provide
detailed recycle treatment information to the State; and (3) certain
conventional PWSs that practice direct recycling must perform a one-
month, one-time recycling self assessment.
C. Concern With Cryptosporidium in Drinking Water
1. Introduction
EPA is promulgating the LT2ESWTR to reduce the public health risk
associated with Cryptosporidium in drinking water. This section
describes the general basis for this public health concern through
reviewing information in several areas: the nature of Cryptosporidium,
health effects, efficacy of water treatment processes, and the
incidence of epidemic and endemic disease. Further information about
Cryptosporidium is available in the following documents:
Cryptosporidium: Human Health Criteria Document (USEPA 2001b),
Cryptosporidium: Drinking Water Advisory (USEPA 2001c), and
Cryptosporidium: Risks for Infants and Children (USEPA 2001d).
2. What Is Cryptosporidium?
Cryptosporidium is a protozoan parasite that lives and reproduces
entirely in one host. Ingestion of Cryptosporidium can cause
cryptosporidiosis, a gastrointestinal (GI) illness. Cryptosporidium is
excreted in feces. Transmission of cryptosporidiosis occurs through
consumption of water or food contaminated with feces or by direct or
indirect contact with infected persons or animals (Casemore 1990).
In the environment, Cryptosporidium is present as a thick-walled
oocyst containing four organisms (sporozoites); the oocyst wall
insulates the sporozoites from harsh environmental conditions. Oocysts
are 4-5 microns in length and width. Upon a host's ingestion of
oocysts, enzymes and chemicals produced by the host's digestive system
cause the oocyst to excyst, or break open. The excysted sporozoites
embed themselves in the surfaces of the epithelial cells of the lower
small intestine. The organisms then begin absorbing nutrients from
their host cells. When these organisms sexually reproduce, they produce
thick- and thin-walled oocysts. The host excretes the thick-walled
oocysts in its feces; thin-walled oocysts excyst within the host and
contribute to further host infection.
The exact mechanism by which Cryptosporidium causes GI illness is
not known. Factors may include damage to intestinal structure and
cells, changes in the absorption/secretion processes of the intestine,
toxins produced by Cryptosporidium or the host, and proteins that allow
Cryptosporidium to adhere to host cell surfaces (Carey et al. 2004).
Upon excretion, Cryptosporidium oocysts may survive for months in
various environmental media, including soil, river water, seawater, and
human and cattle feces at ambient temperatures (Kato et al. 2001,
Pokorny et al. 2002, Fayer et al. 1998a and 1998b, and Robertson et al.
1992). Cryptosporidium can also withstand temperatures as low as -20
[deg]C for periods of a few hours (Fayer and Nerad 1996) but are
susceptible to desiccation (Robertson et al. 1992).
Cryptosporidium is a widespread contaminant in surface water used
as drinking water supplies. For example, among 67 drinking water
sources surveyed by LeChevallier and Norton (1995), 87 percent had
positive samples for Cryptosporidium. A more recent survey of 80 medium
and large PWSs conducted by EPA detected Cryptosporidium in 85 percent
of water sources (USEPA 2003a). Cryptosporidium contamination can come
from animal agriculture, wastewater treatment plant discharges,
slaughterhouses, birds, wild animals, and other sources of fecal
matter.
Because different species of Cryptosporidium are very similar in
morphology, researchers have focused on genetic differences in trying
to classify them. However, discussion on Cryptosporidium taxonomy is
complicated by the fact that even within species or strains, there may
be differences in infectivity and virulence. Cryptosporidium parvum (C.
parvum) has been the primary species of concern to humans. Until
recently, some researchers divided C. parvum into two primary strains,
genotype 1, which infects humans, and genotype 2, which infects both
humans and cattle (Carey et al. 2004). In 2002, Morgan-Ryan et al.
proposed that genotype 1 be designated a separate species, C. hominis.
Additional Cryptosporidium species infecting other mammals, birds, and
reptiles have been documented. In some cases, these species can infect
both immunocompromised (having weakened immune systems) and
[[Page 660]]
otherwise healthy humans (Carey et al. 2004).
3. Cryptosporidium Health Effects
Cryptosporidium infection is characterized by mild to severe
diarrhea, dehydration, stomach cramps, and/or a slight fever.
Incubation is thought to range from 2 to 10 days (Arrowood 1997).
Symptoms typically last from several days to 2 weeks, though in a small
percentage of cases, the symptoms may persist for months or longer in
otherwise healthy individuals.
Symptoms may be more severe in immunocompromised persons (Frisby et
al. 1997, Carey et al. 2004). Such persons include those with AIDS,
cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, organ transplant recipients
treated with drugs that suppress the immune system, and patients with
autoimmune disorders (e.g., Lupus). In AIDS patients, Cryptosporidium
has been found in the lungs, ear, stomach, bile duct, and pancreas in
addition to the small intestine (Farthing 2000). Immunocompromised
patients with severe persistent cryptosporidiosis may die (Carey et al.
2004). Besides the immunocompromised, children and the elderly may be
at higher risk from Cryptosporidium than the general population
(discussed in section VII.G).
Studies with human volunteers have demonstrated that a low dose of
C. parvum (e.g., 10 oocysts) is sufficient to cause infection in
healthy adults, although some strains are more infectious than others
(DuPont et al. 1995, Chappell et al. 1999, Okhuysen et al. 2002).
Studies of immunosuppressed adult mice have demonstrated that a single
viable oocyst can induce C. parvum infections (Yang et al. 2000,
Okhuysen et al. 2002). The lowest dose tested in any of the human
challenge studies was 10 oocysts. Because drinking water exposures are
generally projected to be at lower levels (e.g., 1 oocyst), statistical
modeling is necessary to project the effects of such exposure.
Following the advice of its Science Advisory Board (SAB), EPA has
developed a range of models to predict effects of exposure to low doses
of Cryptosporidium. These models are discussed in section VI and in the
LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA 2005a).
The degree and duration of the immune response to Cryptosporidium
is not well characterized. In a study by Chappell et al. (1999),
volunteers with IgG Cryptosporidium antibodies in their blood were
immune to low doses of oocysts. The ID50 (the dose that infects 50
percent of the challenged population) was 1,880 oocysts for those
individuals compared to 132 oocysts for individuals that tested
negative for those antibodies. However, earlier studies did not observe
a correlation between the development of antibodies after
Cryptosporidium infection and subsequent protection from illness
(Okhuysen et al. 1998).
No cure for cryptosporidiosis is known. Medical care usually
involves treatment for dehydration and nutrient loss. Certain
antimicrobial drugs like Azithromycin, Paromomycin, and nitazoxanide,
the only drug approved for cryptosporidiosis in children, have been
partially effective in treating immunocompromised patients (Rossignol
et al. 1998). Therapies used to treat retroviruses can be helpful in
fighting cryptosporidiosis in people with AIDS and are more effective
when used in conjunction with antimicrobial therapy. The effectiveness
of antiretroviral therapy is thought to be related to the associated
increase in white blood cells rather than the decrease in the amount of
virus present.
4. Efficacy of Water Treatment Processes on Cryptosporidium
EPA is particularly concerned about Cryptosporidium because, unlike
pathogens such as bacteria and most viruses, Cryptosporidium oocysts
are highly resistant to standard disinfectants like chlorine and
chloramines (Korich et al. 1990, Ransome et al. 1993, Finch et al.
1997). Consequently, control of Cryptosporidium in most treatment
plants is dependent on physical removal processes. However, due to
their size (4-5 microns), oocysts can sometimes pass through filters.
Monitoring data on finished water show that Cryptosporidium is
sometimes present in filtered, treated drinking water (LeChevallier et
al. 1991, Aboytes et al. 2004). For example, Aboytes et al. (2004)
analyzed 1,690 finished water samples from 82 plants. Of these, 22
plants had at least one positive sample for infectious Cryptosporidium
(1.4 percent of all samples were positive). All positive samples
occurred at plants that met existing regulatory standards and many had
very low turbidity.
Waterborne outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis have occurred even in
areas served by filtered surface water supplies (Solo-Gabriele and
Neumeister, 1996). In some cases, outbreaks were attributed to
treatment deficiencies, but in others, the treatment provided by the
water system met the regulatory requirements in place at that time.
These data indicate that even surface water systems that filter and
disinfect can still be vulnerable to Cryptosporidium, depending on the
source water quality and treatment effectiveness.
Certain alternative disinfectants can be more effective in treating
for Cryptosporidium. Both ozone and chlorine dioxide have been shown to
inactivate Cryptosporidium, albeit at doses much higher than those
required to inactivate Giardia, which has typically been used to set
disinfectant doses (summarized in USEPA 2003a). Studies have also
demonstrated a synergistic effect of treatment using ozone followed by
chlorine or monochloramine (Rennecker et al. 2000, Driedger et al.
2001). Significantly, UV light has recently been shown to achieve high
levels of Cryptosporidium inactivation at feasible doses (summarized in
USEPA 2003a).
Other processes that can help reduce Cryptosporidium levels in
finished water include watershed management programs, pretreatment
processes like bank filtration, and additional clarification and
filtration processes during water treatment. Further, optimizing
treatment performance and achieving very low levels of turbidity in the
finished water has been shown to improve Cryptosporidium removal in
treatment plants (summarized in USEPA 2003a).
5. Epidemic and Endemic Disease From Cryptosporidium
Cryptosporidium has caused a number of waterborne disease outbreaks
since 1984 when the first was reported in the United States. Data from
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) include ten
outbreaks caused by Cryptosporidium in drinking water between 1984 and
2000, with approximately 421,000 cases of illness (CDC 1993, 1996,
1998, 2000, and 2002). The most serious outbreak occurred in 1993 in
Milwaukee; an estimated 403,000 people became sick (MacKenzie et al.
1994), and at least 50 Cryptosporidium-associated deaths occurred among
the severely immunocompromised (Hoxie et al. 1997). Further, a study by
McDonald et al. (2001) using blood samples from Milwaukee children
suggests that Cryptosporidium infection was more widespread than might
be inferred from the illness estimates by MacKenzie et al. (1994).
The number of identified and reported outbreaks in the CDC database
is believed to substantially understate the actual incidence of
waterborne disease outbreaks and cases (Craun and Calderon 1996,
National Research Council 1997). This under reporting is
[[Page 661]]
due to a number of factors. Many people experiencing gastrointestinal
illness do not seek medical attention. Where medical attention is
provided, the pathogenic agent may not be identified through routine
testing. Physicians and patients often lack sufficient information to
attribute gastrointestinal illness to any specific origin, such as
drinking water, and few States have an active outbreak surveillance
program. In addition, if drinking water is investigated as the source
of an outbreak, oocysts may not be detected in water samples even if
they are present, due to limitations in analytical methods.
Consequently, outbreaks may not be recognized in a community or, if
recognized, may not be traced to a drinking water source.
In addition, an unknown but probably significant portion of
waterborne disease is endemic (i.e., isolated cases not associated with
an outbreak) and, thus, is even more difficult to recognize. In an
outbreak, if the pathogen has been identified, medical providers and
public health investigators know what to look for. In endemic disease,
there is no investigation, so the illness may never be identified, or
if it is, it may not be linked to a source (e.g., drinking water,
person-to-person transmission). In addition, where a pathogen is
identified, lab results may not be reported to public health agencies.
Because of this under reporting, the actual incidence of
cryptosporidiosis associated with drinking water is unknown. However,
indications of this incidence rate can be roughly extrapolated from
different sources. Mead et al. (1999) estimated approximately 300,000
total cases of cryptosporidiosis annually that result in a physician
visit, with 90 percent of these attributed to waterborne (drinking
water and recreational water) and secondary transmission. This estimate
is based on the percentage of stools that test positive for
Cryptosporidium and applying this percentage to the approximately 15
million physician visits for diarrhea each year. While the fraction of
cryptosporidiosis cases that result in a physician visit is unknown,
Corso et al. (2003) reported that during the 1993 outbreak in
Milwaukee, medical care was sought in approximately 12 percent of all
cryptosporidiosis cases.
Surveillance data from the CDC for 2001 show an overall incidence
of 1.5 laboratory diagnosed cases of cryptosporidiosis per 100,000
population (CDC, 2002). Although the fraction of all cryptosporidiosis
cases that are laboratory confirmed is unknown, during the 1993
Milwaukee outbreak, 739 cases from an estimated 403,000 cases total
were confirmed by a laboratory (MacKenzie et al., 1994). These data
indicate a ratio of 1 laboratory confirmed case per 545 people
estimated to be ill with cryptosporidiosis.
A few studies have attempted to determine exposure in certain areas
by measuring seroprevalence of Cryptosporidium antibodies (the
frequency at which antibodies are found in the blood). Detection of
such antibodies (seropositivity), however, does not mean that the
person actually experienced symptoms of cryptosporidiosis. An
individual can be asymptomatically infected and still excrete oocysts.
Seroprevalence, though, is still a method for estimating the exposure
to Cryptosporidium that has occurred within a limited time period (the
antibodies may last only a few months).
Frost et al. (2001) conducted a paired city study, in which the
serological response of blood donors in a city using ground water as
its water source was compared to that of donors in a city using surface
water as its source. Rates of seropositivity were higher (49 vs. 36
percent) in the city with the surface water source. A similar study in
two other cities (Frost et al. 2002) showed a seropositivity rate of 54
percent in the city served by surface water compared to 38 percent in
the city served by ground water. These studies suggest that drinking
water from surface sources may be a factor in the higher rates of
seropositivity.
D. Specific Concerns Following the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR
In the LT2ESWTR, EPA is addressing a number of public health
concerns that remain following implementation of the IESWTR and
LT1ESWTR. These are as follows:
The need for filtered PWSs with higher levels of source
water Cryptosporidium contamination to provide additional risk-based
treatment for Cryptosporidium beyond IESWTR or LT1ESWTR requirements;
The need for unfiltered PWSs to provide risk-based
treatment for Cryptosporidium to achieve equivalent public health
protection with filtered PWSs; and
The need for PWSs with uncovered finished water storage
facilities to take steps to reduce the risk of contamination of treated
water prior to distribution to consumers.
EPA and stakeholders identified each of these issues as public
health concerns during development of the IESWTR (USEPA 1994, 1997).
However, the Agency was unable to address these concerns in those
regulations due to data gaps in the areas of health effects,
occurrence, analytical methods, and treatment. Consequently, EPA
followed a two-stage strategy for microbial and disinfection byproducts
rules. Under this strategy, the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR were promulgated to
provide an initial improvement in public health protection in large and
small PWSs, respectively, while additional data to support a more
comprehensive regulatory approach were collected.
Since promulgating the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR, EPA has worked with
stakeholders to collect and analyze significant new information to fill
data gaps related to Cryptosporidium risk management in PWSs. The next
section presents EPA's evaluation of these data and their implications
for both the risk of Cryptosporidium in filtered and unfiltered PWSs
and the feasibility of steps to limit this risk. In addition, the
Agency has evaluated additional data related to mitigating risks with
uncovered finished water storage facilities, which are presented in
section IV.F.
E. New Information on Cryptosporidium Risk Management
EPA and stakeholders determined during development of the IESWTR
that in order to establish risk-based treatment requirements for
Cryptosporidium, additional information was needed in the following
areas: (1) The risk associated with a given level of Cryptosporidium
(i.e., infectivity); (2) the occurrence of Cryptosporidium in PWS
sources; (3) analytical methods that would suffice for making site-
specific source water Cryptosporidium density estimates; and (4) the
use of treatment technologies to achieve specific levels of
Cryptosporidium disinfection (USEPA 1997).
In today's final LT2ESWTR, EPA is promulgating risk-based
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements for filtered and unfiltered
PWSs. The Agency believes that the critical data gaps in the areas of
infectivity, occurrence, analytical methods, and treatment that
prevented the adoption of such an approach under earlier regulations
have been addressed. The new information that the Agency and
stakeholders evaluated in each of these areas and its significance for
today's LT2ESWTR are summarized as follows. See section VI.L for a
summary of public comments on EPA's use of Cryptosporidium infectivity
and
[[Page 662]]
occurrence data in assessing benefits of the LT2ESWTR.
1. Infectivity
Infectivity relates the probability of infection to the number of
Cryptosporidium oocysts that a person ingests. It is used to predict
the disease burden associated with a particular Cryptosporidium level
in drinking water. Information on Cryptosporidium infectivity comes
from dose-response studies where healthy human volunteers ingest
different numbers of oocysts (i.e., the ``dose'') and are subsequently
evaluated for signs of infection and illness (i.e., the ``response'').
Prior to the IESWTR, data from a human dose-response study of one
Cryptosporidium isolate (IOWA) had been published (DuPont et al. 1995).
Following IESWTR promulgation, a study of two additional isolates (TAMU
and UCP) was completed and published (Okhuysen et al. 1999). This 1999
study also reanalyzed the IOWA study results. The measured infectivity
of Cryptosporidium oocysts varied over a wide range in the Okhuysen et
al. (1999) study. The UCP oocysts were much less infective than the
IOWA oocysts, and the TAMU oocysts were much more infective.
EPA analyzed these new data for the proposed LT2ESWTR using two
different dose-response models. This analysis suggested that the
overall infectivity of Cryptosporidium is greater than was estimated
for the IESWTR (USEPA 2003a). Specifically, EPA estimated the mean
probability of infection from ingesting a single infectious oocyst
ranges from 7 to 10 percent. This infection rate is approximately 20
times higher than the estimate of 0.4 percent used in the IESWTR.
Since the publication of the proposed LT2ESWTR, EPA has evaluated
three additional studies of Cryptosporidium infectivity. EPA also
received a recommendation from the SAB that it analyze Cryptosporidium
infectivity data using a wider range of models. Accordingly, EPA re-
estimated Cryptosporidium infectivity using the new data and six
different dose-response models, including the two models used at
proposal. Estimates from the new data and models for the probability of
infection from ingesting a single infectious oocyst range from 4 to 16
percent. A detailed discussion of the models and their varying
assumptions is provided in the LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA
2005a).
As is apparent from these results, substantial uncertainty about
the infectivity of Cryptosporidium remains in several areas. These
include the variability in host susceptibility, response at very low
oocyst doses typical of drinking water ingestion, and the relative
infectivity and occurrence of different Cryptosporidium isolates in the
environment. To address this uncertainty, EPA conducted its health risk
reduction and benefits analyses using a representative range of model
results. In the summary tables for these analyses, three sets of
estimates are presented: A ``high'' estimate based on the model that
showed the highest mean baseline risk; a ``medium'' estimate, based on
the models and data used at proposal, which also happens to be in the
middle of the range of estimates produced by the six models using the
newly available data; and a ``low'' estimate, based on the model that
showed the lowest mean baseline risk.
These estimates should not be construed as upper and lower bounds
on illnesses avoided and benefits. For each model, a distribution of
effects is estimated, and the ``high'' and ``low'' estimates show only
the means of these distributions for two different model choices. The
detailed distribution of effects is presented for the proposal model in
the Economic Analysis (USEPA 2005a). Further, the six dose-response
models used in this analysis do not cover all possible variations of
models that might have been used with the data, and it is possible that
estimates with other models would fall outside the range presented.
However, as discussed in the Economic Analysis, EPA believes that the
models used in the analyses reflect a reasonable range of results based
on important dimensions of model choice.
Regardless of which model is chosen, the available infectivity data
suggest that the risk associated with a given concentration of
Cryptosporidium is most likely higher than EPA had estimated for the
IESWTR. This finding supports the need for increased treatment for
Cryptosporidium as required under the LT2ESWTR.
2. Occurrence
Information on the occurrence of Cryptosporidium oocysts in
drinking water sources is a critical parameter for assessing risk and
the need for additional treatment for this pathogen. For the IESWTR,
EPA had no national survey data on Cryptosporidium occurrence and
relied instead on several studies that were local or regional. After
promulgating the IESWTR, EPA obtained data from two national surveys,
the Information Collection Rule (ICR) and the ICR Supplemental Surveys
(ICRSS), which were designed to provide improved estimates of
occurrence on a national basis.
The ICR included monthly sampling for Cryptosporidium and other
water quality parameters from the sources of approximately 350 large
PWSs over 18 months. The ICRSS involved twice-per-month Cryptosporidium
sampling from the sources of a statistically random sample of 40 large
and 40 medium PWSs over 12 months. In addition, the ICRSS required the
use of an improved analytical method for Cryptosporidium analysis that
had a higher method recovery (the likelihood that an oocyst present in
the sample will be counted) and enhanced sample preparation procedures.
EPA analyzed ICR and ICRSS data using a statistical model to
account for factors like method recovery and sample volume analyzed. As
described in more detail in EPA's Occurrence and Exposure Assessment
for the LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2005b), the ICR and ICRSS results demonstrate
two main differences for filtered PWSs in comparison to Cryptosporidium
occurrence data used for the IESWTR:
(1) The occurrence of Cryptosporidium in many drinking water
sources is lower than was indicated by the data used in IESWTR. For
example, median Cryptosporidium levels for the ICR and ICRSS data
are approximately 0.05/L, which is nearly 50 times lower than the
median IESWTR estimates of 2.3 oocysts/L (USEPA 1998a).
(2) Cryptosporidium occurrence is more variable from location to
location than was shown by the data considered for the IESWTR. This
finding demonstrates that, although median occurrence levels are
below those estimated for the IESWTR, a subset of PWSs contains
Cryptosporidium levels that are considerably greater than the
median.
These results, therefore, indicate that Cryptosporidium levels are
relatively low in most water sources, but a subset of sources with
relatively higher concentrations may require additional treatment.
These findings support a risk-targeted approach for the LT2ESWTR
wherein additional Cryptosporidium treatment is required only for
filtered PWSs with the highest source water pathogen levels.
Only the ICR provided data to evaluate Cryptosporidium occurrence
in unfiltered PWS sources. The median Cryptosporidium level among
unfiltered PWS sources was 0.0079 oocysts/L. This level is
approximately 10 times lower than the median level for filtered PWS
sources.
When the Cryptosporidium removal that filtered PWSs achieve is
taken into account, these occurrence data suggest that unfiltered PWSs
typically have
[[Page 663]]
higher concentrations of Cryptosporidium in their treated water than
filtered PWSs. EPA has estimated that on average, conventional
filtration plants remove around 99.9 percent (3-log) of the
Cryptosporidium present in the source water. Most unfiltered PWSs,
however, provide no treatment for Cryptosporidium. If an unfiltered PWS
had a source water Cryptosporidium level 10 times lower than a filtered
PWS and the filtered PWS achieved 3-log Cryptosporidium removal, then
the Cryptosporidium level in the treated water of the unfiltered PWS
would be 100 times higher than in the filtered PWS.
These results suggest that to achieve public health protection
equivalent to that provided by filtered PWSs, unfiltered PWSs must take
additional steps. Thus, this finding supports the need for
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements for unfiltered PWSs under the
LT2ESWTR.
3. Analytical Methods
To establish risk-targeted treatment requirements, analytical
methods must be available to estimate the contaminant densities in PWS
sources. These density estimates are used to determine the level of
treatment that is needed at a particular site.
When EPA developed the IESWTR, the best available method for
measuring Cryptosporidium was the Information Collection Rule Protozoan
Method (ICR Method). The ICR Method provided a quantitative measurement
of Cryptosporidium oocysts, but typically undercounted the actual
occurrence due to low method recovery. For example, in a spiking study
(studies in which known quantities of oocysts are added to water
samples) conducted during the ICR survey, the mean recovery of spiked
Cryptosporidium oocysts was only 12 percent (Scheller et al. 2002). EPA
concluded that the ICR Method was adequate for making national
occurrence estimates in the ICR survey but would not suffice for making
estimates of Cryptosporidium levels at specific sites.
Subsequent to promulgating the IESWTR, EPA developed an improved
Cryptosporidium method, EPA Method 1622 (and later, 1623), to achieve
higher recovery rates and lower inter- and intra-laboratory variability
than previous methods. Methods 1622 and 1623 incorporate improvements
in the concentration, separation, staining, and microscope examination
procedures. During the ICRSS, which required the use of Method 1622 or
1623, a spiking study demonstrated a mean Cryptosporidium recovery of
43 percent (Connell et al. 2000). Thus, mean Cryptosporidium recovery
with Methods 1622 and 1623 was more than 3.5 times higher compared to
the ICR Method performance in the earlier spiking study. In addition,
the relative variation in recovery from sample to sample was lower with
Methods 1622 and 1623.
As described in section IV of this preamble, EPA has concluded that
a monitoring program using Methods 1622 or 1623 can be effective in
characterizing PWSs source water Cryptosporidium levels for purposes of
determining the need for additional treatment requirements. This
finding supports the feasibility of risk-targeted treatment
requirements under the LT2ESWTR.
4. Treatment
To establish risk-targeted Cryptosporidium treatment requirements,
feasible treatment processes must be available that allow PWSs to
inactivate or remove Cryptosporidium. PWSs may then implement these
treatment processes to comply with additional treatment requirements.
During development of the IESWTR, EPA recognized that chlorine, the
most commonly used disinfectant, is ineffective for inactivating
Cryptosporidium. Studies suggested that other disinfectants like ozone
and chlorine dioxide could be effective against Cryptosporidium.
However, EPA concluded that data available at that time were not
sufficient to define how any disinfectant could be applied to achieve a
specific level of Cryptosporidium inactivation (USEPA 1997). This
conclusion was due in part to methodological inconsistencies and
shortcomings in the available studies.
With the completion of major studies since promulgation of the
IESWTR, EPA has acquired the data necessary to establish standards for
Cryptosporidium inactivation by several disinfectants. For ozone and
chlorine dioxide, EPA reviewed new studies by Rennecker et al. (1999),
Owens et al. (1999, 2000), Oppenheimer et al. (2000), Ruffell et al.
(2000), and Li et al. (2001). Collectively, these studies cover a wide
range of both natural and laboratory water conditions. Based on these
studies, EPA has developed tables that specify the product of ozone or
chlorine dioxide concentration and time of exposure (i.e., CT tables)
needed to achieve up to 3-log Cryptosporidium inactivation. Section
IV.D of this preamble shows these tables.
Most significantly, many recent studies have demonstrated that UV
light is efficient for inactivating high levels of Cryptosporidium.
These studies include Clancy et al. (1998, 2000, 2002), Bukhari et al.
(1999), Craik et al. (2000, 2001), Landis et al. 2000), Sommer et al.
(2001), Shin et al. (2001), and Oppenheimer et al. (2002). Using
results from these studies, EPA has defined the UV light intensity and
exposure time required for up to 4-log Cryptosporidium inactivation.
Section IV.D presents these values. EPA has determined that UV light is
a feasible technology for PWSs of all sizes to inactivate
Cryptosporidium.
EPA has also developed standards for processes that physically
remove Cryptosporidium contamination. These processes include river
bank filtration, sedimentation basins, bag filters, cartridge filters,
and membranes. Section IV.D presents design and operational standards
for these processes, along with a summary of supporting studies.
The development of these standards for Cryptosporidium inactivation
and removal processes overcomes a significant limitation that existed
when EPA developed the IESWTR. These standards will allow PWSs to
implement cost-effective strategies to comply with additional
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under the LT2ESWTR.
F. Federal Advisory Committee Recommendations
EPA convened the Stage 2 M-DBP Federal Advisory Committee in March
1999 to evaluate new information and develop recommendations for the
LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR. The Committee was comprised of
representatives from EPA, State and local public health and regulatory
agencies, local elected officials, Indian Tribes, drinking water
suppliers, chemical and equipment manufacturers, and public interest
groups. A technical workgroup provided analytical support for the
Committee's discussions.
Committee members signed an Agreement in Principle in September
2000 stating consensus recommendations of the group. The Agreement was
published in a December 29, 2000 Federal Register notice (USEPA 2000a).
For the LT2ESWTR, the consensus recommendations of the Committee are
summarized as follows:
(1) Supplemental risk-targeted Cryptosporidium treatment by
filtered PWSs with higher source water contaminant levels as shown by
monitoring results;
(2) Cryptosporidium inactivation by all unfiltered PWSs, which must
meet
[[Page 664]]
overall treatment requirements using a minimum of 2 disinfectants;
(3) A ``toolbox'' of treatment and control processes for PWSs to
comply with Cryptosporidium treatment requirements;
(4) Reduced monitoring burden for small filtered PWSs;
(5) Future monitoring to confirm or revise source water quality
assessments;
(6) Development of guidance for UV disinfection and other toolbox
components; and
(7) Cover or treat existing uncovered finished water reservoirs
(i.e., storage facilities) or implement risk mitigation plans.
These recommendations reflect a Committee judgement that, based on
available information, additional risk-based Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements for filtered and unfiltered PWSs are appropriate and
feasible under the LT2ESWTR. Much of today's final LT2ESWTR reflects
the Committee's recommendations. The next part of this preamble
describes specific requirements of the rule.
IV. Explanation of Today's Action
A. Source Water Monitoring Requirements
Today's rule requires PWSs using surface water or GWUDI sources to
monitor their source water to assess the level of Cryptosporidium.
Monitoring results assign a PWS to a Cryptosporidium treatment bin,
which determines the extent of additional Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements (sections IV.B and IV.C described treatment requirements
for filtered and unfiltered PWSs, respectively).
Source water monitoring under the LT2ESWTR is designed to ascertain
the mean level of Cryptosporidium in the influent to a surface water
treatment plant. Requirements differ by PWS size (above or below 10,000
people served) and treatment plant type (filtered or unfiltered PWS).
This section describes monitoring requirements for sampling parameters
and frequency, sampling location, sampling schedule, monitoring plants
that operate only part of the year, failing to monitor, providing
treatment instead of monitoring, grandfathering previously collected
data, ongoing watershed assessment, second round of monitoring, and new
source monitoring.
Other sections of this preamble describe additional requirements
related to monitoring, including compliance schedules (section IV.G),
reporting of monitoring results (section IV.I), use of approved
analytical methods, including minimum sample volume (section IV.J), and
use of approved laboratories (section IV.K). As described in section
IV.G, monitoring compliance dates under the LT2ESWTR are staggered:
smaller PWSs begin monitoring after larger PWSs.
For additional information, see Source Water Monitoring Guidance
Manual for Public Water Systems under the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule. This document provides guidance on sampling
location, procedures for collecting and shipping samples, contracting
with laboratories, and related topics to assist PWSs in complying with
LT2ESWTR monitoring requirements. It may be acquired from EPA's Safe
Drinking Water Hotline, which can be contacted as described under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at the beginning of this document.
1. Today's Rule
a. Sampling parameters and frequency. Requirements for the source
water parameters that PWSs must measure under the LT2ESWTR, as well as
the sampling frequency and duration, are stated as follows for large
and small PWSs, including both filtered and unfiltered plants:
Large Filtered PWSs
Filtered PWSs serving at least 10,000 people must sample at least
monthly for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity for a period of two
years. Sampling may be conducted at a higher frequency (e.g., twice-
per-month, once-per-week) but the sampling must be evenly spaced
throughout the monitoring period. As described in section IV.B,
filtered PWSs that sample at least twice-per-month over two years use a
different calculation, which is less conservative, to determine their
treatment bin classification under the LT2ESWTR.
Large Unfiltered PWSs
Unfiltered PWSs serving at least 10,000 people must also sample for
Cryptosporidium at least monthly for a period of 2 years. No E. coli or
turbidity monitoring is required for unfiltered PWSs. Unfiltered PWSs
may choose to sample more frequently; however, as described in section
IV.C, a higher sampling frequency does not change the calculation used
to determine unfiltered PWS Cryptosporidium treatment requirements.
Small Filtered PWSs
Filtered PWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people (i.e., small PWSs)
monitor under the LT2ESWTR using a two-phase strategy that begins with
an indicator screening analysis. Small filtered PWSs must initially
sample for E. coli at least once every two weeks for a period of one
year. Cryptosporidium monitoring is required of these PWSs only if the
indicator monitoring results meet one of the following conditions:
(1) For PWSs using lake/reservoir sources, the annual mean E. coli
concentration is greater than 10 E. coli/100 mL.
(2) For PWSs using flowing stream sources, the annual mean E. coli
concentration is greater than 50 E. coli/100 mL.
PWSs using ground water under the direct influence of surface water
must comply with the requirement to monitor for Cryptosporidium based
on the E. coli level that applies to the nearest surface water body. If
no surface water body is nearby, the PWS must comply based on the
requirements that apply to PWSs using lake/reservoir sources.
The State may approve small filtered PWSs to monitor for an
indicator other than E. coli. The State also may approve an alternative
E. coli concentration to trigger Cryptosporidium monitoring. This
approval must be in writing and must be based on a State determination
that the alternative indicator and/or trigger level will more
accurately identify whether a PWS will exceed the Bin 1 Cryptosporidium
level of 0.075 oocysts/L, as stated in section IV.B.1 of this preamble.
EPA will issue guidance to States on alternative indicators and trigger
levels, if warranted, based on large PWS monitoring results.
Small filtered PWSs may elect to skip E. coli monitoring if they
notify the State that they will monitor for Cryptosporidium. PWSs must
notify the State no later than three months prior to the date the PWS
is required to begin monitoring (see section IV.G for specific dates).
Small filtered PWSs that are required to monitor for
Cryptosporidium must conduct this monitoring using either of two
frequencies: (1) Sample at least twice-per-month for a period of one
year or (2) sample at least once-per-month for a period of two years.
Note that the same treatment compliance dates apply to the PWS
regardless of which Cryptosporidium sampling frequency is used (i.e.,
selecting the two-year Cryptosporidium sampling frequency does not
extend Cryptosporidium treatment compliance deadlines).
Small Unfiltered PWSs
All unfiltered PWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people must monitor
for Cryptosporidium. The E. coli screening analysis used by small
filtered PWSs is not applicable to small unfiltered PWSs. Small
unfiltered PWSs must use either
[[Page 665]]
of the same two Cryptosporidium sampling frequencies available to small
filtered PWSs: (1) Sample twice-per-month for one year or (2) sample
once-per-month for two years. As with small filtered PWSs, the same
treatment compliance dates apply to the PWS regardless of which
Cryptosporidium sampling frequency is used.
b. Sampling location. PWSs must collect source water samples for
each plant that treats a surface water or GWUDI source. However, where
multiple plants receive all of their water from the same influent, such
as plants that draw water from the same intake or pipe, the State may
approve one set of monitoring results to be applied to all plants.
PWSs must collect source water samples prior to chemical treatment,
such as coagulants, oxidants, and disinfectants, unless the following
condition is met: The State may approve a system to collect a sample
after chemical treatment if the State determines that collecting a
sample prior to chemical treatment is not feasible and that the
chemical treatment is unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on
the analysis of the sample. PWSs that recycle filter backwash must
collect samples prior to the point of filter backwash addition due to
the likely presence of coagulant and other treatment chemicals in the
backwash. See section IV.D.6 for directions on sampling location for
PWSs using bank filtration.
For plants that use multiple water sources at the same time, PWSs
must collect samples from a tap where the sources are combined prior to
treatment, if available. If a blended source tap is not available, PWSs
must collect samples from each source and either analyze a weighted
composite (blended) sample or analyze samples from each source
separately and determine a weighted average of the results. The
weighting of sources must reflect the relative usage of the different
sources by the treatment plant at the time the sample is collected.
PWSs must submit a description of their proposed sampling
location(s) to the State no later than three months prior to the date
the PWS must begin monitoring (see section IV.G for specific dates).
This description must address the position of the sampling location in
relation to the PWS's water source(s) and treatment processes,
including points of chemical addition and filter backwash recycle. If
the State does not respond to a PWS regarding sampling location(s), the
PWS must begin sampling at the reported location. See Source Water
Monitoring Guidance Manual for Public Water Systems under the Long Term
2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, which can be acquired as
stated previously, for guidance on sampling location descriptions.
c. Sampling schedule. PWSs must collect samples in accordance with
a schedule that the PWS develops and reports prior to initiating
monitoring. The sampling schedule must specify the calendar dates when
the PWS will collect each required sample in a particular round of
monitoring. Scheduled sampling dates must be evenly distributed
throughout the monitoring period, but may be arranged to accommodate
holidays, weekends, and other events when collecting or analyzing a
sample would be problematic (e.g., a PWS is not required to schedule
samples on the same calendar date each month).
PWSs must submit sampling schedules no later than three months
prior to the date the PWS must begin a round of monitoring (see section
IV.G for specific dates). Unless the State approves an alternative
procedure, large PWSs (serving at least 10,000 people) must report
their sampling schedule for initial source water monitoring to EPA
using the LT2ESWTR electronic data reporting and review system
described in section IV.I. Schedules for initial monitoring by small
PWSs and for the second round of monitoring by all PWSs must be
reported to the State. PWSs should verify that their laboratory can
accommodate the scheduled sampling dates before submitting the
schedule.
EPA will not formally approve sampling schedules but will notify a
PWS if its sampling schedules does not meet the requirements of today's
rule (e.g., does not include the required number of samples). If a PWS
does not receive notification from the State or EPA regarding the
sampling schedule, the PWS must begin monitoring according to the
reported sampling schedule.
PWSs must collect samples within two days before or two days after
the dates indicated in their sampling schedules (i.e., within a 5-day
period around the schedule date) unless one of the following two
conditions applies:
(1) If an extreme condition or situation exists that may pose
danger to the sample collector, or that cannot be avoided and causes
the PWS to be unable to sample in the scheduled 5-day period, the PWS
must sample as close to the scheduled date as is feasible unless the
State approves an alternative sampling date. The PWS must submit an
explanation for the delayed sampling date to the State concurrent with
the shipment of the samples to the laboratory.
(2) If a PWS is unable to report a valid analytical result for a
scheduled sampling date due to equipment failure, loss of or damage to
the sample, failure to comply with the analytical method requirements,
or the failure of an approved laboratory to analyze the sample, then
the PWS must collect a replacement sample. Collection of the
replacement sample must occur within 21 days of the PWS receiving
information that an analytical result cannot be reported for the
scheduled date unless the PWS demonstrates that collecting a
replacement sample within this time frame is not feasible or the State
approves an alternative resampling date. The PWS must submit an
explanation for the resampling date to the State concurrent with the
shipment of the sample to the laboratory.
Failure to collect a required sample within the 5-day period around
a scheduled date that does not meet one of these two conditions is a
monitoring violation. PWSs must revise their sampling schedules to add
dates for collecting all missed samples and must submit the revised
schedule to the State for approval prior to when the PWS begins
collecting the missed samples.
d. Plants operating only part of the year. Some PWSs operate
surface water treatment plants for only part of the year. This includes
PWSs that provide water for only a fraction of the year (e.g., resorts
open only in the summer) and PWSs that use a surface water plant to
supplement another source only during periods of high demand.
Most LT2ESWTR monitoring, treatment, and implementation schedule
requirements apply to such plants. Monitoring requirements, however,
differ in two respects:
(1) PWSs must conduct sampling only during months of the 2 year
monitoring period when the plant operates unless the State specifies
another monitoring period based on plant operating practices; and
(2) For plants that operate less than six months per year and where
Cryptosporidium monitoring is required, PWSs must collect at least six
Cryptosporidium samples per year during each of two years of
monitoring.
e. Failing to monitor. Today's rule requires PWSs to provide a Tier
3 public notice for violation of monitoring and testing procedure
requirements, including the failure to collect one or two source water
Cryptosporidium samples. If a PWS fails to collect three or more
Cryptosporidium samples, other than in specifically exempted situations
(see section IV.A.1.c), the PWS must
[[Page 666]]
provide a Tier 2 special public notice. Violations for failing to
monitor persist until the State determines that the PWS has begun
sampling on a revised schedule that includes dates for the collection
of missed samples. Section IV.H provides further details on public
notice requirements of the LT2ESWTR.
PWSs must report their bin classification (or mean Cryptosporidium
level for unfiltered PWSs) no later than six months after the end of
the scheduled monitoring period (specific dates in section IV.G).
Failure by a PWS to collect the required number of Cryptosporidium
samples to report its bin classification or mean Cryptosporidium level
by the compliance date is a treatment technique violation and the PWS
must provide a Tier 2 special public notice (unless the PWS has already
provided a Tier 2 public notice for missing three sampling dates and is
successfully meeting a State-approved schedule for sampling). The
treatment technique violation and public notice requirements persist
until the State determines that the PWS is implementing a State-
approved monitoring plan to allow bin classification or will install
the highest level of treatment required under the rule, as described
next.
f. Providing treatment instead of monitoring. PWSs are not required
to conduct source water monitoring under the LT2ESWTR for plants that
will provide the highest level of treatment required under the rule.
This applies both to plants that provide this level of treatment at the
time the plant would otherwise begin source water monitoring and to
plants that commit to install technology to achieve this level of
treatment by the applicable compliance date for meeting Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements under the LT2ESWTR.
Filtered PWSs are not required to monitor at plants that will
provide a total of at least 5.5-log of treatment for Cryptosporidium,
equivalent to meeting the treatment requirements of Bin 4 as discussed
in section IV.B. Unfiltered PWSs are not required to monitor for plants
that will provide a total of at least 3-log of Cryptosporidium
inactivation, equivalent to meeting the treatment requirements for
unfiltered PWSs with source water Cryptosporidium levels above 0.01
oocysts/L as discussed in section IV.C.
PWSs that intend to provide this level of treatment rather than
initiate monitoring must notify the State no later than three months
prior to the month the PWS must otherwise begin monitoring. PWSs submit
this notification in lieu of submitting a sampling schedule. In
addition, a PWS may choose to stop sampling at any point after it has
initiated monitoring if it notifies the State that it will provide the
highest level of treatment. In both cases, the PWSs must install and
operate technologies to achieve this level of treatment no later than
the applicable Cryptosporidium treatment compliance date for the PWS as
specified in section IV.G. Failure to provide this treatment by the
compliance date is a treatment technique violation.
g. Grandfathering previously collected data. If the State approves,
PWSs may comply with the initial source water monitoring requirements
of today's rule by using (i.e., grandfathering) sample results
collected before the PWS is required to begin monitoring. PWSs may
grandfather monitoring results either in lieu of or in addition to
conducting new monitoring under the rule. To be eligible for
grandfathering, monitoring results must be equivalent in data quality
to monitoring PWSs conduct under today's rule and the PWS must comply
with reporting requirements. Details of these requirements follow.
Grandfathered Data Quality Requirements
Analysis of E. coli samples must meet the analytical
method and approved laboratory requirements for source water monitoring
under today's rule. PWSs are not required to report E. coli and
turbidity data in order to grandfather Cryptosporidium monitoring
results, although EPA requests that PWSs report these data if they are
available. PWSs that grandfather Cryptosporidium data without
associated E. coli and turbidity data are not required to conduct
separate monitoring for these parameters when they have satisfied
Cryptosporidium monitoring requirements.
Analysis of Cryptosporidium samples must meet the criteria
of a validated version of EPA Method 1622 or 1623, which are described
in USEPA 1999a, USEPA 1999b, USEPA 2001e, USEPA 2001f, USEPA 2005c, and
USEPA 2005d. The volume analyzed for each sample must meet the criteria
described in section IV.J, which are at least 10 L of sample or at
least 2 mL of packet pellet volume or as much volume as two approved
filters can accommodate before clogging.
The sampling location must meet the criteria for LT2ESWTR
monitoring, as described previously.
For Cryptosporidium samples, the sampling frequency must
be at least monthly and on a regular schedule. The collection of
individual samples may deviate from a regular schedule under the same
criteria that apply to deviation from LT2ESWTR sampling schedules, as
described previously. Additionally, deviations in the sampling
frequency of previously collected data are allowed under the following
conditions: (1) PWSs may grandfather data where there are gaps in the
sampling frequency if the State approves and if the PWS conducts
additional monitoring when specified by the State to ensure the data
used for bin classification are seasonally representative and unbiased;
and (2) PWSs may grandfather data where the sampling frequency varies
(e.g., one year of sampling monthly and one year of sampling twice-per-
month); monthly average sample concentrations must be used to calculate
the bin classification, as described in section IV.B.
Grandfathered Data Reporting Requirements
PWSs that request to grandfather previously collected monitoring
results must report the following information by the applicable dates
listed in this section. PWSs serving at least 10,000 people must report
this information to EPA unless the State approves an alternate
procedure for reporting. PWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people must
report this information to the State.
PWSs must report that they intend to submit previously collected
monitoring results for grandfathering. This report must specify the
number of previously collected results the PWS will submit, the dates
of the first and last sample, and whether a PWS will conduct additional
source water monitoring for initial bin classification. PWSs must
report this information no later than three months prior to the date
the PWSs is required to start monitoring, as shown in section IV.G.
PWSs must report previously collected monitoring results for
grandfathering, along with the required documentation listed in this
section, no later than two months after the month the PWS is required
to start monitoring, as shown in section IV.G.
For each sample Cryptosporidium or E. coli result, PWSs
must report the applicable data elements in section IV.I.1.
PWSs must certify to EPA or the State that the reported
monitoring results include all results the PWS generated during the
time period beginning with the first reported result and ending with
the final reported result. This applies to samples that were collected
from the sampling location specified for source water monitoring
[[Page 667]]
under this subpart, not spiked, and analyzed using the laboratory's
routine process for the analytical methods listed in this section.
PWSs must certify to EPA or the State that the samples
were representative of a plant's source water(s) and the source
water(s) have not changed. PWSs must submit to EPA a description of the
sampling location(s) for each water treatment plant, which must address
the position of the sampling location in relation to the PWS's water
source(s) and treatment processes, including points of chemical
addition and filter backwash recycle.
For Cryptosporidium samples, the laboratory or
laboratories that analyzed the samples must provide a letter certifying
that the quality control criteria specified in the methods listed in
this section were met for each sample batch associated with the
reported results. Alternatively, the laboratory may provide bench
sheets and sample examination report forms for each field, matrix
spike, initial precision and recovery (IPR), ongoing precision and
recovery (OPR), and method blank sample associated with the reported
results.
If the State determines that a previously collected data
set submitted for grandfathering was generated during source water
conditions that were not normal for the PWS, such as a drought, the
State may disapprove the data. Alternatively, the State may approve the
previously collected data if the PWS reports additional source water
monitoring data, as determined by the State, to ensure that the overall
data set used for bin classification represents average source water
conditions for the PWS.
If a PWS submits previously collected data that fully meet the
number of samples required for initial source water monitoring and some
of the data are rejected due to not meeting the requirements of this
section, PWSs must conduct additional monitoring to replace rejected
data on a schedule the State approves. PWSs are not required to begin
this additional monitoring until at least two months after notification
that data have been rejected and additional monitoring is necessary.
h. Ongoing watershed assessment. Today's rule includes provisions
to assess changes in a PWS's source water quality following initial bin
classification. As required by 40 CFR 142.16(b)(3)(i), source water is
one of the components that States must address during the sanitary
surveys that are required for surface water PWSs. These sanitary
surveys must be conducted every 3 years for community PWSs and every 5
years for non-community PWSs. Under today's rule, if the State
determines during the sanitary survey or an equivalent source water
assessment that significant changes have occurred in the watershed that
could lead to increased contamination of the source water by
Cryptosporidium, the PWS must take actions specified by the State to
address the contamination. These actions may include additional source
water monitoring and/or implementing options from the microbial toolbox
discussed in section IV.D.
i. Second round of monitoring. PWSs must begin a second round of
source water monitoring beginning six years after initial bin
classification (see compliance dates in section IV.G). If EPA does not
modify LT2ESWTR requirements by issuing a new regulation prior to the
second round of monitoring, PWSs must carry out this monitoring
according to the requirements that apply to the initial round of source
water monitoring. PWSs will then be reclassified in LT2ESWTR treatment
bins based on the second-round monitoring result. However, if EPA
changes the LT2ESWTR treatment bin structure to reflect a new
analytical method or new risk information, PWSs will undergo a risk
characterization in accordance with the revised rule.
j. New source monitoring. A PWS that begins using a new surface
water source after the date the PWS is required to conduct source water
monitoring under the LT2ESWTR must monitor the new source on a schedule
approved by the State. This applies to both new plants that begin
operation and previously operating plants that bring a new source on-
line after the required monitoring date for the PWS. The State may
determine that monitoring should be conducted before a new plant or
source is brought on-line or initiated within some time period
afterward. The new source monitoring must meet all LT2ESWTR
requirements as specified previously in this section. The PWS must also
determine its treatment bin classification and comply with any
additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements based on the
monitoring results on a schedule approved by the State.
2. Background and Analysis
Monitoring requirements in today's rule are designed to ascertain
Cryptosporidium levels with suitable accuracy for making treatment bin
classifications and in a time frame that does not delay the
installation of Cryptosporidium treatment where needed. The following
discussion summarizes the basis for monitoring requirements with
respect to sampling parameters and frequency, sampling location,
sampling schedule, monitoring plants that operate for only part of the
year, failing to monitor, grandfathering previously collected data,
ongoing watershed assessment, and the second round of monitoring. Most
of these requirements were part of the August 11, 2003, proposal for
today's final rule, and supporting analyses are presented in greater
detail in the proposal (USEPA 2003a). Differences from proposed
requirements are noted in the following discussion where applicable.
a. Sampling parameters and frequency. The requirements in today's
final rule for the parameters and frequency of source water monitoring
are unchanged from those in the proposed rule (USEPA 2003a), with the
exception of an additional option for lower frequency Cryptosporidium
sampling by small PWSs. These requirements reflect recommendations by
the Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee. They are designed to ensure a low
potential for misclassification in assigning PWSs to Cryptosporidium
treatment bins. The supporting analyses are summarized as follows for
Cryptosporidium and indicator (E. coli) monitoring:
Cryptosporidium Monitoring
EPA analyzed bin misclassification rates for different
Cryptosporidium monitoring programs by evaluating the likelihood of two
types of errors:
(1) A PWS with a true mean Cryptosporidium concentration of 0.5-log
(i.e., factor of 3.2) above a bin boundary is incorrectly assigned to a
lower bin (false negative) and
(2) A PWS with a true mean concentration of 0.5-log below a bin
boundary is incorrectly assigned to a higher bin (false positive).
The first type of error, a false negative, could lead to PWSs not
providing an adequate level of treatment while the second type of
error, a false positive, could lead to PWSs incurring additional costs
for unnecessary treatment.
EPA evaluated false positive and false negative rates for
monitoring programs that differed based on the number of samples
collected and the calculation used to determine the bin classification.
The analysis accounted for the sample volume assayed, variation in
source water Cryptosporidium occurrence, variation in analytical method
recovery, and other factors.
Results of this analysis indicate that PWSs must collect at least
24 samples in order to keep the likelihood of both false positives and
false negatives at five
[[Page 668]]
percent or less. Under a monitoring program involving fewer samples,
such as eight or twelve, a very conservative calculation for bin
classification would be required to achieve a low false negative rate
(e.g., bin classification based on the maximum or second highest sample
concentration). However, such an approach would result in false
positive rates in the range of 50 to 70 percent. Conversely, collecting
more than 24 samples can further reduce false positive and false
negative rates, albeit to a small degree. See the proposed LT2ESWTR for
additional details on this analysis (USEPA 2003a).
Based on the results of this analysis, EPA concluded that PWSs
operating year-round should collect at least 24 samples when they
monitor for Cryptosporidium. This number of samples ensures a high
likelihood of appropriate bin classification. Today's rule does not
allow bin classification based on fewer samples (except in the case of
PWSs operating only part of the year) as this would involve
unacceptably high false positive or false negative rates and would,
therefore, be an inappropriate basis to determine Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements. EPA believes, though, that PWSs should have the
choice to collect more than 24 samples to further improve the accuracy
of bin classification, and today's rule allows this.
In regard to the time frame for LT2ESWTR monitoring, the Agency
considered the trade-off between monitoring over a long period to
better capture temporal fluctuations and the desire to prescribe
additional treatment quickly to PWSs with higher Cryptosporidium
levels. Today's rule requires large PWSs to evaluate their source water
Cryptosporidium levels using two years of monitoring. This will account
for some degree of yearly variability, without significantly delaying
additional public health protection where needed.
Because many small PWSs will monitor for E. coli for one year
before monitoring for Cryptosporidium, today's rule allows two options.
Small PWSs can collect 24 Cryptosporidium samples over just one year
(resulting in a total of two years of source water monitoring when E.
coli monitoring is considered) or they can spread their 24
Cryptosporidium samples over two years. Spreading the Cryptosporidium
monitoring over two years will reduce the monitoring costs a PWS incurs
in a single year but will not push back the treatment compliance
deadline. This allowance for small PWSs to monitor for Cryptosporidium
over two years is a change from the proposal (USEPA 2003a). It stems
from recognition of the benefit this approach will provide to some
small PWSs in budgeting for monitoring.
Indicator Monitoring
Due to the relatively high cost of analyzing samples for
Cryptosporidium, the Advisory Committee and EPA investigated indicators
that are less costly to analyze to determine if any could be used in
place of Cryptosporidium monitoring. No indicators were identified that
correlated strongly with Cryptosporidium and could fully substitute for
Cryptosporidium monitoring for determining treatment bin
classifications. However, this investigation did identify an indicator,
E. coli, that can be used to identify some of the water sources that
are unlikely to exceed a Cryptosporidium level of 0.075 oocysts/L--the
level at which filtered PWSs must provide additional treatment under
the LT2ESWTR.
Data from the ICR and ICRSS were used in the investigation of
indicators. With these data, E. coli performed the best in identifying
sources with low Cryptosporidium levels. In addition, analyzing plants
separately based on source water type was necessary due to a different
relationship between E. coli and Cryptosporidium in reservoir/lake
sources compared to flowing stream sources.
The analysis of E. coli concentrations that could trigger
Cryptosporidium monitoring was based on false negative and false
positive rates. For this indicator, false negatives occur when sources
do not exceed the E. coli trigger value but exceed a Cryptosporidium
level of 0.075 oocysts/L. False positives occur when sources exceed the
E. coli trigger value but do not exceed a Cryptosporidium level of
0.075 oocysts/L. The false negative rate is critical because it
characterizes the ability of the indicator to identify those plants
with higher Cryptosporidium levels that should conduct Cryptosporidium
monitoring to determine if additional treatment is needed.
For plants with flowing stream sources, a mean E. coli trigger
concentration of 50/100 mL produced zero false negatives for both ICR
and ICRSS data sets. This means that in these data sets, all plants
that exceeded mean Cryptosporidium concentrations of 0.075 oocysts/L
also exceeded the E. coli trigger concentration. The false positive
rate for this trigger concentration was near 50 percent, meaning it was
not highly specific in targeting only those plants with high
Cryptosporidium levels. However, at a higher E. coli trigger
concentration, such as 100/100 mL, the false negative rate increased
without a significant reduction in the false positive rate.
For plants with lake or reservoir sources, a mean E. coli trigger
of 10/100 mL resulted in a false negative rate of 20 percent with ICR
data and 67 percent with ICRSS data. While this false negative rate in
the ICRSS data set appears high, it is based on just three plants in
this survey that used a reservoir/lake source and had a mean
Cryptosporidium level above 0.075 oocysts/L. With a lower E. coli
trigger concentration, such as 5/100 mL, the number of false negatives
in both data sets decreased by one plant, but the false positive rate
increased from 20 to 40 percent.
After evaluating these results, the Advisory Committee recommended
that all large PWSs monitor for Cryptosporidium, rather than using E.
coli in a screening analysis. EPA concurred with this recommendation
because it achieves the highest certainty that these PWSs will be
classified in the correct Cryptosporidium treatment bin and provide the
appropriate level of public health protection. In addition, the
Advisory Committee recommended and today's rule requires that large
filtered PWSs collect E. coli and turbidity samples along with
Cryptosporidium. EPA will use these data to confirm or, if necessary,
further refine the use of E. coli and possibly turbidity as indicators
for monitoring by small filtered PWSs.
Cryptosporidium monitoring places a relatively greater economic
burden on small PWSs, and EPA will have additional E. coli and
Cryptosporidium data from large PWS monitoring prior to the initiation
of small PWS monitoring. Based on these considerations and the
available data on E. coli as an indicator of sources with lower
Cryptosporidium levels, the Advisory Committee recommended that small
filtered PWSs initially monitor for E. coli for one year as a screening
analysis. Biweekly sampling (i.e., 1 sample every two weeks) for E.
coli is required to achieve high confidence in the results, since no
additional monitoring is required if the E. coli level is less than the
trigger value. Mean E. coli concentrations above 10 and 50/100 mL
trigger Cryptosporidium monitoring in PWSs using reservoir/lake and
flowing stream sources, respectively.
EPA concurred with these recommendations by the Advisory Committee
and believes they achieve an appropriate balance between enhancing
[[Page 669]]
public health protection and reducing the economic impact of today's
rule on small PWSs. Survey data indicate that approximately 75 to 80
percent of small PWSs will not exceed the E. coli trigger values and,
consequently, will not be required to monitor for Cryptosporidium.
Because E. coli is far less costly to analyze than Cryptosporidium
(costs listed in USEPA 2005a), this approach will significantly reduce
the burden of today's rule for these PWSs. Further, EPA will review
indicator data from large PWS monitoring and, if appropriate, issue
guidance to States on alternative indicator triggers prior to when
small PWSs begin monitoring. Today's rule allows States to approve
alternative approaches to indicator monitoring for small PWSs.
EPA could not identify an indicator screening analysis for
unfiltered PWSs. As described in section IV.C, a mean Cryptosporidium
concentration of 0.01 oocysts/L determines whether unfiltered PWSs are
required to provide 2- or 3-log Cryptosporidium inactivation. No E.
coli concentration was effective in determining whether PWSs were
likely to fall above or below this level. Consequently, today's rule
requires all unfiltered PWSs to monitor for Cryptosporidium, unless
they choose to provide 3-log Cryptosporidium inactivation.
b. Sampling location. The requirements in today's final rule for
the source water sample collection location are similar to those in the
proposed rule (USEPA 2003a). They are designed to achieve two
objectives: (1) Characterize the influent water to the treatment plant
at the time each sample is collected and (2) ensure that samples are
not affected by treatment chemicals that could interfere with
Cryptosporidium analysis.
The first objective is the basis for requiring PWSs that use
multiple sources to either analyze a blended source sample or calculate
a weighted average of sources that reflects the influent at the time of
sample collection. It is also the reason that PWSs are required to
sample after certain pretreatment processes like bank filtration
(described in section IV.D) that do not involve chemical addition.
The second objective is why PWSs are generally required to sample
upstream of chemical addition and prior to backwash addition (for PWSs
that recycle filter backwash). However, EPA recognizes that in some
situations, sampling prior to chemical addition will not be feasible
and discontinuing chemical addition for a period of time prior to
sampling will not be advisable. This situation could occur when a
treatment chemical is added at an intake that is difficult to access.
Further, some treatment chemicals may not interfere with
Cryptosporidium analyses when present at very low levels. Consequently,
today's rule allows States to approve PWSs sampling after chemical
addition when the State determines that collection prior to chemical
treatment is not feasible and the treatment chemical is not expected to
interfere with the analysis of the sample.
EPA believes that States should review source water monitoring
locations for their PWSs. State review of monitoring locations will
ensure that PWSs collect source water samples at the correct location
to determine the appropriate level of public health protection.
Consequently, today's rule requires PWSs to report a description of
their monitoring location to the State. This requirement is a change
from the proposed rule, which did not require PWSs to report a
description of their sampling location (USEPA 2003a). This change
reflects public comment on the proposal, as described later, which
strongly supported State review of monitoring locations. If a PWS does
not hear back from the State by the time it is scheduled to begin
sampling, it may assume that its monitoring location is acceptable.
c. Sampling schedule. The requirement in today's final rule that
PWSs must develop a schedule for sample collection before the start of
monitoring was part of the proposal (USEPA 2003a). This requirement
will help to ensure that monitoring determines the mean concentration
of Cryptosporidium in the treatment plant influent. To achieve this
objective, the timing of sample collection must not be adjusted in
response to fluctuations in water quality--for example, the avoidance
of sampling when the influent water is expected to be of poor quality.
EPA believes that the 5-day window for sample collection and
associated allowances for sampling outside this window provide
sufficient flexibility. If circumstances arise that prevent the PWS
from sampling within the scheduled 5-day window, such as a weather
event or plant emergency, the PWS must collect a sample as soon as
feasible. In this case, feasibility includes both the ability of the
PWS to safely collect a sample and the availability of an approved
laboratory to conduct the analysis within method specifications. In
addition, today's rule allows States to authorize a different date for
collecting the delayed sample. Such an authorization may be appropriate
in cases where sampling is significantly delayed and collecting the
delayed sample during the same time period in the following year of
monitoring is preferable.
PWSs that collect a sample as scheduled but are unable to have the
sample analyzed as required due to problems like shipping or laboratory
analysis must collect a replacement sample within 21 days of receiving
information that one is needed, unless the PWS demonstrates that
collecting a replacement sample within this time frame is not feasible.
This time frame is a minor change from the proposal, which allowed only
14 days for resampling (USEPA 2003a), and it provides greater
flexibility for scheduling replacement samples. Information that
resampling is needed includes information the PWS acquires directly, as
well as notice from the shipping company, laboratory, State, or EPA.
Today's rule allows States to authorize an alternative date for
collection of the replacement sample. This may be needed for resampling
to occur during the same conditions as the originally scheduled sample.
If collecting a sample was feasible but the PWS failed to do so,
EPA believes that the PWSs must develop a revised sampling schedule and
submit it to the State. This will allow for State consultation
regarding the reason for the missed sample(s) and strategies for the
PWS to complete the required monitoring.
d. Plants operating only part of the year. The proposed LT2ESWTR
did not include distinct monitoring requirements for plants that
operate only part-year. However, EPA requested comment in the proposal
on an approach to plants that operate only part-year that is similar to
the requirements in today's final rule (USEPA 2003a).
Monitoring requirements for plants that operate only part-year
derive from three considerations: (1) A PWS should sample only during
the months when a treatment plant operates; (2) the mean
Cryptosporidium level used for bin classification can be determined
with fewer samples in plants that operate only part-year because source
water quality typically varies less during the shorter operating
period; and (3) a minimum number of samples is necessary to classify
any plant in an LT2ESWTR bin with high confidence.
The basis for the first consideration is straightforward. Source
water monitoring under the LT2ESWTR is used to establish treatment
requirements, and these should be based
[[Page 670]]
on the water quality when a plant is in operation. The rationale for
the second and third considerations stems from analyses, similar to
those described previously, of potential misclassification rates in
assigning plants to LT2ESWTR treatment bins.
Source water variability is one factor that influences the number
of samples needed to accurately classify plants in LT2ESWTR treatment
bins. As variability increases, more samples are needed to determine
the mean Cryptosporidium level with high confidence. EPA does not have
data on source water variability specifically in plants that operate
only part-year. However, survey data show that pathogen levels vary
seasonally, and plants operating part-year will generally experience
less variability during a given year than plants operating year-round.
Consequently, fewer samples are typically needed to determine the mean
Cryptosporidium level during the period of operation for a part-year
plant.
Nevertheless, even when a plant operates for only a few months per
year and source water exhibits little variability, a minimum number of
samples is necessary for bin classification. This is due to the
relatively low sample volume, variable method recovery, nonhomogeneous
distribution of Cryptosporidium in water, and other factors that limit
the accuracy of any individual sample for characterizing the source
water. Data suggest that for plants operating for six months per year
or less, collecting a minimum of six samples per year over two years
may allow bin classification with comparable accuracy to that achieved
by year-round plants sampling monthly (USEPA 2005a).
Based on these considerations, today's rule requires similar source
water monitoring for plants that operate only part-year during their
months of operation as is required for year-round plants. However, if
the plant is required to monitor for Cryptosporidium and operates for
six months or less, the PWS must collect at least six Cryptosporidium
samples per year over two years.
e. Failing to monitor. Requirements for PWSs that fail to conduct
source water monitoring are based on the need for PWSs to determine a
Cryptosporidium bin classification and provide the appropriate level of
public health protection within the compliance time frame. The LT2ESWTR
proposal required PWSs that did not complete all source water
monitoring requirements to meet the requirements of the highest
treatment bin (USEPA 2003a). In today's final rule, EPA has
significantly changed requirements from those in the proposal for PWSs
that fail to monitor. These changes are intended to give States more
flexibility in working with PWSs to fulfill monitoring requirements and
ensure they achieve the appropriate Cryptosporidium treatment level.
For most monitoring and testing procedure violations under the
LT2ESWTR, PWSs must provide a Tier 3 public notification, which is
standard for this type of violation under an NPDWR. However, if a PWS
fails to collect three or more Cryptosporidium samples, the violation
is elevated to a Tier 2 special public notice. The reason for elevating
the public notice at this point is the persistence of the violation and
the difficulty the PWS will have in collecting the required number of
samples for bin classification by the compliance date. Section IV.H
provides further details on public notice requirements of the LT2ESWTR.
As described in section IV.G, today's rule requires bin
classification within six months following the end of the monitoring
period specified for the PWS. This six-month period provides some
opportunity for collecting and analyzing missed samples. The number of
samples that can be made up in this period is limited, though, due to
the need for samples to be evenly distributed throughout the year, as
well as for PWSs and States to spend time during this period evaluating
monitoring results to determine bin classification. In consideration of
these factors, EPA believes that elevating the public notice when a PWS
has missed three or more Cryptosporidium samples is appropriate. This
violation will end when the State determines that the PWS has begun
sampling on a schedule to collect the required number of samples.
Failure by a PWS to collect the required number of Cryptosporidium
samples for bin classification by the compliance date is a treatment
technique violation with a required Tier 2 public notice. This
violation reflects the inability of the PWS to determine and comply
with its Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under the LT2ESWTR and
provide the appropriate level of public health protection. The
violation ends when the State determines that the PWS is carrying out a
monitoring plan that will lead to bin classification. A PWS that has
already provided a Tier 2 public notice for missing three sampling
dates and is successfully meeting a State-approved sampling schedule is
not required to issue another public notice for missing the bin
classification date. Alternatively, the PWS can choose to provide the
highest level of Cryptosporidium treatment required under the rule,
which is 5.5-log for filtered PWSs and 3-log for unfiltered PWSs.
f. Grandfathering previously collected data. Requirements for
grandfathering previously collected monitoring data in today's final
rule are similar to those in the proposal (USEPA 2003a). These
requirements are based on the principle that to be eligible for
grandfathering, previously collected data must be equivalent in quality
to data that will be collected under the rule.
The Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee recommended that EPA accept
previously collected Cryptosporidium data that are ``equivalent in
sample number, frequency, and data quality (e.g. volume analyzed,
percent recovery) to data that would be collected under the LT2ESWTR *
* * to determine bin classification in lieu of further monitoring''
(USEPA 2000a). The Advisory Committee recognized that accepting
previously collected data could have a number of benefits, including
early determination of LT2ESWTR compliance needs, increasing laboratory
capacity, and allowing PWSs to determine their bin classification using
a larger, and potentially more representative, data set.
To ensure equivalent data quality, today's rule requires that
grandfathered data meet the same requirements for analytical methods,
sampling location, and sample volume as data collected under the rule.
PWSs must not selectively report monitoring results for grandfathering.
Further, grandfathered Cryptosporidium data must generally be collected
at least monthly and on a regular schedule, with the same provisions
for delayed or replacement samples as allowed for regular monitoring.
Today's final rule differs from the proposal, however, in making
allowances for use of previously collected data where irregularities or
gaps in the sampling frequency occur.
EPA recognizes that when PWSs collected Cryptosporidium data prior
to the proposed or final LT2ESWTR, there may have been months when a
PWS either failed to collect or lost a sample due to problems with
equipment, transportation, laboratory analysis, or other reasons. If
the PWS did not collect a replacement sample, gaps in the previously
collected data set occurred. EPA believes that grandfathering of such a
data set may be appropriate despite these gaps if the PWS conducts
additional monitoring, as necessary, to ``fill-in'' gaps and ensure
that the data set is unbiased. Consequently, today's rule allows
grandfathering of data with
[[Page 671]]
gaps in the sampling frequency if approved by the State.
In addition, if the frequency of sampling in a previously collected
data set varies, EPA believes the data could still be appropriate for
use in bin classification. For example, a PWS might have sampled for
Cryptosporidium once per month for a number of months and then
increased the sampling frequency to twice per month. Today's rule
allows the use of such a data set. However, to avoid bias, the PWS must
calculate a monthly average for each month of sampling and then
determine the bin classification using these monthly averages, rather
than the individual sample concentrations.
Today's rule requires PWSs that plan to grandfather monitoring data
to notify EPA or the State regarding the number and time span of sample
results no later than three months prior to when the PWS must begin
monitoring. The timing for submission of this notice is concurrent with
the submission of a sampling schedule. This notification is necessary
for the State to determine that a PWS is not required to submit a
sampling schedule (when a PWS will fully comply with initial monitoring
through grandfathering) or that a sampling schedule may include less
than the full number of required samples (when a PWS will conduct new
monitoring in conjunction with grandfathering to complete a data set).
Further, this notice will assist EPA and States in determining the
resources necessary to ensure timely review of grandfathered data.
PWSs must submit all monitoring results for grandfathering to EPA
or the State, along with required supporting documentation, no later
than two months after the PWS is required to begin monitoring. This
timing will allow a PWS to continue collecting data for grandfathering
until the month the PWS is required to begin monitoring under today's
rule, plus an additional two months for sample analysis and compilation
of the data for submission.
This reporting deadline for grandfathering monitoring results is a
change from the proposed rule. In the proposal, a PWS that intended to
grandfather data in lieu of conducting new monitoring under the rule
had to submit its grandfathered results no later than four months prior
to when the PWS was otherwise required to begin monitoring under the
rule. This proposed approach had the shortcoming that a PWS could not
complete its monitoring for grandfathering within this four month
period. In today's final rule, a PWS may continue monitoring for
grandfathering all the way until the date when the PWS must begin
monitoring under the rule, if necessary. PWSs that conclude their
monitoring for grandfathering earlier may submit the data at an earlier
date.
g. Ongoing watershed assessment. Treatment requirements under the
LT2ESWTR are based on source water quality. Consequently, today's rule
requires watershed assessment and, as described in the next section, a
second round of monitoring following initial bin classification to
determine if source water quality has changed to the degree that the
treatment level should be modified. These requirements are unchanged
from those in the proposed LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2003a), with the exception
of an allowance for States to use programs other than the sanitary
survey to assess changes in the watershed.
Today's rule leverages the existing requirement for States to
perform sanitary surveys on surface water PWSs. During the source water
review in the sanitary survey, today's rule requires States to
determine if significant changes have occurred in the watershed that
could lead to increased contamination by Cryptosporidium. The State can
also choose to make this determination through an equivalent review of
the source water under a program other than the sanitary survey, such
as a Source Water Protection Assessment. If the State determines that
significant changes have occurred, the State may specify that the PWS
conduct additional source water monitoring or treat the potential
contamination. This approach allows the PWS and State to respond to a
significant change in source water quality prior to initiating a second
round of monitoring or any time thereafter.
h. Second round of monitoring. A more rigorous reassessment of the
source water occurs through a second round of monitoring that begins
six years after initial bin classification. If EPA does not develop and
finalize modifications to the LT2ESWTR prior to the date when PWSs must
begin the second round of monitoring, then this second round must
conform to the same requirements that applied to the initial round of
monitoring. PWSs may be classified in a different treatment bin,
depending on the results of the second round of monitoring.
The Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee recommended that EPA initiate
a stakeholder process several years prior to the second round of
monitoring to review new information and determine if today's rule
should be modified. If the Agency modifies the LT2ESWTR, the second
round of monitoring would potentially involve a new analytical method
and a different treatment bin structure.
3. Summary of Major Comments
Public comment on the August 11, 2003, LT2ESWTR proposal generally
supported the use of source water monitoring to determine additional
treatment requirements. The following discussion summarizes major
comments and EPA's responses in regard to sampling parameters and
frequency, sampling location, sampling schedule, monitoring plants that
operate only part-year, failing to monitor, providing treatment instead
of monitoring, grandfathering previously collected data, ongoing source
water assessment, second round of monitoring, and new source
monitoring.
a. Sampling parameters and frequency. Most commenters supported the
proposed requirements for large PWSs to sample monthly for
Cryptosporidium, as well as for E. coli and turbidity in filtered PWSs,
for 24 months. Alternatives recommended by some commenters included
ending monitoring after one year if no oocysts are detected, allowing
large PWSs to use an E. coli screening analysis to determine if
Cryptosporidium monitoring is necessary, and using watershed data to
determine treatment needs instead of source water monitoring.
In response, EPA continues to believe that large PWSs should
complete 24 months of Cryptosporidium monitoring, regardless of the
first-year results, in order to capture a degree of annual variability
in Cryptosporidium occurrence. Moreover, for the reasons discussed
previously in this preamble, EPA continues to support the Advisory
Committee recommendation that all large PWSs should monitor for
Cryptosporidium, rather than use the E. coli screening analysis. EPA is
not aware of studies that support the use of other watershed data in
place of Cryptosporidium monitoring to determine treatment needs.
Regarding requirements for small PWSs, most commenters supported
the E. coli screening analysis for small filtered PWSs. Several
commenters recommended more options for Cryptosporidium monitoring by
small PWSs, such as allowing monitoring to be spread over two years,
instead of the one year required in the proposal, or allowing fewer
samples. EPA agrees that budgeting for Cryptosporidium monitoring by
some small PWSs will be easier if it is spread over two years, and
today's rule allows this as an option.
[[Page 672]]
However, based on the analysis of false negative and false positive
rates described previously, EPA continues to believe that at least 24
Cryptosporidium samples are necessary to determine the appropriate bin
classification for year-round plants.
b. Sampling location. With respect to sampling location
requirements, several commenters recommended that PWSs be allowed to
collect samples either before or after pretreatment processes. These
commenters stated that the chemicals used in pretreatment processes are
unlikely to affect the analysis of Cryptosporidium oocysts at typical
concentrations. Further, where sampling is conducted prior to a
pretreatment process like presedimentation, commenters supported
allowing PWSs to receive additional treatment credit for the process.
In response, EPA continues to believe that common pretreatment
chemicals like oxidants and coagulants have the potential to adversely
affect the performance of Cryptosporidium analytical methods.
Consequently, today's rule requires that in most cases, PWSs must
sample upstream of chemical addition. Where PWSs sample prior to
pretreatment processes like presedimentation with coagulation, they are
eligible to receive additional treatment credit for the process.
However, if sampling prior to chemical addition is not feasible for a
particular plant and the treatment chemical is present at a very low
level that is unlikely to interfere with sample analysis, the State may
approve sampling after chemical addition.
Many commenters recommended that States approve sampling locations
for their PWSs. Commenters indicated that State review and approval of
monitoring plans will help to prevent confusion and PWSs potentially
sampling at an incorrect location. EPA agrees with these commenters and
has established a requirement in today's rule for PWSs to report a
description of the sampling location to the State. If a PWS does not
hear back from the State by the time it is scheduled to begin sampling,
it may assume that its monitoring location is acceptable.
c. Sampling schedule. In regard to sampling schedule requirements,
several commenters requested that PWSs be given a time window larger
than 5 days around scheduled sampling dates to collect samples.
Recommended alternatives included a 7 or 9-day window, or only
requiring that PWSs collect a sample within a specified month. In
addition, commenters identified situations that interfere with sample
collection, such as plant interruptions and laboratory or
transportation problems, and noted that some of these are outside the
conditions under which the proposal allowed a PWS to collect a delayed
or replacement sample without penalty.
In response, EPA continues to believe that for routine sample
collection, a 5-day window provides sufficient flexibility, given that
PWSs will pick the sampling days and can schedule around holidays,
weekends, and other times when sampling would be problematic. However,
today's rule allows PWSs to sample outside of this window without
penalty if necessary due to unforeseen conditions. Further, if a PWS
collects a sample but is unable to have it analyzed due to problems
with equipment, transportation or the laboratory, today's rule allows
the PWS to collect a replacement sample without penalty.
In regard to the time frame for collecting missed or replacement
samples, commenters recommended a number of approaches. These include
adding extra sampling days to the original sampling schedule, which a
PWS could then use in the event of missed sampling dates, and allowing
PWSs to collect make-up samples either immediately after the scheduled
sampling date or at the end of the monitoring period.
In general, EPA considers it preferable for PWSs to collect missed
or replacement samples as close as is feasible to scheduled sampling
dates. However, if there is a significant delay with respect to the
original sampling date, collecting make-up samples at an alternate time
may be appropriate to ensure that sampling results are seasonally
representative. Therefore, today's rule requires PWSs to collect a
missed sample as close as is feasible to the scheduled sampling date,
and to collect replacement samples within 21 days of receiving
information that one is needed, unless doing so within this time frame
is not feasible. However, the State can authorize alternative sampling
dates so that monitoring is not seasonally biased. This could include
sampling during the same time in the following year, if the missed
sample occurred during the first year of monitoring, or sampling after
the end of the scheduled monitoring period.
d. Plants operating only part of the year. Commenters on monitoring
requirements for surface water plants that operate for only part of the
year generally recommended that sampling occur only during the period
of operation. However, several different options were put forward for
how the sampling be conducted. Some commenters recommended a minimum of
12 samples per year for two years distributed evenly over the period
that the plant operates. Others suggested allowing the PWS to collect
the required number of samples over a longer time period in order to
limit the frequency of required samples when the plant is operating.
Several commenters said that State input is critical to determining the
appropriate monitoring period since States may have historical
knowledge of plant operating practices.
In response, EPA agrees that monitoring of plants that operate only
part-year under today's rule should be conducted only during months
when the plant is operating, unless the State determines that a longer
monitoring period is appropriate due to historical operating practices.
Further, plants that operate only part-year should maintain the same
sampling frequency as plants operating year-round, with the exception
that plants monitoring for Cryptosporidium must collect at least six
samples per year to allow for appropriate bin classification. EPA does
not believe extending monitoring over more years in plants that operate
only part-year is appropriate, as this would delay the installation of
additional treatment where needed.
e. Failing to monitor. Most commenters opposed automatically
classifying PWSs in the highest treatment bin (Bin 4) if they fail to
complete required monitoring, as the proposed rule stipulated.
Commenters suggested alternative approaches, such as giving States the
flexibility to address missed samples using current enforcement
mechanisms, classifying a PWS only one level higher than the bin
determined by the collected data, allowing an additional year of
sampling, and allowing States to use other information (e.g., sanitary
surveys, other monitoring data) to aid in the classification. A few
commenters, however, supported Bin 4 classification for PWSs that fail
to monitor, on the basis that any other approach would create an
incentive for PWSs to stop testing if poor water quality is suspected.
EPA agrees that States should have flexibility in dealing with PWSs
that fail to monitor. Further, providing the highest level of treatment
may not be in the best interests of consumers where a PWS has minor
problems in carrying out source water monitoring. However, EPA also
believes that violations for monitoring failures must reasonably ensure
that PWSs complete monitoring as required to determine a bin
classification within the compliance
[[Page 673]]
date. Failure to do so would potentially compromise public health
protection.
Based on these considerations, EPA has not established an automatic
Bin 4 classification for monitoring failures under today's rule.
Rather, if a PWS misses three or more Cryptosporidium samples, this
persistent violation requires a Tier 2 public notice (other violations
require a Tier 3 notice). Further, if a PWS is unable to determine a
bin classification by the compliance date due to failure to collect the
required number of Cryptosporidium samples, this is a treatment
technique violation with a required Tier 2 public notice (unless the
PWS has already issued a Tier 2 notice for missing 3 Cryptosporidium
samples and is monitoring on a State-approved schedule). These
violations last until the State determines that a PWS has begun
monitoring on a schedule that will lead to bin classification or the
PWS agrees to install treatment instead of monitoring.
f. Providing treatment instead of monitoring. Commenters supported
the option for a PWS to provide the highest level of Cryptosporidium
treatment required under today's rule rather than conducting source
water monitoring. Several commenters recommended that a PWS should be
allowed to take this option after having initiated monitoring. EPA
agrees, and today's rule allows a PWS to stop monitoring at any time by
notifying the State that it will provide 5.5-log Cryptosporidium
treatment for filtered PWSs or 3-log Cryptosporidium inactivation for
unfiltered PWSs by the compliance deadline specified in section IV.G.
g. Grandfathering previously collected data. With respect to
grandfathering previously collected data, many commenters expressed
concern with a proposed requirement that samples must have been
collected in equal time intervals. Commenters stated that although PWSs
may have sampled on a regular schedule, previously collected data sets
are likely to have gaps due to samples rejected for method QC
violations or periods when the PWS was unable to collect a sample. In
addition, there are instances where PWSs have changed the frequency of
sampling, such as from monthly to twice per month.
EPA agrees that if a PWS has collected samples according to a
regular schedule and met other data quality standards, then rejecting a
large data set due to isolated gaps in the sampling frequency would be
inappropriate. Consequently, today's rule allows States to approve
grandfathering of previously collected data with omissions in the
sampling interval, provided the PWS conducts additional monitoring if
required by the State to ensure the data set is seasonally
representative. Further, PWSs may grandfather previously collected data
sets in which the sampling frequency varies, as long as samples were
collected at least monthly. In this situation, PWSs must use monthly
average concentrations, rather than individual sample concentrations,
for bin classification.
With respect to data quality standards, such as meeting analytical
method QC criteria, sampling at the correct location, and analyzing the
minimum sample volume, several commenters stated that EPA should apply
the same acceptance standards to previously collected data as are
applied to data collected under today's rule. Other commenters, though,
suggested that States should have the flexibility to accept previously
collected data that deviate from the data quality standards for
monitoring under the rule. These commenters stated that such data sets
might include samples collected over a longer period of time and may
reflect more worst-case weather events.
In response, EPA believes that data quality standards should be
uniformly applied under today's rule, so that previously collected data
should not be held to a lower standard than new data or evaluated
differently from State to State. The requirements in today's rule with
respect to Cryptosporidium analytical methods and minimum sample volume
reflect recommendations of the Advisory Committee, which also
recommended that the same data quality standards be applied for
grandfathering. Further, because today's rule allows PWSs to collect
make-up samples to address gaps in previously collected data sets, PWSs
will have the opportunity to collect make-up samples for results that
are rejected due to data quality standards without losing an entire
data set.
In regard to notification of the acceptability of data for
grandfathering, commenters recommended that if previously collected
data submitted by a PWS are rejected, the PWS should have at least two
months between notification and the date new monitoring must be
initiated. These two months will give the PWS time to address rejection
of the data and prepare for sampling. EPA agrees with this
recommendation. Under today's rule, if a PWS properly submits a
complete data set for grandfathering and the PWS must conduct new
monitoring due to rejection of the data, the PWS has at least two
months following notification by the State to initiate sampling.
h. Ongoing watershed assessment. Commenters asked for greater
flexibility in the requirement for States to determine whether there
have been significant changes in the watersheds of their PWSs that
could lead to increased contamination. The proposed rule specified that
States must make this determination during sanitary surveys. However,
several commenters noted that some States perform source water
protection assessments on the same frequency as sanitary surveys, and
these detailed assessments might be a better mechanism to monitor
changes in the watershed. EPA agrees and today's rule allows States to
determine whether significant changes have occurred in the watershed
through either a sanitary survey or an equivalent review of the source
water under another program.
i. Second round of monitoring. Some commenters supported the
proposed requirement for a second round of source water monitoring, but
most opposed requiring it for all PWSs. These commenters recommended
that States should be authorized to use sanitary surveys, source water
assessments, ambient water quality data, treatment plant data, and
other information to determine if a second round of monitoring is
necessary for a PWS. Some commenters suggested that EPA fund research
to allow the use of finished water monitoring as the determinant for
treatment requirements in a second round of monitoring.
In response, EPA continues to believe that PWSs should conduct a
second round of monitoring to determine if the level of treatment
required as a result of the first round of monitoring is still
appropriate. Consequently, today's rule requires this. However, EPA
agrees that prior to a second round of monitoring, the Agency should
evaluate the results of the first round of monitoring, along with
whatever new information is available on Cryptosporidium analytical
methods, risk, and other relevant issues. If EPA determines that there
should be changes to the requirements for a second round of monitoring
in today's rule, the Agency will issue a new rule establishing those
changes.
j. New source monitoring. EPA requested comment in the proposal on
monitoring requirements for new plants and sources (USEPA 2003a). Most
commenters recommended that new plants and sources undergo monitoring
equivalent to that required for existing plants and sources, and
suggested that States should have discretion to determine when
monitoring should take place. EPA agrees with these recommendations and
today's rule requires PWS to conduct source water
[[Page 674]]
monitoring for new plants and sources on a schedule approved by the
State. This schedule must include dates for the PWS to determine its
treatment bin classification and, if necessary, comply with additional
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements.
B. Filtered System Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements
1. Today's Rule
Today's rule requires filtered PWSs using surface water or GWUDI
sources to provide greater levels of treatment if their source waters
have higher concentrations of Cryptosporidium. Specifically, filtered
PWSs are classified in one of four treatment bins based on results from
the source water monitoring described in the previous section. PWSs
classified in the lowest concentration bin are subject to no additional
treatment requirements, while PWSs assigned to higher concentration
bins must reduce Cryptosporidium levels beyond IESWTR and LT1ESWTR
requirements. All PWSs must continue to comply with the requirements of
the SWTR, IESWTR, and LT1ESWTR, as applicable.
This section addresses procedures for classifying filtered PWSs in
Cryptosporidium treatment bins and the treatment requirements
associated with each bin. Section IV.D presents the treatment and
control options, collectively termed the ``microbial toolbox,'' that
PWSs must use to meet additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements
under today's rule.
a. Bin classification. After completing initial source water
monitoring, filtered PWSs must calculate a Cryptosporidium bin
concentration for each treatment plant where Cryptosporidium monitoring
is required. This Cryptosporidium bin concentration is used to classify
filtration plants in one of the four treatment bins shown in Table
IV.B-1.
Table IV.B-1.--Bin Classification Table for Filtered PWSs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
with a Cryptosporidium The bin
For PWSs that are: bin concentration of . classification
. . is . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * required to monitor for less than 0.075 Bin 1.
Cryptosporidium. oocysts/L.
0.075 oocysts/L or Bin 2.
higher, but less than
1.0 oocysts/L.
1.0 oocysts/L or Bin 3.
higher, but less than
3.0 oocysts/L.
3.0 oocysts/L or Bin 4.
higher.
* * * serving fewer than NA.................... Bin 1.
10,000 people and NOT
required to monitor for
Cryptosporidium \1\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Filtered PWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people are not required to
monitor for Cryptosporidium if they monitor for E. coli and
demonstrate a mean concentration of E. coli less than or equal to 10/
100 mL for lake/reservoir sources or 50/100 mL for flowing stream
sources or do not exceed an alternative State-approved indicator
trigger (see section IV.A.1).
In general, the Cryptosporidium bin concentration is calculated by
averaging individual sample results from one or more years of
monitoring. Specific procedures vary, however, depending on the
frequency and duration of monitoring. These procedures are as follows:
(1) For PWSs that collect a total of at least 24 but not more than
47 Cryptosporidium samples over two or more years, the Cryptosporidium
bin concentration is equal to the highest arithmetic mean of all sample
concentrations in any 12 consecutive months of Cryptosporidium
monitoring.
(2) For PWSs that collect a total of at least 48 samples, the
Cryptosporidium bin concentration is equal to the arithmetic mean of
all sample concentrations.
(3) For PWSs that serve fewer than 10,000 people and monitor for
Cryptosporidium for only one year (i.e., collect 24 samples in 12
months), the Cryptosporidium bin concentration is equal to the
arithmetic mean of all sample concentrations.
(4) For PWSs with plants that operate only part-year that monitor
for less than 12 months per year, the Cryptosporidium bin concentration
is equal to the highest arithmetic mean of all sample concentrations
during any year of Cryptosporidium monitoring.
In data sets with variable sampling frequency, PWSs must first
calculate an arithmetic mean for each month of sampling and then apply
one of these four procedures using the monthly mean concentrations. As
described in section IV.A, PWSs may grandfather previously collected
Cryptosporidium data where the sampling frequency varies (e.g., one
year of monthly sampling and one year of twice-per-month sampling).
Filtered PWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people are not required to
monitor for Cryptosporidium if they demonstrate a mean E. coli
concentration less than or equal to 10/100 mL for lake/reservoir
sources or 50/100 mL for flowing stream sources or do not exceed an
alternative State-approved indicator trigger. PWSs that meet this
criterion are classified in Bin 1 as shown in Table IV.B-1.
When determining the Cryptosporidium bin concentration, PWSs must
calculate individual sample concentrations as the total number of
oocysts counted, divided by the volume assayed (see section V.K for
details). In samples where no oocysts are detected, the result is
assigned a value of zero for the purpose of calculating the bin
concentration. Sample analysis results are not adjusted for analytical
method recovery or the percent of Cryptosporidium oocysts that are
infectious.
PWSs must report their treatment bin classification to the State
for approval following initial source water monitoring (see section
IV.G for specific compliance dates). The report must include a summary
of the data and calculation procedure used to determine the bin
concentration. If EPA does not amend today's rule before the second
round of monitoring described in section IV.A, PWSs must recalculate
their bin classification after completing the second round of
monitoring and report the results to the State for approval. If the
State does not respond to a PWS regarding its bin classification after
either report, the PWS must comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements of today's rule based on the reported bin classification.
b. Bin treatment requirements. Table IV.B-2 shows the additional
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements associated with the four
treatment bins for filtered PWSs under today's rule. All filtered PWSs
must comply with these treatment requirements based on their bin
classification, which must be determined using the procedures just
described.
[[Page 675]]
Table IV.B-2.--Treatment Requirements for LT2ESWTR Bin Classifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you use the following filtration treatment in full compliance with
the SWTR, IESWTR, and LT1ESWTR (as applicable), then your additional
treatment requirements are . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If your bin classification is . . . Conventional filtration
treatment \1\,
diatomaceous earth Direct filtration Alternative filtration
filtration, or slow technologies
sand filtration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 1................................ No additional treatment No additional treatment No additional
treatment.
Bin 2................................ 1-log treatment \2\.... 1.5-log treatment \2\.. As determined by the
State 2 4
Bin 3................................ 2-log treatment \3\.... 2.5-log treatment \3\.. As determined by the
State 3 5
Bin 4................................ 2.5-log treatment \3\.. 3-log treatment \3\.... As determined by the
State 3 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applies to a treatment train using separate, sequential, unit processes for coagulation/flocculation,
clarification, and granular media filtration. Clarification includes any solid/liquid separation process
following coagulation where accumulated solids are removed during this separate component of the treatment
system.
\2\ PWSs may use any technology or combination of technologies from the microbial toolbox in section IV.D.
\3\ PWSs must achieve at least 1-log of the required treatment using ozone, chlorine dioxide, UV, membranes, bag
filtration, cartridge filtration, or bank filtration.
\4\ Total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation must be at least 4.0 log.
\5\ Total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation must be at least 5.0 log.
\6\ Total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation must be at least 5.5 log.
The total Cryptosporidium treatment required for plants in Bins 2,
3, and 4 is 4.0-log, 5.0-log, and 5.5-log, respectively. Conventional
treatment (including softening), slow sand, and diatomaceous earth
filtration plants in compliance with the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR, as
applicable, receive a prescribed 3.0-log Cryptosporidium treatment
credit toward these total bin treatment requirements. Accordingly,
these plant types must provide 1.0- to 2.5-log of additional treatment
when classified in Bins 2-4, respectively. Direct filtration plants in
compliance with existing regulations receive a prescribed 2.5-log
treatment credit and, consequently, must achieve 0.5-log greater
treatment to comply with Bins 2-4. Section IV.D describes how States
may award a level of treatment credit that differs from the prescribed
credit based on a demonstration of performance by the PWS.
For PWSs using alternative filtration technologies, such as
membranes, bag filters, or cartridge filters, no prescribed treatment
credit is available because the performance of these processes is
specific to individual products. Consequently, when PWSs using these
processes are classified in Bins 2-4, the State must determine
additional treatment requirements based on the credit the State awards
to a particular technology. The additional treatment requirements must
ensure that plants classified in Bins 2-4 achieve total Cryptosporidium
reductions of 4.0- to 5.5-log, respectively. Section IV.D describes
challenge testing procedures to determine treatment credit for
membranes, bag filters, and cartridge filters.
PWSs can achieve additional Cryptosporidium treatment credit
through implementing pretreatment processes like presedimentation or
bank filtration, by developing a watershed control program, and by
applying additional treatment steps like ozone, chlorine dioxide, UV,
and membranes. In addition, PWSs can receive a higher level of credit
for existing treatment processes through achieving very low filter
effluent turbidity or through a demonstration of performance. Section
IV.D presents criteria for awarding Cryptosporidium treatment credit to
these and other treatment and control options, which collectively
comprise the microbial toolbox.
PWSs in Bin 2 can meet additional Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements by using any option or combination of options from the
microbial toolbox. For Bins 3 and 4, PWSs must achieve at least 1-log
of the additional treatment requirement by using ozone, chlorine
dioxide, UV, membranes, bag filtration, cartridge filtration, or bank
filtration.
2. Background and Analysis
Today's rule will increase protection against Cryptosporidium and
other pathogens in PWSs with the highest source water contamination
levels. This targeted approach builds upon existing regulations under
which all filtered PWSs must provide the same level of treatment
regardless of source water quality. EPA's intent with today's rule is
to ensure that PWSs with higher risk source waters achieve public
health protection commensurate with PWSs with less contaminated
sources.
The Cryptosporidium treatment requirements for filtered PWSs in
today's rule are unchanged from the August 11, 2003 proposal (USEPA
2003a) and reflect consensus recommendations by the Stage 2 M-DBP
Advisory Committee (USEPA 2000a). The following discussion summarizes
the Agency's basis for establishing risk-targeted Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements and for setting the specific bin concentration
ranges and treatment requirements that apply to filtered PWSs in
today's rule.
a. Basis for targeted treatment requirements. In developing today's
rule, EPA evaluated the degree to which new information on
Cryptosporidium warranted moving beyond existing regulations. As
discussed in section III, the IESWTR established a Cryptosporidium MCLG
of zero and requires large filtered PWSs to achieve 2-log
Cryptosporidium removal. The LT1ESWTR extended this requirement to
small PWSs. After these rules were promulgated, advances were made in
analytical methods and treatment for Cryptosporidium, and EPA collected
new information on Cryptosporidium occurrence and infectivity.
Consequently, EPA assessed the implications of these developments for
further controlling Cryptosporidium to approach the zero MCLG.
The risk-targeted approach for filtered PWSs in today's final rule
stems from four general findings based on new information on
Cryptosporidium:
(1) New data on Cryptosporidium infectivity suggest that the risk
associated with a particular level of Cryptosporidium is most likely
higher than EPA estimated at the time of earlier rules;
(2) New data on Cryptosporidium occurrence indicate that levels are
relatively low in most water sources, but a subset of sources has
substantially higher concentrations;
(3) The finding that UV light can readily inactivate
Cryptosporidium, as well as other technology developments, makes
achieving high levels of
[[Page 676]]
treatment for Cryptosporidium feasible for PWSs of all sizes; and
(4) EPA Methods 1622 and 1623 are capable of assessing annual mean
levels of Cryptosporidium in drinking water sources.
These findings led EPA to conclude that most filtered PWSs
currently provide sufficient treatment for Cryptosporidium, but
additional treatment is needed in those PWSs with the highest source
water Cryptosporidium levels to protect public health. Further, PWSs
can characterize Cryptosporidium levels in their source waters with
available analytical methods and can provide higher levels of treatment
with available technologies. Consequently, risk-targeted treatment
requirements for Cryptosporidium based on source water contamination
levels are appropriate and feasible to implement.
b. Basis for bin concentration ranges and treatment requirements.
To establish the risk-targeted treatment requirements in today's rule,
EPA had to determine the degree of treatment that should be required
for different source water Cryptosporidium levels to protect public
health. This determination involved addressing several questions:
What is the risk associated with Cryptosporidium in a
drinking water source?
How much Cryptosporidium removal do filtration plants
achieve?
What is the appropriate statistical measure for
classifying PWSs into treatment bins?
What degree of additional treatment is needed for higher
source water Cryptosporidium levels?
How should PWSs calculate their treatment bin
classification?
This section summarizes how EPA evaluated these questions in
developing today's rule. See the proposed LT2ESWTR for further details
(USEPA 2003a).
What is the Risk Associated With Cryptosporidium in a Drinking Water
Source?
The risk of infection from Cryptosporidium in drinking water is a
function of exposure (i.e., the dose of oocysts ingested) and
infectivity (i.e., likelihood of infection as a function of ingested
dose). Primary (i.e., direct) exposure to Cryptosporidium depends on
the concentration of oocysts in the source water, the fraction removed
by the treatment plant, and the volume of water consumed (secondary
exposure occurs through interactions with infected individuals). Thus,
the daily risk of infection (DR) is as follows:
DR = (oocysts/L in source water) x (fraction remaining after treatment)
x (liters consumed per day) x (likelihood of infection per oocyst
dose).
Assuming 350 days of consumption per year for people served by
community water systems (CWSs), the annual risk (AR) of infection is as
follows:
AR = 1 - (1 - DR) \350\.
As discussed in section III.E, EPA has estimated the mean
likelihood of infection from ingesting one Cryptosporidium oocyst to
range from 4 to 16 percent. Median individual daily water consumption
is estimated as 1.07 L/day. Figure IV.B-1 illustrates ranges for the
annual risk of infection by Cryptosporidium in CWSs based on these
values for different source water infectious oocyst concentrations and
treatment plant removal efficiencies. The dashed lines represent the
uncertainty associated with Cryptosporidium infectivity for each log-
removal curve. See Chapter 5 of the LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis for
details (USEPA 2005a).
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 677]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.000
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
The results in Figure IV.B-1 show, for example, that if a treatment
plant had a concentration of infectious Cryptosporidium in the source
water of 0.1 oocysts/L and the plant achieved 3-log removal, the mean
annual risk of
[[Page 678]]
Cryptosporidium infection would range from 0.0017 to 0.0060 (17 to 60
infections per 10,000 consumers). In comparison, if the same plant had
a source water infectious Cryptosporidium level of 0.01 oocysts/L, the
annual infection risk would range from 1.7 to 6 per 10,000 consumers.
How much Cryptosporidium removal do filtration plants achieve?
The amount of Cryptosporidium removal that filtration plants
achieve was a key factor in assessing the additional treatment that
plants with higher source water Cryptosporidium levels should provide.
To evaluate this factor, EPA reviewed studies of Cryptosporidium
removal by common treatment processes. As described in the proposal for
today's rule, these processes were conventional treatment, direct, slow
sand, and diatomaceous earth filtration, as well as membrane, bag, and
cartridge filtration (USEPA 2003a).
The majority of plants treating surface water use conventional
treatment, which is defined in 40 CFR 141.2 as coagulation,
flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration. In the proposal, EPA
reviewed studies of conventional treatment by Dugan et al. (2001),
Nieminski and Bellamy (2000), McTigue et al. (1998), Patania et al.
(1999), Huck et al. (2000), Emelko et al. (2000), and Harrington et al.
(2001). Based on these studies, EPA estimated that conventional
treatment plants in compliance with the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR typically
achieve a Cryptosporidium removal efficiency of approximately 3-log.
Consequently, conventional treatment plants receive 3-log credit toward
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under today's rule.
This 3-log credit for conventional treatment is consistent with the
Stage 2 M-DBP Agreement in Principle (USEPA 2000a), which states as
follows:
``The additional treatment requirements in the bin requirement
table are based, in part, on the assumption that conventional
treatment plants in compliance with the IESWTR achieve an average of
3 logs removal of Cryptosporidium.''
The M-DBP Advisory Committee did not recommend a level of
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for other types of filtration plants.
EPA also reviewed studies of the performance of clarification
processes like dissolved air flotation, which can be used in place of
sedimentation in a conventional treatment train (Gregory and Zabel
1990, Plummer et al. 1995, Edzwald and Kelley 1998). These studies
indicate that plants using clarification processes other than
sedimentation that are located after coagulation and prior to
filtration can achieve performance equivalent to conventional treatment
plants. As a result, any treatment train that includes coagulation/
flocculation, clarification, and granular media filtration is regarded
as conventional treatment for purposes of awarding treatment credit
under today's rule. The clarification step must be a solid/liquid
separation process where accumulated solids are removed during this
separate component of the treatment system.
Direct filtration plants use coagulation, flocculation, and
filtration processes just as conventional treatment plants do, but they
lack a sedimentation basin or equivalent clarification process. In the
proposal, EPA reviewed studies of sedimentation by Dugan et al. (2001),
States et al. (1997), Edzwald and Kelly (1998), Payment and Franco
(1993), Kelly et al. (1995), and Patania et al. (1995). Results from
these studies demonstrate that sedimentation basins can achieve 0.5-log
or greater Cryptosporidium removal. In addition, some studies have
observed that direct filtration achieves less Cryptosporidium removal
than conventional treatment (Patania et al. 1995) and the incidence of
Cryptosporidium in the treated water is higher (McTigue et al. 1998).
Given these findings, EPA has awarded direct filtration plants a 2.5-
log credit towards Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under today's
rule (i.e., 0.5-log less credit than for conventional treatment).
Slow sand filtration involves passing raw water through a bed of
sand at low velocity and without prior coagulation. Diatomaceous earth
filtration is a process by which a filtration medium is initially
deposited onto a support membrane and medium is added throughout the
operation to keep the filter from clogging. In the proposal, EPA
reviewed slow sand filtration studies by Fogel et al. (1993), Hall et
al. (1994), Schuler and Ghosh (1991), and Timms et al. (1995) and
diatomaceous earth filtration studies by Schuler and Gosh (1990) and
Ongerth and Hutton (1997, 2001). For both processes, these studies
indicate that a well-designed and properly operated filter can achieve
Cryptosporidium removal efficiencies similar to those observed for
conventional treatment plants. Slow sand and diatomaceous earth
filtration plants, therefore, receive a 3-log credit towards
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under today's rule.
Estimating a typical Cryptosporidium removal efficiency for
filtration technologies like membranes, bag filters, and cartridge
filters is not possible because the performance of such filters is
specific to a particular product. As a result, credit for these devices
must be determined by the State based on product-specific testing using
the procedures described in section IV.D or other criteria approved by
the State.
Table IV.B-3 summarizes the credits various types of filtration
plants receive toward Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under
today's rule. This credit determines the degree of additional treatment
that plants classified in Bins 2-4 must apply, as shown in Table IV.B-
2.
Table IV.B-3.--Cryptosporidium Treatment Credit Towards LT2ESWTR Requirements \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional
treatment Slow sand or Alternative
Plant type (includes Direct filtration diatomaceous earth filtration
softening) filtration technologies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment credit................ 3.0-log........... 2.5-log........... 3.0-log........... Determined by
State. \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applies to plants in full compliance with the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR as applicable.
\2\ Credit must be determined through product or site-specific assessment.
As discussed previously, studies indicate that conventional
treatment plants producing very low filtered water turbidity can
achieve a higher level of Cryptosporidium removal than 3-log, and
today's rule allows such plants to receive additional treatment credit.
Further, States can award a higher or lower level of credit to an
individual plant based on a site-specific demonstration of performance.
Section IV.D provides details on both of these topics.
The Cryptosporidium removal credits for filtration plants in
today's rule differ from the amount of credit awarded under the IESWTR
and LT1ESWTR. As
[[Page 679]]
discussed in section III, those rules require all filtered PWSs to
achieve 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium. PWSs using conventional
treatment, or direct, slow sand, or diatomaceous earth filtration are
in compliance with this requirement if they meet specified filtered
water turbidity standards. These regulatory criteria were based on
consideration of the minimum level of removal that all these filtration
processes will achieve (USEPA 1998a). However, in the risk assessments
that supported these regulations, EPA estimated that most filtration
plants will achieve significantly more removal, with median
Cryptosporidium reductions near 3-log.
Today's rule will supplement IESWTR and LT1ESWTR requirements by
mandating additional treatment at certain PWSs based on source-water
Cryptosporidium levels. When assessing the need for additional
treatment at potentially higher risk PWSs, EPA believes that
considering the full removal efficiency achieved by different types of
treatment plants is appropriate. Because making a site-specific
assessment of removal efficiency at all treatment plants individually
is not feasible, establishing prescribed treatment credits based on
available data is necessary. Accordingly, EPA has concluded that
available data support the higher levels of prescribed credit towards
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements for filtration plants
established by today's rule.
What is the appropriate statistical measure for classifying PWSs into
treatment bins?
EPA and the Advisory Committee evaluated different statistical
measures for characterizing Cryptosporidium monitoring results to
determine if additional treatment should be required. These measures
included the arithmetic mean, median, 90th percentile, and maximum.
EPA concluded, consistent with Advisory Committee recommendations,
that Cryptosporidium levels should be characterized by an arithmetic
mean. This conclusion is based on two factors: (1) Available data
suggest that the mean concentration directly relates to the average
risk of the exposed population (i.e., drinking water consumers); and
(2) with a limited number of samples, the mean can be estimated more
accurately than other statistical measures, such as a 90th percentile
estimate.
What degree of additional treatment is needed for higher source water
Cryptosporidium levels?
Development of the risk-based treatment requirements in today's
rule involved first determining the threshold source-water
Cryptosporidium level at which filtered PWSs should provide additional
treatment to protect public health. The key factors in making this
determination were the estimations of Cryptosporidium risk and
treatment plant removal efficiency discussed previously, along with the
performance of analytical methods for classifying PWSs in different
treatment bins.
EPA and Advisory Committee deliberations focused on mean source-
water Cryptosporidium concentrations in the range of 0.01 to 0.1
oocysts/L as threshold levels for requiring additional treatment. Based
on the type of risk information shown in Figure IV.B-1, these levels
are estimated to result in an annual infection risk in the range of 1.7
x 10-4 to 6.0 x 10-3 (or 1.7 to 60 infections per
10,000 consumers) for a treatment plant achieving 3-log Cryptosporidium
removal (the treatment efficiency estimated for conventional plants
under existing regulations).
A shortcoming with establishing the threshold for additional
treatment at 0.01 oocysts/L, however, is that a PWS would exceed this
concentration with only a very few oocysts being detected. For a PWS
collecting monthly 10-L samples and bin classification based on the
maximum running annual average, as required under today's rule,
detecting two oocysts during one year of monitoring would exceed a mean
of 0.01 oocysts/L. Given the uncertainty associated with
Cryptosporidium monitoring, EPA and the Advisory Committee did not
support requiring additional treatment for filtered PWSs based on so
few counts. Although this shortcoming could theoretically be addressed
by a higher sampling frequency, the feasibility of increased sampling
is limited by the capacity of laboratories and the cost of sample
analysis.
A related concern in establishing the threshold concentration for
requiring additional treatment was bin misclassification. If the
threshold concentration was set at 0.1 oocysts/L, for example, some
PWSs with actual mean source-water concentrations greater than this
level would measure a concentration less than this level and would be
misclassified in the bin that requires no additional treatment.
Consequently, they would not provide sufficient public health
protection. As discussed previously, this type of error is due to the
limited number and volume of samples that can be analyzed, imperfect
method recovery, and variability in Cryptosporidium occurrence.
Based on these considerations, the Advisory Committee recommended
and today's rule establishes that filtered PWSs must provide additional
treatment for Cryptosporidium when their mean source-water
concentration exceeds 0.075 oocysts/L. At this concentration, PWSs
collecting monthly 10-L samples must count at least nine oocysts in one
year (9 oocysts per 120 L total sample volume) before additional
treatment is required. Further, any PWS with a mean source-water
infectious Cryptosporidium level above 0.1 oocysts/L, which corresponds
to an estimated infection risk range of 1.7 to 6.0 x 10-3,
is highly likely to be appropriately classified in a bin requiring
additional treatment.
After identifying this first threshold for requiring additional
treatment, determining the Cryptosporidium concentrations that should
bound higher treatment bins was necessary. In making these
determinations, EPA concurred with Advisory Committee recommendations
that sought to balance the possibility of bin misclassification against
equitable risk reduction and public health protection.
Treatment bins that span a wider concentration range result in
lower bin misclassification rates. The analysis summarized in section
IV.A shows that the monitoring required under today's rule can
accurately characterize a PWS's mean Cryptosporidium level within a
0.5-log margin, but error rates increase for smaller margins (USEPA
2005a). Conversely, treatment bins that span a narrower concentration
range provide more equitable protection from risk among different PWSs.
This is due to identical treatment requirements applying to all PWSs in
the same bin. In consideration of these issues, today's rule
establishes two higher treatment bins at Cryptosporidium concentrations
of 1.0 oocysts/L and 3.0 oocysts/L. These values result in the four
bins shown in Table IV.B-1. Available occurrence data indicate that few
PWSs will measure mean Cryptosporidium concentrations greater than 3.0
oocysts/L, so there is no need to establish a treatment bin above this
level.
With respect to the degree of additional Cryptosporidium treatment
that PWSs in Bins 2-4 must provide, EPA and the Advisory Committee
considered values of 0.5-log and greater. Today's rule establishes a 1-
log additional treatment requirement for conventional plants in Bin 2.
Because
[[Page 680]]
the concentration range of Bin 2 spans approximately one order of
magnitude, this degree of treatment ensures that plants classified in
Bin 2 will achieve treated water Cryptosporidium levels comparable to
plants in Bin 1. Conventional plants in Bins 3 and 4 must provide 2.0-
and 2.5-log of additional treatment, respectively. As recommended by
the Advisory Committee, these higher additional treatment levels are
required based on the recognition that plants in Bins 3 and 4 have a
much greater potential vulnerability to Cryptosporidium. Consequently,
significantly higher treatment is appropriate to protect public health.
These additional treatment requirements for conventional treatment
plants in Bins 2-4 are based on a prescribed 3-log Cryptosporidium
treatment credit for compliance with the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR, as
discussed previously. They translate to total Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements of 4.0-, 5.0-, and 5.5-log for Bins 2, 3, and 4,
respectively. Plants receiving higher or lower levels of prescribed
treatment credit are required to provide less or more additional
treatment if classified in Bins 2-4.
Plants using slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration, which also
receive a 3-log treatment credit, incur the same additional treatment
requirements as conventional plants if classified in Bins 2-4. Direct
filtration plants, however, must provide 0.5-log greater additional
treatment if classified in Bins 2-4 because they receive a 2.5-log
prescribed credit. EPA expects, though, that most direct filtration
plants will be classified in Bin 1 because direct filtration is
typically applied only to higher quality source waters.
Because EPA is unable to establish a prescribed treatment credit
for other types of filtration technologies like membranes, bag filters,
and cartridge filters, today's rule requires that States assign a
treatment credit to a particular filtration product. This credit then
determines the amount of additional treatment that a plant using this
product must provide if classified in Bins 2-4 in order to achieve the
required total treatment level. Section IV.D provides criteria for
assigning Cryptosporidium treatment credit to membranes, bag filters,
and cartridge filters.
As described in Section IV.D, today's rule establishes a wide range
of treatment and control options through the microbial toolbox for PWSs
to meet additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements. PWSs may
choose any option or combination of options from the microbial toolbox
to meet the treatment requirements of plants in Bin 2. For plants in
Bins 3 or 4, though, PWSs must achieve at least 1-log of the additional
treatment requirement using UV, ozone, chlorine dioxide, membranes, bag
filters, cartridge filters, or bank filtration. EPA is establishing
this provision in today's rule as recommended by the Advisory Committee
because these processes will serve as significant additional treatment
barriers for PWSs with the highest levels of pathogens in their
sources.
How should PWSs calculate their treatment bin classification?
The specific calculations that PWSs use to determine their bin
classification are based on analyses of misclassification rates and
bias. As described in section IV.A, today's rule requires PWSs to
collect at least 24 samples (except for plants that operate only part-
year) when they monitor for Cryptosporidium. Most PWSs will collect
these 24 samples over two years, but PWSs may sample at a higher
frequency and small PWSs may complete this monitoring in one year.
These differences affect the bin classification calculation.
PWSs that sample monthly over two years (24 samples total) must use
the maximum running annual average (Max-RAA) for bin classification
because this achieves a low false negative rate (the likelihood a PWS
will be incorrectly classified in a lower bin). In comparison, if such
PWSs used the mean of all samples over two years for bin
classification, the false negative rate would be almost four times
higher (see Table IV.B.4).
PWSs that choose to sample at least twice per month over two years
(48 samples total) must use the mean of all 48 samples for their bin
classification. This approach achieves a low false negative rate
similar to the Max-RAA for 24 samples and, in addition, reduces the
false positive rate (the likelihood a PWS will be incorrectly
classified in higher bin--see Table IV.B.4). Due to the lower false
positive rate associated with 48 samples, EPA expects that some PWSs
will choose to sample for Cryptosporidium twice per month.
Small PWSs (serving fewer than 10,000 people) that complete their
Cryptosporidium monitoring over one year must use the mean of all 24
samples for bin classification. This approach has a higher false
negative rate than the approaches allowed for PWSs that monitor over
two years. However, it is the only feasible option for PWSs that
conduct just one year of Cryptosporidium sampling. Averaging sample
concentrations over less than one year is not appropriate (except in
the case of plants that operate only part-year that monitor for less
than one year) as this would bias the bin classification due to
seasonal variation in water quality.
Table IV.B-4.--False Positive and False Negative Rates for Monitoring
and Binning Strategies Considered for the LT2ESWTR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
False False
Strategy positive 1 negative 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
48 sample arithmetic mean..................... 1.7% 1.4%
24 sample Max-RAA............................. 5.3% 1.7%
24 sample arithmetic mean..................... 2.8% 6.2%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 False positive rates calculated for systems with Cryptosporidium
concentrations 0.5 log below the Bin 1 boundary of 0.075 oocysts/L.
2 False negative rates calculated for systems with Cryptosporidium
concentrations 0.5 log above the Bin 1 boundary of 0.075 oocysts/L.
Two additional considerations that relate to characterizing
Cryptosporidium monitoring results to determine treatment requirements
are (1) fewer than 100 percent of oocysts in a sample are recovered and
counted by the analyst and (2) not all the oocysts measured with
Methods 1622 or 1623 are capable of causing infection. These two
factors are offsetting, in that oocyst counts not adjusted for recovery
tend to underestimate the true concentration, while the total oocyst
count typically overestimates the infectious concentration that
presents a health risk.
As described in section III, matrix spike data indicate that
average recovery of Cryptosporidium oocysts with Methods 1622 or 1623
in a national monitoring program will be approximately 40 percent.
Regarding the fraction of oocysts that are infectious, LeChevallier et
al. (2003) tested natural waters for Cryptosporidium using both Method
1623 and a method (cell culture-PCR) to test for infectivity. Results
suggested that 37 percent of the Cryptosporidium oocysts detected by
Method 1623 were infectious. This finding is consistent with the
observation that 37 percent of the oocysts counted during the ICRSS
using Methods 1622 or 1623 had internal structures, which indicate a
higher likelihood of infectivity (among the remaining oocysts, 47
percent had amorphous structures and 16 percent were empty).
While it is not possible to establish a precise value for method
recovery or the fraction of oocysts that are infectious,
[[Page 681]]
available data suggest that these parameters may be of similar
magnitude. Consequently, the Advisory Committee recommended that
monitoring results should not be adjusted to account for either
recovery or the fraction infectious. EPA concurs with this
recommendation and today's rule requires that PWSs be classified in
treatment bins using the total number of Cryptosporidium oocysts
counted, without further adjustment. The LT2ESWTR treatment bins in
today's rule are constructed to reflect this approach.
3. Summary of Major Comments
For filtered PWS treatment requirements in the LT2ESWTR proposal,
EPA received significant public comment on the risk-based approach to
requiring additional treatment, the role of States in determining bin
classification, and the treatment credit for filtration plants. The
following discussion summarizes comments in these areas and EPA's
responses.
Most commenters supported the risk-based approach of the LT2ESWTR
in which filtered PWSs monitor for microbial contaminants and only
those PWSs finding higher levels of contamination are required to
provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium. Among these comments,
many stated support for the four treatment bins for filtered PWSs, with
some noting that future research will indicate whether the bins should
be restructured in a later rulemaking. Several commenters expressed
support for EPA's combination of the Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR as
essential to creating a balanced approach between DBP control and
microbial risk.
A few commenters opposed the expenditure of funds to reduce risk
from Cryptosporidium on the basis that epidemiological evidence
suggests this risk is low and most communities have not experienced
cryptosporidiosis outbreaks. EPA agrees that additional treatment for
Cryptosporidium in drinking water is not warranted in all communities.
Under today's rule, most PWSs are expected to be classified in the
lowest bin, which requires no additional treatment. However, based on
risk information presented in USEPA (2005a) and summarized in this
preamble, EPA believes that additional treatment is necessary to
protect public health in PWSs with the highest Cryptosporidium levels.
Further, as described in USEPA (2005a), EPA's assessment of
Cryptosporidium risk in drinking water is consistent with the limited
available epidemiological data on disease incidence.
With respect to the role of States in bin classification, most
commenters recommended that States assign or approve the bin
classification for their PWSs. Commenters maintained that State
approval of bin classification is an inherent governmental function and
will avoid confusion as to the level of treatment each PWS must
provide. Further, the approval process will provide an opportunity for
dialog between States and PWSs. EPA agrees with these comments and
today's rule requires PWSs to submit their calculation of bin
classification to the State for review. If the PWS does not hear back
from the State, it must proceed to apply the level of treatment
appropriate for its calculated bin classification in accordance with
its applicable compliance schedule.
In regard to the Cryptosporidium treatment credit that should be
awarded to filtration plants, many commenters supported the 3-log
Cryptosporidium removal credit for conventional treatment and slow sand
filtration. Some comments included data showing that conventional
treatment can achieve greater than 4-log removal of Cryptosporidium,
and several commenters stated concerns that EPA has underestimated the
level of treatment achievable through conventional treatment.
Commenters supported the inclusion of plants using softening and
dissolved air flotation for conventional treatment credit and requested
that EPA extend this credit to similar treatment trains using other
types of clarification processes.
EPA recognizes that studies show conventional treatment can achieve
more than 3-log Cryptosporidium removal under optimal conditions.
However, studies also demonstrate that removal efficiencies can be
significantly less for suboptimal plant set-up and operation. EPA does
not expect that all plants will operate under optimal conditions at all
times. Consequently, today's rule awards a prescribed 3-log credit to
conventional plants complying with the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR and allows
plants to receive higher credit through demonstrating low finished
water turbidity or through an alternative demonstration of performance,
as describe in section IV.D. EPA agrees that plants using alternative
clarification process that involves solids removal between coagulation
and filtration should qualify for 3-log credit and today's rule
provides for this.
C. Unfiltered System Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements
1. Today's Rule
Today's rule requires all PWSs that use a surface water or GWUDI
source and are unfiltered to provide treatment for Cryptosporidium. The
degree of required treatment depends on the level of Cryptosporidium in
the source water, as determined through required monitoring. Further,
unfiltered PWSs must meet overall treatment requirements using at least
two disinfectants and must continue to meet all applicable filtration
avoidance criteria. Details of these requirements follow.
a. Determination of mean Cryptosporidium level. Following
completion of the required initial source water monitoring described in
section IV.A, each unfiltered PWS must determine the arithmetic mean of
all its Cryptosporidium sample results generated during the monitoring
period. As required for filtered PWSs, individual sample results must
be calculated as the total number of oocysts counted, divided by the
volume assayed (see section V.K for details). Samples are not adjusted
for method recovery and, in samples where no oocysts are detected, the
result is treated as zero.
Unfiltered PWSs must report their mean Cryptosporidium level to the
State for approval (see section IV.G for specific reporting dates). The
report must include a summary of the data used to determine the mean
concentration. If the State does not respond to a PWS regarding its
mean Cryptosporidium level, the PWS must comply with the
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements of today's rule, as described
next, based on the reported level.
If EPA does not amend today's rule before the second round of
monitoring described in section IV.A, unfiltered PWSs must recalculate
their mean Cryptosporidium level using results from the second round of
monitoring. Unfiltered PWSs must report this level to the State as
described for the initial round of monitoring.
b. Cryptosporidium treatment requirements. Unfiltered PWSs must
comply with the following treatment requirements based on their mean
source-water Cryptosporidium level: if the level is less than or equal
to 0.01 oocysts/L then at least 2-log Cryptosporidium inactivation is
required; if the level is greater than 0.01 oocysts/L, or if the
unfiltered PWS chooses not to monitor for Cryptosporidium, then at
least 3-log Cryptosporidium inactivation is
[[Page 682]]
required. See section IV.G for treatment compliance dates.
EPA has developed criteria, described in section IV.D, to award
Cryptosporidium inactivation credit for treatment with chlorine
dioxide, ozone, or UV light. Unfiltered PWSs may use any of these
disinfectants to meet their Cryptosporidium inactivation requirements
under today's rule. Further, unfiltered PWSs must achieve the following
with respect to disinfection treatment:
(1) A PWS that uses chlorine dioxide or ozone and fails to achieve
the required level of Cryptosporidium inactivation on more than one day
in the calendar month is in violation of the treatment technique
requirement.
(2) A PWS that uses UV light and fails to achieve the required
level of Cryptosporidium inactivation in at least 95 percent of the
water delivered to the public every month is in violation of the
treatment technique requirement.
c. Use of two disinfectants. Unfiltered PWSs must use at least two
different disinfectants to provide 4-log virus, 3-log Giardia lamblia,
and 2- or 3-log Cryptosporidium inactivation as required under 40 CFR
141.72(a) and today's rule. Further, each of two disinfectants must
achieve by itself the total inactivation required for one of these
target pathogens. This requirement does not modify the existing
requirement under 40 CFR 141.72(a) for PWSs to provide a disinfectant
residual in the distribution system.
2. Background and Analysis
The intent of the Cryptosporidium treatment requirements for
unfiltered PWSs in today's final rule is to ensure that they achieve
public health protection equivalent to that achieved by filtered PWSs.
These requirements are unchanged from the August 11, 2003 proposal
(USEPA 2003a), and they reflect consensus recommendations by the Stage
2 M-DBP Advisory Committee (USEPA 2000a). The following discussion
summarizes the Agency's basis for establishing risk-targeted
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements for unfiltered PWSs in today's
rule and for requiring the use of two disinfectants.
a. Basis for Cryptosporidium treatment requirements. As described
in section III, available data suggest that unfiltered PWSs must take
additional steps to achieve public health protection against
Cryptosporidium equivalent to that provided by filtered PWSs.
In occurrence data from the ICR, the median Cryptosporidium level
in unfiltered PWS sources was 0.0079 oocysts/L, which is approximately
10 times less than the median level of 0.052 oocysts/L in filtered PWS
sources. In translating these source water levels to finished water
concentrations, EPA and the Advisory Committee assumed that
conventional filtration treatment plants in compliance with the IESWTR
or LT1ESWTR achieve an average of 3-log (99.9 percent) removal of
Cryptosporidium. Existing regulations do not require unfiltered PWSs to
provide any treatment for Cryptosporidium.
If the median source water Cryptosporidium level in filtered PWSs
is approximately 10 times higher than in unfiltered PWSs, and filtered
PWSs achieve 3-log Cryptosporidium removal, then the median finished
water Cryptosporidium level in filtered PWSs is approximately 100 times
lower than in unfiltered PWSs. Thus, these data suggest that most
unfiltered PWSs must provide 2-log Cryptosporidium treatment to ensure
equivalent public health protection.
Some unfiltered PWSs must provide greater than 2-log
Cryptosporidium treatment to ensure equitable protection, depending on
their source water level. Under today's rule, the Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements for filtered PWSs, as described in section
IV.B.1, will achieve mean finished water Cryptosporidium levels of less
than 1 oocyst/10,000 L. An unfiltered PWS with a mean source water
Cryptosporidium concentration above 0.01 oocysts/L would have to
provide at least 3-log inactivation to achieve an equivalent finished
water Cryptosporidium level.
As stated earlier, EPA has determined that UV light is a feasible
technology for PWSs of all sizes, including unfiltered PWSs, to
inactivate Cryptosporidium. In addition, treating for Cryptosporidium
using ozone is feasible for some unfiltered PWSs. Inactivating
Cryptosporidium with chlorine dioxide, while allowed under today's
rule, does not appear to be feasible for most unfiltered PWSs due to
regulatory limits on chlorite--a chlorine dioxide byproduct.
Based on these findings, today's rule requires all unfiltered PWSs
to provide at least 2-log Cryptosporidium inactivation, and to provide
at least 3-log inactivation if the mean source water level exceeds 0.01
oocysts/L. These treatment requirements will ensure that unfiltered
PWSs achieve public health protection against Cryptosporidium that is
comparable to filtered PWSs in the finished water that is distributed
to consumers.
Available data indicate that no unfiltered PWSs will show measured
mean source water Cryptosporidium levels of 0.075 oocysts/L or higher--
the level at which a filtered PWS must provide at least 4-log
Cryptosporidium under today's rule. Consequently, EPA is not
establishing treatment requirements in today's rule to address
Cryptosporidium at this higher level. Under existing regulations (40
CFR 141.171 and 141.521), unfiltered PWSs must maintain a watershed
control program that minimizes the potential for contamination by
Cryptosporidium oocysts in the source water. If the measured mean
Cryptosporidium level in an unfiltered PWS is 0.075 oocysts/L or
higher, EPA believes the State should critically evaluate the adequacy
of the watershed control program.
Under today's rule, unfiltered PWSs using ozone or chlorine dioxide
to treat for Cryptosporidium must demonstrate the required 2- or 3-log
inactivation every day the PWS serves water to the public, except any
one day each month. Existing regulations (40 CFR 141.72(a)(1)) require
unfiltered PWSs to ensure inactivation of 3-log Giardia lamblia and 4-
log viruses every day except any one day per month. Consequently,
today's rule extends this compliance standard to Cryptosporidium
inactivation.
For unfiltered PWSs that use UV to treat for Cryptosporidium,
today's rule requires demonstration of the required 2- or 3-log
inactivation in at least 95 percent of the water delivered to the
public every month. EPA intends this standard to be comparable to the
``every day except any one day per month'' standard established for
ozone and chlorine dioxide. Because UV disinfection systems will
typically consist of multiple reactors that will be monitored
continuously, EPA believes that a compliance standard based on the
percentage of water disinfected to the required level is more
appropriate than a single daily measurement. Section IV.D describes an
equivalent standard for filtered PWSs.
b. Basis for requiring the use of two disinfectants. Unfiltered
PWSs must use at least two different disinfectants to meet the
inactivation requirements for Cryptosporidium (2- or 3-log), Giardia
lamblia (3-log) and viruses (4-log), and each of two disinfectants must
achieve by itself the total inactivation required for one of these
target pathogens. For example, a PWS could use UV light to achieve 3-
log inactivation of Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium and use
chlorine to provide 4-log virus inactivation. The use of two
disinfectants protects public health by creating multiple barriers
against microbial pathogens. This has two
[[Page 683]]
general advantages over a single barrier: improved reliability and a
broader spectrum of efficacy.
Because unfiltered PWSs rely solely on inactivation for microbial
treatment, an unfiltered PWS using only one disinfectant would provide
no primary microbial treatment if that disinfection process were to
fail. While disinfection processes should be designed for a high level
of reliability, they are not generally 100 percent reliable. Existing
regulations and today's rule recognize this limitation by allowing
unfiltered PWSs to fail to achieve required disinfection levels one day
per month. Consequently, EPA believes that for effective public health
protection, unfiltered PWSs should use at least two primary
disinfection processes. If one process fails, a second process will
provide some degree of protection against pathogens.
A second advantage of a PWS using multiple disinfectants is that
this approach will typically be more effective against a broad spectrum
of pathogens. The efficacy of different disinfectants against different
types of pathogens varies widely. For example, UV light appears to be
very effective for inactivating protozoa like Cryptosporidium and
Giardia lamblia, but is less effective against certain enteric viruses
like adenovirus. Chlorine, however, is highly effective against enteric
viruses but less effective against protozoa. As a result, multiple
disinfectants will generally provide more effective inactivation of a
wide range of pathogens than a single disinfectant.
c. Filtration avoidance. Today's rule does not withdraw or modify
any existing criteria for avoiding filtration under 40 CFR 141.71.
Accordingly, unfiltered PWSs must continue to comply with all existing
filtration avoidance criteria. EPA believes these criteria help to
ensure that watershed protection provides a microbial barrier in those
PWSs that do not filter.
Further, today's rule does not establish any new criteria for
filtration avoidance. In the proposed LT2ESWTR, EPA indicated that
compliance with DBP standards under the Stage 2 DBPR would be
incorporated into the criteria for filtration avoidance. However, EPA
has not done this in today's final rule in order to give States more
flexibility in working with unfiltered PWSs to comply with the Stage 2
DBPR.
3. Summary of Major Comments
EPA received significant public comment on the following treatment
requirements for unfiltered PWSs in the LT2ESWTR proposal: the
requirement for all unfiltered PWSs to provide at least 2-log
Cryptosporidium inactivation, treatment requirements for unfiltered
PWSs with high Cryptosporidium levels, and the requirement for
unfiltered PWSs to use at least two disinfectants. A summary of these
comments and EPA's responses follows.
Several commenters supported the requirement that all unfiltered
PWSs achieve at least 2-log inactivation of Cryptosporidium, noting
that this was part of the Agreement in Principle (USEPA 2000a). Some
commenters, however, requested that EPA not establish a minimum
Cryptosporidium treatment level due to the following factors:
monitoring of unfiltered PWS sources has shown very low levels of
Cryptosporidium, and some sources may have no Cryptosporidium; the
Cryptosporidium in an unfiltered PWS source are likely to be of non-
human origin and are less likely to infect humans; and disease
incidence data have not established a link between unfiltered PWSs and
cryptosporidiosis in consumers.
In response, EPA continues to believe that all unfiltered PWSs
should provide treatment for Cryptosporidium to protect public health.
Monitoring has shown that unfiltered PWS sources are contaminated with
Cryptosporidium, and no source is likely to be entirely free of
Cryptosporidium due to the ubiquity of Cryptosporidium in both human
and many animal populations. Studies, such as those cited in section
III, have established that Cryptosporidium from animals can infect
humans. EPA does not regard the absence of cryptosporidiosis cases
attributed to drinking water in a particular community as evidence that
no treatment for Cryptosporidium is needed. As described in section
III, cryptosporidiosis incidence data generally do not indicate overall
disease burden because most cases are undetected, unreported, and not
traced to a particular source.
Some commenters recommended that EPA require only 1-log
Cryptosporidium inactivation for unfiltered PWSs that demonstrate
source water levels below 0.001 oocysts/L. EPA does not support this
approach, though, due to concerns with the reliability of monitoring to
establish such an extremely low level of Cryptosporidium. In addition,
UV light is a feasible technology for unfiltered PWSs of all sizes to
achieve at least 2-log Cryptosporidium inactivation. For these reasons,
EPA has concluded that the minimum Cryptosporidium treatment level
should be 2-log, as recommended by the Advisory Committee.
In the proposed LT2ESWTR, EPA requested comment on the treatment
that should be required if an unfiltered PWS measured a Cryptosporidium
level of 0.075 oocysts/L or higher--the concentration at which a
filtered PWS must provide at least 4-log treatment. Several commenters
supported equivalent treatment requirements (i.e., at least 4-log
reduction) for unfiltered and filtered PWSs with Cryptosporidium at
this level. Other commenters stated that available data indicate no
unfiltered PWSs are likely to measure Cryptosporidium at such a high
level.
EPA agrees that available data on Cryptosporidium occurrence
suggest that no unfiltered PWSs will measure a mean level of 0.075
oocysts/L or higher. Moreover, establishing a 4-log treatment
requirement on the precautionary basis that an unfiltered PWS might
measure a high level of Cryptosporidium has a significant cost--it
would require any unfiltered PWS to provide 4-log, rather than 3-log,
inactivation to avoid Cryptosporidium monitoring. EPA expects that many
small unfiltered PWSs will choose to provide 3-log Cryptosporidium
inactivation rather than monitor for Cryptosporidium. Accordingly, EPA
has concluded that establishing a 4-log Cryptosporidium treatment
requirement for unfiltered PWSs that measure a Cryptosporidium level of
0.075 oocysts/L or higher is unnecessary and inappropriate at this
time. In the event that an unfiltered PWS does measure Cryptosporidium
at this level, the State can require the PWS to take steps to reduce
the contamination under existing watershed control program requirements
for unfiltered PWSs.
Some commenters supported the requirement for unfiltered PWSs to
use at least two disinfectants to meet overall inactivation
requirements for Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, and viruses and for
each disinfectant to achieve the total inactivation required for one
target pathogen. These commenters stated that this requirement will
improve inactivation against a wide variety of pathogens and increase
treatment reliability. Other commenters, though, opposed this
requirement for a number of reasons: it will unnecessarily limit the
ability of PWSs to minimize DBPs, there is no similar requirement for
filtered PWSs, the requirement for each disinfectant to achieve the
total inactivation for one pathogen goes beyond the Agreement in
Principle, and EPA has not provided a risk analysis to justify the
requirement.
[[Page 684]]
In response, EPA believes that the benefits of both redundancy and
a broad spectrum of microbial protection justify requiring the use of
two disinfectants. Further, requiring each disinfectant to achieve the
full inactivation of one target pathogen establishes a minimal
performance level so that each disinfectant will serve as a substantive
barrier. In most cases, PWSs will comply with this requirement by using
UV or ozone to inactivate Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium and using
chlorine to inactivate viruses.
D. Options for Systems To Meet Cryptosporidium Treatment Requirements
1. Microbial Toolbox Overview
Today's rule includes a variety of treatment and control options,
collectively termed the ``microbial toolbox,'' that PWSs can implement
to comply with additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements.
Options in the microbial toolbox include source protection and
management programs, prefiltration processes, treatment performance
programs, additional filtration components, and inactivation
technologies. The Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee recommended the
microbial toolbox to provide PWSs with broad flexibility in selecting
cost-effective LT2ESWTR compliance strategies.
Most options in the microbial toolbox carry prescribed credits
toward Cryptosporidium treatment requirements. PWSs receive these
credits by demonstrating compliance with required design and
operational criteria, which are described in the sections that follow.
In addition, States may award treatment credits other than the
prescribed credit through a ``demonstration of performance,'' which
involves site-specific testing by a PWS with a State-approved protocol.
Under a demonstration of performance, a State may award credit to a
treatment plant or to a unit process of a treatment plant that is
higher or lower than the prescribed credit. This option also allows
States to award credit to a unit process that does not meet the design
and operational criteria in the microbial toolbox for prescribed
credit.
To be eligible for treatment credit for a microbial toolbox option,
PWSs must initially report compliance with design criteria, where
required, to the State (some options do not require design criteria).
Thereafter, for most options, PWSs must report compliance with required
operational criteria to the State each month (the watershed control
program option requires yearly reporting). Failure by a PWS in any
month to demonstrate treatment credit equal to or greater than its
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under today's rule is a
treatment technique violation. This violation lasts until the PWS
demonstrates that it is meeting criteria for sufficient treatment
credit to satisfy its Cryptosporidium treatment requirements.
As described in section IV.B, filtered PWSs may use any option or
combination of options from the microbial toolbox to comply with the
additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements of Bin 2. PWSs in
Bins 3 or 4 must achieve at least 1-log of the additional
Cryptosporidium treatment requirement by using ozone, chlorine dioxide,
UV, membranes, bag filtration, cartridge filtration, or bank
filtration.
If allowed by the State, PWSs may use different microbial toolbox
options in different months to comply with Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements under today's rule. For example, a PWS in Bin 2, which
requires 1-log additional Cryptosporidium treatment, could comply with
this requirement in one month using ``individual filter performance,''
which carries a 1-log credit; in a subsequent month, this PWS could use
``combined filter performance'' and ``presedimentation basin with
coagulation,'' which each carry 0.5-log credit. This approach is
intended to provide greater operational flexibility to PWSs. It allows
a PWS to receive treatment credit for a microbial toolbox option in any
month the PWS is able to meet required operational criteria, even if
the PWS does not meet these criteria during all months of the year.
Table IV.D-1 summarizes prescribed treatment credits and associated
design and operational criteria for microbial toolbox options. The
sections that follow describe each toolbox option in detail. In
addition, EPA has developed three guidance documents to assist PWSs
with selecting and implementing microbial toolbox options: Toolbox
Guidance Manual, UV Disinfection Guidance Manual, and Membrane
Filtration Guidance Manual. Each may be acquired from EPA's Safe
Drinking Water Hotline, which can be contacted as described under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at the beginning of this notice.
Table IV.D-1.--Microbial Toolbox: Options, Credits and Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cryptosporidium treatment credit
Toolbox option with design and operational criteria
\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Protection and Management Toolbox Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed control program......... 0.5-log credit for State-approved
program comprising required
elements, annual program status
report to State, and regular
watershed survey. Unfiltered PWSs
are not eligible for credit.
Alternative source/intake No prescribed credit. PWSs may
management. conduct simultaneous monitoring for
treatment bin classification at
alternative intake locations or
under alternative intake management
strategies.
-----------------------------------
Prefiltration Toolbox Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presedimentation basin with 0.5-log credit during any month that
coagulation. presedimentation basins achieve a
monthly mean reduction of 0.5-log
or greater in turbidity or
alternative State-approved
performance criteria. To be
eligible, basins must be operated
continuously with coagulant
addition and all plant flow must
pass through basins.
Two-stage lime softening.......... 0.5-log credit for two-stage
softening where chemical addition
and hardness precipitation occur in
both stages. All plant flow must
pass through both stages. Single-
stage softening is credited as
equivalent to conventional
treatment.
Bank filtration................... 0.5-log credit for 25-foot setback;
1.0-log credit for 50-foot setback;
horizontal and vertical wells only;
aquifer must be unconsolidated sand
containing at least 10 percent
fines (as defined in rule); average
turbidity in wells must be less
than 1 NTU. PWSs using existing
wells followed by filtration must
monitor the well effluent to
determine bin classification and
are not eligible for additional
credit.
-----------------------------------
[[Page 685]]
Treatment Performance Toolbox Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined filter performance....... 0.5-log credit for combined filter
effluent turbidity less than or
equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95
percent of measurements each month.
Individual filter performance..... 0.5-log credit (in addition to 0.5-
log combined filter performance
credit) if individual filter
effluent turbidity is less than or
equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95
percent of samples each month in
each filter and is never greater
than 0.3 NTU in two consecutive
measurements in any filter.
Demonstration of performance...... Credit awarded to unit process or
treatment train based on a
demonstration to the State with a
State-approved protocol.
-----------------------------------
Additional Filtration Toolbox Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bag and cartridge filters......... Up to 2-log credit with
demonstration of at least 1-log
greater removal in a challenge test
when used singly. Up to 2.5-log
credit with demonstration of at
least 0.5-log greater removal in a
challenge test when used in series.
Membrane filtration............... Log credit equivalent to removal
efficiency demonstrated in
challenge test for device if
supported by direct integrity
testing.
Second stage filtration........... 0.5-log credit for second separate
granular media filtration stage if
treatment train includes
coagulation prior to first filter.
Slow sand filters................. 2.5-log credit as a secondary
filtration step; 3.0-log credit as
a primary filtration process. No
prior chlorination.
-----------------------------------
Inactivation Toolbox Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chlorine dioxide.................. Log credit based on measured CT in
relation to CT table.
Ozone............................. Log credit based on measured CT in
relation to CT table.
UV................................ Log credit based on validated UV
dose in relation to UV dose table;
reactor validation testing required
to establish UV dose and associated
operating conditions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table provides summary information only; refer to following preamble
and regulatory language for detailed requirements.
2. Watershed Control Program
a. Today's Rule
Filtered PWSs can receive 0.5-log credit toward Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements under today's rule for implementing a State-
approved watershed control program designed to reduce the level of
Cryptosporidium. To be eligible to receive this credit initially, PWSs
must perform the following steps:
Notify the State of the intent to develop a new or
continue an existing watershed control program for Cryptosporidium
treatment credit no later than two years prior to the date the PWS must
comply with additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under
today's rule.
Submit a proposed watershed control plan to the State for
approval no later than one year prior to the date the PWS must comply
with additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under today's
rule. The watershed control plan must contain these elements:
(1) The designation of an ``area of influence'' in the watershed,
which is defined as the area outside of which the likelihood of
Cryptosporidium contamination affecting the treatment plant intake is
not significant;
(2) The identification of both potential and actual sources of
Cryptosporidium contamination, including a qualitative assessment of
the relative impact of these contamination sources on water quality at
the treatment plant intake;
(3) An analysis of control measures that could mitigate the sources
of Cryptosporidium contamination, including the relative effectiveness
of control measures in reducing Cryptosporidium loading to the source
water and their feasibility; and
(4) A statement of goals and specific actions the PWS will
undertake to reduce source water Cryptosporidium levels, including a
description of how the actions will contribute to specific goals,
watershed partners and their roles, resource requirements and
commitments, and a schedule for plan implementation.
If the State approves the watershed control plan for
Cryptosporidium treatment credit, PWSs must perform the following steps
to be eligible to maintain the credit:
Submit an annual watershed control program status report
to the State no later than a date specified by the State. The status
report must describe the following: (1) how the PWS is implementing the
approved watershed control plan; (2) the adequacy of the plan to meet
its goals; (3) how the PWS is addressing any shortcomings in plan
implementation; and (4) any significant changes that have occurred in
the watershed since the last watershed sanitary survey.
Notify the State prior to making any significant changes
to the approved watershed control plan. If any change is likely to
reduce the planned level of source water protection, the PWS must
include in this notification a statement of actions that will be taken
to mitigate this effect.
Perform a watershed sanitary survey no less frequently
than the PWS must undergo a sanitary survey under 40 CFR
142.16(b)(3)(i), which is every three to five years, and submit the
survey report to the State for approval. The State may require a PWS to
perform a watershed sanitary survey at an earlier date if the State
determines that significant changes may have occurred in the watershed
since the previous sanitary survey. A person approved by the State must
conduct the watershed sanitary survey and the survey must meet
applicable State guidelines. The watershed sanitary survey must
encompass the area of influence as identified in the State-approved
watershed control plan, assess the implementation of actions to reduce
source water Cryptosporidium levels, and identify any significant new
sources of Cryptosporidium.
PWSs are eligible to receive Cryptosporidium treatment credit under
today's rule for preexisting watershed control programs (e.g., programs
in place at the time of rule promulgation).
[[Page 686]]
To be eligible for credit, such programs must meet the requirements
stated in this section and the watershed control plan must address
future actions that will further reduce source water Cryptosporidium
levels.
If the State determines that a PWS is not implementing the approved
watershed control plan (i.e., the PWS is not carrying out the actions
on the schedule in the approved plan), the State may revoke the
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for the watershed control program.
Failure by a PWS to demonstrate treatment credit at least equal to its
Cryptosporidium treatment requirement under today's rule due to such a
revocation of credit is a treatment technique violation. The violation
lasts until the State determines that the PWS is implementing an
approved watershed control plan or is otherwise achieving the required
level of Cryptosporidium treatment credit.
PWSs must make the approved watershed control plan, annual status
reports, and watershed sanitary surveys available to the public upon
request. These documents must be in a plain language style and include
criteria by which to evaluate the success of the program in achieving
plan goals. If approved by the State, the PWS may withhold portions of
these documents based on security considerations.
Unfiltered PWSs are not eligible to receive Cryptosporidium
treatment credit for a watershed control program under today's rule.
Under existing regulations (40 CFR 141.71), unfiltered PWSs must
maintain a watershed control program that minimizes the potential for
contamination by Cryptosporidium as a condition for avoiding
filtration.
b. Background and Analysis
Cryptosporidium enters drinking water through fecal contamination
of PWS source waters. Implementing a watershed control program that
reduces or treats sources of fecal contamination in PWS sources will
benefit public health by lowering the exposure of drinking water
consumers to Cryptosporidium and other pathogenic microorganisms. In
addition, a watershed control program may enhance treatment plant
management practices through generating knowledge of the sources, fate,
and transport of pathogens.
The Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee recommended 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a watershed control program (USEPA
2000a), and the August 11, 2003 proposal included criteria for PWSs to
receive this credit (USEPA 2003a). The following discussion summarizes
the basis for this credit and for differences in associated
requirements between the proposal and today's final rule.
The efficacy of a watershed control program in reducing levels of
Cryptosporidium and other microbial pathogens depends on the ability of
a PWS to identify and control sources of fecal contamination. The fecal
sources that are significant in a particular watershed and the control
measures that will be effective in mitigating these sources are site
specific. Consequently, EPA believes that States should determine
whether a watershed control program developed by a PWS to reduce
Cryptosporidium contamination warrants 0.5-log treatment credit.
Accordingly, today's rule requires State approval of watershed control
programs for PWSs to receive credit.
If a PWS intends to implement a watershed control program to comply
with Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under today's rule, EPA
believes the PWS should notify the State at least two years prior to
the required treatment compliance date. This notification will give the
State an opportunity to communicate with the PWS regarding site-
specific considerations for a watershed control program. Further, the
PWS should submit the proposed watershed control plan to the State for
approval at least one year prior to the treatment compliance date. This
schedule will give the State time to evaluate the program for approval
and, if necessary, allow the PWS to make modifications necessary for
approval. Thus, today's rule establishes these reporting deadlines.
The required elements for a watershed control plan in today's rule
are the minimum necessary for a program that will be effective in
reducing levels of Cryptosporidium and other pathogens in a treatment
plant intake. These elements include defining the area of the watershed
where contamination can affect the intake water quality, identifying
sources of contamination within this area, evaluating control measures
to reduce contamination, and developing an action plan to implement
specific control measures.
EPA encourages PWSs to leverage other Federal, State, and local
programs in developing the elements of their watershed control plans.
For example, SDWA section 1453 requires States to carry out a source
water assessment program (SWAP) for PWSs. Depending on how a State
implements this program, the SWAP may be used to define the area of
influence in the watershed and identify actual and potential
contamination sources. In 2002, EPA launched the Watershed Initiative
(67 FR 36172, May 23, 2002) (USEPA 2002b), which will provide grants to
support watershed-based approaches to preventing, reducing, and
eliminating water pollution. In addition, EPA recently promulgated
regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations that will limit
discharges that contribute microbial pathogens to watersheds.
Many PWSs do not control the watersheds of their sources of supply.
Their watershed control plans should involve partnerships with
watershed landowners and government agencies that have authority over
activities in the watershed that may contribute Cryptosporidium to the
water supply. Stakeholders that control activities that could
contribute to Cryptosporidium contamination include municipal
government and private operators of wastewater treatment plants,
livestock farmers and persons who spread manure, individuals with
failing septic systems, logging operations, and other government and
commercial organizations.
After a State approves a watershed control plan for a PWS and
initially awards 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit, the PWS must
submit a watershed control program status report to the State each
year. These reports are required for States to exercise oversight and
ensure that PWSs implement the approved watershed control plan. They
also provide a mechanism for PWSs to work with the States to address
any shortcomings or necessary modifications in watershed control plans
that are identified after plan approval.
In addition, PWSs must undergo watershed sanitary surveys every
three to five years by a State-approved party. These surveys will
provide information to PWSs and States regarding significant changes in
the watershed that may warrant modification of the approved watershed
control plan. Also, they allow for an assessment of watershed control
plan implementation.
The proposed rule required watershed sanitary surveys annually, but
EPA has reduced the frequency to every three to five years in today's
final rule. This frequency is consistent with existing requirements for
PWS sanitary surveys. EPA is establishing this longer frequency on the
basis that most watersheds will not undergo significant changes over
the course of a single year. If significant changes in the watershed do
occur, however, PWSs must identify these changes in their annual
program status reports. In addition, States have
[[Page 687]]
the authority to require that a watershed sanitary survey be conducted
at an earlier date if the State determines that significant changes may
have occurred in the watershed since the previous survey.
In the proposed rule, approval of a watershed control program
expired after a PWS completed the second round of source water
monitoring, and the PWS had to reapply for program approval. Today's
final rule, however, does not include this requirement. Instead,
today's rule gives States authority to revoke Cryptosporidium treatment
credit for a watershed control program at any point if a State
determines that a PWS is not implementing the approved watershed
control plan. EPA believes this approach is preferable to the automatic
expiration of credit in the proposed rule for two reasons: (1) It
assures PWSs that if they implement the approved watershed control
plan, they will maintain the treatment credit; and (2) it gives States
the authority to ensure PWSs implement watershed control programs for
which they receive treatment credit and to take action at any time if a
PWS does not.
EPA believes that PWSs should be eligible to receive
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for watershed control programs that
are in place prior to the treatment compliance date. The same
requirements for watershed control program treatment credit apply
regardless of whether the program is new or existing at the time the
PWS submits the watershed control plan for approval. In the case of
existing programs, the watershed control plan must list future
activities the PWS will undertake that will reduce source water
contamination.
The Toolbox Guidance Manual lists programmatic resources and
guidance available to assist PWSs in building partnerships and
implementing watershed protection activities. It also incorporates
information on the effectiveness of different control measures to
reduce Cryptosporidium levels and provides case studies of watershed
control programs. This guidance is intended to assist both PWSs in
developing watershed control programs and States in assessing and
approving these programs.
In addition to this guidance and other technical resources, EPA
provides funding for watershed and source water protection through the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF). Under the DWSRF program, States may fund source
water protection activities by PWSs, including watershed management and
pathogen source reduction plans. CWSRF funds can be used for
agricultural best management practices to reduce pathogen loading in
receiving waters and for the replacement of failing septic systems.
c. Summary of Major Comments
Public comments on the August 11, 2003, LT2ESWTR proposal supported
the concept of awarding credit towards Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements for an effective watershed control program. Commenters
expressed concerns, however, with specific criteria for awarding this
credit, including annual watershed sanitary surveys, re-approval of
watershed control programs, standards for existing watershed control
programs, and public availability of documents related to the watershed
control program. A summary of these comments and EPA's responses
follows.
Regarding the proposed requirement for annual watershed sanitary
surveys, commenters stated that this frequency is too high because
activities to reduce Cryptosporidium contamination in the watershed
will often take many years to implement. These commenters recommended
that watershed sanitary surveys be performed every three to five years
in conjunction with PWSs sanitary surveys or longer. In contrast, other
commenters supported annual watershed sanitary surveys as being
necessary to allow proper responses to new sources of contamination
that can occur quickly in watersheds. Such sources can occur through
development, new recreation programs, fires, unauthorized activities,
and other factors.
While EPA believes that regular watershed sanitary surveys are
necessary to identify new sources of contamination and allow States to
properly oversee watershed control programs, EPA agrees that
significant changes typically will not occur over one year. Therefore,
today's final rule requires PWSs that receive Cryptosporidium treatment
credit for a watershed control program to undergo watershed sanitary
surveys every three to five years, rather than every year. To address
the concern that new sources of watershed contamination can arise
quickly, today's rule requires PWSs to identify any significant changes
that have occurred in their watersheds in their annual program status
reports. States can then require a watershed sanitary survey at an
earlier date if significant changes have occurred since the previous
survey.
Many commenters opposed the proposed requirement for PWSs to
reapply for approval of their watershed control programs after
completing the second round of source water monitoring. The concern was
that this requirement would discourage PWSs from pursuing watershed
control programs because they would be uncertain about whether they
would continue to receive treatment credit for their programs in the
future. As an alternative, commenters recommended that States monitor
the progress of PWSs in implementing watershed control programs through
the watershed sanitary surveys and annual status reports. A State could
then deny treatment credit to a PWS if it failed to demonstrate
adequate commitment to its approved watershed control plan.
EPA agrees with these comments and today's final rule does not
include a requirement for re-approval of the watershed control program
after the second round of monitoring. Instead, PWSs must submit annual
program status reports to the State and undergo regular watershed
sanitary surveys. If the State determines that a PWS is not
implementing its approved watershed control plan on the basis of these
measures, it can withdraw the treatment credit associated with the
program. PWSs that implement their approved watershed control plans,
however, can maintain the associated treatment credit indefinitely
under today's rule.
Several commenters stated that PWSs with existing watershed control
programs should be eligible for Cryptosporidium treatment credit under
the same standards that apply to new programs. EPA agrees that both
existing and new watershed control programs should be eligible for
Cryptosporidium treatment credit under the same standards, and today's
rule allows this. As is required for new programs, PWSs with existing
watershed control programs must submit a watershed control plan that
details future activities the PWS will implement to reduce source water
contamination. As with new programs, States will have the discretion to
approve the proposed watershed control plan for 0.5-log Cryptosporidium
treatment credit.
With respect to a proposed requirement that the watershed control
plan, annual status reports, and watershed sanitary surveys be made
available to the public, commenters stated that homeland security
concerns are associated with these documents. Homeland security
concerns apply to information on the location of treatment plant
intakes and other structures. EPA agrees that there are security
concerns associated with watershed control program documents. EPA also
believes, though, that the public should be allowed to learn about the
actions PWSs
[[Page 688]]
plan to take to address Cryptosporidium contamination and the progress
of PWSs in implementing these actions. Consequently, today's rule
requires PWSs to make the approved watershed control plan, annual
status reports, and watershed sanitary surveys available to the public.
However, PWSs may withhold portions of these documents that raise
security concerns with State approval.
3. Alternative Source
a. Today's Rule
If approved by the State, a PWS may determine its Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements under today's rule using additional source water
monitoring results for an alternative treatment plant intake location
or an alternative intake operational strategy. By meeting the
requirements of this option, which are described as follows, a PWS may
reduce its Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under today's rule.
Monitoring for an alternative intake location or
operational strategy, termed ``alternative source monitoring,'' may
only be performed in addition to monitoring the existing plant
intake(s) (i.e., the intake(s) the PWS uses when it must begin
monitoring under today's rule).
Alternative source monitoring must meet the sample number,
sample frequency, and data quality requirements that apply to source
water monitoring for bin classification, as described in section IV.A.
PWSs that perform alternative source monitoring must
complete this monitoring by the applicable deadline for treatment bin
classification under today's rule, as described in section IV.G. Unless
a PWS grandfathers monitoring data for the existing plant intake,
alternative source monitoring must be performed concurrently with
monitoring the existing intake.
PWSs must submit the results of alternative source
monitoring to the State, along with supporting information documenting
the location and/or operating conditions under which the alternative
source monitoring was conducted. If a PWS fulfills these requirements,
the PWS may request that the State classify the PWS in a treatment bin
under today's rule using the alternative source monitoring results.
If the State approves bin classification for a PWS using
alternative source monitoring results, the PWS must relocate the plant
intake or implement the intake operational strategy to reflect the
alternative source monitoring. The PWS must complete these actions no
later than the applicable date for the PWS to comply with
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under today's rule. The State
may specify reporting requirements to verify operational practices.
Failure by a PWS that is classified in a treatment bin using
alternative source monitoring to relocate the intake or implement the
new intake operational strategy, as required, by the applicable
treatment compliance deadline is a treatment technique violation. This
violation lasts until the State determines that the PWS has carried out
required changes to the intake location or operation or is providing
the level of Cryptosporidium treatment required for the existing intake
location and operation.
b. Background and Analysis
Plant intake refers to the works or structures at the head of a
conduit through which water is diverted from a source (e.g., river or
lake) into a treatment plant. Plants may be able to reduce influent
Cryptosporidium levels by changing the intake placement (either within
the same source or to an alternate source) or managing the timing or
level of withdrawal.
The Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee recommended that PWSs be
allowed to modify their plant intakes to comply with today's rule, and
the August 11, 2003 proposal included this option (USEPA 2000a). The
requirements for this option in today's final rule are unchanged from
the proposal. The following discussion summarizes the basis for these
requirements.
The effect of changing the location or operation of a plant intake
on influent Cryptosporidium levels can only be ascertained through
monitoring. Consequently, EPA is not establishing a prescriptive credit
for this option. Rather, if a PWS expects that Cryptosporidium levels
from a current plant intake will result in a bin classification
requiring additional treatment under today's rule, the PWS may conduct
additional Cryptosporidium monitoring reflecting a different intake
location or operational strategy (alternative source monitoring). The
PWS may then request that the State approve bin classification for the
plant based on alternative source monitoring results, provided the PWS
will implement the corresponding changes to the intake location or
operation.
PWSs that conduct alternative source monitoring must also monitor
their existing plant intakes. Monitoring the existing intake is
required for the State to determine a treatment bin classification for
a plant in the event the PWS does not modify the intake (to reflect
alternative source monitoring) prior to the treatment compliance
deadline under today's rule.
Further, PWSs must conduct alternative source monitoring within the
applicable time frame for source water monitoring under today's rule.
This approach is required for the State to determine a bin
classification for the plant based on alternative source monitoring by
the bin classification deadline. In addition, this timing will allow
the PWS to modify the intake or implement additional treatment, if
necessary, by the treatment compliance deadline. This requirement
means, however, that unless a PWS meets the requirement for monitoring
its existing intake through grandfathering, the PWS must perform
alternative source monitoring concurrently with existing intake
monitoring, although it does not have to be on exactly the same
schedule.
Because alternative source monitoring will be used for bin
classification, this monitoring must comply with all applicable
requirements for source water monitoring that are described in section
IV.A. Further, the PWS must provide the State with supporting
information documenting the conditions, such as the source location,
under which the alternative source monitoring was conducted. This
documentation is required so that if bin classification is based on
alternative source monitoring results, the State can ensure the PWS
implements the corresponding modifications to the intake.
c. Summary of Major Comments
Public comments on the August 11, 2003, LT2ESWTR proposal supported
allowing PWSs to determine treatment bin classification by monitoring
for an alternative intake location or operational strategy. Several
commenters stated they were unsure if this option would be widely used
due to the burden of performing Cryptosporidium monitoring at both the
current intake and the alternative source. Commenters also recommended
that PWSs first conduct source water assessments or watershed sanitary
surveys to evaluate intake management strategies to reduce
Cryptosporidium levels in the plant influent.
In response, EPA believes that PWSs who choose alternative source
monitoring must also monitor their current intake so that the State can
determine the appropriate bin classification if the PWS does not
[[Page 689]]
subsequently modify its intake. While few PWSs may choose to pursue
alternative source monitoring, EPA believes this option should be
available for PWSs that elect to do so. EPA agrees that it is
appropriate for PWSs to assess contamination sources in the watershed
when considering whether to relocate or change the operation of their
intakes. The Toolbox Guidance Manual provides direction to PWSs on
conducting these assessments.
EPA requested comment on whether representative Cryptosporidium
monitoring can be performed prior to implementation of a new intake
strategy (e.g., monitoring a new source prior to constructing a new
intake structure). Commenters stated that there may be situations where
allowing Cryptosporidium monitoring to demonstrate a reduction in
oocyst levels prior to implementation of a new intake strategy is
appropriate. Incurring costs for constructing a new intake before
determining whether the strategy will reduce oocyst levels is not cost
effective. EPA agrees with this comment and today's rule allows PWSs to
conduct alternative source monitoring prior to constructing a new
intake and to base their bin classification on these monitoring results
with State approval.
4. Pre-Sedimentation With Coagulant
a. Today's Rule
Presedimentation is a preliminary treatment process used to remove
gravel, sand and other particulate material from the source water
through settling before the water enters the primary clarification and
filtration processes in a treatment plant. PWSs receive 0.5-log credit
towards Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under today's rule for a
presedimentation process that meets the following conditions:
Treats all flow reaching the treatment plant;
Continuously adds a coagulant to the presedimentation
basin;
Achieves one of the following two performance criteria:
(1) Demonstrates at least 0.5-log mean reduction of influent
turbidity. This reduction must be determined using daily turbidity
measurements in the presedimentation process influent and effluent and
must be calculated as follows: log10 (monthly mean of daily
influent turbidity)--log10 (monthly mean of daily effluent
turbidity).
(2) Complies with State-approved performance criteria that
demonstrate at least 0.5-log mean removal of micron-sized particulate
material, such as aerobic spores, through the presedimentation process.
PWSs may receive treatment credit for a presedimentation process
during any month the process meets these conditions. To be eligible for
credit, PWSs must report compliance with these conditions to the State
each month. PWSs may earn presedimentation treatment credit for only
part of the year if the process does not meet these conditions year-
round. In this situation, PWSs must fully meet their Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements under today's rule using other microbial toolbox
options during those months when the PWS does not receive treatment
credit for presedimentation.
Alternatively, PWSs may apply to the State for Cryptosporidium
treatment credit for presedimentation processes using a demonstration
of performance, as described in section IV.D.9. Demonstration of
performance provides an option for PWSs with presedimentation processes
that do not meet these prescribed conditions for treatment credit and
for PWSs who seek greater than 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit
for their presedimentation processes.
PWSs are not eligible for Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a
presedimentation process if their sampling point for the source water
Cryptosporidium monitoring used for bin classification was after (i.e.,
downstream of) the presedimentation process. In this case, the removal
achieved by the presedimentation process will be reflected in the
monitoring results and bin classification.
b. Background and Analysis
Presedimentation involves passing raw water through retention
basins in which particulate material is removed through settling. PWSs
use presedimentation to reduce and stabilize particle concentrations
prior to the primary clarification and filtration processes in a
treatment plant. Presedimentation is often operated at higher hydraulic
overflow rates than conventional sedimentation (the sedimentation
process that directly precedes filtration in a conventional treatment
plant) and may not involve coagulant addition. PWSs may operate a
presedimentation process only during periods of high raw water
turbidity.
As a process for removing particles, presedimentation can reduce
Cryptosporidium levels to some degree. In addition, presedimentation
can improve the performance of subsequent treatment processes by
dampening variability in raw water quality. The efficacy of
presedimentation in removing particles, including Cryptosporidium, is
influenced by the use of coagulant, the hydraulic loading rate, water
quality parameters like temperature and turbidity, and physical
characteristics of the sedimentation basin.
The Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee recommended 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for presedimentation with coagulation
(USEPA 2000a). The August 11, 2003 proposal included criteria, which
were similar to those in today's final rule, for PWSs to receive this
credit (USEPA 2003a). The following discussion summarizes the basis for
this credit and for differences in associated requirements between the
proposal and today's final rule.
In the proposal, EPA reviewed published studies of Cryptosporidium
removal through conventional sedimentation processes by Payment and
Franco (1993), Kelly et al. (1995), Patania et al. (1995), States et
al. (1997), Edzwald and Kelly (1998), and Dugan et al. (2001). These
studies included bench-, pilot-, and full-scale processes, and the
reported levels of Cryptosporidium removal varied widely, ranging from
0.4- to 3.8-log. In addition, these studies also supported two other
significant findings:
(1) Proper coagulation significantly improves Cryptosporidium
removal through sedimentation. In Dugan et al. (2001), for example,
average Cryptosporidium removal across a sedimentation basin was
1.3-log with optimal coagulation and decreased to 0.2-log when the
coagulant dose was insufficient.
(2) The removal of aerobic spores correlates well with the
removal of Cryptosporidium when a coagulant is present. This
indicates that aerobic spores, which are naturally present in
surface waters, may be used as an indicator of Cryptosporidium
removal in coagulated full-scale sedimentation processes.
Cryptosporidium removal efficiencies in conventional sedimentation
may be higher than in presedimentation due to differences in hydraulic
loading rates, coagulant doses, and other factors. EPA identified no
published studies of Cryptosporidium removal through presedimentation
processes. In the proposal, however, EPA evaluated data on the removal
of aerobic spores in the presedimentation processes of three PWSs as an
indicator of Cryptosporidium removal (USEPA 2003a). All three PWSs
added a coagulant (polymer, metal salts, or recycled sludge) to the
presedimentation process. The mean removal of aerobic spores through
presedimentation in the three PWSs ranged from 0.5- to 1.1-log over
time
[[Page 690]]
spans ranging from several months to several years.
These data support the finding that full-scale presedimentation
processes can achieve Cryptosporidium removals of 0.5-log and greater
under routine operating conditions and over an extended time period.
Accordingly, EPA concluded that 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment
credit for presedimentation processes is appropriate under certain
conditions. Today's rule establishes three conditions for PWSs to
receive this credit.
The first condition for presedimentation to receive 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit is that the process must treat all
flow reaching the treatment plant. Presedimentation cannot reduce the
Cryptosporidium level entering a treatment plant by 0.5-log or greater
on a continuous basis if the process is operated intermittently or
treats only a fraction of the plant flow. EPA recognizes that for some
PWSs, operating a presedimentation process intermittently in response
to high turbidity levels is preferable to continuous operation. By
establishing a requirement for continuous operation as a condition for
treatment credit, EPA is not recommending against intermittent
operation of presedimentation processes. Rather, EPA is only
identifying one of the conditions under which a 0.5-log Cryptosporidium
treatment credit for presedimentation appears to be justified.
A second condition for presedimentation treatment credit is that
the process must operate with coagulant addition. Available data
support awarding 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit to a
presedimentation process only when a coagulant is present. The full-
scale presedimentation data reviewed in the proposal involved coagulant
addition, and literature studies indicate that Cryptosporidium removal
through sedimentation can be substantially lower in the absence of
sufficient coagulant. Further, the Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee
specifically recommended 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit for
presedimentation with coagulation (USEPA 2000a). Based on these
factors, EPA concluded that coagulation is a necessary condition for
PWSs to receive treatment credit for presedimentation.
The third condition for awarding treatment credit to
presedimentation is that the process must achieve a monthly mean
turbidity reduction of at least 0.5-log or meet alternative State-
approved performance criteria. This requirement stems from a
recommendation by the SAB, which reviewed data for awarding treatment
credit to presedimentation under the LT2ESWTR. In their report, the SAB
concluded that available data were minimal to support 0.5-log
prescribed credit for presedimentation and recommended that performance
criteria other than overflow rate be included if credit is given for
presedimentation (SAB 2003).
In response to this recommendation by the SAB, EPA analyzed the
relationship between removal of aerobic spores (as an indicator of
Cryptosporidium removal) and reduction in turbidity in the full-scale
presedimentation processes of three PWSs. The results of this analysis,
which are shown in Table IV.D-2, suggest that presedimentation
processes achieving a monthly mean reduction in turbidity of at least
0.5-log have a high likelihood of reducing mean Cryptosporidium levels
by 0.5-log or more. Consequently, EPA concluded that turbidity
reduction is an appropriate performance criterion for awarding
Cryptosporidium treatment credit to presedimentation basins. The Agency
believes this performance criterion addresses the concern raised by the
SAB.
Table IV.D-2.--Relationship Between Mean Turbidity Reduction and the
Percent of Months When Mean Spore Removal Was at Least 0.5 Log
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
months with at
least 0.5 Log
Log reduction in turbidity (monthly mean) Mean Reduction
in spores
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
at least 0.1-log........................................ 64
at least 0.2-log........................................ 68
at least 0.3-log........................................ 73
at least 0.4-log........................................ 78
at least 0.5-log........................................ 89
at least 0.6-log........................................ 91
at least 0.7-log........................................ 90
at least 0.8-log........................................ 89
at least 0.9-log........................................ 95
at least 1.0-log........................................ 96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Data from Cincinnati Water Works, Kansas City Water Services
Department, and St. Louis Water Division.
The proposed rule required PWSs to achieve at least 0.5-log
turbidity reduction through presedimentation in at least 11 of the 12
previous consecutive months to be eligible for presedimentation
treatment credit. EPA recognizes, however, that some PWSs will not be
able to demonstrate at least 0.5-log turbidity reduction through
presedimentation during months when raw water turbidity is lower. As a
result, these PWSs would not be able to achieve treatment credit for
their presedimentation basins. To provide more options for these PWSs,
EPA has modified this requirement in today's final rule in two
respects.
The first modification is that in today's final rule, PWSs must
demonstrate compliance with the conditions for presedimentation
treatment credit on a monthly, rather that a yearly basis. This
requirement allows treatment credit for presedimentation in any month a
PWS can demonstrate at least 0.5-log turbidity reduction, even if the
PWS cannot achieve this level of turbidity reduction in all months of
the year.
A PWS that meets the conditions for presedimentation treatment
credit for only part of the year must implement other microbial toolbox
options to comply with Cryptosporidium treatment requirements in the
remainder of the year. Nevertheless, achieving presedimentation
treatment credit for even part of the year may benefit certain PWSs.
For example, a PWS may be able to reduce the level of disinfection it
provides during the months it receives presedimentation treatment
credit, or this treatment credit may provide a margin of safety to
ensure compliance with Cryptosporidium treatment requirements.
The second modification is the allowance for States to approve
alternative performance criteria to turbidity reduction that
demonstrate at least 0.5-log mean removal of micron-sized particulate
material through the presedimentation process. EPA believes that
aerobic spores are an appropriate alternative criterion. As described
earlier, studies support the use of aerobic spores as an indicator of
Cryptosporidium removal in coagulated sedimentation processes. If
approved by the State, a PWS could receive 0.5-log treatment credit for
presedimentation by demonstrating at least 0.5-log reduction in aerobic
spores. The Toolbox Guidance Manual provides information on analytical
methods for measuring aerobic spores. This may provide an option for
PWSs that are not able to demonstrate 0.5-log turbidity reduction but
have a sufficient concentration of aerobic spores in their raw water.
PWSs may work with States to identify other alternative criteria, as
well as appropriate monitoring to support use of the criteria.
c. Summary of Major Comments
Public comments on the August 11, 2003, LT2ESWTR proposal supported
allowing PWSs to achieve 0.5-log credit towards Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements for presedimentation with
[[Page 691]]
coagulation. Some commenters also supported the proposed operational,
monitoring, and performance conditions required for PWSs to receive
this credit. Other commenters, however, opposed the proposed
requirement for turbidity reduction as a condition for receiving
presedimentation treatment credit. A summary of these commenters'
concerns and EPA's responses follows.
Commenters who opposed requiring turbidity reduction for
presedimentation treatment credit were concerned that PWSs cannot
achieve this criterion during periods when raw water turbidity is low.
Further, these commenters stated that turbidity removal does not
reflect the overall benefits of presedimentation, which improves the
performance of the primary treatment train by equalizing water quality.
Some commenters also provided data showing the reduction in turbidity
and aerobic spore levels in the presedimentation processes of several
PWSs and stated that turbidity removal may not be an appropriate
indicator of acceptable performance for presedimentation basins.
Several commenters suggested that EPA establish a limit on hydraulic
overflow rate in place of a turbidity removal requirement.
In response, EPA continues to believes that 0.5-log turbidity
reduction is an appropriate performance indicator for 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium reduction in presedimentation processes. EPA has
reviewed the additional data submitted by commenters on the removal of
turbidity and aerobic spores (as an indicator of Cryptosporidium
removal) in full-scale presedimentation basins. These data are
consistent with data reviewed for the proposal in showing that when
turbidity removal was below 0.5-log, removal of aerobic spores was also
usually below 0.5-log. Conversely, when turbidity reduction exceeded
0.5-log, aerobic spore removal was typically higher than 0.5-log.
Consequently, while there is not a one-to-one relationship between
reduction in turbidity and reduction in aerobic spores, 0.5-log
turbidity reduction is a reasonable indicator of when Cryptosporidium
removal is likely to be at least 0.5-log.
EPA recognizes, though, that 0.5-log turbidity reduction through
presedimentation will not be feasible for some PWSs when raw water
turbidity is low. Today's final rule contains several provisions to
address this concern. First, PWSs can receive credit for
presedimentation during any month the process achieves 0.5-log
turbidity removal. Thus, PWSs that cannot achieve 0.5-log turbidity
reduction year-round may receive credit for presedimentation in those
months when they can meet this condition. Today's rule also allows PWSs
to receive presedimentation credit using State-approved performance
criteria other than turbidity reduction. If approved by the State, a
PWS may receive credit for presedimentation by demonstrating, for
example, 0.5-log reduction in aerobic spores. Finally, if
presedimentation improves treatment plant performance by reducing and
equalizing particle loading, a PWS can receive additional treatment
credit under today's rule for achieving lower filtered water turbidity
(see section IV.D.7).
5. Two-Stage Lime Softening
a. Today's Rule
Lime softening in drinking water treatment involves the addition of
lime and other chemicals to remove hardness (calcium and magnesium)
through precipitation. In single-stage softening, chemical addition and
hardness precipitation occur in a single clarification process prior to
filtration. In two-stage softening, chemical addition and hardness
precipitation occur in each of two sequential clarification processes
prior to filtration. In some water treatment plants, a portion of the
raw water bypasses a softening process (i.e., split softening) in order
to achieve a desired pH and alkalinity level in the treated water.
Under today's rule, single-stage softening with filtration receives
a prescribed 3.0-log credit towards Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements, which is equivalent to conventional treatment (see
section IV.B). Two-stage softening receives an additional 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit during any month a PWS meets the
following conditions:
(1) Chemical addition and hardness precipitation occur in two
separate and sequential softening stages prior to filtration; and
(2) Both softening stages treat the entire plant flow taken from
surface water sources or GWUDI (i.e., no portion of the plant flow
from a surface water source may bypass either softening stage).
Alternatively, PWSs may apply to the State for Cryptosporidium
treatment credit for softening processes using a demonstration of
performance, as described in section IV.D.9. Demonstration of
performance provides an option for PWSs with softening processes that
do not meet these conditions for prescribed treatment credit and for
PWSs who seek greater than the prescribed Cryptosporidium treatment
credit for their softening processes.
b. Background and Analysis
Lime softening is a common practice that PWSs use to reduce water
hardness, which is primarily calcium and magnesium. The addition of
lime elevates the pH of the raw water. Elevation to pH 9.4 or higher
causes precipitation of calcium carbonate and further elevation to pH
10.6 or higher causes precipitation of magnesium hydroxide. Soda ash
may be added with lime to precipitate non-carbonate hardness. Removal
of the precipitate occurs through clarification (e.g., sedimentation
basin) and filtration processes. Coagulants and recycled softening
sludge are often used to enhance removal. In two-stage softening, the
second stage is commonly used to precipitate magnesium, along with
increased levels of calcium.
In addition to reducing hardness, softening processes remove
particulate material present in the raw water, including microbial
pathogens like Cryptosporidium. Particulate material flocculates with
the softening precipitate and is removed through the clarification and
filtration processes, similar to a conventional treatment plant. The
degree of Cryptosporidium removal will depend on the amount of
precipitate formation, the use of coagulants, the raw water quality,
and other factors. Available data indicate that the elevated pH used in
softening does not inactivate Cryptosporidium or Giardia (Logsdon et
al. 1994, Li et al. 2001), though it does inactivate some
microorganisms like viruses (Battigelli and Sobsey, 1993, Logsdon et
al. 1994).
The Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee recommended that lime
softening be eligible for up to 1.0-log additional Cryptosporidium
treatment credit based on a site-specific demonstration of performance,
but did not recommend any prescribed credit for this process (USEPA
2000a). After reviewing available data, however, EPA included a
prescribed 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit for two-stage lime
softening in the August 11, 2003 proposal (USEPA 2003a). This approach
reflected a recommendation by the SAB, which supported an additional
0.5-log treatment credit for two-stage lime softening if all the water
passes through both stages (SAB 2003). The proposal also allowed for
greater treatment credit through a demonstration of performance. The
following discussion summarizes the basis for the lime softening
treatment credit in today's final rule and differences with the
proposal.
In the proposal, EPA reviewed a study by Logsdon et al. (1994) that
evaluated
[[Page 692]]
Cryptosporidium removal in full-scale lime softening plants.
Cryptosporidium was detected in the raw water at 5 plants: one single-
stage plant and four two-stage plants. Based on measured levels, the
removal of Cryptosporidium across the softening clarification
(sedimentation) stages was 1.0-log in the single stage plant and ranged
from 1.1-to 2.3-log in the two-stage plants. Cryptosporidium reductions
from raw to filtered water were 0.6- and 2.2-log in the single stage
plant and ranged from greater than 2.67- to greater than 3.85-log in
the two-stage plants.
EPA also evaluated data collected by PWSs on the removal of aerobic
spores in full-scale lime softening plants. As discussed earlier,
studies have shown the removal of aerobic spores to be an indicator for
Cryptosporidium removal, and one pilot-scale study of a softening plant
found significantly greater removal of Cryptosporidium than aerobic
spores under similar treatment conditions (Clark et al., 2001). For the
full-scale plants, average reductions in aerobic spores across the
softening clarification stages were 2.4- and 2.8-log for two plants
that practice two-stage softening and were 1.6- and 2.4-log for two
plants that practice single-stage softening (USEPA 2003a).
The Cryptosporidium removal data from Logsdon et al. (1994) and the
aerobic spore removal data provided by PWSs indicate that a lime
softening clarification stage can achieve greater than 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium removal during routine operation. Consequently, EPA
agrees with the SAB recommendation to award an additional 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for two-stage softening. Today's rule
establishes two-conditions for PWSs to receive this credit.
The first condition for 0.5-log treatment credit for two-stage
softening is that chemical addition and hardness precipitation must
occur in two separate and sequential softening stages prior to
filtration. The purpose of this condition is to ensure that plants
receiving additional credit for two-stage softening actually have
softening and associated particle removal occurring in each of two
sequential clarification stages. Plants with other types of
clarification processes in series with a softening stage are not
eligible for two-stage softening credit. Such plants may, however, be
eligible for additional treatment credit for other microbial toolbox
options, such as presedimentation, or may achieve additional credit
through a demonstration of performance.
The second condition for two-stage softening treatment credit is
that both softening stages must treat the entire plant flow taken from
a surface water source or GWUDI. The SAB recommended this condition,
which reflects the understanding that a softening stage is unlikely to
reduce overall Cryptosporidium levels by 0.5-log or more if it treats
only a fraction of the plant flow.
EPA recognizes that some PWSs using softening will bypass a
softening stage in order to maintain a desired pH and alkalinity level
in the treated water, and EPA is not recommending against this practice
generally. Rather, the restriction on bypassing a softening stage in
today's rule applies only to PWSs that seek additional treatment credit
for softening. Additionally, plants that soften both surface water and
ground water are eligible for softening treatment credit if they bypass
a softening stage only with ground water that is not under the direct
influence of surface water.
The proposal also required that a coagulant be present in both
clarifiers for a PWS to be eligible for additional treatment credit for
two-stage softening. EPA is not establishing this requirement in
today's final rule. While many PWSs that practice softening add
coagulants to improve the removal of precipitates and other particles,
the SAB did not recommend coagulant addition as a condition for
receiving treatment credit. Further, available data do not indicate
that additional coagulant is necessary to achieve at least 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium removal across a softening clarification stage if
hardness precipitation is occurring.
c. Summary of Major Comments
Public comments on the August 11, 2003, LT2ESWTR proposal supported
awarding additional Cryptosporidium treatment credit for lime softening
processes. EPA received specific comments on the types of lime
softening processes eligible for additional treatment credit, the
amount of additional treatment credit awarded, and the need for a
coagulant. A summary of these commenters' concerns and EPA's responses
follows.
In regard to the types of lime softening processes eligible for
treatment credit, commenters recommended that EPA better define two-
stage softening. Commenters stated that two-stage softening involves
two separate reaction chambers with the addition of the softening
chemical at the beginning of each chamber. Some commenters recommended
that eligibility for additional treatment credit should be based on the
level of softening precipitate formed or the settled water turbidity
and not on whether a plant practices single- or two-stage softening.
Another commenter recommended that any plant designs with multiple,
continuously operated clarification processes in series should be
eligible for additional treatment credit.
In response, EPA has refined the definition of two-stage softening
in today's final rule, which requires that softening processes employ
chemical addition and hardness precipitation in two sequential stages
to be eligible for the prescribed additional treatment credit. EPA
agrees with commenters that the level of precipitate formation will
influence the degree of Cryptosporidium removal. Available data,
however, indicate that two-stage softening will generally achieve more
Cryptosporidium removal than single-stage softening. Consequently, EPA
believes that two-stage softening should be eligible for the additional
prescribed 0.5-log treatment credit. Plants with single-stage softening
may receive additional treatment credit under today's rule through a
demonstration of performance. Similarly, plants that employ multiple
clarification process other than softening in series may receive
additional treatment credit either as presedimentation or through a
demonstration of performance.
With respect to the amount of additional Cryptosporidium treatment
credit for two-stage softening, most commenters supported awarding 3.0-
log treatment credit to single-stage lime softening, equivalent to a
conventional treatment plant, and an additional prescribed 0.5-log
treatment credit for two-stage lime softening. A few commenters
requested that two-stage lime be granted an additional Cryptosporidium
treatment credit of 1.0-log, based on the level of aerobic spore
removal measured across softening clarifiers.
EPA agrees with most commenters and the SAB that 0.5-log is an
appropriate level of additional prescribed Cryptosporidium treatment
credit for two-stage softening. Where plants are able to demonstrate a
significantly higher level of removal of Cryptosporidium or an
indicator like aerobic spores, they may apply for additional treatment
credit through a demonstration of performance.
Commenters stated that achieving particle removal in lime softening
is not dependent on a coagulant like a metal salt or organic polymer.
Some commenters recommended that coagulant be defined to include
softening chemicals like lime and magnesium hydroxide (a softening
[[Page 693]]
precipitate). EPA agrees that available data do not demonstrate the
need for a traditional metal salt or organic coagulant for effective
particle removal in softening. Accordingly, today's final rule does not
require the use of a coagulant as a condition for additional treatment
credit in two-stage softening. Instead, each stage must involve
chemical addition and hardness precipitation. EPA intends this
requirement to ensure that softening and associated particle removal
occur in each stage if a plant is to receive additional treatment
credit for two-stage softening.
6. Bank Filtration
a. Today's Rule
Bank filtration is a water treatment process that uses one or more
pumping wells to induce or enhance natural surface water infiltration
and to recover that surface water from the subsurface after passage
through a river bed or bank(s). Under today's rule, bank filtration
that serves as pretreatment to a filtration plant is eligible for
Cryptosporidium treatment credit if it meets the following criteria:
Wells with a ground water flow path of at least 25 feet
receive 0.5-log treatment credit; wells with a ground water flow path
of at least 50 feet receive 1.0-log treatment credit. The ground water
flow path must be determined as specified in this section.
Only wells in granular aquifers are eligible for treatment
credit. Granular aquifers are those comprised of sand, clay, silt, rock
fragments, pebbles or larger particles, and minor cement. A system must
characterize the aquifer at the well site to determine aquifer
properties. Systems must extract a core from the aquifer and
demonstrate that in at least 90 percent of the core length, grains less
than 1.0 mm in diameter constitute at least 10 percent of the core
material.
Only horizontal and vertical wells are eligible for
treatment credit.
For vertical wells, the ground water flow path is the
measured distance from the edge of the surface water body under high
flow conditions (determined by the 100 year floodplain elevation
boundary or by the floodway, as defined in Federal Emergency Management
Agency flood hazard maps) to the well screen. For horizontal wells, the
ground water flow path is the measured distance from the bed of the
river under normal flow conditions to the closest horizontal well
lateral screen.
Systems must monitor each wellhead for turbidity at least
once every four hours while the bank filtration process is in
operation. If monthly average turbidity levels, based on daily maximum
values in the well, exceed 1 NTU, the system must report this result to
the State and conduct an assessment within 30 days to determine the
cause of the high turbidity levels in the well. If the State determines
that microbial removal has been compromised, the State may revoke
treatment credit until the system implements corrective actions
approved by the State to remediate the problem.
Springs and infiltration galleries are not eligible for
treatment credit under this section, but are eligible for credit under
the demonstration of performance provisions described in section
IV.D.9.
Alternatively, PWSs may apply to the State for Cryptosporidium
treatment credit for bank filtration using a demonstration of
performance. States may award greater than 1.0-log Cryptosporidium
treatment credit for bank filtration based on a site-specific
demonstration. For a bank filtration demonstration of performance
study, today's rule establishes the following criteria:
The study must follow a State-approved protocol and must
involve the collection of data on the removal of Cryptosporidium or a
surrogate for Cryptosporidium and related hydrogeologic and water
quality parameters during the full range of operating conditions.
The study must include sampling both from the production
well(s) and from monitoring wells that are screened and located along
the shortest flow path between the surface water source and the
production well(s).
The Toolbox Guidance Manual provides guidance on conducting site-
specific bank filtration studies, including analytical methods for
measuring aerobic and anaerobic spores, which may serve as surrogates
for Cryptosporidium removal.
PWSs using existing bank filtration as pretreatment to a filtration
plant at the time the PWS must begin source water Cryptosporidium
monitoring under today's rule must sample the well for the purpose of
determining bin classification. These PWSs are not eligible to receive
additional treatment credit for bank filtration. In these cases, the
performance of the bank filtration process in reducing Cryptosporidium
levels will be reflected in the monitoring results and bin
classification.
PWSs using bank filtration without additional filtration must
collect source water samples in the surface water (i.e., prior to bank
filtration) to determine bin classification unless the State approves
an alternative monitoring location. This applies to systems using bank
filtration to meet the Cryptosporidium removal requirements of the
IESWTR or LT1ESWTR under the provisions for alternative filtration
demonstration in 40 CFR 141.173(b) or 141.552(a). Bank filtration
criteria for Cryptosporidium removal credit under today's rule do not
apply to existing State actions regarding alternative filtration
Cryptosporidium removal credit for IESWTR or LT1ESWTR compliance. PWSs
using GWUDI sources must collect samples from the well (i.e., the
ground water).
b. Background and Analysis
Bank filtration is a water treatment process that makes use of
surface water that has naturally infiltrated into ground water through
a river bed or bank and is recovered via a pumping well. River bed
infiltration is typically enhanced by the pumping action of nearby
wells. Bank filtrate is water that is drawn into a pumping well from a
nearby surface water source after having traveled through the
subsurface (i.e., aquifer) and mixing with other ground water. In bank
filtration, microorganisms and other particles are removed by contact
with the aquifer materials.
The Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee recommended a prescribed
Cryptosporidium treatment credit of 1.0-log for bank filtration with
the option for PWSs to receive greater treatment credit through a site-
specific demonstration of performance (USEPA 2000a). The August 11,
2003 proposal included criteria, similar to those in today's final
rule, for PWSs to receive prescribed treatment credits of 0.5- and 1.0-
log (USEPA 2000a). The following discussion summarizes the basis for
these credits and for differences in associated requirements between
the proposal and today's final rule.
Directly measuring the removal of Cryptosporidium through bank
filtration is difficult due to the relatively low oocyst concentrations
typically present in surface and ground water. In the proposal, EPA
reviewed bank filtration field studies that measured the removal of
Cryptosporidium surrogates, specifically aerobic and anaerobic
bacterial endospores (Havelaar et al. 1995, Rice et al. 1996, Pang et
al. 1998, Arora et al. 2000, Medema et al. 2000, and Wang et al. 2001).
These microorganisms are suitable surrogates because they are resistant
to inactivation in the subsurface, similar in size and shape to
Cryptosporidium, and present in both surface and ground water at
concentrations that allow calculation of log removal across the surface
water-
[[Page 694]]
ground water interface and within the aquifer. In addition, EPA
reviewed studies of the transport of Cryptosporidium through soil
materials in laboratory column studies (Harter et al. 2000).
Based on these studies, EPA concluded that bank filtration
processes can achieve significant Cryptosporidium removal and that
prescribed Cryptosporidium treatment credits of 0.5-log and 1.0-log are
appropriate under certain conditions. These conditions are as follows:
Only wells located in unconsolidated, predominantly sandy aquifers are
eligible
The bank filtration removal process performs most efficiently when
the aquifer is comprised of granular materials with open pore-space for
water flow around the grains. In these granular porous aquifers, the
flow path is meandering, thereby providing ample opportunity for
microorganisms to come into contact with and attach to a grain surface.
Accordingly, only wells located in unconsolidated, granular aquifers
are eligible for bank filtration treatment credit.
Granular aquifers are those comprised of sand, clay, silt, rock
fragments, pebbles or larger particles and minor cement. Specifically,
a PWS must extract a core from the aquifer and demonstrate that in at
least 90 percent of the core length, grains less than 1.0 mm in
diameter constitute at least 10 percent of the core material.
Laboratory column studies of Cryptosporidium transport (Harter et al.,
2000) and field studies of aerobic bacterial endospore passage in the
subsurface (Pang et al., 1998) support these criteria.
Only Horizontal and Vertical Wells Are Eligible
A number of devices are used for the collection of ground water
including horizontal and vertical wells, spring boxes, and infiltration
galleries. Among these, only horizontal and vertical wells are eligible
for log removal credit because spring boxes and infiltration galleries
are components of engineered systems designed to speed transport
through or by-pass the naturally protective riverbed or bank.
Wells Must be Located 25 Feet From the Surface Water Source To Be
Eligible for 0.5-Log Credit and Located at Least 50 Feet From the
Surface Water Source To Be Eligible for 1.0-Log Credit
A vertical or horizontal well located adjacent to a surface water
body is eligible for bank filtration credit if there is sufficient
ground water flow path length to effectively remove oocysts.
Specifically, the ground water flow path must be at least 25 feet and
50 feet for 0.5-log and 1.0-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit,
respectively. The ground water flow path to a vertical well is the
measured distance from the edge of the surface water body under high
flow conditions (determined by the 100 year floodplain elevation
boundary or floodway, as defined in Federal Emergency Management Agency
flood hazard maps) to the wellhead. The ground water flow path to a
horizontal well is the measured distance from the bed of the river
under normal flow conditions to the closest horizontal well lateral.
These required flow path distances for Cryptosporidium treatment
credit are based on pathogen and surrogate monitoring data from bank
filtration field studies (Wang et al. 2001, Havelaar et al. 1995,
Medema et al. 2000). Results from these studies show that significant
removal of anaerobic and aerobic spores can occur during passage across
the surface water--ground water interface, with lesser removal
occurring during ground water transport within the aquifer away from
that interface. The ground water--surface water interface is usually
comprised of finer grained material that lines the bottom of the
riverbed. Typically, the thickness of the interface is small, ranging
from a few inches to a foot.
These results suggest that during normal and low surface water
elevations, the surface water-ground water interface will perform
effectively to remove microbial contamination like Cryptosporidium.
During short periods of flooding, substantially lower removal rates may
occur due to scouring of the riverbed and removal of the protective,
fine-grained material. Assessing the mean Cryptosporidium removal that
a bank filtration process will achieve over the period of a year
requires consideration of both high and low removal periods. By
considering all time intervals with differing removal rates over the
period of a year, EPA concluded that 0.5-log removal over 25 feet and
1.0-log removal over 50 feet are appropriate estimates of the mean
performance of a bank filtration process (USEPA 2003a).
Wells Must Be Continuously Monitored for Turbidity
Similar pathogen removal mechanisms are expected to occur in slow
sand filtration and bank filtration. Under the 40 CFR 141.73(b)(1), the
turbidity level of slow sand filtered water must be 1 NTU or less in 95
percent of the measurements taken each month. Turbidity sampling is
required once every four hours, but may be reduced to once per day
under certain conditions. Just as turbidity monitoring is used to
provide assurance that the removal credit assigned to a slow sand
filter is being realized, today's rule requires turbidity monitoring at
least once every 4 hours for all bank filtration wells that receive
treatment credit.
If monthly average turbidity levels (based on daily maximum values
in the well) exceed 1 NTU, the PWS must report this result to the State
and conduct an assessment to determine the cause of the high turbidity
levels in the well. If the State determines that microbial removal has
been compromised, the State may revoke treatment credit until the PWS
implements corrective actions to remediate the problem.
Demonstration of Performance
EPA recognizes that some bank filtration processes may achieve mean
Cryptosporidium removal greater than 1-log. Consequently, today's rule
allows PWSs to receive greater than 1.0-log Cryptosporidium treatment
credit for bank filtration through a State-approved demonstration of
performance study. This allowance is a change from the proposed rule,
which did not explicitly recognize demonstration of performance for
bank filtration (USEPA 2003a). This change reflects EPA's agreement
with public comment, described next, which recommended that EPA
explicitly recognize the option to conduct a bank filtration
performance study for greater than 1.0-log treatment credit.
A demonstration of performance study must involve the collection of
data on the removal of Cryptosporidium or surrogates and related
hydrogeologic and water quality parameters during the full range of
operating conditions. PWSs must sample from both the production well(s)
and one or more monitoring wells that are screened and located along
the shortest flow path between the surface water and the production
well(s). This will allow determination of the removal efficiency of the
aquifer.
Because directly measuring Cryptosporidium removal will not be
feasible for most PWSs, today's rule allows PWSs to sample for a State-
approved indicator, such as aerobic bacterial endospores. Research has
shown that aerobic spores can be very mobile in the subsurface
environment (Pang et al. 1998), and data collected by Wang et al.
(2001) indicate that aerobic spores are present in some surface waters
in sufficient quantity to allow measurement of log removal values.
EPA has provided guidance on conducting site-specific bank
filtration
[[Page 695]]
studies in the Toolbox Guidance Manual. This guidance discusses data
needs and analysis for a performance demonstration so that the State
may tailor the study plan to meet site-specific hydrogeological and
operational conditions.
In summary, EPA believes that full-scale field data support
prescribed Cryptosporidium treatment credit up to 1.0-log for bank
filtration under the required conditions for set-back distance, aquifer
material, collection device type, and turbidity monitoring.
Demonstration of performance provides an appropriate opportunity for
States to award higher Cryptosporidium treatment credit for bank
filtration on a site-specific basis.
For PWSs using bank filtration when they must conduct source water
monitoring for bin classification, the required sampling locations
reflect the intent for this monitoring to capture the level of
Cryptosporidium entering a PWS's primary filtration treatment process.
Where bank filtration serves as pretreatment to a filtration plant,
PWSs must collect source water samples after bank filtration but prior
to the filtration plant. In this case, the Cryptosporidium removal that
bank filtration achieves will be reflected in the monitoring results
and bin classification for the filtration plant. In contrast, where
bank filtration is the primary filtration process, meaning that a PWS
uses bank filtration to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements of the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR, PWSs must collect samples in
the surface water source (e.g, the river).
c. Summary of Major Comments
Public comments on the August 11, 2003, LT2ESWTR proposal supported
awarding Cryptosporidium treatment credit for bank filtration. Many
commenters, however, stated that the proposed levels of credit (0.5-
and 1.0-log) were insufficient. To address this issue, commenters
supported allowing PWSs to obtain greater treatment credit by
performing a site-specific study of bank filtration removal efficiency.
Commenters recommended that site-specific bank filtration studies
involve the measurement of surrogates for Cryptosporidium removal using
monitoring wells located along the shortest flow path between the
surface water and the production well.
EPA agrees that some bank filtration sites may achieve greater than
1.0-log Cryptosporidium removal. Today's rule establishes the proposed
bank filtration Cryptosporidium treatment credits of 0.5- and 1.0-log
and allows PWSs to apply to the State for higher levels of credit
through a site-specific demonstration of performance. In such a study,
PWSs must measure the removal of Cryptosporidium or a State-approved
surrogate using monitoring wells located along the flow path, as
recommended by commenters.
Some commenters cited research addressing appropriate surrogate
organisms for estimating Cryptosporidium removal in surface water
treatment plants and bank filtration sites. Commenters recommended that
EPA recognize aerobic endospores as a surrogate measure in
Cryptosporidium removal studies, including those for bank filtration.
EPA agrees that based on available information, aerobic spores are
suitable Cryptosporidium removal surrogates for bank filtration
processes due to their size, resistance to inactivation, and
concentration in surface and ground waters. Data from several bank
filtration sites on the use of aerobic spores as a Cryptosporidium
removal surrogate are available. The Toolbox Guidance Manual identifies
aerobic spores as suitable in conjunction with other hydrogeologic data
for making site-specific determinations for additional Cryptosporidium
removal credit.
In guidance, EPA suggests that where feasible, PWSs measure diatom
species in conjunction with aerobic spores in bank filtration studies
because Cryptosporidium oocysts are intermediate in size between the
two surrogate groups. Further, EPA recognizes the current uncertainties
and limitations in available information on surrogates for bank
filtration and will update guidance as warranted by new information.
7. Combined Filter Performance
a. Today's Rule
For water treatment plants that use filtration, the turbidity of
the filtered water is an indicator of how effectively the plant is
removing particulate matter, including microbial pathogens, from the
raw water. PWSs using conventional filtration treatment or direct
filtration receive an additional 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment
credit during any month the PWS meets the following standard:
The turbidity level of representative samples of a PWS's
filtered water (i.e., the combined filter effluent) is less than or
equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of the measurements taken each
month. PWSs must continue to measure turbidity as specified in 40 CFR
141.74(a) and (c), which generally require sampling at least every four
hours using approved methods.
PWSs using other types of filtration processes, including slow sand,
diatomaceous earth, membranes, bag, or cartridge filtration, are not
eligible for this treatment credit.
b. Background and Analysis
Turbidity is a method defined parameter that is based on measuring
the amount of light scattered by suspended particles in a solution.
This measure can detect the presence of a wide variety of particles in
water, including microorganisms, but cannot provide specific
information on particle type, number, or size. In filtered water, the
turbidity level indicates how well the filtration and other upstream
clarification processes have performed in removing particles from the
raw water, with lower turbidity indicating better particle removal.
Thus, lower filtered water turbidity is associated with a decreased
likelihood that microbial pathogens like Cryptosporidium have passed
through the filtration plant and into the water distributed to
consumers.
Under existing regulations, PWSs that filter must monitor turbidity
in the combined filter effluent (CFE) at least every four hours using
approved methods, although States may reduce this frequency to once per
day for PWSs serving 500 people or fewer (40 CFR 141.74(a) and (c)).
For PWSs using conventional or direct filtration, at least 95 percent
of the CFE turbidity measurements must be less than or equal to 0.3
NTU, and the turbidity must never exceed 1 NTU (40 CFR 141.173(a) and
141.551(a)-(b)).
The Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee recommended an additional 0.5-
log Cryptosporidium treatment credit for PWSs that achieve a CFE
turbidity less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of
measurements per month (USEPA 2000a). This 95th percentile turbidity
standard is one half the level required under existing regulations for
PWSs using conventional or direct filtration, as stated earlier. The
August 11, 2003 proposal included this treatment credit for PWSs using
conventional or direct filtration (USEPA 2003a), and EPA is
establishing it in today's final rule with no changes from the
proposal. The following discussion summarizes the basis for this
treatment credit.
In the proposal, EPA analyzed the improvement in Cryptosporidium
removal that conventional and direct filtration plants realize when
operating at lower effluent turbidity levels. For this analysis, EPA
estimated that PWSs
[[Page 696]]
complying with the existing 95th percentile CFE turbidity standard of
0.3 NTU will typically operate with filter effluent turbidity between
0.1-0.2 NTU; PWSs complying with a CFE standard of 0.15 NTU were
estimated to operate with filter effluent turbidity less than 0.1 NTU.
Accordingly, EPA compared Cryptosporidium removal efficiencies when
effluent turbidity was below 0.1 NTU with those when effluent turbidity
was in the range of 0.1-0.2 NTU.
Studies by Patania et al. (1995), Emelko et al. (1999), and Dugan
et al. (2001) observed the average removal of Cryptosporidium to be
0.5-to 1.2-log greater when filter effluent turbidity was less than 0.1
NTU in comparison to removal with effluent turbidity between 0.1-0.2
NTU. These studies, therefore, indicate that PWSs complying with a
filter effluent turbidity standard of 0.15 NTU will achieve at least
0.5-log greater Cryptosporidium removal than PWSs complying with the
existing 0.3 NTU standard. Based on this finding, EPA concluded that an
additional 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit is appropriate for
PWSs using conventional or direct filtration that meet a 95th
percentile CFE turbidity standard of 0.15 NTU.
Other types of filtration processes, such as slow sand,
diatomaceous earth, membranes, bag, or cartridge filtration, are not
eligible for this treatment credit. These filtration processes remove
Cryptosporidium through different mechanisms than those operative in
rapid granular media filtration, which is used in conventional and
direct filtration. Available data do not establish a similar
relationship between lower filter effluent turbidity and improved
Cryptosporidium removal efficiency for these other filtration
processes.
The SAB reviewed the proposed additional Cryptosporidium treatment
credit for PWSs that operate with very low filtered water turbidity. In
their report, the SAB stated that further lowering of turbidity would
result in further reductions in Cryptosporidium in the effluent from
filtration processes, but available data were limited in showing the
exact removal that can be achieved. Based on the data provided, the SAB
recommended that no additional treatment credit be given to plants that
demonstrate a CFE turbidity of 0.15 NTU or less (SAB 2003).
In addressing this SAB recommendation, EPA recognizes that
precisely quantifying the increase in Cryptosporidium removal that a
particular filtration plant will realize when operating at lower filter
effluent turbidity is not generally feasible. Available data, though,
consistently show that removal of Cryptosporidium is at least 0.5-log
greater when filter effluent turbidity reflects compliance with a 0.15
NTU standard in comparison to a 0.3 NTU standard. Further, treatment
plants operating at lower filter effluent turbidity will achieve
increased removal of other microbial pathogens present in the raw
water. In consideration of these factors, EPA believes that PWSs should
receive an additional 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit when at
least 95 percent of CFE turbidity measurements are less than or equal
to 0.15 NTU.
Another key issue in establishing additional treatment credit based
on low filtered water turbidity is the performance of analytical
instruments (turbidimeters) to accurately measure turbidity at low
levels. In the proposal, EPA reviewed studies of low level turbidity
measurements by EPA (1998c), Sadar (1999), and Letterman et al. (2001).
Among the significant findings of these studies are the following:
(1) On-line turbidimeters typically had a positive bias (i.e., a
higher turbidity reading) in comparison to bench-top turbidimeters.
EPA expects that most PWSs that receive additional treatment credit
for low filter effluent turbidity will use on-line turbidimeters.
This finding suggests that the error in turbidimeter readings may be
generally conservative, so that PWSs will operate at lower than
required turbidity levels.
(2) Different turbidimeters did not agree well when used to
measure low level turbidity, which may be due to differences in
instrument design. This finding suggests that low level turbidity
measurements may be viewed as a relative indicator of water quality
improvement at a particular PWS but may be less applicable for
making comparisons among different PWSs.
In addition, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
has issued standard test methods for measurement of turbidity below 5
NTU by on-line (ASTM 2001) and static (ASTM 2003) instruments. These
methods specify that the instrument should permit detection of
turbidity differences of 0.01 NTU or less in waters having turbidities
of less than 1.00 NTU (ASTM 2001) and 5.0 NTU (ASTM 2003),
respectively.
After reviewing these studies and the ASTM methods, EPA concluded
that currently available monitoring equipment can reliably measure
turbidity at levels of 0.15 NTU and lower. Rigorous calibration and
maintenance of turbidity monitoring equipment is necessary, however.
EPA has developed guidance on proper calibration, operation, and
maintenance of turbidimeters (USEPA 1999c).
c. Summary of Major Comments
Public comment on the August 11, 2003, LT2ESWTR proposal supported
awarding additional Cryptosporidium treatment credit for PWSs that
achieve lower filtered water turbidity. Commenters raised specific
concerns with the criteria for PWSs to receive this credit, the
available data that support this credit, and the performance of
turbidimeters for measuring turbidity at very low levels. A summary of
these comments and EPA's responses follows.
Most commenters supported awarding 0.5-log additional
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for PWSs that achieve at least 95
percent of CFE turbidity measurements less than or equal to 0.15 NTU. A
few commenters, however, recommended that PWSs only receive additional
treatment credit for demonstrating this level of turbidity performance
in each individual filter effluent (IFE), rather than the CFE. In
addition, one commenter stated that PWSs should be required to monitor
CFE turbidity every 15 minutes, rather than every four hours as
required under current regulations.
In response, EPA agrees with the recommendation of most commenters
and has established additional Cryptosporidium treatment credit based
on meeting a 95th percentile turbidity level of 0.15 NTU in the CFE.
EPA recognizes, however, that achieving low turbidity in each IFE may
represent a higher level of performance than achieving low turbidity in
the CFE. As described in the next section, EPA has also established
standards for additional Cryptosporidium treatment credit based on low
IFE turbidity in today's rule. EPA does not have data indicating that
PWSs should monitor the CFE turbidity at a higher frequency than every
four hours, as required under existing regulations. Consequently, EPA
is not changing the frequency of required CFE turbidity monitoring as a
condition for PWSs to receive additional treatment credit under today's
rule.
One commenter summarized additional studies that provide data on
the improvement in Cryptosporidium removal efficiency at lower filter
effluent turbidity levels. According to this commenter, these studies
demonstrate that lowering filter effluent turbidity from 0.3 to 0.15
NTU translates to an improvement in Cryptosporidium removal of more
than 1.5-log, with individual studies showing a range of >0.7-log to
>3-log based on median removal. EPA finds that these studies bolster
the conclusion that PWSs operating to meet 0.15 NTU in the filter
effluent will achieve at least 0.5-
[[Page 697]]
log greater Cryptosporidium removal than PWSs operating to meet 0.3
NTU. Thus, they support the additional 0.5-log Cryptosporidium
treatment credit under today's rule for PWSs meeting 0.15 NTU at the
95th percentile in the CFE.
In regard to the measurement of low level turbidity, some
commenters raised concerns that turbidimeters used by the U.S. water
supply industry do not agree when used to measure turbidity in the 0.01
to 0.5 NTU range. Further, these differences are independent of the
calibration method used and can be significant when comparing
instruments by different manufacturers. Other commenters stated that
turbidimeters can accurately reflect turbidity values less than 0.15
NTU if properly calibrated, and some commenters cited the ASTM method
development process to support this assessment. In addition, commenters
suggested that available guidance on turbidity measurement provides
quality assurance measure that can reduce analytical uncertainty.
EPA agrees with commenters that available methods and instruments
are adequate to demonstrate compliance with a 0.15 NTU turbidity level.
In particular, EPA believes that monitoring low level turbidity can be
effective for demonstrating water quality improvements at individual
plants, but also recognizes that the performance of turbidimeters used
at different plants may vary. Further, calibration and maintenance of
turbidity monitoring equipment is critical, and EPA has developed
guidance on these procedures (USEPA 1999c).
8. Individual Filter Performance
a. Today's Rule
PWSs using conventional filtration treatment or direct filtration
receive an additional 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit during
any month the PWS meets the following criteria:
The filtered water turbidity for each individual filter is
less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of the
measurements recorded each month; and
No individual filter has a measured turbidity level
greater than 0.3 NTU in two consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes
apart.
PWSs must continue to monitor turbidity for each individual filter
continuously and record the results every 15 minutes, as required under
40 CFR 141.174 and 141.560.
PWSs that receive this 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit for
individual filter performance also receive 0.5-log treatment credit for
combined filter performance, as described in section IV.D.7, for a
total additional treatment credit of 1.0-log. Conversely, PWSs are not
required to pursue individual filter performance credit to remain
eligible for combined filter performance credit.
If a PWS has received credit for individual filter performance to
comply with its Cryptosporidium treatment requirements and fails to
meet the required criteria for this credit during any month, the PWS
will not incur a treatment technique violation if the State determines
the following:
The failure to meet the required criteria for individual
filter performance treatment credit was due to unusual and short-term
circumstances that could not reasonably be prevented through optimizing
treatment plant design, operation, and maintenance; and
The PWS has experienced no more than two such failures in
any calendar year.
This treatment credit is not applicable to other types of
filtration processes, including slow sand, diatomaceous earth,
membranes, bag, or cartridge filtration.
b. Background and Analysis
Awarding additional treatment credit for individual filter
performance is based on the expectation that achieving low filtered
water turbidity in each individual filter will provide increased
protection against microbial pathogens. Most treatment plants have
multiple filters. Moderately elevated turbidity in the effluent from a
single filter may not significantly affect the turbidity of the
combined filter effluent, but may indicate a reduction in the overall
pathogen removal efficiency of the filtration process. Consequently, a
primary goal in optimizing water treatment plant performance is
ensuring that each filter always produces very low turbidity water.
The criteria for PWSs to achieve the additional 1.0-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for individual filter performance
reflect goals of Phase IV of the Partnership for Safe Water
(Partnership). The Partnership is a voluntary cooperative program
involving PWSs, professional associations, and Federal and State
regulatory agencies that seeks to increase protection against microbial
contaminants by optimizing water treatment plant performance. The Stage
2 M-DBP Advisory Committee recommended 1.0-log treatment credit for
PWSs that successfully participate in a peer review program and
identified Phase IV of the Partnership as a program where such credit
would be appropriate (USEPA 2000a).
At the time of the Advisory Committee recommendation, the
performance goals for Phase IV of the Partnership reflected those of
the EPA Composite Correction Program (USEPA 1991a) and involved an on-
site evaluation by a third-party team. Phase IV performance goals for
individual filters included filtered water turbidity less than 0.1 NTU
at least 95 percent of the time based on daily maximum values and a
maximum measurement of 0.3 NTU. The purpose of the on-site evaluation
was to confirm that a PWS had met Phase IV performance goals or had
achieved the highest level of performance given its unique raw water
quality.
After the Stage 2 M-DBP Agreement in Principle was signed in
September 2000, the Partnership eliminated on-site third-party
evaluation as a component of Phase IV. Instead, Phase IV required
completion of an Optimization Assessment Spreadsheet in which the PWS
entered water treatment data to demonstrate that it had achieved Phase
IV performance levels. The application also required narratives related
to the administrative support and operational capabilities necessary to
sustain performance long-term.
The August 11, 2003 LT2ESWTR proposal included a 1.0-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for PWSs that met the individual
filter performance goals of Phase IV of the Partnership (i.e., 95
percent of daily maximum values below 0.1 and no values above 0.3 NTU)
(USEPA 2003a). Rather than requiring an application package with
historical data and narratives, however, the proposed rule required
PWSs to report filter effluent turbidity data to the State each month
to demonstrate compliance with these filter performance goals.
The Partnership modified the Phase IV goals for individual filter
performance in 2003. A revised goal is filtered water turbidity less
than 0.10 NTU at least 95 percent of the time based on values recorded
at 15 minute time intervals. Thus, where the earlier goal was based on
daily maximum values for each filter, the revised goal is based on all
values for each filter--a less stringent approach. The Partnership made
this modification after finding that none of the water treatment plants
that had been evaluated could consistently meet the 0.1 NTU goal using
daily maximum values and, further, that this goal was biased against
plants with more filters.
In today's final rule, EPA has adjusted the criteria from the
proposal for PWSs
[[Page 698]]
to receive additional treatment credit based on individual filter
effluent turbidity. These adjustments are in response to the changes
the Partnership made to Phase IV individual filter performance goals.
Under today's rule, PWSs receive 1.0-log additional Cryptosporidium
treatment credit if effluent turbidity from each filter is less than or
equal to 0.15 NTU at least 95 percent of the time and never exceeds 0.3
NTU in two consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart.
EPA expects that PWSs will operate at less than 0.1 NTU in order to
comply with a regulatory limit of 0.15 NTU. Further, EPA believes that
assessing individual filter compliance with a maximum turbidity level
of 0.3 NTU based on two consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart
is appropriate. This approach allows for brief fluctuations in
turbidimeter readings that may not indicate a degradation in filtered
water quality to occur without penalizing a PWS, but it should catch
filters that significantly exceed 0.3 NTU over the course of a month.
EPA applied this approach to individual filter monitoring under the
IESWTR and LT1ESWTR. Consequently, EPA regards these criteria as
comparable to the revised Partnership Phase IV standards for individual
filter performance.
In addition, today's rule gives States authority to determine
whether to issue a treatment technique violation for PWSs that exceed
individual filter performance limits. This authority applies in the
case where a PWS receives credit for individual filter performance to
meet the treatment requirements of today's rule and fails to achieve
the criteria to receive this credit during a month. If the State
determines that this failure was due to unusual and short-term
circumstances that could not reasonably be prevented through treatment
optimization, the State may choose not to issue a treatment technique
violation, which the PWS otherwise will incur. Because this authority
should be applied only to unusual plant circumstances, a State cannot
make this determination if a PWS has experienced more than two such
failures in any calendar year.
EPA is granting States this authority because PWSs that
consistently meet the criteria for individual filter performance
treatment credit may occasionally experience short-term deviations from
these criteria due to circumstances largely beyond the PWS's control.
An example of such a circumstance may be malfunctioning equipment that
a PWS quickly removes from service, but that nevertheless prevents the
PWS from fully meeting individual filter performance criteria in a
particular month. EPA believes that States should only apply this
authority in cases where PWSs have consistently achieved the criteria
for individual filter performance treatment credit in previous months.
The approach in today's final rule for valuing individual filter
performance treatment credit differs from the approach in the proposal.
EPA's intent in both the proposal and today's rule is to award an
additional 1.0-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit to PWSs that meet
the criteria for individual filter performance. In the proposal,
however, PWSs could receive 1.0-log additional treatment credit
specifically for meeting the individual filter performance criteria,
but were then not eligible to receive any treatment credit under the
combined filter performance option. In today's rule, PWSs receive 0.5-
log credit for the individual filter performance option and also
receive an additional 0.5-log treatment credit for the combined filter
performance option (discussed in section IV.D.7), resulting in 1.0-log
total additional credit. EPA has made this modification so that if a
PWS fails in an attempt to achieve individual filter performance
credit, the PWS is clearly still eligible to received combined filter
performance credit.
In a review of a draft LT2ESWTR proposal, the SAB recommended that
PWSs receive 0.5-log, rather than 1.0-log, additional Cryptosporidium
treatment credit for achieving individual filter effluent turbidity
below 0.15 NTU at the 95th percentile (SAB 2003). In response to this
SAB recommendation, today's rule requires additional individual filter
performance criteria to support 1.0-log total additional treatment
credit. Specifically, today's rule incorporates the Partnership Phase
IV performance goal that individual filter effluent turbidity never
exceed 0.3 NTU (as described earlier, EPA concluded that determining
compliance with this standard based on two consecutive measurements
taken 15 minutes is appropriate and consistent with existing
regulations). Thus, EPA believes that these criteria, in conjunction
with the expectation that controlling effluent turbidity at all filters
individually rather than just the combined filter effluent will
generally result in lower microbial risk, justify 1.0-log additional
treatment credit.
c. Summary of Major Comments
Public comment on additional treatment credit for individual filter
performance in the August 11, 2003 proposal raised a number of issues:
changes in the Partnership Phase IV criteria and achievability of the
proposed criteria for this credit, credit for participating in peer
review programs, and a review process for data that exceed regulatory
limit. A summary of these comments and EPA's responses follows.
Several commenters stated that PWSs could not consistently achieve
the proposed individual filter effluent turbidity criterion of 95
percent of daily maximum measurements less than or equal to 0.1 NTU.
Commenters provided data on turbidity levels in PWSs to support this
assertion and indicated that the Partnership modified this criterion in
the Phase IV individual filter performance goals because PWSs could not
meet it. Alternatives recommended by commenters for the final rule
included the use of the revised Partnership Phase IV goals for
individual filter effluent turbidity or a more stringent criterion for
combined filter effluent turbidity.
In response, EPA agrees that current Partnership Phase IV goals
provide appropriate criteria for awarding 1.0-log total additional
Cryptosporidium treatment credit. Today's rule grants this total credit
to PWSs that meet a 95th percentile individual filter effluent
turbidity limit of 0.15 NTU, and EPA expects that PWSs complying with
this limit will operate under the Partnership goal of 0.10 NTU. EPA
does not support awarding a higher level of additional treatment credit
for a more stringent combined filter effluent turbidity criterion,
beyond the 0.5-log credit available under combined filter performance
(see section IV.D.7). The purpose of the individual filter performance
toolbox option is to recognize the higher pathogen removal PWSs will
likely achieve by maintaining very low effluent turbidity for each
individual filter.
A few commenters suggested that as an alternative to establishing
numerical criteria for individual filter performance, today's rule
should award additional treatment credit for PWSs that successfully
participate in a peer review program. In addition to the Partnership,
commenters listed the Area Wide Optimization Program and the Texas
Optimization Program as examples of programs that will provide for
comprehensive improvements in treatment performance.
EPA agrees that participation in peer review programs is beneficial
for PWSs. Further, such programs may assist PWSs in meeting the
filtration performance criteria in today's rule for additional
Cryptosporidium treatment credit. EPA does not believe, however, that
mere participation in a peer review program
[[Page 699]]
is an appropriate basis for awarding additional treatment credit.
Rather, to ensure national consistency in standards for compliance with
treatment requirements, EPA has concluded that additional treatment
credit should be based on PWSs meeting specified criteria for enhanced
treatment performance.
Another significant issue raised by commenters is the need for a
review process for deviations from the criteria for individual filter
performance due to circumstances that cannot be prevented through plant
optimization. An example given by several commenters is a filter that
malfunctions and is taken out of service, but that may have exceeded
the individual filter performance turbidity criteria for a short period
when the filter was operating.
EPA agrees that circumstances may occur that are beyond the PWS's
control and that prevent the PWS from fully meeting the criteria for
individual filter performance in a particular month. If a PWS relies on
individual filter performance treatment credit to meet the treatment
requirements of today's rule and the PWS fails to meet all criteria for
this credit in a given month, the State may review the reasons for this
failure. If the State finds that the failure was due to circumstances
that could not be prevented through plant optimization, the State may
choose not to issue a treatment technique violation on up to two such
occasions in a calendar year.
9. Demonstration of Performance
a. Today's Rule
A demonstration of performance is a site-specific test that
assesses the Cryptosporidium removal efficiency of a water treatment
plant or a treatment process within a plant. Under today's rule, PWSs
may undertake demonstration of performance testing for the following
purposes:
(1) To establish a Cryptosporidium treatment credit that is
higher than the prescribed treatment credit in today's rule for a
water treatment plant or a treatment process in the microbial
toolbox; or
(2) To establish a Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a
treatment process that is not included in the microbial toolbox or
that does not meet the design or operational criteria for prescribed
treatment credit in the microbial toolbox.
The specific requirements that apply to demonstration of
performance testing are as follows:
PWSs may receive Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a
water treatment plant or a treatment process within a plant that is
based on a site-specific demonstration of Cryptosporidium removal
efficiency. This demonstration of performance treatment credit may be
greater than or less than any prescribed treatment credit in today's
rule.
The site-specific demonstration of Cryptosporidium removal
efficiency must follow a State-approved protocol and may involve the
use of surrogates rather than Cryptosporidium.
The State must approve through written notification any
treatment credit based on a demonstration of performance. As a
condition of approval, the State may designate monitoring and treatment
performance criteria the PWS must meet and report on an ongoing basis
to remain eligible for the credit. The State may designate such
criteria to verify that the PWS maintains the operating conditions
under which the State approved the demonstration of performance
treatment credit.
PWSs are not eligible for prescribed treatment credit for
any treatment process that is included in a demonstration of
performance credit.
b. Background and Analysis
The prescribed Cryptosporidium treatment credits in today's rule
for water treatment plants and for treatment processes in the microbial
toolbox are based on conservative estimates of mean Cryptosporidium
removal efficiencies. Due to site-specific conditions, however, some
PWSs will achieve greater Cryptosporidium removal than reflected in the
prescribed treatment credits. In addition, some PWSs will have
treatment processes that are not included in the microbial toolbox or
that do not meet microbial toolbox criteria for prescribed treatment
credit. In all these cases, PWSs have the option to undertake
demonstration of performance testing to establish an appropriate level
of Cryptosporidium treatment credit for the treatment plant or
treatment process.
The option for demonstration of performance testing in today's rule
reflects a recommendation by the Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee.
Specifically, the Committee stated that the LT2ESWTR should allow site-
specific testing both to establish Cryptosporidium treatment credit
above the prescribed credit for microbial toolbox processes and to
demonstrate Cryptosporidium removal for technologies not listed in the
microbial toolbox. The August 11, 2003 LT2ESWTR proposal included the
demonstration of performance option (USEPA 2003a), and EPA is
establishing it in today's final rule.
Demonstration of performance testing will be specific to a
particular site and will depend on the treatment processes being
tested, water quality, plant infrastructure, PWS resources, and other
factors. Consequently, today's rule does not establish specific
protocols for demonstration of performance testing. Rather, today's
rule gives States the authority to approve testing protocols developed
by PWSs and to determine what level of Cryptosporidium treatment credit
is appropriate. The Toolbox Guidance Manual provides recommendations to
PWSs and States on conducting demonstration of performance testing,
including analytical methods for measuring aerobic and anaerobic
spores.
In general, demonstration of performance testing should encompass
the full range of expected operating conditions and should
conservatively assess the degree of Cryptosporidium removal that a
treatment process can reliably achieve. Directly quantifying the
removal of Cryptosporidium typically is not feasible in full-scale
testing due to limitations in source water concentrations and
analytical method performance. Consequently, demonstration of
performance testing that is conducted at full-scale may involve the use
of surrogates, such as aerobic spores, that have been shown to
correlate with the removal of Cryptosporidium. PWSs and States may also
consider the use of pilot-scale studies in conjunction with full-scale
studies for demonstration of performance testing.
As a condition of approving a demonstration of performance credit,
the State may designate treatment performance criteria the PWS must
meet on an ongoing basis to remain eligible for the credit. For
example, if a PWS conducts a demonstration of performance study while
operating with very low filtered water turbidity, the State may
establish as a condition of approving treatment credit based on the
study that the PWS must continue operating at the low filtered water
turbidity. EPA believes this condition is necessary because, in this
example, if the PWS were to begin operating at a higher filtered water
turbidity level, the demonstration of performance study results might
no longer represent the PWSs actual performance.
PWSs are not eligible for prescribed treatment credit for any
treatment process that is included in a demonstration of performance
credit. For example, if a PWS receives a demonstration of performance
treatment credit of 4-log for Cryptosporidium removal through a
conventional treatment plant (i.e., coagulation/sedimentation/
filtration), the PWS is not
[[Page 700]]
also eligible for additional treatment credit for combined filter
performance. In this case, the demonstration of performance testing
accounts for the removal achieved by filtration.
c. Summary of Major Comments
Public comment on the August 11, 2003 LT2ESWTR proposed supported
inclusion of the demonstration of performance option to award site-
specific treatment credit to PWSs. Commenters stated that many well-run
surface water treatment plants achieve significantly greater
Cryptosporidium removal than the prescribed treatment credit, and
demonstration of performance testing is needed to award an appropriate
level of credit in such cases. Two aspects of this option that received
significant public comment are the provision for States to award less
than the prescribed treatment credit if indicated by testing results
and the need for guidance on demonstration of performance testing.
These comments and EPA's responses are summarized as follows.
Several commenters recommended that EPA eliminate the provision
that allows States to award less than the prescribed treatment credit
based on demonstration of performance testing. These commenters stated
that pilot- and full-scale testing is conservative and challenging to
implement and that for past regulations, States generally have not
awarded lower treatment credit based on a site-specific study. If this
provision remains in the regulation, commenters suggested that EPA
provide criteria addressing how it should be applied. Such criteria
should recognize the conservative nature of testing with surrogates for
Cryptosporidium removal and the potential for misleading or flawed
testing results.
In response, EPA believes that States should have the discretion to
award either more or less treatment credit than the prescribed credit
on a case-by-case basis where a State has site-specific information
that an alternative credit is appropriate. Today's rule allows this.
EPA recognizes, however, that demonstration of performance testing
should be designed to provide a conservative estimate of treatment
efficiency and, as such, is not generally intended to reduce the level
of treatment credit a PWS receives. Further, results from demonstration
of performance testing should be rigorously evaluated for flaws and
bias prior to being used to support either a higher or lower treatment
credit. The Toolbox Guidance Manual identifies approaches States may
wish to consider in awarding higher or lower treatment credit.
Many commenters stated that EPA should provide thorough guidance on
demonstration of performance testing. Topics for this guidance
suggested by commenters include approaches to demonstrating treatment
credit, minimum duration of testing, the use of safety factors, and
periodic reconfirmation of testing results. Some commenters recommended
that guidance address both full-scale testing with surrogates like
aerobic spores and pilot-scale testing with Cryptosporidium or
surrogates. Other commenters recommended that testing should be limited
to full-scale processes and that testing with pilot-scale
representations of full-scale equipment should be discouraged.
In the Toolbox Guidance Manual, EPA provides direction on
procedures for demonstration of performance testing that addresses
issues raised by commenters. These issues include surrogates for full-
scale testing, potential roles for pilot-scale testing in conjunction
with full-scale testing, minimum duration of testing to capture the
full range of operating conditions, the analysis of data from testing
to establish treatment credit, and routine monitoring to verify that
the conditions under which demonstration of performance credit is
awarded are maintained during routine operation. EPA believes that this
guidance will assist PWSs and States with implementing demonstration of
performance testing appropriately.
10. Bag and Cartridge Filtration
a. Today's Rule
Under today's rule, PWSs may receive Cryptosporidium treatment
credit of up to 2.0-log for an individual bag or cartridge filter and
up to 2.5-log for two or more bag or cartridge filters operated in
series. To be eligible for this treatment credit, filters must meet the
definition of a bag or cartridge filter and must undergo challenge
testing to demonstrate removal efficiency with an applied safety
factor, as described in this section.
Today's rule defines bag and cartridge filters as pressure driven
separation processes that remove particulate matter larger than 1
micrometer using an engineered porous filtration media through either
surface or depth filtration. Bag filters are constructed of a non-
rigid, fabric filtration media housed in a pressure vessel in which the
direction of flow is from the inside of the bag to the outside.
Cartridge filters are typically constructed as rigid or semi-rigid,
self-supporting filter elements housed in a pressure vessel in which
flow is from the outside of the cartridge to the inside.
Today's rule treats bag and cartridge filters equivalently, with
the following exception: If a cartridge filter meets the definition of
a membrane filtration process and can be direct integrity tested
according to the criteria specified in section IV.D.11, a PWS has the
option to seek greater treatment credit for the filter as a membrane.
Section IV.D.11 describes criteria for awarding treatment credit to
membranes.
Today's rule requires challenge testing to establish
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for bag and cartridge filters. This
challenge testing is product-specific and not site-specific. Once
challenge testing is performed on a specific bag or cartridge
filtration product, PWSs that install the specific filtration product
are not required to repeat challenge testing at individual sites. For a
PWS to receive Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a bag or cartridge
filter, challenge testing must meet the following criteria:
Challenge testing must be conducted on full-scale filters
that match the filters the PWS will use in materials, construction, and
associated housing or pressure vessel. If treatment credit will be
based on filters operated in series then challenge testing must be
performed on the filters in series.
Challenge testing must involve measuring the removal by
the filter of either Cryptosporidium or a surrogate that is removed no
more efficiently than Cryptosporidium (i.e., the ``challenge
particulate'').
The analytical method used to measure removal in the
challenge test must discretely quantify the specific challenge
particulate. The maximum allowable feed water concentration of the
challenge particulate used during a challenge test is 10,000 times the
analytical method detection limit of the challenge particulate in the
filtrate.
During challenge testing, filters must be operated at the
maximum design flow rate and for a duration sufficient to reach the
maximum design pressure drop (i.e., ``terminal pressure drop''). PWSs
may not operate bag or cartridge filters outside of these design
parameters during routine use. In order to achieve terminal pressure
drop during challenge testing, adding particulate matter, such as fine
carbon test dust or bentonite clay particles, to the test water is
allowed and may be necessary.
In each challenge test, the removal of the challenge
particulate must be measured during three periods over the
[[Page 701]]
filtration cycle: (1) Within two hours of start-up of a new filter, (2)
when the pressure drop is between 45 and 55 percent of the terminal
pressure drop, and (3) when the pressure drop has reached 100 percent
of the terminal pressure drop. A log removal value (LRV) must be
calculated for each of these periods as follows: LOG10
(filter influent challenge particulate level) - LOG10
(filter effluent challenge particulate level). For each filter tested,
the LRV for the filter (LRVfilter) is equal to the minimum
of these three LRVs.
The LRVfilter values for each filter that is
tested are used to determine the removal efficiency that is assigned to
the specific bag or cartridge filter product (i.e., a filter product
line) or combination of filters in series. If fewer than twenty filters
are tested, the removal efficiency of the filter product line is equal
to the lowest LRVfilter among the filters tested (today's
rule does not specify a minimum number of filters to test). If twenty
or more filters are tested, the removal efficiency of the filter
product line is equal to the 10th percentile of the
LRVfilter values among the filters tested.
The Cryptosporidium treatment credit assigned to an
individual bag or cartridge filter is equal to the removal efficiency
established during challenge testing minus a 1.0-log factor of safety,
up to a maximum treatment credit of 2.0-log (e.g., if challenge testing
demonstrates a removal efficiency of 3.0-log or greater, the filter is
eligible to receive 2.0-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit).
The Cryptosporidium treatment credit assigned to
configurations of two or more bag or cartridge filters operated in
series is equal to the removal efficiency established during challenge
testing minus a 0.5-log factor of safety, up to a maximum treatment
credit of 2.5-log (e.g., if challenge testing demonstrates a removal
efficiency of 3-log or greater, the filter receives 2.5-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit).
If a previously tested bag or cartridge filter is modified in a
manner that could change the removal efficiency of the filter product
line, a new removal efficiency must be established for the modified
filter through challenge testing. If approved by the State, data from
challenge testing conducted prior to promulgation of today's rule may
be considered in lieu of additional testing. However, the prior testing
must have been conducted in a manner that demonstrates a removal
efficiency for Cryptosporidium commensurate with the treatment credit
awarded to the filter.
b. Background and Analysis
Bag and cartridge filters are widely used by very small PWSs and in
point-of-entry applications to remove particulate material from raw
water, including microbial pathogens like Cryptosporidium. Depending on
water quality and treatment plant infrastructure, these filters may be
used as the sole filtration step or as a polishing filter that follows
primary filtration processes. A critical aspect of bag and cartridge
filters as defined in today's rule is that they cannot undergo direct
integrity testing, which is used to detect leaks that could result in
contamination of the treated water. Cartridge filters that meet the
definition of a membrane process and can be direct integrity tested are
considered membranes under today's rule, and these are described in
section IV.D.11.
The Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee recommended Cryptosporidium
treatment credits of 1.0- and 2.0-log for bag and cartridge filters,
respectively (USEPA 2000a), and the August 11, 2003 LT2ESWTR proposal
included criteria for PWSs to receive these treatment credits. The
proposed criteria required challenge testing and the application of a
1.0-log factor of safety to establish treatment credit. In today's
final rule, EPA has modified these criteria to allow both bag and
cartridge filters to be eligible for 2.0-log credit and to allow 2.5-
log credit with a 0.5-log factor of safety for bag or cartridge filters
operated in series. The following discussion summarizes the basis for
these criteria and for differences between the proposal and today's
final rule.
In the proposal, EPA reviewed bag and cartridge filtration studies
by Long (1983), Schaub et al. (1993), Goodrich et al. (1995), Ciardelli
(1996a and 1996b), Li et al. (1997), Roessler (1998), Enriquez et al.
(1999), NSF (2001a and 2001b), and Cornwell and LeChevallier (2002).
Results from these studies indicated that both bag and cartridge
filters exhibit variable removal efficiency, ranging from 0.5- to 3.6-
log. No correlation between the pore size rating established by the
manufacturer and the removal efficiency of the filter was apparent.
Additionally, available data did not indicate a strong relationship
between commonly used process monitoring parameters, such as turbidity
and pressure drop, and Cryptosporidium removal efficiency.
Due to this lack of correlation between either design criteria or
process monitoring and removal efficiency, today's rule requires
challenge testing of filters to establish Cryptosporidium treatment
credit. Challenge testing must measure the removal across the filter of
Cryptosporidium or a surrogate, like polystyrene microspheres, that is
removed no more efficiently than Cryptosporidium (Long 1983, Li et al.
1997, NSF 2002b). Further, because studies have shown the removal
efficiency of some bag and cartridge filters to decrease over the
course of a filtration cycle (Li et al. 1997, NSF 2001a,b), challenge
testing must assess removal efficiency during three periods: within two
hours of startup of a new filter, between 45-55 percent of terminal
pressure drop, and at the end of the run after terminal pressure drop
is realized.
Bag and cartridge filter challenge testing is product-specific and
not site-specific since the intent of this testing is to demonstrate
the removal capabilities of the filtration device rather than evaluate
the feasibility of implementing the technology at a specific plant.
Challenge testing must be conducted using full-scale filter elements to
assess the performance of the entire unit, including the filtration
media, seals, filter housing and other components integral to the
filtration system. To be eligible for treatment credit when operated in
series, filters must be tested in series. Multiple filters of the same
type can be tested to provide a better statistical basis for estimating
removal efficiency. The Toolbox Guidance Manual provides information on
bag and cartridge filter challenge testing.
Today's rule establishes the proposed requirement that a 1.0-log
factor of safety be applied to the removal efficiency established
during challenge testing for individual bag or cartridge filters when
determining treatment credit. Thus, to receive a 2.0-log treatment
credit, a removal efficiency of at least 3.0-log must be demonstrated
during challenge testing. EPA believes that this factor of safety is
necessary because integrity testing with bag and cartridge filters is
not possible (note: under today's rule, cartridge filters that can be
integrity tested are classified as membranes and no safety factor is
required; see section IV.D.11).
Challenge testing provides an estimate of the removal efficiency of
a bag or cartridge filter product line but does not involve testing
every filter. Further, it does not fully capture the variation in
filter performance that will occur over time during routine use. For
membranes, the use of direct integrity tests, such as a pressure hold
test, that is correlated to removal efficiency addresses this problem.
With bag and cartridge filters, however, EPA is aware
[[Page 702]]
of no equivalent test, and parameters like turbidity and pressure
differential that may be monitored with these filters have not been
shown to correlate with Cryptosporidium removal efficiency.
Consequently, a safety factor is necessary to account for variation in
individual filter performance relative to challenge test results.
Individual bag and cartridge filters are eligible for a maximum
Cryptosporidium treatment credit of 2.0-log. EPA proposed this level of
credit for cartridge filters but proposed a 1.0-log maximum credit for
bag filters, as recommended by the Advisory Committee. However, after
further reviewing available data, EPA has concluded that treatment
studies do not support establishing different limits on treatment
credit for bag and cartridge filters. Accordingly, today's rule treats
bag and cartridge filters equivalently. EPA continues to believe that
2.0-log is an appropriate maximum treatment credit for a single bag or
cartridge filter, based on available data on the removal of
Cryptosporidium and surrogates by these processes and the absence of a
direct integrity test.
Today's rule also establishes criteria for awarding treatment
credit to bag or cartridge filters operated in series. EPA believes
that the use of these filters in series provides clear advantages in
comparison to operation of a single filter. Series operation will
achieve both greater removal efficiency and improved reliability by
lessening the impact of variation in the performance of a single
filter. In consideration of these factors, bag or cartridge filters
operated in series are eligible for a higher Cryptosporidium treatment
credit of 2.5-log and require a lower safety factor of 0.5-log applied
to challenge test results when determining treatment credit.
c. Summary of Major Comments
In response to the August 11, 2003 proposal, EPA received
significant public comment on the following issues related to bag and
cartridge filtration: the allowable treatment credit, the factor of
safety applied to challenge testing results to determine treatment
credit, and the procedure for determining the removal efficiency. A
summary of these comments and EPA's responses follows.
In regard to the proposed treatment credits, several commenters
recommended that bag and cartridge filters should be eligible for up to
2.0- and 2.5-log credit, respectively, if supported by the challenge
test results. Others commented that filters should be allowed to
qualify for removal credits at or below the 1.0- and 2.0-log credits in
the proposal. EPA agrees that additional flexibility should be provided
with respect to the removal credit awarded to bag and cartridge
filters. After reviewing these comments and reassessing data presented
in the proposal on the removal efficiencies of bag and cartridge
filters, EPA revised the proposal to allow up to 2.0-log treatment
credit for either a single bag or cartridge filter. In addition,
today's rule allows up to 2.5-log credit for bag or cartridge filters
operated in series.
With respect to the 1.0-log safety factor applied to challenge test
results to determine treatment credit, some commenters supported this
approach, while others recommended a reduced safety factor. In
response, EPA continues to believe that a 1.0-log safety factor is
appropriate to address variability in individual filter performance and
in the absence of a direct integrity test for bag and cartridge
filters. Where filters are operated in series, however, EPA agrees that
the safety factor should be reduced. Series operation provides an
intrinsic process safety and will dampen some of the variability in
removal efficiency observed for individual filters. Thus, EPA is
reducing the factor of safety to 0.5-log for configurations consisting
of two or more filters in series.
Commenters requested that EPA clarify the procedure used to
determine the removal efficiency of bag and cartridge filters. In
response, expanded and clarified guidance on conducting challenge tests
to determine removal efficiency for bag and cartridge filters has been
included in the Toolbox Guidance Manual.
11. Membrane Filtration
a. Today's Rule
Today's final rule establishes criteria for awarding
Cryptosporidium treatment credit to membrane filtration processes. To
receive removal credit, filters must meet the definition of a membrane
filtration process and undergo challenge testing to establish removal
efficiency; PWSs must periodically verify system integrity through
direct integrity testing and perform continuous indirect integrity
monitoring during use. The removal credit awarded to a membrane process
is based on the removal efficiency demonstrated during challenge
testing and the sensitivity of the direct integrity test.
For the purpose of today's rule, membrane filtration is defined as
a pressure or vacuum driven separation process in which particulate
matter larger than 1 micrometer is rejected by an engineered barrier,
primarily through a size-exclusion mechanism, and which has a
measurable removal efficiency of a target organism that can be verified
through the application of a direct integrity test.
Membrane Challenge Testing
Any membrane filter used to meet the treatment requirements of
today's rule must undergo challenge testing to determine its
Cryptosporidium removal efficiency. Challenge testing establishes the
maximum Cryptosporidium treatment credit a membrane filtration process
is eligible to receive, provided this value is less than or equal to
the sensitivity of the direct integrity test, as described later in
this section. Challenge testing for membranes is product-specific, and
PWSs that install membranes that have successfully undergone challenge
testing are not required to repeat testing at their sites. Membrane
challenge testing must meet the following criteria:
Challenge testing must be conducted on either an identical
full-scale module or a smaller-scale module identical in material and
similar in construction to the membrane modules the PWS will use. A
module is the smallest component of a membrane unit in which a specific
membrane surface area is housed in a device with a filtrate outlet
structure.
Either Cryptosporidium or a surrogate that is removed no
more efficiently than Cryptosporidium must be used as the challenge
particulate during challenge testing.
The analytical method used to measure removal in the
challenge test must discretely quantify the specific challenge
particulate. The maximum allowable feed water concentration used during
a challenge test is 6.5-log (3.16 x 10\6\) times the detection limit of
the challenge particulate in the filtrate.
Challenge testing must be conducted under representative
hydraulic conditions at the maximum design flux and maximum design
process recovery as specified by the manufacturer for the membrane
filtration process. Flux is defined as the throughput of a pressure
driven membrane process expressed as flow per unit of membrane area.
Recovery is defined as the volumetric percent of feed water that is
converted to filtrate over the course of an operating cycle
uninterrupted by events such as chemical cleaning or a solids removal
process (i.e., backwashing).
The removal efficiency for the membrane is determined from
the results of the challenge test, expressed as a log removal value
(LRV). A LRV must be calculated for each membrane module evaluated
during the challenge
[[Page 703]]
test based on the feed and filtrate concentrations of the challenge
particulate for that module. The individual LRVs for each module are
used to determine the overall removal efficiency of the membrane
product. If fewer than twenty modules are tested, the overall removal
efficiency is assigned a value equal to the lowest of the
representative LRVs for the various modules tested. If twenty or more
modules are tested, then the overall removal efficiency is assigned a
value equal to the 10th percentile of the representative LRVs for the
various modules tested.
As part of the challenge test, a quality control release
value (QCRV) must be established for a non-destructive performance test
(e.g., bubble point test, diffusive airflow test, pressure/vacuum decay
test) that demonstrates the Cryptosporidium removal capability of the
membrane module. The non-destructive performance test must be applied
to each membrane module a PWS uses in order to verify Cryptosporidium
removal capability. Membrane modules that do not meet the established
QCRV are not eligible for the Cryptosporidium removal credit
demonstrated during challenge testing.
If a previously tested membrane product is modified in a manner
that could change the removal efficiency of the membrane or the
applicability of non-destructive performance test and associated QCRV,
the modified membrane filter must be challenge tested to establish the
removal efficiency and QCRV. If approved by the State, data from
challenge testing conducted prior to promulgation of today's rule may
be considered in lieu of additional testing. However, the prior testing
must have been conducted in a manner that demonstrates a removal
efficiency for Cryptosporidium commensurate with the treatment credit
awarded to the filter.
Membrane Direct Integrity Testing
In order to receive Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a membrane
filtration process, PWSs must conduct direct integrity testing in a
manner that demonstrates a removal efficiency equal to or greater than
the removal credit awarded to the membrane filtration process. A direct
integrity test is defined as a physical test applied to a membrane unit
in order to identify and isolate integrity breaches (i.e., one or more
leaks that could result in contamination of the filtrate).
Each membrane unit must be independently direct integrity tested,
where a membrane unit is defined as a group of membrane modules that
share common valving which allows the unit to be isolated from the rest
of the system for the purpose of integrity testing or other
maintenance. The direct integrity test must be applied to the physical
elements of the entire membrane unit including membranes, seals,
potting material, associated valving and piping, and all other
components which under compromised conditions could result in
contamination of the filtrate.
Common direct integrity tests include those that apply pressure or
vacuum (such as the pressure decay test and diffusive airflow test) and
those that measure the rejection of a particulate or molecular marker
(such as spiked particle monitoring). Today's final rule does not
stipulate the use of a particular direct integrity test. Instead, the
direct integrity test must meet performance criteria for resolution,
sensitivity, and frequency.
``Resolution'' is defined as the smallest leak that contributes to
the response from a direct integrity test. Any direct integrity test
applied to meet the requirements of this rule must have a resolution of
3 micrometers or less. The manner in which resolution is determined
will depend on the type of direct integrity test used (i.e., pressure-
based versus marker-based tests).
``Sensitivity'' is defined as the maximum LRV that can be reliably
verified by the direct integrity test. The sensitivity of the direct
integrity test applied to a membrane filtration process to meet the
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements of this rule must be equal to or
greater than the removal credit awarded to the membrane filtration
process. Furthermore, the increased concentration of suspended solids
that occurs on the high pressure side of the membrane in some module
designs must be considered in the sensitivity determination (i.e., the
scouring action of some membrane designs keeps the accumulated solids
in suspension where they may pass through an integrity breach).
Specifically, the sensitivity of the direct integrity test is reduced
by a factor that quantifies the increased concentration of suspended
solids relative to the feed concentration.
The ``frequency'' of direct integrity testing specifies how often
the test is performed over an established time interval. Direct
integrity tests available at the time of promulgation are applied
periodically and must be conducted on each membrane unit at a frequency
of not less than once per day that the unit is in operation, unless the
State determines that less frequent testing is acceptable. If
continuous direct integrity test methods become available that also
meet the sensitivity and resolution criteria described earlier, such a
continuous test may be used in lieu of periodic testing.
PWSs must establish a direct integrity test control limit that is
indicative of an integral membrane unit capable of meeting the
Cryptosporidium removal credit awarded to the membrane. If the control
limit for the direct integrity test is exceeded, the membrane unit must
be taken off-line for diagnostic testing and repair. The membrane unit
may only be returned to service after the repair has been completed and
confirmed through the application of a direct integrity test. A monthly
report must be submitted to the State summarizing all direct integrity
test results above the control limit and the corrective action that was
taken in each case.
Continuous Indirect Integrity Monitoring
Available direct integrity test methods are applied periodically
since the membrane unit must be taken out of service to conduct the
test. In order to provide some measure of process performance between
direct integrity testing events, PWSs must perform continuous indirect
integrity monitoring on each membrane unit. Continuous indirect
integrity monitoring is defined as monitoring some aspect of filtrate
water quality that is indicative of the removal of particulate matter
at a frequency of at least once every 15 minutes. If a continuous
direct integrity test is implemented that meets the resolution and
sensitivity criteria described previously in this section, continuous
indirect integrity monitoring is not required.
Unless the State approves an alternative parameter, continuous
indirect integrity monitoring must include continuous filtrate
turbidity monitoring. If the filtrate turbidity readings are above 0.15
NTU for a period greater than 15 minutes, the PWS must perform direct
integrity testing on the associated membrane unit.
If the State approves an alternate parameter for continuous
indirect integrity monitoring, the State must approve a control limit
for that parameter. If the parameter exceeds the control limit for a
period greater than 15 minutes, the PWS must perform direct integrity
testing on the associated membrane unit.
PWSs must submit a monthly report to the State summarizing all
continuous indirect integrity monitoring results triggering direct
integrity testing and the corrective action that was taken in each
case.
EPA has developed the Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual to assist
[[Page 704]]
systems with implementation of these requirements. This guidance may be
requested from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline, which may be
contacted as described under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in the
beginning of this notice.
b. Background and Analysis
In the August 11, 2003 proposed LT2ESWTR, EPA proposed to establish
criteria for awarding credit to membrane filtration processes for
removal of Cryptosporidium (USEPA 2003g). The Agency based these
criteria on data demonstrating the Cryptosporidium removal efficiency
of membrane filtration processes, a critical evaluation of available
integrity monitoring techniques, and study of State approaches to the
regulation of membrane filtration for pathogen removal. This
information is summarized in the report Low-Pressure Membrane
Filtration for Pathogen Removal: Application, Implementation, and
Regulatory Issues (USEPA 2001g).
As summarized in this report, a number of studies demonstrate the
ability of membrane filtration processes to remove pathogens, including
Cryptosporidium, to below detection levels (USEPA 2001g). In some
studies that used Cryptosporidium seeding, measured removal
efficiencies were as high as 7-log (Jacangelo, et al., 1997; Hagen,
1998; Kachalsky and Masterson, 1993). In other studies, removal
efficiencies ranged from 4.4- to 6.5-log and were only limited by the
seeded concentration of Cryptosporidium oocysts (Dwyer, et al. 1995,
Jacangelo et al. 1989, Trussel, et al. 1998, NSF 2000a-g, Olivieri
1989). Collectively, these results demonstrate that an integral
membrane module (i.e., a membrane module without any leaks or defects,
with an exclusion characteristic smaller than Cryptosporidium) is
capable of removing this pathogen to below detection in the filtrate,
independent of the influent concentration.
The 2003 proposal included a provision for challenge testing
membranes to demonstrate the removal efficiency of Cryptosporidium. EPA
believes this requirement is necessary due to the proprietary nature of
these products and the lack of any uniform design criteria for
establishing the exclusion characteristic of a membrane. Guidance on
the design and conduct of a challenge test to meet the requirements of
this rule is presented in the Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual.
Challenge testing is required on a product-specific basis, rather
than a site-specific basis; thus, modules used in full-scale facilities
will generally not be directly challenge tested. The removal capability
of production membrane modules is verified through the application of a
non-destructive performance test, such as a bubble point test. A
quality control release value (QCRV) for the non-destructive
performance test can be related to the results of the challenge test
and used to demonstrate the ability of production modules to achieve
the Cryptosporidium removal efficiency demonstrated during challenge
testing. Most membrane manufacturers have adapted some form of non-
destructive testing for the purpose of product quality control and have
established a QCRV that is indicative of an acceptable product. It may
be possible to apply these existing practices to meet the requirements
of today's final rule.
While challenge testing demonstrates the removal efficiency of an
integral membrane module, defects or leaks in the membrane or other
system components can result in contamination of the filtrate unless
they are identified, isolated, and repaired. In order to verify
continued performance of a membrane system, today's final rule requires
direct integrity testing of membrane filtration processes used to meet
the Cryptosporidium treatment requirements of this rule.
An evaluation of available direct integrity tests indicates that
pressure-based tests are widely applied and sufficiently sensitive to
provide verification of removal efficiencies in excess of 4-log.
Marker-based direct integrity tests are also available, and new direct
integrity tests may be developed that present an improvement over
existing tests. Rather than specify a particular direct integrity test,
today's final rule defines performance criteria for direct integrity
testing. These criteria are resolution, sensitivity, and frequency, as
previously described. EPA believes that this approach will provide
flexibility for the development and implementation of future
innovations in direct integrity testing while ensuring that any test
applied to meet the requirements of this rule will achieve the required
level of performance.
Since available direct integrity tests require taking the membrane
unit out of service to conduct the test, today's rule establishes a
minimum test frequency for direct integrity testing. Currently, there
is no standard frequency for direct integrity testing that has been
adopted by all States and membrane treatment facilities. In a 2000
survey, the required frequency of integrity testing was found to vary
from once every four hours to once per week; however, the most common
frequency for conducting a direct integrity test was once every 24
hours (USEPA 2001g). Specifically, 10 out of 14 States that require
periodic direct integrity testing specify a frequency of once per day.
Furthermore, many membrane manufacturers of systems with automated
integrity test systems set up the membrane units to automatically
perform a direct integrity test once per day.
EPA believes that daily direct integrity testing is appropriate for
most membrane filtration installations, but under some circumstances,
less frequent testing may be adequate. Thus, EPA is allowing States to
approve less frequent direct integrity testing on the basis of
demonstrated process reliability, use of multiple barriers effective
for Cryptosporidium, or reliable process safeguards.
Due to the periodic nature of direct integrity testing, today's
rule includes a provision for continuous indirect integrity monitoring.
While indirect monitoring is not as sensitive as direct testing, it
provides an indication of process performance to ensure that a major
failure has not occurred between application of direct integrity tests.
c. Summary of Major Comments
In response to the 2003 proposal, the Agency received significant
comments on the following issues related to membrane filtration: the
frequency of direct integrity testing; the procedure necessary to
determine removal credit for membrane filtration; and the requirement
for continuous indirect integrity monitoring.
The 2003 proposal requested comment on the proposed minimum direct
integrity test frequency of once per day. Some commenters supported the
daily frequency and commented that many states have already adopted
this standard. Others commented that direct integrity testing once per
day is too frequent, citing the lack of data in the proposal
documenting the rate of membrane failure, as well as the loss in
production that occurs when the membrane unit is taken off-line for
testing.
While EPA recognizes these concerns, a critical factor in
establishing a testing frequency is the amount of time that water from
a compromised membrane unit is supplied to the public before the
integrity breach is detected. EPA believes that this factor is most
important to public health protection and that daily direct integrity
testing is appropriate for the majority of membrane systems. However,
EPA also acknowledges that there may be
[[Page 705]]
circumstances under which less frequent testing may provide adequate
public health protection, and has revised the rule to allow States to
permit less frequent direct integrity testing based on demonstrated
process reliability, use of multiple barriers effective for
Cryptosporidium, or reliable process safeguards.
Several commenters expressed concern with the process needed to
determine appropriate removal credit for membrane filtration. However,
many commenters also supported the flexibility provided to States in
determining the appropriate removal credit for membrane filtration
based on the criteria defined in the 2003 proposal. EPA believes that
the proposed approach for awarding Cryptosporidium removal credit to
membrane filtration is supported by the available data and analysis,
and will allow higher removal credits to be considered on a
scientifically sound basis. EPA recognizes that the flexibility
provided in the regulation does increase the complexity of determining
removal credits for membrane filtration. To address this issue, EPA has
developed extensive guidance to support the implementation of
requirements for membrane filtration.
EPA received comment that continuous indirect integrity monitoring
is unnecessary due to the poor sensitivity of currently available
methods. EPA acknowledges that currently available indirect monitoring
methods are less sensitive than available direct integrity tests.
However, EPA believes that continuous indirect integrity monitoring is
necessary to protect public health. Specifically, continuous monitoring
may alert a system of potentially severe integrity breaches that could
result in bypass of unfiltered water around the membrane filtration
process and pose a risk to public health. Furthermore, EPA has provided
States with the flexibility to permit use of more sensitive continuous
indirect monitoring methods and/or to establish lower control limits.
Also, implementation of continuous direct integrity testing would
preclude the need to implement any form of indirect integrity
monitoring.
12. Second Stage Filtration
a. Today's Rule
PWSs may receive 0.5-log credit towards the Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements of today's rule for a second filtration stage.
To be eligible for this credit, the second-stage filtration must meet
the following criteria:
The filter must be a separate second stage of granular
media filtration, such as sand, dual media, or granular activated
carbon (GAC), that follows a first stage of granular media filtration
(e.g., follows a conventional treatment or direct filtration plant).
The first filtration stage must be preceded by a
coagulation process.
Both filtration stages must treat 100 percent of the
treatment plant flow.
The State must approve the treatment credit based on an
assessment of the design characteristics of the filtration process.
This microbial toolbox option does not apply to bag filters,
cartridge filters, membranes, or slow sand filters, which are addressed
separately in the microbial toolbox. Further, this options does not
apply to roughing filters, which are pretreatment processes that
typically consist of coarse media and are not preceded by coagulation.
States may consider awarding treatment credit to roughing filters under
a demonstration of performance.
PWSs may not receive additional treatment credit for both second-
stage filtration and lower filter effluent turbidity (i.e., combined or
individual filter performance) that is based on turbidity levels
following the second filtration stage. PWSs may receive credit for both
options based on turbidity following the first filtration stage.
b. Background and Analysis
The Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee recommended a 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a roughing filter with the
stipulation that EPA identify the design and operational conditions
under which such credit is appropriate. After reviewing available data,
however, EPA was unable to determine conditions under which a roughing
filter is likely to achieve at least 0.5-log removal of
Cryptosporidium. Roughing filters consist of coarse media like gravel
and usually are not preceded by coagulation. They are used to remove
sediment and large particulate matter from raw water prior to the
primary treatment processes. EPA identified no studies indicating that
roughing filters would be effective for removal of Cryptosporidium
(USEPA 2003a).
In contrast, numerous studies have demonstrated that granular media
filtration can be effective for removing Cryptosporidium when preceded
by coagulation (Patania et al. 1995, Nieminski and Ongerth 1995,
Ongerth and Pecoraro 1995, LeChevallier and Norton 1992, LeChevallier
et al. 1991, Dugan et al. 2001, Nieminski and Bellamy 2000, McTigue et
al. 1998, Patania et al. 1999, Huck et al. 2000, Emelko et al. 2000).
PWSs may implement a second granular media filtration stage to achieve
various water quality objectives, such as increased removal of organic
material in biologically active filters or removal of inorganic
contaminants. Consequently, EPA believes that consideration of
additional Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a second granular media
filtration stage is appropriate.
The August 11, 2003 LT2ESWTR proposal included an additional 0.5-
log Cryptosporidium treatment credit for PWSs that use a second
separate filtration stage consisting of rapid sand, dual media, GAC, or
other fine grain media. A cap, such as GAC, on a single stage of
filtration did not qualify. In addition, the proposal required the
first stage of filtration to be preceded by a coagulation step and both
stages had to treat 100 percent of the plant flow. Today's final rule
establishes this treatment credit with minimal changes from the
proposal. The basis for this credit and for changes from the proposed
rule are summarized in the following discussion.
While the studies of Cryptosporidium removal by granular media
filtration cited previously evaluated only a single stage of
filtration, the same removal mechanisms will be operative in a second
stage of granular media filtration. Secondary filters may remove
Cryptosporidium that were destabilized but not trapped in primary
filters or that were trapped but subsequently detached from primary
filters prior to backwash. Thus, EPA believes these studies are
supportive of additional removal credit for a second filtration stage.
An important finding of these studies is that coagulation is
necessary to achieve significant Cryptosporidium removal by granular
media filtration (does not apply to slow sand filtration, which is
addressed in the next section). Consequently, today's rule requires
that the first filtration stage be preceded by coagulation for a PWS to
receive treatment credit for second-stage filtration. This requirement
is necessary to ensure that both filtration stages are effective for
Cryptosporidium removal. PWSs will already comply with this requirement
where a second filtration stage is applied after conventional treatment
or direct filtration.
In the proposal, EPA also reviewed data provided by a PWS on the
removal of aerobic spores through GAC filters (i.e., contactors)
following conventional treatment. As discussed earlier, studies have
demonstrated that aerobic spores can serve as an indicator of
Cryptosporidium removal by granular
[[Page 706]]
media filtration (Dugan et al. 2001, Emelko et al. 1999 and 2000, Yates
et al. 1998, Mazounie et al. 2000). Over a two year period, the mean
removal of aerobic spores across the GAC filters exceeded 0.5-log.
These results support the finding that a second stage of granular media
filtration can reduce Cryptosporidium levels by 0.5-log or greater.
Today's rule does not establish design criteria such as filter
depth or media size for second-stage filters to be eligible for
treatment credit. While filter design will influence Cryptosporidium
removal efficiency, EPA recognizes that appropriate filter designs will
vary depending on the application. States have traditionally provided
oversight for treatment process designs in PWSs. Accordingly, today's
rule requires State review and approval of second-stage filter design
as a condition for PWSs to receive additional treatment credit for this
process. The Microbial Toolbox Guidance Manual addresses second-stage
filtration for Cryptosporidium treatment credit.
c. Summary of Major Comments
Public comment on the August 11, 2003 LT2ESWTR proposal generally
supported additional treatment credit for second-stage filtration.
Commenters raised specific concerns with EPA establishing design
requirements for filtration, the sufficiency of data to support
prescribed treatment credit, and the expansion of this credit to
include other filtration technologies. These comments and EPA's
responses are summarized as follows.
In the proposal, EPA requested comment on whether a minimum filter
depth should be required for PWSs to receive treatment credit for a
second filtration stage. All commenters opposed EPA setting regulatory
design standards for filters on the basis that PWSs and States need the
flexibility to determine appropriate treatment designs. In response,
EPA agrees that effective filter designs will vary depending on the
application. Consequently, EPA is not establishing filter design
criteria in today's rule, but is requiring that States approve designs
for PWSs to receive treatment credit for second-stage filtration.
Many commenters stated that available data support the prescribed
0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit for second-stage filtration.
Some commenters provided additional data on the removal of aerobic
spores through GAC filters following conventional treatment that showed
a mean reduction greater than 1-log. In contrast, other commenters were
concerned about the lack of data to support increased removal through a
second filtration stage. These commenters recommended that treatment
credit for second-stage filtration should be awarded only on a site-
specific basis through a demonstration of performance.
EPA has concluded that available data are sufficient to support the
prescribed 0.5-log treatment credit for second-stage filtration.
Studies of granular media filtration demonstrate high levels of
Cryptosporidium removal and one study has shown greater than 1.0-log
removal through secondary GAC filters. Secondary filters can remove
Cryptosporidium that pass through or detach from the primary filters.
This added removal will help to stabilize finished water quality by
providing a barrier during periods of the filtration cycle when the
primary filters are not performing optimally. Therefore, EPA is
establishing this credit in today's rule.
Several commenters recommended that EPA expand the second-stage
filtration option to include membranes, bag filters, and DE filtration.
EPA notes that today's rule establishes prescribed treatment credits
specifically for bag and cartridge filters and membranes as microbial
toolbox options, and prescribed credit for DE filtration is addressed
in section IV.B. PWSs may seek treatment credit for other filtration
technologies through a demonstration of performance under today's rule.
13. Slow Sand Filtration
a. Today's Rule
PWSs may receive a 2.5-log credit towards the Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements in today's rule for implementing slow sand
filtration as a secondary filtration stage following a primary
filtration process. To be eligible for this credit, the slow sand
filtration must meet the following criteria:
The slow sand filter must be a separate second stage of
filtration that follows a first stage of filtration like conventional
treatment or direct filtration;
There must be no disinfectant residual in the influent
water to the slow sand filtration process;
Both filtration stages must treat 100 percent of the
treatment plant flow from a surface water or GWUDI source; and
The State must approve the treatment credit based on an
assessment of the design characteristics of the filtration process.
Slow sand filtration used as a primary filtration process receives
a prescribed 3-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit, as described in
section IV.B.
b. Background and Analysis
Slow sand filtration is a process involving passage of raw water
through a bed of sand at low velocity (generally less than 0.4 m/h),
resulting in substantial particulate removal. Several studies have
demonstrated that slow sand filtration can achieve significant
Cryptosporidium removal (Schuler and Ghosh, 1991, Timms et al. 1995,
Hall et al. 1994). Slow sand filtration is typically used as a primary
filtration process, usually in small systems, rather than as a
secondary filtration stage following conventional treatment or another
primary filtration process. EPA expects, however, that slow sand
filtration would be effective for Cryptosporidium removal in such an
application, which warrants consideration of treatment credit under
today's rule.
The Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee recommended that slow sand
filtration receive 2.5-log or greater Cryptosporidium treatment credit
when used in addition to existing treatment that achieves compliance
with the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR. The August 11, 2003 LT2ESWTR proposal
included 2.5-log treatment credit for slow sand as a secondary
filtration process, with the only associated condition being no
disinfectant residual in the water influent to the filter. In today's
rule, EPA is establishing this treatment credit with minimal changes
from the proposal. The following discussion summarizes the basis for
this credit and for changes from the proposal.
Removal of microbial pathogens in slow sand filters is complex and
is believed to occur through a combination of physical, chemical, and
biological mechanisms, both on the surface and in the interior of the
filter bed. In particular, biological activity in the upper layers of
the filter is believed to promote microbial removal. Based on
previously cited studies demonstrating greater than 4-log removal of
Cryptosporidium through slow sand filtration, today's rule awards a
prescribed 3-log Cryptosporidium removal credit to slow sand filtration
as a primary filtration process.
The effectiveness of slow sand as a secondary filtration process is
more uncertain. In general, EPA expects that the same microbial removal
mechanisms will be operative. However, due to the quality of treated
water following a primary filtration process, filter ripening and
development of the biologically active layer in a secondary slow sand
filter may be inhibited. One study that evaluated Cryptosporidium
removal by slow sand filtration alone
[[Page 707]]
and slow sand filtration preceded by a rapid sand filter observed
similar removal levels in the two treatment trains (Hall et al. 1994).
Because of the uncertainty regarding the performance of slow sand as a
secondary filtration step and in consideration of the Advisory
Committee recommendation, today's rule establishes a 2.5-log additional
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for this application.
Due to the importance of biological activity to slow sand filter
performance, PWSs may not receive the prescribed treatment credit if
the influent water to the slow sand filter contains a disinfectant
residual. EPA is not establishing design standards for slow sand
filters in today's rule. Studies have shown, however, that design
deficiencies in slow sand filters may lead to poor Cryptosporidium
removal (Fogel et al. 1993). Consequently, States must approve slow
sand filter designs as a secondary filtration stage for PWSs to receive
treatment credit under today's rule.
c. Summary of Major Comments
Public comment on the August 11, 2003 proposal focused on the
question of whether the 2.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit for
slow sand as a secondary filtration process is appropriate. Many
commenters supported the proposed treatment credit. These commenters
cited studies demonstrating greater than 4-log Cryptosporidium removal
by slow sand filtration and concluded that the data justify a 2.5-log
treatment credit for slow sand filtration added to a clarification and
filtration treatment train.
Several commenters, however, stated that this treatment credit is
not justified due to the lack of data on the performance of slow sand
as a secondary filtration step. Available studies on slow sand filter
performance for Cryptosporidium removal have mostly been conducted on
raw (i.e., unfiltered) water. These commenters were concerned that if
slow sand filtration is applied following a primary filtration process,
the filter ripening period and other factors will be significantly
affected. As a result, the slow sand filtration may provide only
limited removal over a long ripening period.
In response, EPA recognizes that little testing has been conducted
on the performance of slow sand filtration specifically as a second
filtration stage in a treatment train. However, available data do not
indicate that slow sand filtration would be substantially less
effective when used in this capacity. Slow sand filtration is
recommended only for higher quality source waters, and water quality
following a primary filtration process would be well within recommended
design limits for slow sand filtration (USEPA 1991a). EPA agrees that
filter ripening is critical to slow sand filtration achieving its full
performance level, and this process may require more time when slow
sand filtration follows a primary filtration process. However, this
effect may be counterbalanced by very long filter run times between
cleaning the filter due to the high quality influent water.
Consequently, EPA believes that 2.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment
credit for slow sand as a secondary filtration process is warranted.
14. Ozone and Chlorine Dioxide
a. Today's Rule
PWSs may use ozone and chlorine dioxide to meet Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements under today's rule. To receive treatment credit,
PWSs must measure the water temperature, disinfectant contact time, and
residual disinfectant concentration at least once each day and
determine the log inactivation credit using the tables in this section.
Specific criteria are as follows:
The temperature of the disinfected water must be measured
at least once per day at each residual disinfectant concentration
sampling point.
The disinfectant contact time(s) (``t'') must be
determined for each day during peak hourly flow.
The residual disinfectant concentration(s) (``C'') of the
water before or at the first customer must be measured each day during
peak hourly flow.
Tables IV.D-3 or IV.D-4 must be used to determine
Cryptosporidium log inactivation credit for ozone or chlorine dioxide,
respectively, based on the water temperature and the product of
disinfectant concentration and contact time (CT).
Table IV.D-3.--CT Values for Cryptosporidium Inactivation by Ozone \1\ (mg/L x min)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water temperature, [deg]C
Log credit -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=0.5 1 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 25 30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25...................................... 6.0 5.8 5.2 4.8 4.0 3.3 2.5 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.39
0.5....................................... 12 12 10 9.5 7.9 6.5 4.9 3.1 2.0 1.2 0.78
1.0....................................... 24 23 21 19 16 13 9.9 6.2 3.9 2.5 1.6
1.5....................................... 36 35 31 29 24 20 15 9.3 5.9 3.7 2.4
2.0....................................... 48 46 42 38 32 26 20 12 7.8 4.9 3.1
2.5....................................... 60 58 52 48 40 33 25 16 9.8 6.2 3.9
3.0....................................... 72 69 63 57 47 39 30 19 12 7.4 4.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PWSs may use this equation to determine log credit between the indicated values: Log credit = (0.0397 x (1.09757) Temp) x CT.
Table IV.D-4.--CT Values for Cryptosporidium Inactivation by Chlorine Dioxide \1\ (mg/L x min)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water temperature, [deg]C
Log credit -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=0.5 1 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 25 30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.25...................................... 159 153 140 128 107 90 69 45 29 19 12
0.5....................................... 319 305 279 256 214 180 138 89 58 38 24
1.0....................................... 637 610 558 511 429 360 277 179 116 75 49
1.5....................................... 956 915 838 767 643 539 415 268 174 113 73
2.0....................................... 1275 1220 1117 1023 858 719 553 357 232 150 98
2.5....................................... 1594 1525 1396 1278 1072 899 691 447 289 188 122
3.0....................................... 1912 1830 1675 1534 1286 1079 830 536 347 226 147
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PWSs may use this equation to determine log credit between the indicated values: Log credit = (0.001506 x (1.09116) Temp) x CT.
[[Page 708]]
PWSs may have several disinfection segments in sequence along the
treatment train, where a disinfectant segment is defined as a treatment
unit process with a measurable disinfectant residual level and a liquid
volume. In determining the total log inactivation, the PWS may
calculate the CT for each disinfection segment and use the sum of these
values to determine the log inactivation achieved through the plant.
The Toolbox Guidance Manual provides information on recommended
methodologies for determining CT values for different disinfection
reactor designs and operations.
Alternatively, the State may approve alternative CT values to those
specified in Tables IV.D-3 or IV.D-4 based on a site-specific study a
PWSs conducts following a State-approved protocol. The Toolbox Guidance
Manual describes recommended approaches for making such demonstrations.
b. Background and Analysis
Ozone and chlorine dioxide are chemical disinfectants that have
been shown to be effective for inactivating Cryptosporidium. The Stage
2 M-DBP Advisory Committee recommended that EPA develop criteria for
PWSs to achieve Cryptosporidium inactivation credit with these
disinfectants. The August 11, 2003 LT2ESWTR proposal included CT values
for 0.5- to 3-log Cryptosporidium inactivation credit by ozone or
chlorine dioxide at temperatures ranging from less than 0.5 C to 25 C,
along with daily required monitoring (USEPA 2003a). Today's final rule
establishes these criteria with no changes from the proposed rule, but
expands the CT tables down to 0.25-log inactivation and up to a water
temperature of 30 C. The following discussion summarizes the basis for
these criteria.
The requirements for at least daily monitoring of the water
temperature, residual disinfectant concentration, and contact time
during peak hourly flow to determine a daily inactivation level reflect
existing requirements for Giardia inactivation by chemical disinfection
in 40 CFR 141.74. EPA expects that in practice, many PWSs using ozone
or chlorine dioxide will monitor more frequently and for multiple
disinfectant segments. In the Toolbox Guidance Manual, EPA provides
information on recommended approaches for monitoring and calculating CT
values for ozone and chlorine dioxide reactors.
The CT values for both ozone and chlorine dioxide are based on
analyses by Clark et al. (2002a,b), with additional procedures to
assess confidence bounds. Clark et al. (2002a,b) developed predictive
equations for Cryptosporidium inactivation through evaluating studies
on ozone by Rennecker et al. (1999), Li et al. (2001), Owens et al.
(2000), and Oppenheimer et al. (2000) and on chlorine dioxide by Li et
al. (2001), Owens et al. (1999) and Ruffell et al. (2000). EPA applied
confidence bounds to these predictive equations to ensure that PWSs
operating at a given CT value are likely to achieve at least the
corresponding log inactivation level in the CT table.
In identifying confidence bounds for CT values, EPA was primarily
concerned with uncertainty in the estimations by Clark et al. (2002a,b)
of the linear relationship between log inactivation and CT (i.e.,
uncertainty in the regression) and with real variability in the
inactivation rate. Such real variability could be associated with
different populations of oocysts and different water matrices. In
contrast, variability associated with experimental error, such as the
assays used to measure loss of infectivity, was a lessor concern. The
purpose of the CT tables is to ensure a given level of inactivation and
not to predict the measured result of an individual experiment.
For developing earlier CT values, EPA has used bounds for
confidence in prediction, which account for both real variability and
experimental error. EPA believes that this approach was appropriate due
to limited inactivation data and uncertainty in the sources of
variability in the data. However, the high doses of ozone and chlorine
dioxide necessary to inactivate Cryptosporidium create an offsetting
concern with the formation of DBPs (e.g., bromate and chlorite). In
consideration of this concern, EPA has employed a less conservative
method to calculate confidence bounds for the ozone and chlorine
dioxide CT values in today's rule; specifically, EPA has attempted to
exclude experimental error from the confidence bounds.
In order to estimate confidence bounds that exclude experimental
error, EPA assessed the relative contribution of experimental error to
the variance observed in the Cryptosporidium inactivation data sets.
This assessment was done by comparing variance among data points with
consistent experimental conditions, which was attributed to
experimental error, with the total variance in a data set. By this
analysis, EPA estimated that 87.5 and 62 percent of the variance in the
Cryptosporidium inactivation data for ozone and chlorine dioxide,
respectively, could be ascribed to experimental error (Sivaganesan
2003, Messner 2003). EPA then applied these estimates to the predictive
equations developed by Clark et al. (2002a,b) using a modified form of
a formula for calculating a 90 percent confidence bound (Messner 2003).
This analysis produced the CT values shown in tables IV.D-3 and
IV.D-4 for ozone and chlorine dioxide, respectively. CT values are
provided for inactivation as low as 0.25-log. Such a low inactivation
level may be used by PWSs applying ozone in combination with other
disinfectants. Available data do not support the determination of
conditions for inactivation greater than 3-log, so the CT values in
today's rule do not go beyond this level. The temperature range of CT
values in today's rule goes to 30 C (86 F), which will accommodate most
natural waters. If the water temperature is higher than 30 C,
temperature should be set to 30 C for the log inactivation calculation.
PWSs may use the equations provided as footnotes to tables IV.D-3 and
IV.D-4 to interpolate between CT values.
EPA recognizes that inactivation rates may be sensitive to water
quality and operational conditions at individual PWSs. To reflect this
potential, PWSs are allowed to perform a site-specific inactivation
study to determine CT requirements. The State must approve the
protocols or other information used to derive alternative CT values.
EPA has provided guidance for such studies in the Toolbox Guidance
Manual.
c. Summary of Major Comments
Public comment on the August 11, 2003 LT2ESWTR proposal supported
the inclusion of ozone and chlorine dioxide in the microbial toolbox
for Cryptosporidium inactivation. Commenters stated concerns with the
required criteria for achieving Cryptosporidium treatment credit,
including the conservatism EPA applied in developing the CT tables, the
ability of PWSs with different types of source waters to use these
disinfectants, and the range of conditions covered by the CT tables.
Commenters also made recommendations for guidance. These comments and
EPA's responses are summarized as follows.
Some commenters supported the proposed CT tables, but others stated
that the statistical approach used to calculate the confidence bounds
from which the CT values are derived is overly conservative. These
commenters were concerned that this approach will increase capital and
operating costs and lead to higher byproduct levels.
In response, EPA believes that the confidence bounds used for the
ozone and chlorine dioxide CT tables in today's rule are appropriate
and
[[Page 709]]
necessary to ensure that PWSs achieve intended levels of
Cryptosporidium inactivation. They account only for uncertainty in the
regression of inactivation data and for variability in inactivation
data that cannot be attributed to experimental error. This approach is
significantly less conservative than the approaches used in CT tables
for earlier rules. EPA employed this less conservative approach in
recognition of the high disinfectant doses necessary for
Cryptosporidium inactivation and concern with byproducts.
Commenters were concerned that due to the relatively high ozone and
chlorine dioxide doses necessary for Cryptosporidium inactivation, some
PWSs will be unable to use these disinfectants to achieve required
levels of Cryptosporidium treatment. In particular, using ozone for
high Cryptosporidium inactivation levels will be difficult in areas
where cold water temperatures would necessitate especially high doses
or where high source water bromide levels would cause problems with
bromate formation. The use of chlorine dioxide for Cryptosporidium
inactivation may be difficult due to chlorite formation.
EPA recognizes that the use of ozone and chlorine dioxide to
achieve Cryptosporidium inactivation will depend on source water
factors and will not be feasible for all PWSs. Due to the availability
of UV, which EPA has determined to be a feasible technology for
Cryptosporidium inactivation by all PWS sizes, the feasibility of
today's rule does not depend on the widespread use of ozone or chlorine
dioxide for compliance. In assessing the impact of today's rule on
PWSs, EPA used ICR survey data to estimate the fraction of PWSs that
could use ozone or chlorine dioxide to achieve different levels of
Cryptosporidium inactivation without exceeding DBP MCLs (see Economic
Analysis for the LT2ESWTR). While EPA expects that some PWSs will use
these disinfectants, the microbial toolbox provides many other options
for PWSs to comply with the Cryptosporidium treatment requirements of
today's rule.
Commenters recommended that EPA expand the range of conditions
encompassed in the CT tables. Specifically, commenters asked that CT
tables include values for water temperatures above 25 C and supported
this request by providing data showing temperature profiles for water
sources with maximum temperatures near 30 C. Commenters also requested
CT values for Cryptosporidium inactivation levels below 0.5-log for
PWSs that will use multiple disinfectants to meet the treatment
requirements in today's rule. In addition, commenters suggested that
EPA provide equations that PWSs can use to interpolate between the
listed CT values.
EPA has addressed these recommendations in today's final rule. The
CT tables for ozone and chlorine dioxide include values for a water
temperature of 30 C and for 0.25-log inactivation. Footnotes to these
tables contain equations that PWSs can use to calculate log
inactivation credit for conditions between those provided in the
tables. PWSs may use these equations in their process control systems.
Commenters made recommendations for guidance on the use of ozone
and chlorine dioxide to comply with today's rule. These recommendations
concern topics like monitoring disinfection reactors, procedures for
calculating disinfectant concentration and contact time, site specific
studies, and synergistic effects of multiple disinfectants. EPA has
addressed these topics in the Toolbox Guidance Manual.
15. Ultraviolet Light
a. Today's Rule
PWSs may use ultraviolet (UV) light to comply with Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements in today's rule, as well as Giardia lamblia and
virus treatment requirements in existing regulations. To receive
treatment credit, PWSs must operate UV reactors validated to achieve
the required UV dose, as shown in the table in this section, and
monitor their UV reactors to demonstrate operation within validated
conditions. Specific criteria are as follows:
Required UV Doses
UV dose (fluence) is the product of the UV intensity over
a surface area (fluence rate) and the exposure time. PWSs must use
validation testing to demonstrate that a UV reactor achieves the UV
doses shown in Table IV.D-5 in order to receive the associated
inactivation credit.
Table IV.D-5.--UV Dose Requirements for Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, and Virus Inactivation Credit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cryptosporidium UV Giardia lamblia UV Virus UV dose (mJ/
Log credit dose (mJ/cm2) dose (mJ/cm2) cm2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5......................................... 1.6 1.5 39
1.0......................................... 2.5 2.1 58
1.5......................................... 3.9 3.0 79
2.0......................................... 5.8 5.2 100
2.5......................................... 8.5 7.7 121
3.0......................................... 12 11 143
3.5......................................... 15 15 163
4.0......................................... 22 22 186
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dose values in Table IV.D-5 are for UV light at a
wavelength of 254 nm as delivered by a low pressure mercury vapor lamp.
However, PWSs may use this table to determine treatment credits for
other lamp types through validation testing, as described in the UV
Disinfection Guidance Manual. The dose values in Table IV.D-5 apply to
post-filter applications of UV in filtration plants and to PWSs that
meet all applicable filtration avoidance criteria.
UV Reactor Validation Testing
The validation test may be reactor-specific or site-
specific. Unless the State approves an alternative approach, this
testing must involve the following: (1) Full scale testing of a reactor
that conforms uniformly to the UV reactors used by the PWS, and (2)
inactivation of a test microorganism whose dose response
characteristics have been quantified with a low pressure mercury vapor
lamp.
Validation testing must identify ranges for parameters the
PWS can monitor to ensure that the required UV dose is delivered during
operation. These parameters must include flow rate, UV intensity as
measured by UV sensors, and UV lamp status.
The operating parameters determined by validation testing
must
[[Page 710]]
account for the following factors: (1) UV absorbance of the water, (2)
lamp fouling and aging, (3) measurement uncertainty of UV sensors, (4)
dose distributions arising from the flow velocity profiles through the
reactor, (5) failure of UV lamps or other critical system components,
and (6) inlet and outlet piping or channel configurations of the UV
reactor. In the UV Disinfection Guidance Manual, EPA describes
recommended approaches for reactor validation that address these
factors.
UV Reactor Monitoring
PWSs must monitor for the parameters necessary to
demonstrate operation within the validated conditions of the required
UV dose. These parameters must include flow rate, UV intensity as
measured by UV sensors, and UV lamp status. PWSs must check the
calibration of UV sensors and recalibrate in accordance with a protocol
approved by the State.
For PWSs using UV light to meet microbial treatment
requirements, at least 95 percent of the water delivered to the public
every month must be treated by UV reactors operating within validated
conditions for the required UV dose.
b. Background and Analysis
Numerous studies have demonstrated that UV light is effective for
inactivating Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, and other microbial
pathogens at relatively low doses (Clancy et al. 1998, 2000, 2002,
Bukhari et al. 1999, Craik et al. 2000, 2001, Landis et al. 2000,
Sommer et al. 2001, Shin et al. 2001, and Oppenheimer et al. 2002). EPA
has determined that UV light is a feasible technology for PWSs of all
sizes to inactivate Cryptosporidium. Accordingly, EPA expects that UV
is one of the primary technologies PWSs will use to comply with
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements in today's rule.
The Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee recommended that EPA establish
standards for the use of UV to comply with drinking water treatment
requirements. These standards include the UV doses necessary for
different levels of Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, and virus
inactivation and a protocol for validating the disinfection performance
of UV reactors. The Committee also directed EPA to develop a UV
disinfection guidance manual to familiarize States and PWSs with
important design and operational issues for UV installations.
The August 11, 2003 LT2ESWTR proposal included UV doses for PWSs to
achieve treatment credit of up to 3-log for Cryptosporidium and Giardia
lamblia and up to 4-log for viruses, along with associated reactor
validation and monitoring requirements. The proposal also required
unfiltered PWSs using UV to achieve the UV dose for the required level
of Cryptosporidium inactivation in at least 95 percent of the water
delivered to the public every month (USEPA 2003a).
Today's final rule establishes these criteria with no changes from
the proposed rule. However, EPA has expanded the UV dose table to
include 4-log inactivation of Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia and
has expanded the 95 percent compliance requirement to include filtered
PWSs and to cover Giardia lamblia and virus inactivation. The following
discussion summarizes the basis for these criteria.
The UV dose values in Table IV.D-5 are based on meta-analyses of UV
inactivation studies with Cryptosporidium parvum, Giardia lamblia,
Giardia muris, and adenovirus (Qian et al. 2004, USEPA 2003a). EPA has
expanded the dose values for Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia from
3- to 4-log inactivation because available data support criteria for
this level of treatment. Neither today's rule nor any existing
regulations require PWSs to provide Cryptosporidium inactivation above
this level, so EPA has not expanded the UV dose tables further. While
today's rule requires up to 5.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment by
filtered PWSs, at least 2.0-log of this treatment must be achieved by
physical removal.
The required UV doses for inactivation of viruses are based on the
dose-response of adenovirus because among waterborne pathogenic viruses
that have been studied, it appears to be the most UV resistant. As
summarized in Embrey (1999), adenoviruses have been identified as the
second most important agent of gastroenteritis in children and can
cause significant adverse health effects, including death, in persons
with compromised immune systems. They are associated with fecal
contamination in water and have been implicated in waterborne disease
outbreaks.
EPA used data from studies performed with low pressure mercury
vapor lamps on water with turbidity representative of filtered water to
derive the UV dose values in Table IV.D-5. Studies with low pressure
mercury vapor lamps were selected because they allow the UV dose to be
accurately quantified (see USEPA 2003a for specific studies). The UV
dose values in Table IV.D-5 can be applied to medium pressure mercury
vapor lamps and other lamp types through UV reactor validation testing,
as described in the UV Disinfection Guidance Manual. Due to the
potential for particulate matter to interfere with UV disinfection, the
application of these dose values is limited to post-filtration in
filtered PWSs and to unfiltered PWSs.
Flow-through UV reactors deliver a distribution of doses due to
variations in light intensity and particle flow path through the
reactor. To best account for the dose distribution, the validation test
must use a challenge microorganism to determine the degree of
inactivation achieved by the UV reactor. This level of performance must
then be associated to the UV dose requirements in Table IV.D-5 through
known dose-response relationships for the challenge microorganism and
target pathogen in order to assign disinfection credit to the UV
reactor. States may approve an alternative basis for awarding UV
disinfection credit.
Today's rule requires full-scale testing of UV reactors to validate
the operating conditions under which the reactors can deliver a
required UV dose. EPA believes this testing is necessary due to the
uncertainty associated with predicting reactor disinfection performance
entirely through modeling or through reduced-scale testing. Under
today's rule, EPA intends UV reactor validation testing to be reactor-
specific and not site-specific. This means that once a UV reactor has
been validated for a range of operating conditions, the validation test
results can be applied by all PWSs that will operate within those
conditions without the need for retesting at each individual site.
Validation testing must account for factors that will influence the
dose delivered by UV reactors during routine operation. These factors
include UV absorbance, lamp fouling, lamp aging, the performance of UV
intensity sensors, hydraulic flow path and residence time
distributions, UV lamp failure, and reactor inlet and outlet
hydraulics. The successful outcome of validation testing is the
determination of acceptable operating ranges for parameters the PWSs
can monitor to ensure delivery of the required UV dose during
treatment. The specific parameters will vary depending on the reactor
control strategy. In all cases, however, PWSs must monitor UV intensity
within the reactor as measured by UV sensors, the flow rate, and the
status of lamps. EPA believes that any effective UV reactor control
strategy will involve monitoring for these parameters.
Today's rule requires all PWSs using UV for disinfection compliance
to treat
[[Page 711]]
at least 95 percent of the water distributed to the public each month
with UV reactors operating within validated conditions for the required
UV dose. EPA views this 95 percent limit as a feasible minimum level of
performance for PWSs to achieve, while ensuring the desired level of
health protection is provided. For purposes of design and operation,
PWSs should strive to deliver the required UV dose at all times during
treatment.
EPA developed these requirements and the associated UV Disinfection
Guidance Manual solely for public water systems using UV light to meet
drinking water disinfection standards established under SDWA. EPA has
not addressed and did not consider the extension of these requirements
and guidance to other applications, including point of entry or point
of use devices for residential water treatment that are not operated by
public water systems to meet SDWA disinfection standards.
c. Summary of Major Comments
Public comment on the August 11, 2003 LT2ESWTR proposal supported
the inclusion of UV light in the microbial toolbox for Cryptosporidium
inactivation. EPA received significant comment on the UV dose tables,
the use of adenovirus as the basis for virus UV dose requirements, UV
compliance standards for filtered systems, and safety factors
associated with draft guidance. These comments and EPA's responses are
summarized as follows.
Commenters generally supported the proposed UV dose values for
Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia inactivation and recommended that
EPA incorporate these values into the final rule. Several commenters
requested that EPA provide values for 3.5-, 4.0- or higher log
inactivation of Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia because available
dose-response data include this range. Due to factors like tailing and
censoring in the underlying dose-response data, some commenters stated
that the proposed UV dose values are conservative and advised EPA to
consider this conservatism when recommending additional safety factors
in guidance.
In response, EPA has extended the UV dose table in today's rule to
cover 3.5- and 4.0-log Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia
inactivation. None of EPA's regulations require inactivation of
Cryptosporidium or Giardia lamblia above these levels, so EPA has not
established UV dose requirements for inactivation above 4-log. EPA
believes that the statistical analysis used to determine the required
UV doses appropriately accounts for variability, tailing, and censoring
in the underlying dose-response data. However, the required UV dose
values do not account for bias and uncertainty associated with UV
reactor validation and monitoring, which are addressed in guidance.
Several commenters were concerned with the use of adenovirus to set
UV dose requirements for virus inactivation because the resulting dose
values are several times higher than typical UV doses for drinking
water disinfection. These high dose values impact the feasibility of
PWSs using UV to fully meet virus treatment requirements, which will
hinder the use of UV to reduce DBPs and for point-of-entry treatment.
Commenters requested that EPA consider waterborne viruses that are more
UV-sensitive, such as rotavirus or hepatitus, when setting UV dose
requirements. Commenters noted that adenovirus commonly causes
infections of the lung or eye, which are not transmitted through water
consumption, and that no drinking water outbreaks associated with
adenovirus have been reported in the United States.
EPA recognizes that the UV doses for virus inactivation in today's
rule are relatively high and that this will limit the degree to which
PWSs can use UV for virus treatment. Based on occurrence and health
effects, however, EPA continues to believe that UV dose requirements
should be protective for adenovirus. The existing requirement for 4-log
virus treatment, as established under the SWTR, applies to all
waterborne viruses of public health concern in PWSs. Adenovirus is
consistently found in water subject to fecal contamination and can be
transmitted through consumption of or exposure to contaminated water.
It is a common cause of diarrheal illness, particularly in children,
and fecal shedding is prevalent in asymptomatic adults. While illness
from adenovirus is typically self-limiting, severe health effects,
including death, can occur. Consequently, EPA regards adenovirus as a
potential health concern in PWSs and has established UV dose
requirements to address it.
Many commenters recommended that EPA establish a compliance
standard for the operation of UV reactors within validated conditions
by filtered PWSs, similar to the 95 percent standard proposed for
unfiltered PWSs. Commenters were concerned that without a clear
compliance standard in the rule, filtered PWSs would be held to
inconsistent and unclear standards, which would impede the design and
implementation of UV systems. Some commenters recommended that filtered
PWSs by held to the same 95 percent standard as unfiltered PWSs, while
others recommended a lower 90 percent standard on the basis that
filtered PWSs have more barriers of protection.
EPA agrees that establishing a clear compliance standard for the
use of UV to meet inactivation requirements is appropriate. For
filtered PWSs using UV to meet microbial treatment requirements,
today's final rule requires at least 95 percent of the water
distributed to consumers to be treated by UV reactors operating within
validated conditions. This is the same standard that applies to
unfiltered PWSs. EPA believes that a 95th percentile standard is
feasible for all PWSs and represents the minimum level of performance
that should be achieved. During routine operation, PWSs should endeavor
to maintain UV reactors within validated conditions for the required UV
dose at all times.
E. Disinfection Benchmarking for Giardia lamblia and Viruses
1. Today's Rule
The purpose of disinfection benchmarking under today's rule is to
ensure that PWSs maintain protection against microbial pathogens as
they implement the Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR. If a PWS proposes to make
a significant change in disinfection practice, the PWS must perform the
following:
Develop a disinfection profile for Giardia lamblia and
viruses. A disinfection profile consists of documenting Giardia lamblia
and virus log inactivation levels at least weekly over a period of at
least one year. PWSs that operate for less than one year must profile
only during the period of operation. The calculated log inactivation
levels must include the entire treatment plant and must be based on
operational and water quality data, such as disinfectant residual
concentration(s), contact time(s), temperature(s), and, where
necessary, pH. PWSs may create profiles by conducting new weekly (or
more frequent) monitoring and/or by using previously collected data. A
PWS that created a Giardia lamblia disinfection profile under the
IESWTR or LT1ESWTR may use the operational data collected for the
Giardia lamblia profile to create a virus disinfection profile.
Calculate a disinfection benchmark, using the following
procedure: (1) Determine the calendar month with the lowest log
inactivation; (2) The lowest month becomes the critical period for that
year; (3) If acceptable data from
[[Page 712]]
multiple years are available, the average of critical periods for each
year becomes the benchmark; (4) If only one year of data is available,
the critical period for that year is the benchmark.
Notify the State before implementing the significant
change in disinfection practice. The notification to the State must
include a description of the proposed change, the disinfection profiles
and inactivation benchmarks for Giardia lamblia and viruses, and an
analysis of how the proposed change will affect the current
inactivation benchmarks.
For the purpose of these requirements, significant changes in
disinfection practice are defined as (1) moving the point of
disinfection (this is not intended to include routine seasonal changes
already approved by the State), (2) changing the type of disinfectant,
(3) changing the disinfection process, or (4) making other
modifications designated as significant by the State. The Disinfection
Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual provides information to PWSs
and States on the development of disinfection profiles, identification
and evaluation of significant changes in disinfection practices, and
considerations for setting an alternative benchmark (USEPA 1999d).
2. Background and Analysis
A goal in the development of rules to control microbial pathogens
and disinfection byproducts (DBPs) is the balancing risks between these
two classes of contaminants. EPA established disinfection profiling and
benchmarking under the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR, based on a recommendation
by the Stage 1 M-DBP Advisory Committee, to ensure that PWSs maintained
adequate protection against pathogens as they reduced risk from DBPs.
EPA is extending profiling and benchmarking requirements to the
LT2ESWTR for the same objective.
Some PWSs will make significant changes in their current
disinfection practice to meet TTHM and HAA5 requirements under the
Stage 2 DBPR and to provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium
under the LT2ESWTR. To ensure that these PWSs maintain disinfection
that is effective against a broad spectrum of microbial pathogens, EPA
believes that PWSs and States should evaluate the effects of
significant changes in disinfection practice on current microbial
treatment levels. Disinfection profiling and benchmarking serves as a
tool for making such evaluations.
The August 11, 2003 LT2ESWTR proposal included disinfection
profiling and benchmarking requirements. Under the proposal, profiling
for Giardia lamblia and viruses was required if a PWS was required to
monitor for Cryptosporidium or, in the case of small PWSs, exceeded 80
percent of the TTHM or HAA5 MCL based on a locational running annual
average. Under this approach, most large PWSs and a significant
fraction of small PWSs were required to develop profiles. The proposal
also included a schedule for disinfection profile development. Those
PWSs that developed profiles were then required to calculate a
disinfection benchmark and notify the State if they proposed to make a
significant change in disinfection practice.
In today's final rule, EPA has significantly modified the
applicability requirements for disinfection profiling. PWSs are only
required to develop a disinfection profile if they propose to make a
significant change in disinfection practice after completing the first
round of source water monitoring. EPA has made this change from the
proposal because under the LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR, most PWSs will
not be required to make significant changes to their disinfection
practice. Consequently, most PWSs will not need a disinfection profile.
EPA believes that disinfection profiling requirements should be
targeted to those PWSs that will make significant disinfection changes.
EPA has also eliminated the scheduling requirements for development
of the disinfection profile in order to provide more flexibility to
PWSs and States. Today's rule only requires that PWSs notify States
prior to making a significant change in their disinfection practice and
that this notification include the disinfection profiles and
benchmarks, along with an analysis of how the proposed change will
affect the current benchmarks. EPA believes that PWSs should collect
the operational data needed to develop disinfection profiles, such as
disinfectant residual, water temperature, and flow rate, as part of
routine practice. PWSs that do not have current disinfection profiles
should record this operational information at least weekly for one year
so that they can use it to develop disinfection profiles if required.
Today's rule retains the proposed requirement that when
disinfection profiling is required, PWSs must develop profiles for both
Giardia lamblia and viruses. EPA believes that profiling for both
target pathogens is appropriate because the types of treatment changes
that PWSs will make to comply with the Stage 2 DBPR or LT2ESWTR could
lead to a significant change in the inactivation level for one pathogen
but not the other. For example, a PWS that switches from chlorine to UV
light to meet Giardia lamblia inactivation requirements is likely to
maintain a high level of treatment for this pathogen. The level of
treatment for viruses, however, may be significantly reduced. In
general, viruses are much more sensitive to chlorine than Giardia but
are more resistant to UV. The situation for a PWS switching to
microfiltration is similar. The same operational data are used to
develop disinfection profiles for both Giardia lamblia and viruses.
As was the case with the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR, the disinfection
benchmark under today's rule is not intended to function as a
regulatory standard. Rather, the objective of these provisions is to
facilitate interactions between the States and PWSs to assess the
impact on microbial risk of proposed changes to disinfection practice.
Final decisions regarding levels of disinfection for Giardia lamblia
and viruses beyond the minimum required by regulation will continue to
be left to the States and PWSs. To ensure that the level of treatment
for both protozoan and viral pathogens is appropriate, States and PWSs
should consider site-specific factors such as source water
contamination levels and the reliability of treatment processes.
3. Summary of Major Comments
EPA received significant public comment on disinfection profiling
and benchmarking requirements in the August 11, 2003 proposal. A few
commenters supported the proposed requirements but most raised concerns
with the burden and usefulness of disinfection profiling and requested
greater flexibility. These comments and EPA's responses are summarized
as follows.
Commenters stated that disinfection profiling diverts PWS and State
resources from other public health protection activities and presents
an incomplete picture of the information that should be considered when
evaluating disinfection changes. Further, some States can only require
the level of treatment specified in regulations (e.g., the SWTR,
IESWTR, LT1ESWTR) and cannot use a disinfection benchmark to enforce a
higher treatment standard. Some commenters also disagreed with
requiring a disinfection profile for viruses, since current
disinfection practices targeting Giardia lamblia typically achieve much
greater virus inactivation than required.
[[Page 713]]
To address these concerns, commenters requested that profiling only
be required for PWSs prior to switching disinfectants or that States be
allowed to grant waivers from disinfection profiling requirements.
Commenters also recommended that States be given flexibility to
determine the appropriate time for PWSs to develop disinfection
profiles, if necessary. In regard to virus profiling, some commenters
suggested that it only be required for PWSs that have not developed
profiles for Giardia lamblia or that are switching disinfectants to UV.
In response, EPA has modified the proposed requirements for
disinfection profiling and benchmarking from the proposal to
significantly reduce the burden on PWSs and States. In today's final
rule, profiling is only required for PWSs that propose to make a
significant change in disinfection practice. EPA projects that most
PWSs will not be required to make treatment changes to comply with the
LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR and, as a result, will not be required to
develop disinfection profiles. Further, today's rule gives PWSs and
States flexibility to determine the timing for developing disinfection
profiles and only requires that the profiles and benchmarks be included
in a notification to the State before a PWS implements a significant
change in disinfection practice. For PWSs that have not developed
disinfection profiles, EPA recommends recording the necessary
operational data at least weekly over one year so that a profile can be
prepared if needed.
For PWSs that propose to make a significant change in disinfection
practice, today's rule maintains the proposed requirement for a
disinfection profile for viruses. EPA recognizes that current
disinfection practices with chlorine typically achieve far more virus
inactivation than required. However, the types of treatment changes
that PWSs will make to comply with the Stage 2 DBPR or LT2ESWTR, such
as implementing UV or microfiltration, are likely to maintain high
levels of treatment for Giardia lamblia but may result in a significant
decrease in treatment for viruses. Consequently, EPA believes that
States and PWSs should consider whether such a decrease in virus
treatment will occur when evaluating proposed treatment changes.
Moreover, developing a virus disinfection profile does not require
the collection of operational data beyond that necessary to develop a
Giardia lamblia disinfection profile. Therefore, today's rule allows
PWSs to use previously developed Giardia lamblia disinfection profiles
and allows the operational data that underlie the Giardia lamblia
profile to be used for a virus disinfection profile.
F. Requirements for Systems With Uncovered Finished Water Storage
Facilities
1. Today's Rule
Today's rule requires PWSs that store treated water in an open
reservoir (i.e., use uncovered finished water storage facilities) to do
either of the following:
Cover the finished water storage facility; or
Treat the discharge of the uncovered finished water
storage facility that is distributed to consumers to achieve
inactivation and/or removal of 4-log virus, 3-log Giardia lamblia, and
2-log Cryptosporidium.
PWSs must notify the State if they use uncovered finished water
storage facilities no later than April 1, 2008. PWSs must either meet
the requirements of today's rule for covering or treating each facility
or be in compliance with a State-approved schedule for meeting these
requirements no later than April 1, 2009.
Today's rule revises the definition of an uncovered finished water
storage facility as follows: uncovered finished water storage facility
is a tank, reservoir, or other facility used to store water that will
undergo no further treatment to reduce microbial pathogens except
residual disinfection and is directly open to the atmosphere.
2. Background and Analysis
The requirements in today's rule for PWSs that use uncovered
finished water storage facilities (open reservoirs) are based on an
assessment of the types and sources of contaminants in open reservoirs,
the efficacy and feasibility of regulatory approaches to reduce risks
from this contamination, and comments on the August 11, 2003 proposal.
The following discussion summarizes this assessment.
a. Types and sources of contaminants in open reservoirs. The
storage of treated drinking water in open reservoirs can lead to
significant water quality degradation and health risks to consumers
(USEPA 1999e). Examples of such water quality degradation include
increases in algal cells, coliform bacteria, heterotrophic plate count
bacteria, turbidity, particulates, DBPs, metals, taste and odor, insect
larvae, Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and nitrate (USEPA 1999e).
Contamination of open reservoirs occurs through surface water runoff,
bird and animal wastes, human activity, algal growth, insects and fish,
and airborne deposition. Additional information on these sources of
contamination follows.
If a reservoir receives surface water runoff, the SWTR requires
that it be treated as raw water storage, rather than a finished water
reservoir (40 CFR 141.70(a)). Nevertheless, many uncovered finished
water reservoirs have been found to be affected by surface water
runoff, which may include agricultural fertilizers, pesticides,
microbial pathogens, automotive fluids and residues, sediment,
nutrients, natural organic matter, and metals (USEPA 1999e,
LeChevallier et al. 1997).
Birds are a significant cause of contamination in open reservoirs,
and bird feces may contain coliform bacteria, viruses, and other human
pathogens, including vibrio cholera, Salmonella, Mycobacteria, Typhoid,
Giardia, and Cryptosporidium (Geldreich and Shaw 1993). Birds can
ingest pathogens at landfills or wastewater treatment plants prior to
visiting a reservoir and have been shown to carry and pass infectious
Cryptosporidium parvum (Graczyk et al. 1996). Five to twenty percent of
birds are estimated to be periodically infected with human pathogens
like Salmonella (USEPA 1999e). A 1993 Salmonella outbreak in Gideon, MO
that resulted in seven deaths was traced to pigeons roosting in a
finished water storage tank.
Animals that are either known or suspected to contaminate open
reservoirs include dogs, cats, deer, rats, mice, opossums, squirrels,
muskrats, raccoons, beavers, rabbits, and frogs. Some animals are
infected with human pathogens like Cryptosporidium, which can be
discharged to the reservoirs in feces or transmitted by direct contact
between animals and the water (Fayer and Unger 1986, Current 1986,
USEPA 1999e).
Open reservoirs are exposed to contamination through human
activities. Pesticides and fertilizers can enter open reservoirs
through runoff and airborne drifts from spray applications. Swimming in
reservoirs can result in pathogens being passed from the feces, shedded
skin, and mucus membranes of infected persons. PWSs routinely find a
great variety of items that have been thrown into open reservoirs,
despite the use of high fences and set-back distances. Such items
include baby carriages, beer bottles, bicycles, bullets, dead animals,
dog waste bags, fireworks, garbage cans, a pay phone, shoes, and
shovels (USEPA 1999e). These items are a potential source of pathogens
and toxic substances and clearly indicate the
[[Page 714]]
susceptibility of open reservoirs to intentional contamination.
Algal growth is common in open reservoirs and can lead to aesthetic
problems like color, taste, and odor, and may generate cyanobacterial
toxins, which cause headaches, fever, diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea,
and vomiting. In addition, algae can increase other contaminants like
DBPs by increasing biomass within reservoirs, and corrosion products
like lead, through causing significant pH fluctuations. Algae have been
shown to shield bacteria from the effects of disinfection (Geldreich
and Shaw 1993).
Open reservoirs may be infested with the larvae of insects such as
midge flies, water fleas, and gnats, which can be carried through the
distribution system from the reservoir (USEPA 1999e). Chlorination is
ineffective against midge fly larvae. Fly outbreaks may increase the
presence of insect-eating birds, which present another source of
contamination as described earlier. Some open finished water reservoirs
have been found to support fish populations.
Open reservoirs also are subject to airborne deposition of
contaminants, such as industrial pollutants, automobile emissions,
pollen, dust, particulate matter, and bacteria. Deposition occurs
during all types of weather conditions, but is likely to be accelerated
during precipitation events as air pollutants are transported from the
air column above the reservoir by rain or snow.
b. Regulatory approaches to reduce risk from contamination in open
reservoirs. For many decades, public health agencies and professional
associations like the American Public Health Association, the U.S.
Public Health Service, and the American Water Works Association have
recommended that all finished water reservoirs be covered (USEPA
1999e). In the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR, EPA prohibited the construction of
new uncovered finished water reservoirs (40 CFR 141.170(c) and
141.511). These regulations did not address existing uncovered finished
water reservoirs, however. In the preamble to the IESWTR, EPA stated
that a requirement to cover existing reservoirs would be considered
when data to develop national cost estimates were available.
EPA has now collected the necessary data to estimate costs
associated with regulatory control strategies for uncovered finished
water reservoirs. The August 11, 2003 LT2ESWTR proposal included three
options for PWSs with uncovered finished water reservoirs to reduce
risk: (1) cover the reservoir, (2) treat the discharge to achieve 4-log
virus inactivation, or (3) implement a State-approved risk mitigation
plan (USEPA 2003a). These options reflected recommendations from the
Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee (USEPA 2000a). Today's final rule
includes the first option to cover, modifies the second option to also
require 3-log Giardia and 2-log Cryptosporidium treatment, and does not
establish an option for a risk mitigation plan. The following
discussion describes the basis for these changes.
As described earlier, studies have shown that small mammals and
birds that live near water may be infected with Cryptosporidium and
Giardia and may shed infectious oocysts and cysts into the water
(Graczyk et al. 1996, Fayer and Unger 1986, Current 1986). LeChevallier
et al. (1997) evaluated Cryptosporidium and Giardia levels in six
uncovered finished water reservoirs. The geometric mean concentration
of Cryptosporidium was 1.2 oocysts/100 L in the inlet samples and 8.1
oocysts/100 L in the effluent samples (i.e., 600 percent increase in
the reservoir). For Giardia, the geometric mean concentrations in the
inlet and effluent samples were 1.9 and 6.1 cysts/100 L, respectively
(i.e., 200 percent increase in reservoir).
Most, if not all, PWSs would treat to achieve 4-log virus
inactivation with chlorine. Based on EPA guidance, the dose of chlorine
necessary for 4-log virus inactivation would not achieve even 0.5-log
Giardia inactivation and would produce no inactivation of
Cryptosporidium (USEPA 1991b). Consequently, PWSs treating for viruses
in open reservoirs, as proposed, would provide very little protection
against contamination by Giardia and Cryptosporidium.
Due to the demonstrated potential for contamination by Giardia and
Cryptosporidium in open reservoirs and the ineffectiveness of virus
treatment against these pathogens, today's rule requires PWSs to treat
for Giardia and Cryptosporidium in addition to viruses if they do not
cover their finished water reservoirs. Specifically, today's rule
specifies the same baseline treatment as required for a raw unfiltered
source, which is 4-log virus, 3-log Giardia, and 2-log Cryptosporidium
reduction.
EPA believes that requiring treatment for viruses, Giardia, and
Cryptosporidium in uncovered finished water reservoirs is consistent
with SDWA section 1412(b)(7)(A), which authorizes the use of a
treatment technique to prevent adverse health effects to the extent
feasible if measuring the contaminant is not feasible. Monitoring for
these pathogens at the very low levels that would cause public health
concern and at the frequency necessary to detect contamination events
is not feasible with available analytical methods. EPA has determined
that with the availability of technologies like UV, treating for
Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and viruses is feasible for all PWS sizes.
Today's rule does not allow PWSs to implement a risk mitigation
plan as an alternative to covering a reservoir or treating the
discharge because EPA does not believe that a risk mitigation plan
would provide equivalent public health protection. Consequently, a risk
mitigation plan would not meet the statutory provision for a treatment
technique to prevent adverse health effects from pathogens like Giardia
and Cryptosporidium to the extent feasible (SDWA section
1412(b)(7)(A)).
As discussed earlier, open reservoirs are subject to contamination
from many sources, including runoff, birds, animals, humans, algae,
insects, and airborne deposition. Control measures can provide a degree
of protection against some of these sources (e.g., bird deterrent
wires, security fences with setback distances). All PWSs are
significantly constrained, however, in the degree to which they can
implement such measures with existing open reservoirs due to factors
like the size of the reservoir, the location of the reservoir (e.g.,
within residential communities or parks), and the existing
infrastructure. For example, many open finished water reservoirs are
impacted by runoff, despite the fact that this has been prohibited for
many years under existing regulations (USEPA 1999e). EPA has concluded
that implementing control measures that would be highly effective
against all sources of contamination of open reservoirs would not be
feasible for PWSs. Accordingly, today's rule does not allow this
option.
c. Definition of uncovered finished water storage facility. The
IESWTR established the following definition for an uncovered finished
water storage facility: uncovered finished water storage facility is a
tank, reservoir, or other facility used to store water that will
undergo no further treatment except residual disinfection and is open
to the atmosphere.
In the August 11, 2003, proposed LT2ESWTR, EPA requested comment on
whether this definition should be revised. EPA was concerned that it
would not include certain cases in which water is stored in an open
reservoir after a PWS completes treatment to reduce microbial
[[Page 715]]
pathogens. Such a case would be a PWS that applies a corrosion
inhibitor to the effluent of an open reservoir where water is stored
after filtration and primary disinfection. In this case, the PWS could
claim that the corrosion inhibitor constitutes additional treatment
and, consequently, the open reservoir does not meet EPA's definition of
an uncovered finished water storage facility. However, the water stored
in the open reservoir would be subject to microbial contamination from
the sources described in this section and would undergo no further
treatment for this contamination.
Today's rule revises the definition of an uncovered finished water
storage facility in two ways: (1) The phrase ``to reduce microbial
pathogens'' is inserted following the word ``treatment;'' and (2) the
word ``directly'' is inserted prior to ``open to the atmosphere.'' The
first change ensures that an open reservoir where water is stored after
a PWS has completed filtration (where required) and primary
disinfection will be appropriately classified as an uncovered finished
water storage facility. Whether a PWS applies corrosion control or
other treatment to maintain water quality in the distribution system
will not affect this determination.
The second change clarifies that covered reservoirs with air vents
or overflow lines are not uncovered finished water storage facilities.
Such air vents and overflow lines are open to the atmosphere but are
usually hooded or screened to prevent contamination of the water.
Consequently, these reservoirs are not directly open to the atmosphere
and are not subject to the requirements of today's rule for uncovered
finished water storage facilities.
3. Summary of Major Comments
EPA received significant public comment on requirements for
uncovered finished water storage facilities in the August 11, 2003
proposal. Major issues raised by commenters include whether to require
all reservoirs to be covered, requiring treatment for Giardia and
Cryptosporidium, support for the proposed options, and revising the
definition of an uncovered finished water storage facilities. A summary
of these comments and EPA's responses follows.
Several commenters recommended that EPA require all finished water
reservoirs to be covered. These commenters stated that making an
uncovered reservoir equal in quality to a covered reservoir is not
possible--open reservoirs will always be contaminated by fecal material
from birds and small mammals, as well as increased DBPs due to algae
and other aquatic organisms, airborne contaminants, and sediment
stirred up by wind. Commenters were also concerned that uncovered
reservoirs are a major vulnerability for PWS security (i.e.,
intentional contamination). Some commenters cited the fact that there
are hundreds of thousands of covered finished water reservoirs in
comparison to approximately 100 uncovered finished water reservoirs as
evidence that the public health risks of open reservoirs are widely
recognized.
EPA agrees that storing treated water in open reservoirs presents a
risk to public health. With today's final rule, EPA expects that many
PWSs will cover or eliminate uncovered finished water reservoirs. For
reservoirs where covering is not feasible, EPA believes that treating
the water for Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and viruses will provide
protection against the range of pathogens likely to contaminate the
reservoir.
Many commenters supported requiring treatment for Giardia and
Cryptosporidium for PWSs that treat the reservoir discharge. Commenters
stated that reservoirs should either be covered or treated as
unfiltered sources (meaning 3-log Giardia, 2-log Cryptosporidium, and
4-log virus treatment). The LeChevallier et al. (1997) study was cited
as demonstrating increases in Giardia and Cryptosporidium in uncovered
finished water reservoirs, and commenters noted that treatment for
viruses would not be effective against these protozoa. EPA agrees with
these comments and today's rule requires treatment for Giardia and
Cryptosporidium, as well as viruses, by PWSs that do not cover their
reservoirs.
Some commenters expressed support for the proposed options,
including allowing risk mitigation plans as an adequate remedy for an
uncovered reservoir. These commenters characterized the proposal as
providing reasonable alternatives to the substantial costs involved in
covering reservoirs or providing alternative storage. Commenters stated
that strategies included in a risk management plan could address the
range of microorganisms for which treatment is necessary, depending on
site-specific circumstances.
EPA recognizes that covering or finding alternative storage for
uncovered finished water reservoirs can be costly. While EPA believes
that covering finished water reservoirs is the most effective approach
to protecting public health, today's rule allows PWSs to provide
treatment for Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and viruses as a feasible
alternative. As described earlier, EPA does not believe that providing
treatment only for viruses, as proposed, would be protective against
the range of pathogens that contaminate open reservoirs. Further, EPA
has concluded that implementing a risk mitigation plan that would
provide equivalent protection to covering or treating a reservoir is
not feasible. This is due to the many potential sources of
contamination and the significant limitations that all PWSs have in the
control measures they can implement for existing open reservoirs.
Commenters supported revising the definition of uncovered finished
water storage facilities to include situations where PWSs apply a
treatment like corrosion control to water stored in an open reservoir
after the water has undergone filtration, where required, and primary
disinfection. In addition, commenters recommended that EPA clarify that
``open to the atmosphere'' in the definition does not include vents and
overflow lines in covered reservoirs. EPA agrees with these comments
and today's rule is consistent with them.
G. Compliance Schedules
1. Today's Rule
This section specifies compliance dates for the monitoring and
treatment technique requirements in today's rule. As described in
sections IV.A through IV.F of this preamble, today's rule requires PWSs
to carry out the following activities:
Conduct initial source water monitoring on a reported
schedule. PWSs may grandfather previously collected monitoring results
and may elect to provide the maximum Cryptosporidium treatment level of
5.5-log for filtered PWSs or 3.0-log for unfiltered PWSs instead of
monitoring.
Determine a treatment bin classification (or mean
Cryptosporidium level for unfiltered PWSs) based on monitoring results.
For filtered PWSs in Bins 2-4 and all unfiltered PWSs,
provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium by selecting
technologies from the microbial toolbox.
Report disinfection profiles and benchmarks prior to
making a significant change in disinfection practice.
Report the use of uncovered finished water storage
facilities and cover or treat the discharge of such reservoirs on a
State-approved schedule.
[[Page 716]]
Conduct a second round of source water monitoring
approximately six years after initial bin classification.
Compliance dates for these activities vary by PWS size. Tables
IV.G-1 and IV.G-2 specify source water monitoring and treatment
compliance dates for large and small PWSs, respectively. Table IV.G-3
shows compliance dates for PWSs using uncovered finished water storage
facilities. Wholesale PWSs must comply with the requirements of today's
rule based on the population of the largest PWS in the combined
distribution system.
Table IV.G-1.--Monitoring and Treatment Compliance Dates for PWSs Serving at Least 10,000 People
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance dates by PWS Size
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement PWSs serving at least PWSs serving at least
PWSs serving at least 50,000 but less than 10,000 but less than
100,000 people 100,000 people 50,000 people
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report sampling schedule and sampling No later than July 1, No later than January No later than January
location description for initial 2006.. 1, 2007. 1, 2008.
source water monitoring for
Cryptosporidium (plus E. coli and
turbidity at filtered PWSs) 1, 2.
Report notice of intent to
grandfather previously collected
Cryptosporidium data, if applicable.
Report intent to provide the maximum
Cryptosporidium treatment level in
lieu of monitoring, if applicable
\1\.
Begin initial source water monitoring No later than the month No later than the month No later than the month
for Cryptosporidium (plus E. coli beginning October 1, beginning April 1, beginning April 1,
and turbidity at filtered PWSs) 1,2. 2006. 2007. 2008.
Submit previously collected No later than December No later than June 1, No later than June 1,
Cryptosporidium data and required 1, 2006. 2007.. 2008.
documentation for grandfathering, if
applicable.
Report Cryptosporidium treatment bin No later than the month No later than the month No later than the month
classification (or mean beginning April 1, beginning October 1, beginning October 1,
Cryptosporidium concentration for 2009. 2009. 2010.
unfiltered PWSs) and supporting data
for approval.
Report disinfection profiles and Prior to making a significant change in disinfection practice.
benchmarks, if applicable.
Comply with additional No later than April 1, No later than October No later than October
Cryptosporidium treatment 2012 \3\. 1, 2013 \3\. 1, 2012 \3\.
requirements based on treatment bin
classification (or mean
Cryptosporidium concentration for
unfiltered PWSs) \3\.
Report sampling schedule and sampling No later than January No later than July 1, No later than July 1,
location description for second 1, 2015. 2015.. 2016.
round of source water monitoring for
Cryptosporidium (plus E. coli and
turbidity at filtered PWSs) \1\.
Report intent to provide maximum
Cryptosporidium treatment level in
lieu of monitoring, if applicable
\1\.
Begin second round of source water No later than the month No later than the month No later than the month
monitoring for Cryptosporidium (plus beginning April 1, beginning October 1, beginning October 1,
E. coli and turbidity at filtered 2015. 2015. 2016.
PWSs) \1\.
Report Cryptosporidium treatment bin No later than the month No later than the month No later than the month
classification (or mean beginning October 1, beginning April 1, beginning April 1,
Cryptosporidium concentration for 2017. 2018. 2019.
unfiltered PWSs) and supporting data
from second round of monitoring for
approval.
Comply with additional On a schedule the State approves.
Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements if bin classification
(or mean Cryptosporidium
concentration for unfiltered PWSs)
changes based on second round of
monitoring.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PWS are not required to conduct source water monitoring if they submit a notice of intent to provide the
maximum Cryptosporidium treatment level: 5.5-log for filtered PWSs or 3.0-log for unfiltered PWSs.
\2\ Not required if PWS grandfathers at least 2 years of Cryptosporidium data.
\3\ States may grant up to an additional 2 years for systems making capital improvements.
Table IV.G-2.--Monitoring and Treatment Compliance Dates for PWSs
Serving Fewer Than 10,000 People
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement Compliance dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicator (E. coli) Monitoring Requirements for Filtered PWSs Only
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report sampling schedule and sampling No later than July 1, 2008.
location description for initial
source water monitoring for E. coli or
alternative State-approved indicator1
2.
Report notice intent to grandfather ...............................
previously collected E. coli data, if
applicable.
Report intent to provide the maximum ...............................
Cryptosporidium treatment level in
lieu of monitoring, if applicable \1\.
Begin initial source water monitoring No later than the month
for E. coli1 2. beginning October 1, 2008.
Report E. coli data for grandfathering, No later than December 1, 2008.
if applicable.
[[Page 717]]
Report sampling schedule and sampling No later than July 1, 2017.
location description for second round
of source water monitoring for E. coli
\1\.
Report intent to provide the maximum ...............................
Cryptosporidium treatment level in
lieu of monitoring, if applicable \1\.
Begin second round of source water No later than the month
monitoring for E. coli \1\. beginning October 1, 2017.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance dates by monitoring option
---------------------------------------
Requirement PWSs monitoring PWSs monitoring
twice-per-month monthly for 2
for 1 year years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cryptosporidium Monitoring Requirements for Filtered PWSs That Exceed
Indicator (E. coli) Trigger Concentration \3\ and All Unfiltered PWSs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report sampling schedule and No later than January 1, 2010.
sampling location description
(if not reported previously)
for initial source water
monitoring for Cryptosporidium
1 4.
Report notice of intent to
grandfather previously
collected Cryptosporidium data,
if applicable.
Begin initial source water No later than the month beginning
monitoring for Cryptosporidium April 1, 2010.
1 4.
Submit previously collected No later than June
Cryptosporidium data and 1, 2010.
required documentation for
grandfathering, if applicable.
Report Cryptosporidium treatment No later than the No later than the
bin classification (or mean month beginning month beginning
Cryptosporidium concentration October 1, 2011. October 1, 2012.
for unfiltered PWSs) and
supporting data for approval.
Report disinfection profiles and Prior to making a significant change
benchmarks, if applicable. in disinfection practice.
Comply with additional No later than
Cryptosporidium treatment October 1, 2014
requirements based on treatment \5\.
bin classification (or mean
Cryptosporidium concentration
for unfiltered PWSs) \5\.
Report sampling schedule No later than than
sampling location description January 1, 2019.
(if not reported previously)
for second round of source
water Cryptosporidium
monitoring \1\.
Begin second round of source No later than the
water monitoring for month beginning
Cryptosporidium \1\.. April 1, 2019.
Report Cryptosporidium treatment No later than the No later than the
bin classification (or mean month beginning month beginning
Cryptosporidium concentration October 1, 2020. October 1, 2021.
for unfiltered PWSs) and
supporting data from second
round of monitoring for
approval.
Comply with additional On a schedule the State approves.
Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements if bin
classification (or mean
Cryptosporidium concentration
for unfiltered PWSs) changes
based on second round of
monitoring.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PWS are not required to conduct source water monitoring if they
submit a notice of intent to provide the maximum Cryptosporidium
treatment level: 5.5-log for filtered PWSs or 3.0-log for unfiltered
PWSs.
\2\ Not required if PWS grandfathers at least 1 year of E. coli data.
\3\ Filtered PWSs must conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring if the E. coli
annual mean concentration exceeds 10/100 mL for PWSs using lake or
reservoir sources or exceeds 50/100 mL for PWSs using flowing stream
sources or a trigger value for an alternative State-approved indicator
is exceeded.
\4\ Not required if PWS grandfathers at least 1 year of twice-per-month
or 2 years of monthly Cryptosporidium data.
\5\ States may grant up to an additional 2 years for PWSs making capital
improvements.
Table IV.G-3.--Compliance Dates for PWSs Using Uncovered Finished Water
Storage Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report the use of uncovered finished No later than April 1, 2008.
water storage facilities, if
applicable.
Either comply with requirement to cover No later than April 1, 2009.
or treat uncovered finished water
storage facilities or comply with
State-approved schedule to meet this
requirement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Background and Analysis
The compliance schedule in today's final rule stems from its risk-
targeted approach, wherein PWSs initially conduct monitoring to
determine additional treatment requirements. A primary objective of
this schedule is to ensure that PWSs provide additional treatment
without delay for higher risk sources. This is especially important
with a risk-targeted rule, given the significant time required for
initial monitoring. However, the compliance schedule balances this
objective with the need to provide PWSs and States with time to prepare
for implementation activities.
SDWA section 1412(b)(10) states that a drinking water regulation
shall take effect 3 years from the promulgation date unless the
Administrator determines that an earlier date is practicable. Today's
rule requires PWSs to begin monitoring prior to 3 years from the
promulgation date. Based on EPA's assessment and recommendations of the
Advisory Committee, as described in this section, EPA has determined
that these monitoring start dates are practicable and appropriate.
[[Page 718]]
In general, PWSs serving at least 10,000 people conduct two years
of source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium (as well as E. coli and
turbidity in filtered PWSs). At the conclusion of this monitoring,
these PWSs have six months to analyze monitoring results and report
their treatment bin classification to the State for approval. Where
required, PWSs must provide the necessary level of additional
Cryptosporidium treatment within three years of bin classification,
though States may allow an additional two years for PWSs making capital
improvements. A second round of source water monitoring must be
initiated six years after initial bin classification.
For PWSs serving at least 10,000 people, the timing of monitoring
and treatment activities in today's rule partially reflects
recommendations by the Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee and the
schedule in the August 11, 2003 proposed LT2ESWTR. EPA has modified the
proposed compliance schedule to stagger monitoring start dates for PWSs
serving 10,000 to 99,999 people. The following discussion addresses
these changes from the proposal.
The proposed rule required all PWSs serving at least 10,000 people
to begin source water monitoring six months after the rule was
established, as recommended by the Advisory Committee. Under today's
final rule, PWSs serving at least 100,000 people maintain this
schedule. The monitoring start date for PWSs serving 50,000 to 99,999
people is staggered by six months and begins 12 months after the rule
is effective. For PWSs serving 10,000 to 49,999, the monitoring start
date is staggered by 18 months and begins 24 months after the rule is
effective. Dates to comply with additional treatment requirements are
staggered accordingly.
This staggering of monitoring start dates for PWSs serving 10,000
to 99,999 people is advantageous in several respects:
Provides more time for PWSs that have not monitored for
Cryptosporidium previously to prepare for monitoring (PWSs serving at
least 100,000 people monitored for Cryptosporidium under the ICR). PWSs
can use this time to develop budgets, establish contracts with
Cryptosporidium laboratories, identify appropriate sampling locations,
and learn sampling procedures.
Provides more time for Cryptosporidium analytical
laboratories to build capacity as needed to accommodate the sample
analysis needs of PWSs.
Spreads out the transactional demand for regulatory
oversight. EPA anticipates that the period of greatest transactional
demand for States and EPA that oversee monitoring will be when PWSs
begin monitoring. The staggered schedule will allow States and EPA to
provide more assistance to individual PWSs.
Eliminates the gap between the end of large PWS monitoring
and the start of small PWS monitoring (under the proposed rule
schedule, a gap of 18 months existed between the time that large PWSs
completed and small PWSs started Cryptosporidium monitoring). Such a
gap could create difficulties with maintaining Cryptosporidium sampling
and laboratory analysis expertise to support monitoring by small PWSs.
The timing of monitoring and treatment activities in today's rule
for PWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people is nearly identical to the
schedule in the August 11, 2003 proposed LT2ESWTR and reflects
recommendations by the Advisory Committee. The only change is allowing
these PWSs the option to spread their Cryptosporidium monitoring over
two years in order to facilitate budgeting for this monitoring.
However, this change does not affect the treatment compliance dates for
these PWSs.
Specifically, filtered PWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people
initially conduct one year of source water monitoring for E. coli or an
alternative indicator if approved by the State, beginning 30 months
after the rule is effective. At the conclusion of this monitoring,
these PWSs have six months to prepare for Cryptosporidium monitoring,
if required based on their indicator monitoring results. Filtered PWSs
that exceed the indicator trigger value and all unfiltered PWSs serving
fewer than 10,000 people must begin Cryptosporidium monitoring 48
months after the rule is effective. This Cryptosporidium monitoring may
consist of sampling twice-per-month for one year or once-per-month for
two years. PWSs must report their bin classification to the State for
approval within six months of the scheduled completion of
Cryptosporidium monitoring.
Regardless of the Cryptosporidium sampling frequency, PWSs serving
fewer than 10,000 people must comply with any additional
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements within 102 months (8.5 years)
after the rule is effective. States may allow an additional two years
for PWSs making capital improvements. PWSs must begin a second round of
source water monitoring for E. coli or an alternative State-approved
indicator within 11.5 years (138 months) after the rule is effective
(six years after the bin classification date for PWSs that sampled for
Cryptosporidium twice-per-month during initial source water
monitoring).
In summary, the compliance schedule for today's rule maintains the
earliest compliance dates recommended by the Advisory Committee for
PWSs serving at least 100,000 people. These PWSs serve the majority of
people that consume water from surface sources. The schedule also
maintains the latest compliance dates the Advisory Committee
recommended, which apply to PWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people. EPA
has staggered compliance schedules for PWSs between these two size
categories in order to facilitate implementation of the rule.
3. Summary of Major Comments
EPA received significant public comment on the compliance schedule
in the August 11, 2003 proposal. Major issues raised by commenters
include providing more time for PWSs to prepare for monitoring, giving
States more time to oversee monitoring, ensuring that laboratory
capacity can accommodate the compliance schedule, and establishing
consistent schedules for consecutive PWSs. A summary of these comments
and EPA's responses follows.
Commenters were concerned that some PWSs, in particular PWSs
serving 10,000 to 50,000 people, would need more than the three months
allowed under the proposed rule to report sampling schedules for
monitoring. In order to develop sampling schedules, PWSs must establish
contracts with laboratories, which may involve using municipal
procurement procedures. For smaller PWSs, budgeting for this expense
may require substantial time and planning.
EPA recognizes this concern and today's final rule provides
significantly more time for many PWSs to submit sampling schedules.
Specifically, PWSs serving 50,000 to 99,999 people and those serving
10,000 to 49,999 people must submit sampling schedules 9 and 21 months
after the rule is effective, respectively. EPA believes that these PWSs
will have sufficient time to develop sampling schedules with these
compliance dates. Today's rule still requires PWSs serving at least
100,000 people to submit sampling schedules 3 months after the rule is
effective. Because these PWSs have monitored for Cryptosporidium
previously, however,
[[Page 719]]
EPA believes that this compliance date is feasible for these PWSs.
Several commenters recommended that States, rather than EPA,
oversee monitoring due to States' existing relationships with and
knowledge of their PWSs. Commenters were concerned that some States
will not participate in early implementation activities and indicated
that States would prefer monitoring to begin 24 months after rule
promulgation. States need sufficient time to become familiar with the
rule, train their staff, prepare primacy packages, and train PWSs.
In general, EPA would prefer that States oversee monitoring by
their PWSs and will work with States to facilitate their involvement
with rule implementation. Where States are unable to implement today's
rule, however, EPA is prepared to oversee implementation. Moreover, EPA
believes that the staggered compliance schedule in today's final rule
will enhance States' ability to implement the rule.
While EPA does not consider waiting until 24 months after rule
promulgation to start monitoring for all PWSs to be appropriate, most
PWSs will not begin monitoring until this time or later under today's
rule. Among large PWSs (i.e., those serving at least 10,000 people),
the majority are in the 10,000 to 49,999 person size category and these
PWSs do not begin monitoring until 24 months after rule promulgation.
Further, all PWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people do not begin
monitoring until 30 months after rule promulgation. These smaller PWSs
are likely to need the most assistance from States. By staggering
monitoring start dates, today's rule also reduces the number of PWSs
that will begin monitoring at any one time, when the most assistance
from regulatory agencies will be required.
Many commenters were concerned that the capacity at Cryptosporidium
analytical laboratories would not be sufficient for the proposed
implementation schedule. Commenters noted that the proposed rule
schedule had a break of 18 months between the end of large PWS
Cryptosporidium monitoring and the start of small PWS Cryptosporidium
monitoring and thought that this break would discourage laboratories
from making investments to improve capacity. Other commenters stated
that excess laboratory capacity exists and that upon indication that a
final rule is imminent, commercial laboratories will hire staff to
handle the expected number of samples. Laboratories will, however, need
time to train analysts.
EPA recognizes the concern with ensuring that capacity at
Cryptosporidium laboratories will be sufficient. Through EPA's
laboratory approval program (described in section IV.K), the Agency has
evaluated capacity at Cryptosporidium laboratories. Based on
information provided by laboratories, EPA believes that current
capacity at Cryptosporidium laboratories will be sufficient for the
monitoring that PWSs serving at least 100,000 people will begin six
months after the rule is effective. EPA expects that commercial
laboratories will increase capacity as needed to serve the demand of
smaller PWSs that begin monitoring later. Approximately six months are
required to train Cryptosporidium analysts. Consequently, the staggered
compliance schedule should allow time for laboratories to hire and
train staff as necessary. In addition, with the compliance schedule in
today's final rule, no break exists between the time that large PWSs
end and small PWSs begin Cryptosporidium monitoring. Thus, EPA has
eliminated this potential disincentive to laboratories investing in
capacity.
However, EPA will continue to monitor laboratory capacity and the
ability of PWSs to contract with laboratories to meet their monitoring
requirements under the LT2ESWTR. The Agency will assist with
implementation of the rule to help maximize the use of available
laboratory capacity by PWSs. If evidence emerges during implementation
of the rule that PWSs are experiencing problems with insufficient
laboratory capacity, the Agency will undertake appropriate action at
that time.
In regard to consecutive PWSs (i.e., PWSs that buy and sell treated
water), commenters recommended that compliance schedules in the Stage 2
DBPR and LT2ESWTR should be consistent. Some commenters also suggested
that where a small PWS sells water to a large PWS, the small PWS should
comply on the large PWS schedule. In response, today's final rule
requires PWSs that sell treated drinking water to other PWSs to comply
according to the schedule that applies to the largest PWS in the
combined distribution system. This approach will ensure that PWSs have
the same compliance schedule under both the LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR.
H. Public Notice Requirements
1. Today's Rule
Today's rule establishes the following public notice requirements:
For violations of treatment technique requirements, which
today's rule establishes for Cryptosporidium treatment and for covering
or treating uncovered finished water reservoirs, PWSs must issue a Tier
2 public notice and must use existing health effects language (except
as provided below) for microbiological contaminant treatment technique
violations, as stated in 40 CFR 141 Subpart Q, Appendix B.
For violations of monitoring and testing procedure
requirements, including the failure to collect one or two source water
Cryptosporidium samples, PWSs must issue a Tier 3 public notice. If the
State determines that a PWS has failed to collect three or more
Cryptosporidium samples, the PWS must provide a Tier 2 special public
notice. Violations for failing to monitor continue until the State
determines that the PWS has begun sampling on a revised schedule that
includes dates for collection of missed samples. This schedule may also
include a revised bin determination date where necessary.
PWSs must report their bin classification no later than
six months after the end of the scheduled monitoring period (specific
dates in section IV.G.). Failure by a PWS to collect the required
number of Cryptosporidium samples to report its bin classification by
the compliance date is a treatment technique violation and the PWS must
provide a Tier 2 public notice. The treatment technique violation
persists until the State determines that the PWS is implementing a
State-approved monitoring plan to allow bin classification or will
install the highest level of treatment required under the rule. If the
PWS has already provided a Tier 2 special public notice for missing 3
sampling dates and is successfully meeting a State-approved schedule
for sampling and bin determination, it need not provide a second Tier 2
notice for missing the bin determination deadline in today's rule.
2. Background and Aalysis
In 2000, EPA published the Public Notification Rule (65 FR 25982,
May 4, 2000) (USEPA 2000b), which revised the general public
notification regulations for PWSs in order to implement the public
notification requirements of the 1996 SDWA amendments. This regulation
established the requirements that PWSs must follow regarding the form,
manner, frequency, and content of a public notice. Public notification
of violations is an integral part of the public health protection and
consumer right-to-know
[[Page 720]]
provisions of the 1996 SDWA Amendments.
Owners and operators of PWSs are required to notify persons served
when they fail to comply with the requirements of a NPDWR, have a
variance or exemption from the drinking water regulations, or are
facing other situations posing a risk to public health. The public
notification requirements divide violations into three categories (Tier
1, Tier 2 and Tier 3) based on the seriousness of the violations, with
each tier having different public notification requirements.
EPA has limited its list of violations and situations routinely
requiring a Tier 1 notice to those with a significant potential for
serious adverse health effects from short term exposure. Tier 1
violations contain language specified by EPA that concisely and in non-
technical terms conveys to the public the adverse health effects that
may occur as a result of the violation. States and water utilities may
add additional information to each notice, as deemed appropriate for
specific situations. A State may elevate to Tier 1 other violations and
situations with significant potential to have serious adverse health
effects from short-term exposure, as determined by the State.
Tier 2 public notices address other violations with potential to
have serious adverse health effects on human health. Tier 2 notices are
required for the following situations:
All violations of the MCL, maximum residual disinfectant
level (MRDL) and treatment technique requirements, except where a Tier
1 notice is required or where the State determines that a Tier 1 notice
is required; and
Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of any
existing variance or exemption. Tier 3 public notices include all other
violations and situations requiring public notice, including the
following situations:
A monitoring or testing procedure violation, except where
a Tier 1 or 2 notice is already required or where the State has
elevated the notice to Tier 1 or 2; and
Operation under a variance or exemption.
The State, at its discretion, may elevate the notice requirement
for specific monitoring or testing procedures from a Tier 3 to a Tier 2
notice, taking into account the potential health impacts and
persistence of the violation.
As part of the IESWTR, EPA established health effects language for
violations of treatment technique requirements for microbiological
contaminants. EPA believes this language, which was developed with
consideration of Cryptosporidium health effects, is appropriate for
violations of some Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under the
LT2ESWTR. However, for persistent monitoring violations and missing the
deadline for bin determination, EPA is promulgating alternative
language that better informs consumers of the nature and potential
health consequences of the violation.
As described in section IV.C, EPA proposed automatically
classifying PWSs in the highest treatment bin (Bin 4) if they fail to
complete required monitoring. For today's final rule, EPA has
determined that providing more flexibility to States in dealing with
PWSs that fail to monitor is appropriate. EPA also believes, however,
that responses to monitoring failures must reasonably ensure that PWSs
complete monitoring as required to determine a bin classification
within the compliance date, or as soon thereafter as possible.
Moreover, consistent with the public health protection and consumer
right-to-know provisions of the 1996 SDWA Amendments, consumers should
be informed of these monitoring failures.
Instead of the proposed automatic Bin 4 classification for
monitoring failures under today's rule, PWSs must provide a Tier 3
public notice for monitoring violations including up to two missed
Cryptosporidium samples. If a PWS misses three or more Cryptosporidium
samples (other than the specifically exempted situations described in
section IV.A.1.c), this persistent violation requires a Tier 2 public
notice. This elevated public notice level reflects significant concern
that persistent failure to collect required samples will result in the
PWS being unable to determine its Cryptosporidium treatment bin
classification and the corresponding required treatment level by the
compliance date.
Further, if a PWS is unable to determine a bin classification by
the compliance date due to failure to collect the required number of
Cryptosporidium samples, this is a treatment technique violation that
also requires a Tier 2 public notice, unless the system is already
complying with an alternate State-approved schedule for monitoring and
bin determination. A PWS that does not determine its bin classification
by the required date may not be able to comply with the Cryptosporidium
treatment technique requirements of today's rule by the required date
and provide the appropriate level of public health protection.
3. Summary of Major Comments
In the August 11, 2003, proposal, EPA requested comment on whether
violations of the treatment requirements for Cryptosporidium under the
LT2ESWTR should require a Tier 2 public notice and whether the proposed
health effects language is appropriate (USEPA 2003a). Most commenters
supported requiring a Tier 2 public notice for violations of
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under the LT2ESWTR and agreed
that no new health effects language is needed for this notification.
One commenter stated that a failure to meet Cryptosporidium removal
requirements under LT2ESWTR should require Tier 1 public notice.
Today's final rule reflects the views of most commenters and is
consistent with existing regulations in requiring a Tier 2 public
notice for Cryptosporidium treatment technique violations. A State may
elevate a violation to Tier 1 if the State determines that the
violation creates significant potential for serious adverse health
effects from short-term exposure.
Another commenter agreed that Tier 2 notice was appropriate but
recommended that the LT2ESWTR and any associated guidance be more
explicit as to when a treatment technique violation occurs with the use
of microbial toolbox options. As described in section IV.D, EPA has
stated in today's final rule that failure by a PWS in any month to
demonstrate treatment credit with microbial toolbox options equal to or
greater than its Cryptosporidium treatment requirements is a treatment
technique violation. This violation lasts until the PWS demonstrates
that it is meeting criteria for sufficient treatment credit to satisfy
its Cryptosporidium treatment requirements.
I. Reporting Source Water Monitoring Results
This section presents specific reporting requirements that apply to
source water monitoring under today's rule, including EPA's data system
for reporting and reviewing monitoring results. For related
requirements, see section IV.A for monitoring parameters frequency,
section IV.J for required analytical methods, and section IV.K for
approved laboratories. General reporting requirements under today's
rule and associated compliance dates are shown in section IV.G.
1. Today's Rule
PWSs must report results from the required source water monitoring
[[Page 721]]
described in section IV.A no later than 10 days after the end of the
first month following the month when the sample is collected. For
Cryptosporidium analyses, PWSs must report the data elements specified
in Table IV.I-1. For samples in which at least 10 L is filtered and all
of the sample volume is analyzed, only the sample volume filtered and
the number of oocysts counted must be reported. Table IV.I-2 presents
the data elements that PWSs must report for E. coli and turbidity
analyses. PWSs, or approved laboratories acting as the PWSs' agents,
must retain results from Cryptosporidium and E. coli monitoring until
36 months after bin determination for the particular round of
monitoring.
Table IV.I-1.--Cryptosporidium Data Elements To Be Reported
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data element Reason for data element
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identifying information:
PWSID.............................. Needed to associate plant with
public water system.
Facility ID........................ Needed to associate sample
result with facility.
Sample collection point............ Needed to associate sample
result with sampling point.
Sample collection date............. Needed to determine that
utilities are collecting
samples at the frequency
required.
Sample type (field or matrix spike) Needed to distinguish field
\1\. samples from matrix samples
for recovery calculations.
Sample results:
Sample volume filtered (L), to Needed to verify compliance
nearest \1/4\ L \2\. with sample volume
requirements.
Was 100% of filtered volume Needed to calculate the final
examined? \3\. concentration of oocysts/L and
determine if volume analyzed
requirements are met.
Number of oocysts counted.......... Needed to calculate the final
concentration of oocysts/L.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For matrix spike samples, sample volume spiked and estimated number
of oocysts spiked must be reported. These data are not required for
field samples.
\2\ For samples in which <10 L is filtered or <100% of the sample volume
is examined, the number of filters used and the packed pellet volume
must also be reported to verify compliance with LT2ESWTR sample volume
analysis requirements. These data are not required for most samples.
\3\ For samples in which <100% of sample is examined, the volume of
resuspended concentrate and volume of this resuspension processed
through IMS must be reported to calculate the sample volume examined.
These data are not required for most samples.
Table IV.I-2.--E. coli and Turbidity Data Elements To Be Reported
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reason for collecting data
Data element element
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identifying Information:
PWS ID............................. Needed to associate analytical
result with public water
system.
Facility ID........................ Needed to associate plant with
public water system.
Sample collection point............ Needed to associate sample
result with sampling point.
Sample collection date............. Needed to determine that
utilities are collecting
samples at the frequency
required.
Analytical method number........... Needed to associate analytical
result with analytical method.
Method Type........................ Needed to verify that an
approved method was used and
call up correct web entry
form.
Source water type.................. Needed to assess
Cryptosporidium indicator
relationships.
E. coli/100 mL..................... Sample result (although not
required, the laboratory also
will have the option of
entering primary measurements
for a sample into the LT2ESWTR
internet-based database to
have the database
automatically calculate the
sample result).
Turbidity Information:
Turbidity result................... Needed to assess
Cryptosporidium indicator
relationships.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PWSs serving at least 10,000 people must submit sampling schedules
(described in section IV.A) and monitoring results for the initial
source water monitoring to EPA electronically at the following Internet
site: https://intranet.epa.gov/lt2/. These PWSs should instruct their
laboratories to electronically enter results at this site using web-
based manual entry forms or by uploading XML files (extensible markup
language files--a standard format that enables information exchange
between different systems) from laboratory information management
systems (LIMS). After laboratories enter sample results, PWSs must
review the results on-line at this site. The State may approve an
alternative approach for reporting source water monitoring schedules
and sample results if, for example, a PWS or laboratory does not have
the capability to report data electronically.
If a PWS believes that its laboratory entered a sample result into
the data system erroneously, the PWS may notify the laboratory to
rectify the entry. In addition, if a PWS believes that a result is
incorrect, the PWS may electronically mark the result as contested and
petition the State to invalidate the sample. If a PWS contests a sample
result, the PWS should submit a rationale to the State, including a
supporting statement from the laboratory, providing a justification.
PWSs may arrange with laboratories to review their sample results prior
to the results being entered into the EPA data system.
PWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people must submit sampling
schedules and monitoring results for the initial round of source water
monitoring to the State. Further, all PWSs must submit sampling
schedules and monitoring results for the second round of
[[Page 722]]
monitoring to the State. Regardless of the reporting process used, PWSs
must report an analytical monitoring result to the State no later than
10 days after the end of the first month following the month when the
sample was collected.
2. Background and Analysis
The reporting requirements for source water monitoring in today's
final rule reflect those in the August 11, 2003 proposed LT2ESWTR
(USEPA 2003a). The data elements that PWSs must report for
Cryptosporidium and E. coli analyses are the minimum necessary to
identify the sample, determine the sample concentration, and verify
that the PWS complied with rule requirements like minimum sample volume
and approved analytical methods. PWSs or laboratories must keep bench
sheets and slide reports for Cryptosporidium analyses for three years
after bin determination for the particular round of monitoring, at
which time PWSs must be in compliance with any additional
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements based on the monitoring results.
Due to the early implementation schedule, EPA expects to partner
with States to implement initial source water monitoring by large PWSs
under today's rule. EPA has developed an Internet-based data system to
allow electronic reporting and review of source water monitoring
results by laboratories, PWSs, States, and EPA. States may use this
data system to oversee monitoring by their PWSs. Where States are
unable to provide this oversight, the data system will allow EPA to
implement today's rule. Accordingly, PWSs serving at least 10,000
people must use this data system to report sampling schedules and
sample results for the initial round of source water monitoring unless
the State approves an alternative method for reporting.
EPA expects laboratories to report analytical results for
Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity analyses directly to the data
system using web forms and software that are available free of charge.
The data system will perform logic checks on data entered and will
calculate results from primary data where necessary. This is intended
to reduce reporting errors and limit the time involved in
investigating, checking, and correcting errors at all levels. The
LT2ESWTR proposal describes the analysis functions of the data system
in more detail (USEPA 2003a).
In general, EPA expects that States will implement the initial
source water monitoring by small PWSs and the second round of
monitoring by all PWSs. Thus, PWSs must submit sampling schedules and
monitoring results for this monitoring to the State. Note that where
States do not assume primacy for the rule, however, EPA will act as the
State.
3. Summary of Major Comments
EPA received significant public comment on the following aspects of
reporting requirements for source water monitoring in the August 11,
2003 proposed LT2ESWTR: the deadline for reporting sample results,
EPA's electronic data system, and reporting results to EPA rather than
the State. A summary of these comments and EPA's responses follows.
Some commenters were concerned with requiring PWSs to report sample
results no later than the 10th of the second month after the month when
the sample is collected. Commenters stated that this will cause most
PWSs to sample in the first part of the month, which will exacerbate
laboratory capacity problems. As an alternative, commenters recommended
that PWSs be required to report sample results 72 days after
collection. This approach would give all PWSs the same time period to
report sample results regardless of the collection date and would
facilitate PWSs and laboratories scheduling sample collection dates
more uniformly throughout the month.
In response, EPA believes that requiring PWSs to report monitoring
results by the 10th of the second month after sample collection is
appropriate. This will maintain consistency with existing drinking
water regulations, which typically require monitoring results to be
reported by the 10th of the following month. Thus, specifying this
reporting date under today's rule will avoid causing PWSs and States to
develop different reporting dates for different regulations. Due to the
time required for laboratories to analyze Cryptosporidium samples,
today's rule gives PWSs an extra month to report monitoring results;
i.e., the minimum time PWSs have to report results is approximately 40
days (one month plus 10 days). This time frame, however, is greater
than what is necessary for laboratories to analyze samples and for PWSs
to review results. Consequently, EPA does not believe that PWSs will
benefit by collecting a sample at the start of a month in comparison to
the end of a month.
Many commenters expressed concern with the readiness of the
electronic data system for reporting and reviewing monitoring results
under today's rule. Commenters stated that PWSs have experienced
significant problems with data systems that supported earlier rules,
such as the Information Collection Rule and the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Rule. Commenters recommended that the data system be in
place and fully tested prior to finalization of the rule and that EPA
provide training for users. If the data system is not available when
the rule is finalized, commenters asked that the monitoring be delayed
as specified in the Agreement in Principle (USEPA 2000a).
EPA has ensured that the LT2 data system has been fully tested and
deployed prior to finalizing the rule. During development of the data
system, EPA has involved stakeholders in a joint requirements
workgroup, which has made recommendations for data system
characteristics and has participated in data system testing. EPA has
developed guidance and other training materials for PWSs, States, and
laboratories on how to use the data system and will provide technical
assistance on a ongoing basis to data system users. EPA believes these
steps will help to avoid problems that stakeholders experienced with
data systems for earlier rules.
Some commenters expressed concerns about large PWSs reporting
monitoring results to EPA. Commenters stated that implementation of the
rule should be administered by States, due to the existing
relationships States have with the PWSs they regulate. For States that
will implement the rule, commenters recommended allowing PWSs to report
to States, rather than EPA. Commenters also requested that EPA provide
copies of all monitoring data and PWS correspondence to States when
they assume primacy.
EPA will work with States to implement today's rule and to help
States assume as much responsibility for implementation as they can.
Through the LT2ESWTR data system, States will have full access to
monitoring results reported by their PWSs. Today's rule also allows
States to direct their PWSs to report monitoring results directly to
them, rather than EPA. Further, States may require PWSs to submit
descriptions of monitoring locations for approval. In general, EPA will
seek to involve States in any communications with and decisions for
their PWSs and will allow States to take responsibility for these
activities if they choose to do so. However, because monitoring for the
largest systems begins before States will have had time to assume
primacy, EPA must be prepared to oversee monitoring for these PWSs
where States are unable to do so.
[[Page 723]]
J. Analytical Methods
1. Analytical Methods Overview
Today's final rule requires public water systems to conduct
LT2ESWTR source water monitoring using approved methods for
Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity analyses. PWSs must meet the
quality control criteria stipulated by the approved methods and
additional method-specific requirements, as stated in this section.
Related requirements for reporting source water monitoring results and
using approved laboratories are discussed in sections IV.I and IV.K,
respectively.
EPA has developed guidance for sampling and analyses under the
LT2ESWTR. The Source Water Monitoring Guidance Manual for Public Water
Systems under the LT2ESWTR provides recommendations on activities like
collecting samples and setting up contracts with laboratories. The
Microbial Laboratory Manual for the LT2ESWTR provides information for
laboratories that conduct analyses. These guidance documents may be
requested from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline, which may be
contacted as described in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
in the beginning of this notice, and are available on the Internet at
www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2.
2. Cryptosporidium Methods
a. Today's Rule
Cryptosporidium analysis for source water monitoring under today's
rule must be conducted using either Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in
Water by Filtration/IMS/FA (EPA 815-R-05-001, USEPA 2005c) or Method
1623: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water by Filtration/IMS/FA (EPA
815-R-05-002, USEPA 2005d). Additional method requirements for today's
rule include the following:
For each Cryptosporidium sample, at least a 10-L sample
volume must be analyzed unless a PWS meets one of the two exceptions
stated in this section. PWSs may collect and analyze greater than a 10-
L sample volume.
The first exception to the sample volume requirement stems
from sample turbidity. If a sample is very turbid, it may generate a
large packed pellet volume upon centrifugation (a packed pellet refers
to the concentrated sample after centrifugation has been performed in
EPA Methods 1622 and 1623). Samples resulting in large packed pellets
must have the sample concentrate aliquoted into multiple ``subsamples''
for independent processing through IMS, staining, and examination. PWSs
are not required to analyze more than 2 mL of packed pellet volume per
sample.
The second exception to the sample volume requirement
stems from filter clogging. In cases where the filter clogs prior to
filtration of 10 L, the PWS must analyze as much sample volume as can
be filtered by 2 filters, up to a packed pellet volume of 2 mL. This
condition applies only to filters that have been approved by EPA for
nationwide use with Methods 1622 and 1623--the Pall Gelman
EnvirochekTM and EnvirochekTM HV filters, the
IDEXX Filta-MaxTM foam filter, and the Whatman
CrypTestTM cartridge filter.
Methods 1622 and 1623 include fluorescein isothiocyanate
(FITC) as the primary antibody stain for Cryptosporidium detection,
DAPI staining to detect nuclei, and DIC to detect internal structures.
Under today's rule, PWSs must report total Cryptosporidium oocysts as
detected by FITC as determined by the color (apple green or alternative
stain color approved for the laboratory under the Lab QA Program
described in section IV.K), size (4-6 micrometers) and shape (round to
oval). This total includes all of the oocysts identified as described
here, less any atypical organisms identified by FITC, DIC, or DAPI
(e.g., possessing spikes, stalks, appendages, pores, one or two large
nuclei filling the cell, red fluorescing chloroplasts, crystals,
spores, etc.).
As required by Method 1622 and 1623, PWSs must have 1
matrix spike (MS) sample analyzed for each 20 source water samples. The
volume of the MS sample must be within ten percent of the volume of the
unspiked sample that is collected at the same time, and the samples
must be collected by splitting the sample stream or collecting the
samples sequentially. The MS sample and the associated unspiked sample
must be analyzed by the same procedure. MS samples must be spiked and
filtered in the laboratory. However, if the volume of the MS sample is
greater than 10 L, the PWS is permitted to filter all but 10 L of the
MS sample in the field, and ship the filtered sample and the remaining
10 L of source water to the laboratory. In this case, the laboratory
must spike the remaining 10 L of water and filter it through the filter
that was used to collect the balance of the sample in the field.
Laboratories must use flow cytometer-counted spiking
suspensions for spiked QC samples.
b. Background and Analysis
The M-DBP Advisory Committee recommended the use of Methods 1622 or
1623 and a minimum sample volume of 10 L for source water
Cryptosporidium analyses under the LT2ESWTR. The August 11, 2003
proposed rule reflected these recommendations, with associated QC
requirements and exceptions to the minimum sample volume for samples
that are highly turbid or cause significant filter clogging (USEPA
2003a). Today's final rule is unchanged from the proposal in these
respects.
Today's rule requires the use of methods 1622 or 1623 because they
are the best available methods that have undergone full validation
testing. As described in section III.E, these methods were used during
the ICRSS, where MS samples indicated a mean recovery and relative
standard deviation of 43 and 47 percent, respectively (Connell et al.
2000). EPA expects that PWSs will achieve comparable performance with
these methods during source water monitoring under today's rule. With
the minimum sample volume and QC requirements in today's rule, this
level of performance will be sufficient to assign PWSs to
Cryptosporidium treatment bins and realize the public health goals
intended by EPA and the Advisory Committee for the LT2ESWTR. EPA has
also approved these methods for ambient water monitoring under a
separate rulemaking (68 FR 43272, July 21, 2003) (USEPA 2003b).
The proposed LT2ESWTR required the use of April 2001 versions of
Methods 1622 or 1623 and requested comment on approving revised
versions of these methods in the final rule (USEPA 2003a). The revised
methods were included in the proposal as draft June 2003 versions. The
revisions in these versions included increased flexibility in some QC
requirements, clarification of certain method procedures, an increase
in the allowable sample storage temperature to 10[deg]C, the addition
of several approved analysis modifications, and other refinements (see
the proposed rule for details)(USEPA 2003a).
Today's rule requires the use of the revised versions of Methods
1622 and 1623. In the versions of these methods finalized with today's
rule, the upper temperature limit for sample receipt has been increased
to 20[deg]C. This change responds to public comment and recent
publications (Ware and Schafer 2005, Francy et al. 2004, Nichols et al.
2004). As described in section IV.A, PWSs may grandfather data
generated with earlier approved versions of these methods (i.e., 1999
or 2001 versions).
[[Page 724]]
c. Summary of Major Comments
Public comment on the August 11, 2003 proposed LT2ESWTR supported
approval of the revised versions of Methods 1622 and 1623, which
today's rule establishes for source water Cryptosporidium monitoring.
EPA also received comment regarding the lack of viability and
infectivity information with these methods and requirements for
analyzing QC samples.
Several commenters were concerned that Methods 1622 and 1623 do not
indicate whether a Cryptosporidium oocyst is viable and infectious.
While EPA recognizes that these methods do not provide information on
Cryptosporidium infectivity, EPA's analysis indicates that they can
perform effectively for identifying those PWSs that should provide
additional Cryptosporidium treatment (USEPA 2005a). This analysis is
based on the actual performance of these methods in the ICRSS. Further,
EPA and the M-DBP Advisory Committee, which recommended Methods 1622
and 1623, accounted for this lack of information on infectivity when
designing the Cryptosporidium treatment bins in today's rule. EPA has
not identified any feasible methods for quantifying Cryptosporidium
infectivity in a national monitoring program.
Several commenters suggested that laboratories should only be
required to perform one OPR test per day instead of one for every 20
samples, as Methods 1622 and 1623 require. EPA believes, however, that
the frequency of one OPR test per 20 samples is appropriate for
identifying and correcting problems. For example, if an OPR test is
performed once per day for a laboratory that processes 60 samples per
day, a problem that occurs at sample 10 will be continued through the
next 50 samples. If an OPR test is performed once per 20 samples, a
problem that occurs at sample 10 would only affect 10 additional
samples. Consequently, EPA is maintaining the current QC criteria in
Methods 1622 and 1623.
3. E. coli Methods
a. Today's Rule
For enumerating source water E. coli density under the LT2ESWTR,
EPA is approving the same methods that are currently approved for
ambient water monitoring under 40 CFR 136.3. EPA established these
methods through the rulemaking ``Guidelines Establishing Test
Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants; Analytical Methods for
Biological Pollutants in Ambient Water'' (USEPA 2003b). Table IV.J-1
summarizes these methods. Method identification numbers are provided
for applicable standards published by EPA and voluntary consensus
standards bodies including Standard Methods, American Society of
Testing Materials (ASTM), and the Association of Analytical Chemists
(AOAC).
Table IV.J-1.--List of Approved Analytical Methods for E. coli 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Methods 18th,
Method EPA 19th, 20th Ed. ASTM AOAC Other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPN 2 3 4, multiple tube........... ...................... 9221B.1/9221F 5 6 7...
Multiple tube/multiple well........ ...................... 9223B 5 8............. ..................... 991.15 9............. Colilert[supreg] 8
10, Colilert-
18[supreg] 8 10 11.
MF 2 3 12 13 14 two step, or....... 1103.1 16............. 9222B/9222G5 15 9213D D5392-93 17..........
5.
Single step........................ 1603 18, 1604 19...... ...................... ..................... ..................... mColiBlue 24 20.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Recommended for enumeration of E. coli in ambient water only, number per 100 ml.
2 Tests must be conducted to provide organism enumeration (density). Select the appropriate configuration of tubes/filtrations and dilutions/volumes to
account for the quality, character, consistency, and anticipated organism density of the water sample.
3 To assess the comparability of results obtained with individual methods, it is suggested that side-by-side tests be conducted across seasons of the
year with the water samples routinely tested in accordance with the most current Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater or EPA
alternate test procedure (ATP) guidelines.
4 Samples shall be enumerated by the multiple-tube or multiple-well procedure. Using multiple-tube procedures, employ an appropriate tube and dilution
configuration of the sample as needed and report the Most Probable Number (MPN). Samples tested with Colilert[supreg] may be enumerated with the
multiple-well procedures, Quanti-tray[supreg], or Quanti-tray[supreg] 2000, and the MPN calculated from the table provided by the manufacturer.
5 APHA. 1998, 1995, 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association. 20th, 19th, and 18th
Editions. Amer. Publ. Hlth. Assoc., Washington, DC.
6 The multiple-tube fermentation test is used in 9221.B.1. Lactose broth may be used in lieu of lauryl tryptose broth (LTB), if at least 25 parallel
tests are conducted between this broth and LTB using the water samples normally tested, and this comparison demonstrates that the false-positive rate
and false-negative rate for total coliform using lactose broth is less than 10 percent. No requirement exists to run the completed phase on 10 percent
of all total coliform-positive tubes on a seasonal basis.
7 After prior enrichment in a presumptive medium for total coliform using 9221B.1, all presumptive tubes or bottles showing any amount of gas, growth or
acidity within 48 3 h of incubation shall be submitted to 9221F. Commercially available EC-MUG media or EC media supplemented in the
laboratory with 50 [mu]g/ml of MUG may be used.
8 These tests are collectively known as defined enzyme substrate tests, where, for example, a substrate is used to detect the enzyme glucuronidase
produced by E. coli.
9 AOAC. 1995. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 16th Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 17. Association of Official Analytical Chemists
International. 481 North Frederick Avenue, Suite 500, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877-2417.
10 Descriptions of the Colilert[supreg], Colilert-18[supreg], Quanti-Tray[supreg] and Quanti-Tray[supreg] 2000 may be obtained from IDEXX Laboratories,
Inc., One IDEXX Drive, Westbrook, Maine 04092.
11 Colilert-18[supreg] is an optimized formulation of the Colilert[supreg] for the determination of total coliforms and E. coli that provides results
within 18 h of incubation at 35 [deg]C rather than the 24 h required for the Colilert[supreg] test and is recommended for marine samples.
12 A 0.45 [mu]m membrane filter (MF) or other pore size certified by the manufacturer to fully retain organisms to be cultivated and to be free of
extractables which could interfere with their growth.
13 Because the MF technique usually yields low and variable recovery from chlorinated wastewaters, the Most Probable Number method will be required to
resolve any controversies.
14 When the MF method has not been used previously to test ambient water with high turbidity, large number of noncoliform bacteria, or samples that may
contain organisms stressed by chlorine, a parallel test should be conducted with a multiple-tube technique to demonstrate applicability and
comparability of results.
15 Subject total coliform positive samples as determined by 9222B or other membrane filter procedure to 9222G using NA-MUG media.
16 USEPA. 2002c. Method 1103.1: Escherichia coli (E. coli) In Water By Membrane Filtration Using membrane-Thermotolerant Escherichia coli Agar (mTEC).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-821-R-02-020.
17 ASTM. 2000, 1999, 1996. Annual Book of ASTM Standards--Water and Environmental Technology. Section 11.02. American Society for Testing and Materials.
100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.
[[Page 725]]
18 USEPA. 2002. Method 1610: Escherichia coli (E. coli) In Water By Membrane Filtration Using Modified membrane-Thermotolerant Escherichia coli Agar
(modified mTEC). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-821-R-02-023.
19 Preparation and use of MI agar with a standard membrane filter procedure is set forth in the article, Brenner et al. 1993. ``New Medium for the
Simultaneous Detection of Total Coliform and Escherichia coli in Water.'' Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59:3534-3544 and in USEPA. 2002. Method 1604:
Total Coliforms and Escherichia coli (E. coli) in Water by Membrane Filtration by Using a Simultaneous Detection Technique (MI Medium). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-821-R-02-024.
20 A description of the mColiBlue24 test, Total Coliforms and E. coli, is available from Hach Company, 100 Dayton Ave., Ames, IA 50010.
For most PWSs, the time from sample collection to initiation of
analysis (i.e., the holding time) for source water E. coli samples may
not exceed 30 hours for all approved E. coli methods. However, if the
State determines on a case-by-case basis that analyzing an E. coli
sample within 30 hours is not feasible, the State may approve the
holding of an E. coli sample for up to 48 hours between collection and
initiation of analysis. E. coli samples held between 30 to 48 hours
must be analyzed by the Colilert reagent version of Standard Method
9223B as listed in 40 CFR 136.3. All E. coli samples must be maintained
below 10[deg] C and not allowed to freeze.
The E. coli sample holding time established for source water
monitoring under the LT2ESWTR does not apply to E. coli sample holding
time requirements that have been established under other programs and
regulations.
b. Background and Analysis
In the August 11, 2003 proposed LT2ESWTR, EPA planned to approve
the same E. coli methods that the Agency had proposed for ambient water
monitoring in an earlier rulemaking, ``Guidelines Establishing Test
Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants; Analytical Methods for
Biological Pollutants in Ambient Water'' (USEPA 2001h). EPA selected
these methods based on data generated by EPA laboratories, submissions
to the EPA alternate test procedures program and voluntary consensus
standards bodies, peer reviewed journal articles, and publicly
available study reports.
On July 21, 2003, EPA finalized ``Guidelines Establishing Test
Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants; Analytical Methods for
Biological Pollutants in Ambient Water'' (USEPA 2003b). The only method
from the proposal of this rule that was not included in the final rule
was Colisure, which was excluded due to insufficient data on its
performance with surface water. For the other methods, EPA revised
certain titles and added method numbers to be consistent with other
microbiological methods, but the technical content of these methods in
the final rule did not change from the versions included in the
proposed rule.
EPA is approving these same E. coli methods for analyses under the
LT2ESWTR. The source water E. coli analyses that PWSs will conduct
under the LT2ESWTR are similar to the ambient water analyses for which
EPA approved E. coli methods under ``Guidelines Establishing Test
Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants; Analytical Methods for
Biological Pollutants in Ambient Water'' (USEPA 2003b). EPA continues
to support the findings of this rule and believes that the E. coli
methods approved therein have the necessary sensitivity and specificity
to meet the data quality objectives of the LT2ESWTR.
An important aspect of monitoring for E. coli is the allowable
sample holding time (i.e., the time between sample collection and
initiation of analysis). Existing regulations, such as 40 CFR 141.74,
limit the holding time for E. coli samples to 8 hours. However, for
PWSs that must ship E. coli samples to an off-site laboratory for
analysis, meeting an 8 hour holding time is generally not feasible. For
example, during the ICRSS, all of the PWSs that shipped samples off-
site for E. coli analysis exceeded an 8 hour holding time, and 12
percent of these samples had holding times in excess of 30 hours.
While most large PWSs that will monitor for E. coli under the
LT2ESWTR will conduct these analyses on-site, most small PWSs must ship
samples off-site to an approved laboratory. To address the concern that
PWSs using off-site laboratories cannot meet an 8-hour holding time,
EPA participated in studies to assess the effect of increased sample
holding time on E. coli analysis results. These studies are summarized
in the proposed rule (USEPA 2003a) and are described in detail in Pope
et al. (2003). Based on these studies, EPA has concluded that the
holding time for E. coli samples can be extended beyond 8 hours prior
to analysis without compromising the data quality objectives of
LT2ESWTR monitoring.
In the proposed LT2ESWTR, EPA required analysis of E. coli samples
to be initiated within 24 hours of sample collection and required that
samples be kept below 10[deg] C and not allowed to freeze (USEPA
2003a). These proposed requirements were based on data showing that
most samples maintained within these temperature conditions were not
significantly different at 24 hours than at the standard holding time
of 8 hours. The proposal also noted that data indicated no significant
sample degradation after longer time periods, such as 30 or 48 hours,
for certain methods. Accordingly, EPA requested comment on establishing
a longer E. coli holding time in the final rule.
For today's final rule, EPA is establishing a holding time of 30
hours for all approved E. coli methods. After reviewing public comment
on this issue, which is summarized in the following section, and
reassessing the studies described in the proposed rule, EPA has
concluded that a 30 hour holding time limit for E. coli samples is
appropriate and consistent with the data quality objectives of LT2ESWTR
source water monitoring. Further, EPA believes that meeting a 30 hour
holding time is feasible for most PWSs that must ship E. coli samples
to an off-site laboratory for analysis. This longer holding time,
however, does not apply to E. coli monitoring conducted under other
programs and regulations.
EPA recognizes that in rare cases, having an E. coli sample
analyzed within 30 hours may not be feasible for a PWS due to distance
to an approved laboratory and limited transportation options. In these
cases, today's rule allows the State to approve up to a 48 hour holding
time for E. coli samples. Samples held between 30 to 48 hours must be
analyzed by the Colilert reagent version of Standard Method 9223B. This
is the only method evaluated in Pope et al. (2003) where no significant
sample degradation occurred at 48 hours.
PWSs must maintain samples below 10[deg]C and not allow them to
freeze. EPA has developing guidance for PWSs on packing and shipping E.
coli samples to maintain these temperature conditions. See the overview
at the beginning of this section for information on how to access this
guidance.
c. Summary of Major Comments
In the August 11, 2003 LT2ESWTR proposal, EPA requested comment on
whether the E. coli methods proposed for approval under the LT2ESWTR
are appropriate and whether there are additional methods not proposed
that should be considered. EPA also requested comment on the proposal
to extend the holding time for E. coli
[[Page 726]]
samples to 24 hours; whether EPA should limit the extended holding time
to only those E. coli analytical methods that were evaluated in the
holding time studies described in the proposal; and whether EPA should
increase the source water E. coli holding time to 30 or 48 hours for
samples evaluated by one method, ONPG-MUG, and retain a 24-hour holding
time for samples analyzed by other methods.
Most commenters stated that the proposed E. coli analytical methods
are appropriate. Commenters also agreed with the proposal to extend the
holding time for source water E. coli samples, but recommendations
about the maximum holding time and the methods to which the extended
holding time should apply differed among commenters. Some suggested
that EPA increase the holding time to 30 hours for the ONPG-MUG method,
but retain a 24-hour holding time for the other methods. Other
commenters recommended a 48-hour holding time for some or all methods.
Several commenters advised that holding times for all methods should be
the same to limit confusion. Some commenters were concerned that a 30-
hour holding time would not be sufficient for small PWSs in remote
areas to ship samples to distant laboratories.
After consideration of the comments received, as well as the
holding time study data presented in the proposed rule and the time
required to ship samples off-site for analysis as evidenced in the
ICRSS, EPA has concluded that allowing a 30-hour holding time for all
E. coli methods approved under today's final rule is appropriate. Data
indicate that a 30-hour holding time for E. coli samples will not
adversely impact the data quality objectives of LT2ESWTR monitoring.
Further, establishing the same holding time for all methods will limit
confusion, and a 30-hour holding time will allow most PWSs that ship
samples off site for analysis to meet the holding time requirements.
Today's rule also allows the State to authorize a 48-hour holding time
for rare cases where a 30-hour holding time is not feasible.
4. Turbidity Methods
a. Today's Rule
Today's rule requires PWSs to use the analytical methods that have
been previously approved by EPA for analysis of turbidity in drinking
water, as listed in 40 CFR 141.74. These are Method 2130B as published
in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (APHA
1992), EPA Method 180.1 (USEPA 1993), Great Lakes Instruments Method 2
(Great Lakes Instruments 1992), and Hach FilterTrak Method 10133.
b. Background and Analysis
As stated in section IV.A, today's rule requires filtered PWSs
serving at least 10,000 people to monitor for turbidity when they
conduct source water monitoring. EPA may use these data to modify the
indicator criteria that trigger Cryptosporidium monitoring by small
filtered PWSs, as recommended by the M-DBP Advisory Committee (USEPA
2000a). In addition, PWSs using conventional or direct filtration may
achieve additional Cryptosporidium treatment credit by demonstrating
very low turbidity in the combined filter effluent, as described in
section IV.D.7, or the individual filter effluent, as described in
section IV.D.8.
The August 11, 2003 proposed LT2ESWTR required PWSs to use
turbidity methods that EPA had previously approved under 40 CFR 141.74
for analyzing drinking water (USEPA 2003a). These are EPA Method 180.1
and Standard Method 2130B, which are based on a comparison of the
intensity of light scattered by the sample with the intensity of light
scattered by a standard reference suspension; Great Lakes Instruments
Method 2, which is a modulated four beam infrared method using a
ratiometric algorithm to calculate the turbidity value from the four
readings that are produced; and Hach FilterTrak (Method 10133), which
is a laser-based method used to analyze finished drinking water.
Today's final rule is unchanged from the proposal in regard to
analytical methods for turbidity. Hence, PWSs must use methods
currently approved in 40 CFR 141.74 for turbidity analysis. EPA
believes the currently approved methods are appropriate for turbidity
analyses that will be conducted under the LT2ESWTR. PWSs must use
turbidimeter instruments as described in the EPA-approved methods,
which may be either on-line or bench top instruments. If a PWS chooses
to use on-line instruments for monitoring turbidity, the PWS must
validate the continuous measurements for accuracy on a regular basis
using a protocol approved by the State, as required in 40 CFR 141.74.
c. Summary of Major Comments
EPA received public comment on the turbidity methods required in
the August 11, 2003 proposed LT2ESWTR. While commenters, in general,
agreed that currently approved turbidity methods are adequate to meet
the requirements of the rule, several commenters were concerned with
turbidity measurement variation among different instruments. One
commenter suggested voluntary third party testing, while another
recommended more rigorous calibration and verification processes.
As described in section IV.D.7, EPA has reviewed studies of low
level turbidity measurements, as well as standard test methods for
measurement of turbidity below 5 NTU. After reviewing this information,
EPA concluded that currently available monitoring equipment can
reliably measure turbidity at levels of 0.15 NTU and lower. However,
EPA agrees that rigorous calibration and maintenance of turbidity
monitoring equipment is necessary for PWSs pursuing the low filtered
water turbidity performance options in the microbial toolbox. EPA has
developed guidance on proper calibration, operation, and maintenance of
turbidimeters (USEPA 1999c).
A few commenters stated that the LT2ESTWR does not recognize
advancements in turbidity measurement and newly developed turbidity
measurement technologies. In response, EPA has not received information
that supports approval of analytical methods for turbidity in addition
to those currently approved under 40 CFR 141.74, which are also
approved for turbidity monitoring under today's rule. If other
turbidity methods are approved and added to 40 CFR 141.74 in the
future, these methods will also be approved under the LT2ESWTR.
One commenter requested that the LT2ESWTR specifically address
turbidity measurements in plants that practice lime softening. EPA
notes that additional treatment credit for combined filter effluent
turbidity is based on measurements collected under 40 CFR 141.173 or 40
CFR 141.551 (the IESWTR or LT1ESWTR). These regulations allow PWSs that
use lime softening to acidify samples prior to analysis in order to
address the effects of lime softening on turbidity measurements. In
regard to treatment credit based on individual filter effluent
turbidity, EPA does not believe that acidifying samples while measuring
turbidity every 15 minutes at each individual filter, as the IESWTR and
LT1ESWTR require, is feasible. However, PWSs that practice lime
softening could use the demonstration of performance toolbox option to
demonstrate that a plant is achieving removal efficiencies equivalent
to the additional credit allowed for individual filter performance.
[[Page 727]]
K. Laboratory Approval
Given the potentially significant implications for PWSs and
drinking water consumers of microbial monitoring under the LT2ESWTR,
laboratory analyses for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity should
be accurate and reliable within the limits of approved methods.
Therefore, today's final rule requires PWSs to use laboratories that
have been approved to conduct analyses for these parameters by EPA or
the State.
1. Cryptosporidium Laboratory Approval
a. Today's Rule
Analysis of samples for Cryptosporidium under today's rule must be
conducted by a laboratory that is approved under EPA's Laboratory
Quality Assurance Evaluation Program (Lab QA Program) for Analysis of
Cryptosporidium in Water (described in 67 FR 9731, March 4, 2002, USEPA
2002d). A list of laboratories that are approved under this program is
available on the Internet at www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2. If
a State adopts an equivalent approval process under a State laboratory
certification program, then PWSs can use laboratories approved by the
State.
b. Background and Analysis
Because States do not currently approve laboratories for
Cryptosporidium analyses, EPA has assumed initial responsibility for
Cryptosporidium laboratory approval. EPA initiated the Cryptosporidium
Lab QA Program prior to LT2ESWTR promulgation to ensure that adequate
analytical capacity will be available at approved laboratories to
support required monitoring, which begins 6 months after rule
promulgation. The August 11, 2003 proposed LT2ESWTR required PWSs to
have Cryptosporidium samples analyzed by laboratories approved under
the EPA Lab QA Program. Today's final rule is unchanged from the
proposal with respect to this requirement.
Laboratories seeking approval under the EPA Lab QA Program for
Cryptosporidium analysis must submit an interest application to EPA,
successfully analyze a set of initial performance testing samples, and
undergo an on-site evaluation. Laboratories that pass the quality
assurance evaluation are approved for Cryptosporidium analysis under
the LT2ESWTR. To maintain approval, laboratories must successfully
analyze a set of three ongoing proficiency testing samples
approximately every four months. The Lab QA Program is described in
detail in USEPA (2002d) and additional information can be found on the
Internet at www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2.
EPA tracks the Cryptosporidium sample analysis capacity of approved
laboratories through the Lab QA Program. Using information provided by
laboratories, EPA expects that existing capacity should be sufficient
to support initial source water monitoring by large PWSs under the
LT2ESWTR. Further, the implementation schedule for today's rule, which
is described in section IV.G, provides time for laboratories to
increase capacity through steps like training new analysts as the
demand for sample analysis grows.
c. Summary of Major Comments
In regard to approval of laboratories for Cryptosporidium analysis,
major comments on the August 11, 2003 proposal addressed the following
issues: laboratory capacity, State approval programs, and analyst
experience criteria. Comments regarding Cryptosporidium laboratory
capacity are summarized in section IV.G, while those on the other
issues are summarized as follows.
EPA requested comment on States approving Cryptosporidium
laboratories. Most commenters, however, recommended that EPA maintain
the Lab QA Program, due to the specialized nature of the work. EPA
intends to maintain the Lab QA Program, but today's rule does allow
States to certify Cryptosporidium laboratories by setting up an
equivalent program.
EPA also requested comment on the experience criteria that Methods
1622 and 1623 include for Cryptosporidium analysts. Some commenters
recommended lowering analyst training and experience requirements,
while others recommended no change or an increase in microscopy
training. After evaluating these comments, EPA has concluded that the
analyst criteria included in Methods 1622 and 1623 are reasonable for
ensuring that analysts have the experience to evaluate source water
samples under today's rule. Consequently, EPA has not altered these
criteria from the approved methods.
2. E. coli Laboratory Approval
a. Today's Rule
PWSs must have E. coli samples analyzed by a laboratory that has
been certified by EPA, the National Environmental Laboratory
Accreditation Conference (NELAC) or the State for total coliform or
fecal coliform analysis in drinking water under 40 CFR 141.74. The
laboratory must use the same technique for E. coli analysis under
today's rule that the laboratory is certified to use for drinking water
under 40 CFR 141.74 (e.g., membrane filtration, multiple-well,
multiple-tube).
b. Background and Analysis
The August 11, 2003 proposed LT2ESWTR required PWSs to have E. coli
samples analyzed by laboratories that are certified to conduct total or
fecal coliform analyses in drinking water (i.e., under 40 CFR 141.74)
by EPA, NELAC or the State. The proposal required laboratories to use
the same E. coli analytical technique that they are certified to use
for coliform analyses in drinking water. Today's final rule is
unchanged from the proposal in regard to these requirements. EPA
believes that laboratories that are certified to conduct coliform
analyses in drinking water have the expertise to conduct E. coli
analyses under today's rule, provided they use the analytical technique
for which they are certified.
c. Summary of Major Comments
Two commenters on the August 11, 2003 proposal suggested that
laboratories should be certified specifically for quantitative analyses
of total or fecal coliform in a source water matrix. However, the
methods approved for source water E. coli analyses under today's rule
are also approved under the drinking water certification program. EPA
believes that analysts certified for these methods under the drinking
water certification program have the capability to perform the same
methods for a source water matrix, even though additional steps may be
required (such as dilutions). EPA has revised the Laboratory
Certification Manual to suggest Performance Evaluation (PE) samples for
source water matrix analyses and States have the option to require PE
samples as needed in their State laboratory certification programs.
3. Turbidity Analyst Approval
a. Today's Rule
Under today's rule, measurements of turbidity must be made by a
party approved by the State.
b. Background and Analysis
The August 11, 2003 proposed LT2ESWTR required that measurements of
turbidity be made by a party approved by the State. This reflects
existing requirements in 40 CFR 141.74 for measurement of turbidity in
drinking water. Today's final rule is unchanged from the proposal in
this respect.
[[Page 728]]
c. Summary of Major Comments
Commenters on requirements for turbidity analyst approval in the
August 11, 2003 proposal agreed that turbidity analyses should be
consistent with 40 CFR 141.74. Specifically, any person that is
currently approved to conduct turbidity analysis under existing
drinking water regulations should be approved to conduct turbidity
analyses under the LT2ESWTR. EPA agrees with this comment and it is
reflected in today's final rule.
L. Requirements for Sanitary Surveys Conducted by EPA
1. Today's Rule
Today's final rule establishes requirements for PWSs to respond to
significant deficiencies identified in sanitary surveys that EPA
conducts. These requirements give EPA authority equivalent to that
exercised by States under existing regulations to ensure that PWSs
address significant deficiencies.
For sanitary surveys conducted by EPA under SDWA section
1445 or other authority, PWSs must respond in writing to significant
deficiencies outlined in sanitary survey reports no later than 45 days
after receipt of the report, indicating how and on what schedule the
PWS will address significant deficiencies noted in the survey.
PWSs must correct significant deficiencies identified in
sanitary survey reports according to the schedule approved by EPA, or
if there is no approved schedule, according to the schedule the PWS
reported if such deficiencies are within the control of the PWS.
A sanitary survey, as conducted by EPA, is an onsite
review of the water source (identifying sources of contamination by
using results of source water assessments where available), facilities,
equipment, operation, maintenance, and monitoring compliance of a PWS
to evaluate the adequacy of the PWS, its sources and operations, and
the distribution of safe drinking water. A significant deficiency
includes a defect in design, operation, or maintenance, or a failure or
malfunction of the sources, treatment, storage, or distribution system
that EPA determines to be causing, or has the potential for causing the
introduction of contamination into the water delivered to consumers.
2. Background and Analysis
As established by the IESWTR in 40 CFR 142.16(b)(3), primacy States
must conduct sanitary surveys for PWSs using surface water sources
every three or five years. The sanitary survey is an onsite review of
the following: (1) Source, (2) treatment, (3) distribution system, (4)
finished water storage, (5) pumps, pump facilities, and controls, (6)
monitoring, reporting, and data verification, (7) system management and
operation, and (8) operator compliance with State requirements.
Under the IESWTR, primacy States must have the authority to assure
that PWSs respond in writing to significant deficiencies identified in
sanitary survey reports no later than 45 days after receipt of the
report, indicating how and on what schedule the system will address the
deficiency (40 CFR 142.16(b)(1)(ii)). Further, primacy States must have
the authority to assure that systems take necessary steps to address
significant deficiencies identified in sanitary survey reports if such
deficiencies are within the control of the system and its governing
body (40 CFR 142.16(b)(1)(iii)).
EPA conducts sanitary surveys under SDWA section 1445 for PWSs not
regulated by primacy States (e.g., Tribal systems, Wyoming). However,
the authority required of primacy States under 40 CFR 142 to ensure
that PWSs address significant deficiencies identified during sanitary
surveys does not extend to EPA. Consequently, the sanitary survey
requirements established by the IESWTR created an unequal standard.
PWSs regulated by primacy States are subject to the States' authority
to require correction of significant deficiencies noted in sanitary
survey reports, while PWSs for which EPA has direct implementation
authority did not have to meet an equivalent requirement.
In the August 11, 2003 proposal, EPA requested comment on
establishing requirements under 40 CFR 141 for PWSs to correct
significant deficiencies identified in sanitary surveys conducted by
EPA. The requirements in today's final rule follow closely on the
language presented in the proposal. Today's rule ensures that PWSs in
non-primacy States are subject to comparable requirements for sanitary
surveys as PWS regulated by States with primacy.
3. Summary of Major Comments
Most public comment on the August 11, 2003 proposal supported
requiring PWSs to correct significant deficiencies identified in
sanitary surveys conducted by EPA. Commenters stated that requirements
for sanitary surveys should be consistent for PWSs and should not
depend on the primacy agency. EPA believes the requirements in today's
final rule will establish this consistency.
One commenter requested that EPA include a process for PWSs to
appeal a significant deficiency determination. EPA expects that PWSs
will raise any concerns regarding significant deficiency determinations
with the primacy agency, either the State or EPA, that conducts the
sanitary survey. States or EPA may withdraw or amend their significant
deficiency determinations as appropriate. The IESWTR did not establish
a separate appeal process for sanitary surveys conducted by States, and
EPA has not established such a process for sanitary surveys conducted
by EPA under today's rule.
M. Variances and Exemptions
SDWA section 1415 allows States to grant variances from national
primary drinking water regulations under certain conditions; section
1416 establishes the conditions under which States may grant exemptions
to MCL or treatment technique requirements. These conditions and EPA's
view on their applicability to the LT2ESWTR are summarized as follows:
1. Variances
Section 1415 specifies two provisions under which general variances
to treatment technique requirements may be granted:
(1) A State that has primacy may grant a variance to a PWS from
any requirement to use a specified treatment technique for a
contaminant if the PWS demonstrates to the satisfaction of the State
that the treatment technique is not necessary to protect public
health because of the nature of the PWS's raw water source. EPA may
prescribe monitoring and other requirements as conditions of the
variance (section 1415(a)(1)(B)).
(2) EPA may grant a variance from any treatment technique
requirement upon a showing by any person that an alternative
treatment technique not included in such requirement is at least as
efficient in lowering the level of the contaminant (section
1415(a)(3)).
EPA does not believe that the first variance provision is
applicable to filtered PWSs under today's rule. Filtered PWSs are
required to implement additional treatment under the LT2ESWTR only when
source water monitoring demonstrates higher levels of Cryptosporidium
contamination. Thus, this treatment technique requirement accounts for
the nature of the PWS's raw water source. Unfiltered PWS treatment
requirements also account for the nature of a PWS's raw water source
with respect to whether 2-or 3-log Cryptosporidium inactivation is
required.
In theory, the first variance provision could be applied to the
requirement that all unfiltered PWSs provide at least 2-
[[Page 729]]
log Cryptosporidium inactivation. If an unfiltered PWS could show a raw
water Cryptosporidium level 3-log lower than the Bin 1 cutoff for
filtered PWSs (i.e., below 0.075 oocysts/1,000 L), this could
demonstrate that no treatment for Cryptosporidium is necessary. The
unfiltered PWS would already be achieving public health protection
against Cryptosporidium equivalent to filtered PWSs due to the nature
of the raw water source.
In practice, EPA has not identified an approach that is
economically or technologically feasible for a PWS to demonstrate such
a low level of Cryptosporidium to support granting a variance. This is
due to the extremely large volume and number of samples that would be
necessary to make such a demonstration with confidence. However,
unfiltered PWSs may choose to pursue the development and implementation
of monitoring programs to apply for a variance from Cryptosporidium
inactivation requirements based on the nature of the raw water source.
A sufficient monitoring program may be feasible in site-specific
circumstances or with the use of innovative approaches.
The second provision for granting a variance is not applicable to
the LT2ESWTR because the rule provides broad flexibility in how PWSs
achieve the required level of Cryptosporidium reduction through the
microbial toolbox. Moreover, the microbial toolbox contains an option
for Demonstration of Performance, under which States can award
treatment credit based on the demonstrated efficiency of a treatment
process in reducing Cryptosporidium levels. Thus, there is no need for
this type of variance under the LT2ESWTR.
SDWA section 1415(e) describes small PWS variances, but these
cannot be granted for a treatment technique for a microbial
contaminant. Hence, small PWS variances are not allowed for the
LT2ESWTR.
2. Exemptions
Under SDWA section 1416(a), a State may exempt any PWS from a
treatment technique requirement upon a finding that (1) Due to
compelling factors (which may include economic factors such as
qualification of the PWS as serving a disadvantaged community), the PWS
is unable to comply with the requirement or implement measures to
develop an alternative source of water supply; (2) the PWS was in
operation on the effective date of the treatment technique requirement,
or for a PWS that was not in operation by that date, no reasonable
alternative source of drinking water is available to the new PWS; (3)
the exemption will not result in an unreasonable risk to health; and
(4) management or restructuring changes (or both) cannot reasonably
result in compliance with the Act or improve the quality of drinking
water.
EPA believes that granting an exemption to the Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements of the LT2ESWTR would result in an unreasonable
risk to health. As described in section III.C, Cryptosporidium causes
acute health effects, which may be severe in sensitive subpopulations
and include risk of mortality. Moreover, the additional Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements of the LT2ESWTR are targeted to PWSs with the
highest degree of risk. Due to these factors, EPA does not support the
granting exemptions from the LT2ESWTR.
V. State Implementation
A. Today's Rule
This section describes the regulations and other procedures and
policies States must adopt to implement today's rule. States must
continue to meet all other conditions of primacy in 40 CFR Part 142. To
implement the LT2ESWTR, States must adopt revisions to the following
sections:
Sec. 141.2--Definitions
Subpart Q--Public Notification
New Subpart W--Additional treatment technique requirements for
Cryptosporidium
Sec. 142.14--Records kept by States
Sec. 142.15--Reports by States
Sec. 142.16--Special primacy requirements
1. Special State primacy requirements
To ensure that a State program includes all the elements necessary
for an effective and enforceable program under today's rule, a State
primacy application must include a description of how the State will
perform the following:
Approve an alternative to the E. coli levels that trigger
Cryptosporidium monitoring by filtered systems serving fewer than
10,000 people (see section IV.A.1);
Approve watershed control programs for the 0.5 log
watershed control program credit in the microbial toolbox (see section
IV.D.2);
Assess significant changes in the watershed and source
water as part of the sanitary survey process and determine appropriate
follow-up action (see section IV.A); and
Approve protocols for treatment credit under the
Demonstration of Performance toolbox option (see section IV.D.9), for
site specific chlorine dioxide and ozone CT tables (see section
IV.D.14), and for alternative UV reactor validation testing (see
section IV.D.15).
A State program can be more, but not less, stringent than Federal
regulations. As such, some of the elements listed here may not be
applicable to a specific State program.
2. State Recordkeeping Requirements
Today's rule requires States to keep additional records of the
following, including all supporting information and an explanation of
the technical basis for each decision:
Results of source water E. coli and Cryptosporidium
monitoring for not less than 1 year;
Cryptosporidium treatment bin classification for each
filtered PWS after the initial and after the second round of source
water monitoring. Also, any change in treatment requirements for
filtered systems due to watershed assessment during sanitary surveys;
Determination of whether each unfiltered PWS has a mean
source water Cryptosporidium level above 0.01 oocysts/L after the
initial and after the second round of source water monitoring;
The treatment processes or control measures that each PWS
employs to meet Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under the
LT2ESWTR, including measures that systems may use for only part of the
year; and
A list of PWSs required to cover or treat the effluent of
an uncovered finished water storage facilities.
3. State Reporting Requirements
Today's rule requires States to report the following information:
The Cryptosporidium treatment bin classification for each
filtered PWS after the initial and after the second round of source
water monitoring. Also, any change in treatment requirements for
filtered systems due to watershed assessment during sanitary surveys;
and
The determination of whether each unfiltered PWS has a
mean source water Cryptosporidium level above 0.01 oocysts/L after the
initial and after the second round of source water monitoring.
4. Interim Primacy
States that have primacy (including interim primacy) for every
existing NPDWR already in effect may obtain interim primacy for this
rule, beginning on the date that the State submits the application for
this rule to USEPA, or the effective date of its revised regulations,
whichever is later. A State that wishes to obtain interim primacy
[[Page 730]]
for future NPDWRs must obtain primacy for today's rule. As described in
Section IV.A, EPA expects to work with States to oversee the initial
source water monitoring that begins six months following rule
promulgation.
B. Background and Analysis
SDWA establishes requirements that a State or eligible Indian Tribe
must meet to assume and maintain primary enforcement responsibility
(primacy) for its PWSs. These requirements include the following
activities: (1) Adopting drinking water regulations that are no less
stringent than Federal drinking water regulations; (2) adopting and
implementing adequate procedures for enforcement; (3) keeping records
and making reports available on activities that EPA requires by
regulation; (4) issuing variances and exemptions (if allowed by the
State), under conditions no less stringent than allowed under SDWA; and
(5) adopting and being capable of implementing an adequate plan for the
provisions of safe drinking water under emergency situations.
40 CFR part 142 sets out the specific program implementation
requirements for States to obtain primacy for the public water supply
supervision program as authorized under SDWA section 1413. In addition
to adopting basic primacy requirements specified in 40 CFR Part 142,
States may be required to adopt special primacy provisions pertaining
to specific regulations where implementation of the rule involves
activities beyond general primacy provisions. States must include these
regulation specific provisions in an application for approval of their
program revision.
The current regulations in 40 CFR 142.14 require States with
primacy to keep various records, including the following: analytical
results to determine compliance with MCLs, MRDLs, and treatment
technique requirements; PWS inventories; State approvals; enforcement
actions; and the issuance of variances and exemptions. Today's final
rule requires States to keep additional records, including all
supporting information and an explanation of the technical basis for
decisions made by the State regarding today's rule requirements. EPA
currently requires in 40 CFR 142.15 that States report to EPA
information such as violations, variance and exemption status, and
enforcement actions, and today's rule adds additional reporting
requirements related to monitoring and treatment requirements.
On April 28, 1998, EPA amended its State primacy regulations at 40
CFR 142.12 to incorporate the new process identified in the 1996 SDWA
Amendments for granting primary enforcement authority to States while
their applications to modify their primacy programs are under review
(63 FR 23362, April 28, 1998) (USEPA 1998c). The new process grants
interim primary enforcement authority for a new or revised regulation
during the period in which EPA is making a determination with regard to
primacy for that new or revised regulation. This interim enforcement
authority begins on the date of the primacy application submission or
the effective date of the new or revised State regulation, whichever is
later, and ends when EPA makes a final determination. However, this
interim primacy authority is only available to a State that has primacy
(including interim primacy) for every existing NPDWR in effect when the
new regulation is promulgated. States that have primacy for every
existing NPDWR already in effect may obtain interim primacy for this
rule and a State that wishes to obtain interim primacy for future
NPDWRs must obtain primacy for this rule.
C. Summary of Major Comments
Public comment generally supported the special primacy requirements
in the August 11, 2003 proposal, and many commenters expressed
appreciation for the flexibility the special primacy requirements
provided to States. One commenter expressed concern that a State that
adopted this rule by reference would lose the flexibility intended in
the proposal. In response, EPA recognizes that some States may be
limited by their statutes in applying the flexibility allowed under
today's rule. However, EPA believes that providing flexibility for
States to approve site-specific approaches that achieve the public
health goals of the LT2ESWTR is appropriate and will benefit some
States and PWSs.
A few commenters were concerned that the special primacy
requirement to assess changes in watersheds as part of the sanitary
survey process would be difficult to meet due to a lack of resources or
large watersheds that overlap State boundaries. In response, EPA notes
that States are required to evaluate PWS sources under the existing
sanitary survey requirements (40 CFR 142.16(b)(3)). If a State
determines during a sanitary survey that significant changes have
occurred in the watershed that could lead to increased contamination of
the source by Cryptosporidium, today's rule gives the State the
authority to require the PWS to take actions to mitigate or treat the
contamination. Because the treatment requirements in today's rule
depend on the degree of source water contamination, EPA believes that
this assessment of changes in a PWS's source water following initial
bin classification is necessary.
EPA also received comments on State approval processes for
laboratories analyzing for Cryptosporidium to meet LT2ESWTR
requirements. Most commenters stated that EPA should maintain a
national certification program for laboratories approved for
Cryptosporidium analysis for LT2ESTWR compliance. Commenters indicated
that requiring States to approve laboratories for Cryptosporidium
analysis placed too great a demand on State resources. Today's rule
does not include a State primacy requirement for laboratory
certification for Cryptosporidium analysis.
Some commenters were concerned with the data tracking and review
burden on States from the reporting requirements for the individual
toolbox components. EPA agrees with commenters that, in some cases,
allowing PWSs to report summaries or to self-certify that the PWS met
the performance requirements for microbial toolbox treatment credit may
be appropriate. Today's rule allow States to modify the level of
reporting required for toolbox components and specifically, permit PWSs
to self-certify to the State that a toolbox component has met its
performance requirements.
VI. Economic Analysis
This section summarizes the economic analysis (EA) for the final
LT2ESWTR. The EA is an assessment of the benefits, both health and
nonhealth-related, and costs to the regulated community of the final
regulation, along with those of regulatory alternatives that the Agency
considered. EPA developed the EA to meet the requirement of SDWA
section 1412(b)(3)(C) for a Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis
(HRRCA), as well as the requirements of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, under which EPA must estimate the costs
and benefits of the LT2ESWTR. The full EA is presented in Economic
Analysis for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(USEPA 2005a), which includes additional details and discussion on the
topics presented throughout this section of the preamble.
The LT2ESWTR is the second in a staged set of rules that address
public health risks from microbial contamination of surface and GWUDI
drinking water supplies and, more specifically, prevent Cryptosporidium
[[Page 731]]
from reaching consumers. As described in section III, EPA promulgated
the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR to provide a baseline of protection against
Cryptosporidium in large and small PWSs, respectively. Today's final
rule will achieve further reductions in Cryptosporidium exposure for
PWSs with the highest vulnerability. This EA considers only the
incremental reduction in exposure beyond the two previously promulgated
rules (IESWTR and LT1ESWTR) from the alternatives evaluated for the
LT2ESWTR.
A. What Regulatory Alternatives Did the Agency Consider?
Regulatory alternatives considered by the Agency for the LT2ESWTR
were developed through the deliberations of the Stage 2 M-DBP Federal
Advisory Committee (described in section III). The Advisory Committee
considered several general approaches for reducing the risk from
Cryptosporidium in drinking water. These approaches included both
additional treatment requirements for all PWSs and risk-targeted
treatment requirements for PWSs with the highest vulnerability to
Cryptosporidium following implementation of the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR. In
addition, the Advisory Committee considered related issues such as
alternative monitoring strategies.
After considering these general approaches, the Advisory Committee
focused on four regulatory alternatives for filtered PWSs (see Table
VI.A-1). With the exception of Alternative 1, which requires all PWSs
to provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium, these alternatives
incorporate a risk-targeting approach in which PWSs are classified in
different treatment bins based on the results of source water
monitoring. Additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements are
directly linked to the treatment bin classification. Accordingly, these
rule alternatives are differentiated by two criteria: (1) The
Cryptosporidium concentrations that define the bin boundaries and (2)
the degree of treatment required for each bin.
The Advisory Committee reached consensus regarding additional
treatment requirements for unfiltered PWSs without formally identifying
regulatory alternatives other than requiring no treatment for
Cryptosporidium (i.e., no new regulation).
Table VI.A-1.--Summary of Regulatory Alternatives for Filtered PWSs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean source water Cryptosporidium Additional treatment
monitoring result (oocysts/L) requirements \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative A1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.0-log inactivation required for all PWSs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative A2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 0.03.................................... No additional treatment.
>= 0.03 and < 0.1......................... 0.5-log.
>= 0.1 and < 1.0.......................... 1.5-log.
>= 1.0.................................... 2.5-log.
-------------------------------------------
Alternative A3--Today's Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 0.075................................... No additional treatment.
>= 0.075 and < 1.0........................ 1-log.
>= 1.0 and < 3.0.......................... 2-log.
>= 3.0.................................... 2.5-log.
-------------------------------------------
Alternative A4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 0.1..................................... No additional treatment.
>= 0.1 and < 1.0.......................... 0.5-log.
>=1.0..................................... 1.0-log.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: ``Additional treatment requirements'' are in addition to
levels already required under existing rules (e.g., the IESWTR and
LT1ESWTR) for PWSs using conventional treatment or equivalent.
B. What Analyses Support Today's Final Rule?
EPA has quantified benefits and costs for each of the filtered PWS
regulatory alternatives in Table VI.A-1 and for unfiltered PWS
requirements. Quantified benefits stem from estimated reductions in the
incidence of cryptosporidiosis resulting from the regulation. To make
these estimates, the Agency employed Monte Carlo modeling to account
for uncertainty and variability in key parameters like Cryptosporidium
occurrence, infectivity, and treatment efficiency. Costs result largely
from the installation of additional treatment, with lesser costs due to
monitoring and other implementation activities.
Cryptosporidium occurrence significantly influences the estimated
benefits and costs of regulatory alternatives. As discussed in section
III.E, EPA analyzed data collected under the ICR, the ICR Supplemental
Surveys of medium PWSs (ICRSSM), and the ICR Supplemental Surveys of
large PWSs (ICRSSL) to estimate the national occurrence distribution of
Cryptosporidium in surface water. EPA evaluated these distributions
independently when assessing benefits and costs for different
regulatory alternatives.
Another parameter that significantly influences estimated benefits
is Cryptosporidium infectivity (i.e., the likelihood of infection after
exposure to a given dose of Cryptosporidium). As discussed in section
III.E, EPA considered results from human volunteer feeding studies and
applied six different model forms to estimate dose-response
relationships.
To address uncertainty in these estimates, benefits are presented
for three different dose response models: A ``high'' estimate based on
the model that showed the highest mean baseline risk, a ``medium''
estimate based on the model and data used at proposal, which is in the
middle of the range of estimates produced by the six models, and a
``low'' estimate, based on the model that showed the lowest mean
baseline risk. These estimates are not upper and lower bounds. For each
model, a distribution of effects is estimated, and the ``high'' and
``low'' estimates show only the means of these distributions for two
different model choices.
Both benefits and costs are determined as annualized present
values, which allows comparison of cost and benefit streams that are
variable over time. The time frame used for both benefit and cost
comparisons is 25 years. The Agency uses social discount rates of both
3 percent and 7 percent to calculate present values from the stream of
benefits and costs and also to annualize the present value estimates
over 25 years (see EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses
(USEPA 2000c) for a discussion of social discount rates).
Results of these analyses are summarized in this section of the
preamble. Detailed results and descriptions of the supporting analyzes
are shown in the LT2ESWTR EA (USEPA 2005a).
In evaluating the regulatory alternatives shown in Table VI.A-1,
EPA and the Advisory Committee were concerned with the following
questions: (1) Do the treatment requirements adequately control
Cryptosporidium concentrations in finished water? (2) How many PWSs
will be required to add treatment? and (3) What is the likelihood that
PWSs will be misclassified in higher or lower treatment bins through
monitoring?
Consistent with the consensus recommendation of the Advisory
Committee, EPA selected Alternative A3 for today's final rule. EPA has
determined that this alternative will significantly reduce the
incidence of cryptosporidiosis due to drinking water
[[Page 732]]
in vulnerable PWSs and is feasible for PWSs to implement.
Alternative A1 (across-the-board 2-log inactivation) was not
selected because it would impose costs but provide few benefits to PWSs
with relatively low Cryptosporidium risk. EPA was also concerned about
the feasibility of requiring every surface water treatment plant to
install additional treatment processes (e.g., UV) for Cryptosporidium.
With Alternative A2, EPA was concerned with the feasibility of
accurately classifying PWSs in treatment bins at a Cryptosporidium
concentration of 0.03 oocysts/L. EPA does not believe that Alternative
A4 would reduce risks from Cryptosporidium in vulnerable PWSs to the
extent feasible, as required under SDWA section 1412(b)(7)(A), because
of the low levels of treatment required.
C. What Are the Benefits of the LT2ESWTR?
EPA has quantified and monetized health benefits for reductions in
endemic cryptosporidiosis due to the LT2ESWTR. In addition, today's
rule is expected to provide additional health and nonhealth-related
benefits that EPA was unable to quantify. Table VI.C-1 summarizes these
unquantified benefits.
1. Nonquantified Benefits
Table VI.C-1.--Summary of Nonquantified Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefit type Potential effect on benefits Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reducing outbreak risks and response Increase............................. Some human or equipment
costs. failures may occur even with
the requirements of today's
rule; however, by adding
barriers of protection for
some PWSs, the rule will
reduce the possibility of such
failures leading to outbreaks.
Reducing averting behavior (e.g., Increase/No Change................... Consumers in PWSs that cease
boiling tap water or purchasing bottled using uncovered finished water
water). reservoirs (through covering
or taking such reservoirs off-
line) may have greater
confidence in water quality.
This may result in less
averting behavior that reduces
both out-of-pocket costs
(e.g., purchase of bottled
water) and opportunity costs
(e.g., time to boil water).
Improving aesthetic water quality....... Increase............................. Some technologies installed for
this rule (e.g., ozone) are
likely to reduce taste and
odor problems.
Reducing risk from co-occurring and Increase............................. Although focused on removal of
emerging pathogens. Cryptosporidium from drinking
water, PWSs that change
treatment processes will also
increase removal of pathogens
that the rule does not
specifically regulate.
Increased source water monitoring....... Increase............................. The greater understanding of
source water quality that
results from monitoring may
enhance the ability of plants
to optimize treatment
operations in ways other than
those addressed in this rule.
Reduced contamination due to covering or Increase............................. Contaminants introduced through
treating finished water storage uncovered finished water
facilities. storage facilities will be
reduced, which will produce
positive public health
benefits.
Change in the levels of disinfection Increase/Decrease.................... PWSs that install ozone to
byproducts. comply with the LT2ESWTR may
experience an increase in
certain DBPs. PWSs that
install UV or microfiltration
may reduce the use of chlorine
and experience a decrease in
DBPs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Chapter 5 of the LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA 2005a).
2. Quantified Benefits
In quantifying benefits for the LT2ESWTR based on reductions in the
risk of endemic cryptosporidiosis, EPA considered several categories of
monetized benefits. First, EPA estimated the number of cases expected
to result in premature mortality (primarily for members of sensitive
subpopulations such as AIDS patients). The mortality estimate was
developed using data from the Milwaukee cryptosporidiosis outbreak of
1993 (described in section III), with adjustments to account for the
subsequent decrease in the mortality rate among people with AIDS and
for the difference between the portion of people living with AIDS in
1993 in Milwaukee and the current and projected national levels. EPA
estimated a mortality rate of 26.3 deaths per 100,000 illnesses for
those served by unfiltered PWSs and a mortality rate of 16.7 deaths per
100,000 illnesses for those served by filtered PWSs. These different
rates are associated with the incidence of AIDS in populations served
by unfiltered and filtered PWSs. A complete discussion on how EPA
derived these rates can be found in subchapter 5.2 of the LT2ESWTR EA
(USEPA 2005a).
Reductions in mortalities were monetized using EPA's standard
methodology for monetizing mortality risk reduction. This methodology
is based on a distribution of value of statistical life (VSL) estimates
from 26 labor market and stated preference studies. The mean VSL is
$7.4 million in 2005 with a 5th to 95th percentile range of $1.2 to
$16.9 million. A more detailed discussion of these studies and the VSL
estimate can be found in EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic
Analyses (USEPA 2000c). A real income growth factor was applied to
these estimates of approximately 1.9 percent per year for the 20-year
time span following implementation. Income elasticity for VSL was
estimated as a triangular distribution that ranged from 0.08 to 1.00,
with a mode of 0.40. VSL values for the 20-year span are shown in the
LT2ESWTR EA in Exhibit 5.24 (USEPA 2005a).
The substantial majority of cases are not expected to be fatal and
the Agency separately estimated the value of non-fatal illnesses
avoided that would result from the LT2ESWTR. For these, EPA first
divided projected cases into three categories, mild, moderate, and
severe, and then calculated a monetized value per case avoided for each
severity level. These were then combined into a weighted average value
per case based on the relative frequency of each severity level.
According to a study conducted by Corso et al. (2003), the majority of
illness fall into the mild category (88 percent). Approximately 11
percent of illness fall into the moderate category, which is defined as
those who seek medical treatment but are not hospitalized. The final 1
percent have severe symptoms that result in hospitalization. EPA
estimated different medical expenses and time losses for each category.
Benefits for non-fatal cases were calculated using a cost-of-
illness (COI)
[[Page 733]]
approach. Traditional COI valuations focus on medical costs and lost
wages, and leave out significant categories of benefits, specifically
the reduced utility from being sick (i.e., lost personal or non-work
time, including activities such as child care, homemaking, community
service, time spent with family, recreation, and pain and suffering),
although some COI studies also include an estimate for unpaid labor
(household production) valued at an estimated wage rate designed to
reflect the market value of such labor (e.g., median wage for household
domestic labor). Ideally, a comprehensive willingness to pay (WTP)
estimate would be used that includes all categories of loss in a single
number. However, a review of the literature indicated that the
available studies were not suitable for valuing cryptosporidiosis;
hence, estimates from this literature are inappropriate for use in this
analysis. Instead, EPA presents two COI estimates: A traditional
approach that only includes valuation for medical costs and lost work
time (including some portion of unpaid household production); and an
enhanced approach that also factors in valuations for lost unpaid work
time for employed people, reduced utility (or sense of well-being)
associated with decreased enjoyment of time spent in non-work
activities, and lost productivity at work on days when paid workers are
ill but go to work anyway.
Table VI.C-2 shows the various categories of loss and how they were
valued for each estimate for a ``typical'' case in 2003 (weighted
average based on severity level).
Table VI.C-2.--Traditional and Enhanced COI for Cryptosporidiosis, 2003$
[Weighted average cost per case]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loss category Traditional COI Enhanced COI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Medical Costs............. $106.91 106.91
Lost Paid Work Days.............. 120.13 120.13
Lost Unpaid Work Days \1\........ 24.32 48.64
Lost Leisure Time \2\............ not included 217.79
Lost Caregiver Days \3\.......... 22.98 61.50
Lost Leisure Productivity \4\.... not included 162.98
Lost Productivity at Work........ not included 126.29
----------------------------------
Total........................ 274.34 844.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assigned to 39.7% of the population not engaged in market work;
assumes 40 hr. unpaid work week, valued at $6.23/hr in traditional COI
and $12.46/hr in enhanced COI. Does not include lost unpaid work for
employed people and may not include all unpaid work for people outside
the paid labor force.
\2\ Includes child care and homemaking (to the extent not covered in
lost unpaid work days above), time with family, and recreation for
people within and outside the paid labor force, on days when subject
is too sick to work.
\3\ Values lost work or leisure time for people caring for the ill.
Traditional approach does not include lost leisure time. Detail may
not calculate to totals due to independent rounding; Source: Appendix
L in LT2ESWTR EA (USEPA 2005a)
\4\ Analogous to lost productivity at work. Includes reduced
productivity in unpaid work and reduced enjoyment of recreation on
days when subject is sick but engages in unpaid work or leisure
activities anyway.
The various loss categories were calculated as follows: Medical
costs are a weighted average across the three illness severity levels
of actual costs for doctor and emergency room visits, medication, and
hospital stays. Lost paid work represents missed work time of paid
employees, valued at the median pre-tax wage, plus benefits, of $20.82
hour. The average number of lost work hours per illness day is 3.4
(this assumes that 60 percent of the population is in the paid labor
force and the loss is averaged over 7 days). The weighted average
number of lost work days per case is 1.7 days. Medical costs and lost
work days reflect market transactions. Medical costs are always
included in COI estimates and lost work days are usually included in
COI estimates.
In the traditional COI estimate, an equivalent amount of lost
unpaid work time was assigned to the 40 percent of the population that
are not in the paid labor force. This includes homemakers, students,
children, retires, and unemployed persons. This estimate attempts to
capture market-like work (e.g., homemaking, volunteer work) that is
unpaid. EPA did not attempt to calculate what percent of cases falls in
each of these five groups, or how many hours per week each group works,
but rather assumed an across-the-board 40 hour unpaid work week. For
this reason, it likely overstates the value of unpaid, market-like
work, but EPA does not have data on this. This time is valued at $6.23
per hour, which is one half the median post-tax wage (since work
performed by these groups is not taxed). This is also approximately the
median wage for paid household domestic labor.
In the enhanced COI estimate, an estimate of lost unpaid work days
for people outside the paid labor force was made by assigning the value
of $12.46 per hour to the same number of unpaid work hours valued in
the traditional COI approach (i.e., 40 unpaid work hours per week).
Lost unpaid work for employed people and any unpaid labor beyond 40
hours per week for those not in the labor market is shown as lost
leisure time in Table VI.C-2 for the enhanced approach and is not
included in the traditional approach.
In the enhanced approach, all time other than paid and market-like
work and sleep (8 hours per work day and 16 hours per non-work day) is
valued at the median after tax wage, or $12.46 per hour. This includes
lost unpaid personal work (e.g., chores, errands, housework) and
leisure time for people within and outside the paid labor force. The
average number of unpaid work hours per illness day is 2.3 (40 hours
per week averaged over 7 days x 40 percent of the population). Implicit
in this approach is that people would pay the same amount not to be
sick during their leisure time as they require to give up their leisure
time to work (i.e., the after tax wage). In reality, people might be
willing to pay either more than this amount (if they were very sick and
suffering a lot) or less than this amount (if they were not very sick
and still got some enjoyment out of activities such as resting,
reading, and watching TV), not to be sick. Multiplying 10.3 hours by
$12.46 gives a value of about $128 for a day of ``lost'' unpaid
personal work and leisure (i.e., lost utility of being sick). The
weighted average number of lost leisure days per case is the same as
the weighted average number of lost work days (1.7 days per case).
[[Page 734]]
In addition, for days when an individual is well enough to work but
is still experiencing symptoms, such as diarrhea, the enhanced estimate
also includes a 30 percent loss of work and leisure productivity, based
on a study of giardiasis illness (Harrington et al. 1985), which is
similar to cryptosporidiosis. Appendix P in the EA describes similar
productivity losses for other illnesses such as influenza (35%-73%
productivity losses). In the traditional COI analysis, productivity
losses are not included for either work or nonwork time. The weighted
average number of reduced productivity days per case, for both work and
leisure, is 1.3 days.
EPA believes that losses in productivity and lost leisure time are
unquestionably present and that these categories have positive value;
consequently, the traditional COI estimate understates the true value
of these loss categories. EPA notes that these estimates should not be
regarded as upper and lower bounds. In particular, the enhanced COI
estimate may not fully incorporate the value of pain and suffering, as
people may be willing to pay more than $228 (the sum of the valuation
of lost work and leisure) to avoid a day of illness. The traditional
COI estimate may not be a lower bound because it includes a valuation
for a lost 40 hour work week for all persons not in the labor force,
including children and retirees. This may be an overstatement of lost
productivity for these groups, which would depend on the impact of such
things as missed school work or volunteer activities that may be
affected by illness.
As with the avoided mortality valuation, the real wages used in the
COI estimates were increased by a real income growth factor that varies
by year, but is the equivalent of about 1.9 percent over the 20 year
period. This approach of adjusting for real income growth was
recommended by the SAB (USEPA 2000d) because the median real wage is
expected to grow each year (by approximately 1.9 percent).
Correspondingly, the real income growth factor of the COI estimates
increases by the equivalent of 1.9 percent per year (except for medical
costs, which are not directly tied to wages). This approach gives a
total COI valuation per case in 2010 of $306 (undiscounted) for the
traditional COI estimate and $985 (undiscounted) for the enhanced COI
estimate; the valuation in 2029 is $381 (undiscounted) for the
traditional COI estimate and $1,316 (undiscounted) for the enhanced COI
estimate. There is no difference in the methodology for calculating the
COI over this 20 year period of implementation; the change in valuation
is due to the underlying change in projected real wages.
Table VI.C-3 summarizes the annual cases of cryptosporidiosis
illness and associated deaths avoided due to the LT2ESWTR proposal.
Today's rule, on average, is expected to reduce 89,375 to 1,459,126
illnesses and 20 to 314 deaths annually after full implementation
(range based on the ICRSSL, ICRSSM, and ICR data sets and model choice
for Cryptosporidium infectivity).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.001
Tables VI.C-4a and VI.C-4b show the monetized present value of the
benefit for reductions in endemic cryptosporidiosis estimated to result
from the LT2ESWTR for the enhanced and traditional COI values,
respectively. Estimates are given for the ICR, ICRSSL, and ICRSSM
occurrence data sets and for the three infectivity models.
With the enhanced COI and a 3 percent discount rate, the annual
present value of the mean benefit estimate ranges from $177 million to
$2.8 billion; at a 7 percent discount rate, the mean estimate ranges
from $144 million to $2.3 billion. With the traditional COI, the
corresponding mean benefit estimate at a 3 percent discount rate ranges
from $130 million to $2.0 billion; for a 7 percent discount rate, the
mean estimate ranges from $105 million to $1.7 billion. None of these
values include the unquantified and nonmonetized benefits listed in
Table VI.C-1.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 735]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.002
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
a. Filtered PWSs. Benefits to the approximately 168 million people
served by filtered surface water and GWUDI PWSs range from 34,000 to
702,000 reduction in mean annual cases of endemic illness based on
three infectivity models and ICRSSL, ICRSSM, and ICR data sets. In
addition, premature mortality is expected to be reduced by an average
of 6 to 116 deaths annually.
b. Unfiltered PWSs. The 10 million people served by unfiltered
surface water or GWUDI PWSs will see a significant reduction in
cryptosporidiosis as a result of the LT2ESWTR. In this population, the
rule is expected to reduce approximately 55,000 to 758,000 cases of
illness and 14 to 197 premature deaths annually.
For unfiltered PWSs, only the ICR data set is used to directly
calculate illness reduction because it is the only data set that
includes sufficient information on unfiltered PWSs. Illness reduction
in unfiltered PWSs was estimated for the ICRSSL and ICRSSM
[[Page 736]]
data sets by multiplying the ICR unfiltered PWS result by the ratio,
for the quantity estimated, between filtered PWS results from the
supplemental survey data set (SSM or SSL) and filtered PWS results from
the ICR.
3. Timing of Benefits Accrual (latency)
In previous rulemakings, some commenters have argued that the
Agency should consider an assumed time lag or latency period in its
benefits calculations. The Agency has not conducted a latency analysis
for this rule because cryptosporidiosis is an acute illness; therefore,
very little time elapses between exposure, illness, and mortality.
However, EPA does account for benefits and costs that occur in future
years by converting these to present value estimates.
D. What Are the Costs of the LT2ESWTR?
In order to estimate the costs of today's rule, the Agency
considered impacts on PWSs and on States (including territories and EPA
implementation in non-primacy States). Summary information on these
costs follows, with more detailed information in chapter 6 of the
LT2ESWTR EA (USEPA 2005a). A detailed discussion of the requirements of
today's rule is located in section IV of this preamble.
1. Total Annualized Present Value Costs
Tables VI.D-1 summarizes the annualized present value cost
estimates for the LT2ESWTR at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates.
The mean annualized present value costs of the LT2ESWTR are estimated
to range from approximately $93 to $133 million using a 3 percent
discount rate and $107 to $150 million using a 7 percent discount rate.
This range in mean cost estimates is associated with the different
Cryptosporidium occurrence data sets. In addition to mean estimates of
costs, the Agency calculated 90 percent confidence bounds by
considering the uncertainty in Cryptosporidium occurrence estimates and
the uncertainty around the mean unit technology costs (USEPA 2005a).
PWSs will incur approximately 99 percent of the rule's total
annualized present value costs. States incur the remaining rule costs.
Table VI.D-2 shows the undiscounted initial capital and one-time costs
broken out by rule component. A comparison of annualized present value
costs among the rule alternatives considered by the Agency is located
in section VI.F of this preamble.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 737]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.003
[[Page 738]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.004
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 739]]
2. PWS Costs
Table VI.D-3 shows the number of filtered and unfiltered PWSs that
will incur costs by rule provision. All PWSs that treat surface water
or GWUDI (i.e., nonpurchased PWSs) will incur one-time costs that
include time for staff training on rule requirements. PWSs will incur
monitoring costs to assess source water Cryptosporidium levels, though
monitoring requirements vary by PWS size (large vs. small) and PWS type
(filtered vs. unfiltered). Some PWSs will incur costs for additional
Cryptosporidium treatment, where required, and for covering or treating
uncovered finished water reservoirs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.005
a. Source water monitoring costs. Source water monitoring costs are
structured on a per-plant basis. There are three types of monitoring
that plants may be required to conduct--turbidity, E. coli, and
Cryptosporidium. Source water turbidity is a common water quality
parameter used for plant operational control. Also, to meet SWTR,
LT1ESWTR, and IESWTR requirements, most PWSs have turbidity analytical
equipment in-house and operators are experienced with turbidity
measurement. Thus, EPA assumes that the incremental turbidity
monitoring burden associated with the LT2ESWTR is negligible.
Filtered plants in small PWSs initially will be required to conduct
1 year of biweekly E. coli source water monitoring. These plants will
be required to monitor for Cryptosporidium if E. coli levels exceed 10
E. coli/100 mL for lakes and reservoir sources or 50 E. coli/100 mL for
flowing stream sources. EPA estimated the percent of small plants that
would be triggered into Cryptosporidium monitoring as being equal to
the percent of large plants that would fall into any bin requiring
additional treatment.
Estimates of laboratory fees, shipping costs, labor hours for
sample collection, and hours for reporting results were used to predict
PWS costs for initial source water monitoring under the LT2ESWTR. Table
VI.D-4 summarizes the present value of monitoring costs for initial bin
classification. Total present value monitoring costs for initial bin
classification range from $45 million to $59 million depending on the
occurrence data set and discount rate. Appendix D of the LT2ESWTR EA
provides a full explanation of how these costs were developed (USEPA
2005a).
b. Filtered PWSs treatment costs. The Agency calculated treatment
costs by estimating the number of plants that will add treatment
technologies and coupling these estimates with unit costs ($/plant) of
the selected technologies. Table VI.D-5 shows the number of plants
estimated to select different treatment technologies; Table VI.D-6
summarizes the present value treatment costs and annualized present
value costs for both filtered and unfiltered PWSs.
[[Page 740]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.006
To estimate the number of filtered plants that would select a
particular treatment technology, EPA followed a two step process.
First, the number of plants that will be assigned to treatment bins
requiring additional treatment was estimated. Second, the treatment
technologies that plants will choose to meet these requirements was
estimated using a ``least-cost decision tree.'' In this estimate, EPA
assumed that PWSs will select the least expensive technology or
combination of technologies to meet the log removal requirements of a
given treatment bin. Technology selections were constrained by maximum
use percentages, which recognize that some plants will not be able to
implement certain technologies because of site-specific conditions. In
addition, certain potentially lower cost components of the microbial
toolbox, such as changes to the plant intake, were not included because
EPA lacked data to estimate the number of plants that could select it.
These limitations on technology use may result in an overestimate of
costs. An in-depth discussion of the technology selection methodology
and unit cost estimates can be found in Appendices E and F of the
LT2ESWTR EA (USEPA 2005a).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.007
c. Unfiltered PWSs treatment costs. The LT2ESWTR requires all
unfiltered PWSs to achieve 2-log of inactivation if their mean source
water Cryptosporidium concentration is less than or equal to 0.01
oocysts/L and 3-log of inactivation if it is greater than 0.01 oocysts/
L. For most PWSs, UV appears to be the least expensive technology that
can achieve these levels of Cryptosporidium inactivation, and EPA
expects UV to be widely used by unfiltered PWSs to meet today's rule
requirements. However, as with filtered PWSs, EPA estimated that a
small percentage of plants would elect to install a technology more
expensive than UV due to the configuration of
[[Page 741]]
existing equipment or other factors. Ozone is the next least expensive
technology that will meet the inactivation requirements for some PWSs
and EPA estimated that it will be used by plants that do not use UV.
All unfiltered PWSs must meet requirements of the LT2ESWTR;
therefore, 100 percent of unfiltered PWSs are estimated to add
technology. This assumes that no unfiltered PWSs currently use these
additional treatment technologies. For this cost analysis, EPA assumed
that all very small unfiltered PWSs will use UV; for all other
unfiltered PWS sizes, EPA estimated that 90 percent will install UV and
10 percent will add ozone. Treatment costs for unfiltered PWSs are
included in Table VI.D-6.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.008
d. Uncovered finished water storage facilities. As part of the
LT2ESWTR, PWSs with uncovered finished water storage facilities must
either cover the storage facility or treat the discharge to achieve
inactivation and/or removal of at least 2-log Cryptosporidium, 3-log
Giardia lamblia, and 4-log viruses. To develop national cost estimates
for PWSs to comply with these provisions, unit costs for each
compliance alternative and the percentage of PWSs selecting each
alternative were estimated for the inventory of uncovered finished
water storage facilities. From a recent survey of EPA Regions, EPA
estimates that there are currently 81 uncovered finished water storage
facilities for which PWSs must take steps to comply with the LT2ESWTR.
A full description of the unit costs and other assumptions used in this
analysis is presented in Chapter 6 and Appendix I of the LT2ESWTR EA
(USEPA 2005a).
To comply with the treatment requirements, EPA determined that the
least-cost treatment option is a combination of chlorine and UV. For
PWSs with uncovered storage facility capacities of 5 million gallons
(MG) or less, covering the storage facilities is the least expensive
alternative. Although disinfection is the least expensive alternative
for the remaining PWSs, the ability of a PWS to use booster
chlorination depends on their current residual disinfectant type.
Somewhat less than half of all surface water PWSs are predicted to use
chloramination following implementation of the Stage 2 DBPR. Adding
chlorine to water that has been treated with chloramines is not a
feasible alternative; therefore, the fraction of PWSs projected to add
UV and booster chlorination to the effluent from the uncovered storage
facility was estimated at 50 percent, with the remaining 50 percent
projected to add covers.
Table VI.D-7 summarizes total annualized present value costs for
the uncovered finished water storage facility requirements using both 3
and 7 percent discount rates. EPA estimates the total annualized
present value cost for covering or treating the water from uncovered
finished water storage facilities to be approximately $10 million at a
3 percent discount rate and $13 million at a 7 percent discount rate.
[[Page 742]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.009
e. Future monitoring costs. Six years after initial bin
classification, filtered and unfiltered PWSs must conduct a second
round of monitoring to assess whether source water Cryptosporidium
levels have changed significantly. EPA will evaluate new analytical
methods and surrogate indicators of microbial water quality in the
interim. While the costs of monitoring are likely to change in the 9
years following rule promulgation, it is difficult to predict how they
will change. In the absence of any other information, EPA assumed that
the laboratory costs will be the same as for the initial monitoring.
All PWSs that conducted initial monitoring were assumed to conduct
the second round of monitoring, except for those PWSs that installed
treatment that achieves a total of 5.5-log or greater treatment for
Cryptosporidium as a result of the rule. These PWSs are exempt from
monitoring under the LT2ESWTR. EPA estimates that the cost of the
second round of source water monitoring will range from $21 million to
$36 million, depending on the occurrence data set and discount rate
used in the estimate. Appendix D of the EA provides further details
(USEPA 2005a).
f. Sensitivity analysis-influent bromide levels on technology
selection for filtered plants. One concern with the ICR data set is
that it may not reflect influent bromide levels in some PWSs during
droughts. High influent bromide levels (the precursor for bromate
formation) limits ozone use because some PWSs would not be able to meet
the MCL for bromate. EPA conducted a sensitivity analysis to estimate
the impact that higher influent bromide levels would have on technology
decisions. The sensitivity analysis assumed influent bromide
concentrations of 50 parts per billion (ppb) above the ICR
concentrations. Results of the analysis indicate that this higher
bromide level has a minimal impact on costs.
3. State/Primacy Agency Costs
EPA estimates that States (including primacy agencies) will incur
an annualized present value cost of $1.1 to 1.2 million using a 3
percent discount rate and $1.4 million at 7 percent. State
implementation activities include regulation adoption, program
implementation, training State staff, training PWS staff, providing
technical assistance to PWSs, and updating management systems. To
estimate implementation costs to States, the number of full-time
employees (FTEs) per activity is multiplied by the number of labor
hours per FTE, the cost per labor hour, and the number of States and
Territories.
In addition to implementation costs, States will also incur costs
associated with managing monitoring data. Because EPA will directly
manage reporting, approval, and analysis of results from the initial
round of monitoring by large PWSs (serving at least 10,000 people),
States are not predicted to incur costs for these activities. States
will, however, incur costs associated with small PWS monitoring. This
is a result of the later start of small PWS monitoring, which will mean
that some States will assume primacy for small PWS monitoring. In
addition, States will review the second round of monitoring results.
States will also incur costs for reviewing technology compliance data
and consulting with PWSs regarding disinfection benchmarking (for PWSs
that change their disinfection procedures to comply with today's rule).
Appendix D of the LT2ESWTR EA provides more information about the State
cost analysis (USEPA 2005a).
4. Non-Quantified Costs
EPA has quantified all the major costs for this rule and has
provided uncertainty analyses to bound the over or underestimates in
the costs. There are some costs that EPA has not quantified, however,
because of lack of data. For example, some PWSs may merge with
neighboring PWSs to comply with this rule. Such changes have both costs
(legal fees and connecting infrastructure) and benefits (economies of
scale). Likewise, PWSs would incur costs for procuring a new source of
water that may result in lower overall treatment costs.
In addition, the Agency was unable to predict the usage or estimate
the costs of several options in the microbial toolbox. These options
include intake management and demonstrations of performance. They have
not been included in the quantified analysis because data are not
available to estimate the number of PWSs that may use these toolbox
options to comply with the LT2ESWTR. Not including these generally
lower-cost options may result in overestimation of costs.
E. What Are the Household Costs of the LT2ESWTR?
Another way to assess a rule's impact is to consider how it may
impact residential water bills. This analysis considers the potential
increase in a household's water bill if a CWS passed the entire cost
increase resulting from this rule on to its customers. This serves as a
tool to gauge potential impacts and should not be construed as precise
estimates of potential changes to individual water bills.
Included in this analysis are all PWS costs, including rule
implementation, initial and future monitoring for bin classification,
additional Cryptosporidium treatment, and treating
[[Page 743]]
or covering uncovered finished water storage facilities. Costs for
Cryptosporidium monitoring by small PWSs, additional Cryptosporidium
treatment, and uncovered finished water storage facilities are assigned
only to the subset of PWSs expected to incur them. Although
implementation and monitoring represent relatively small, one-time
costs, they have been included in the analysis to provide a complete
distribution of the potential household cost. A detailed description of
the derivation of household costs is in Chapter 6 and Appendix J of the
LT2ESTWR EA (USEPA 2005a).
For PWSs that purchase treated water (i.e., purchased PWSs) from
larger nonpurchased PWSs, the households costs are calculated based on
the unit treatment costs of the larger PWS but included in the
distribution for the size category of the purchased PWS. Households
costs for these purchased PWSs are based on the household usage rates
appropriate for the retail PWS and not the PWS selling (wholesaling)
the water. This approach for purchased PWSs reflects the fact that
although they will not face increased costs from adding their own
treatment, whatever costs the wholesale PWS incurs will likely be
passed on as higher water costs.
Table VI.E-1 shows the results of the household cost analysis. In
addition to mean and median estimates, EPA calculated the 90th and the
95th percentiles. EPA estimates that all households served by surface
and GWUDI sources will face some increase in household costs due to
implementation of the LT2ESWTR. Of all the households subject to the
rule, from 22 to 41 percent are projected to incur costs for adding
treatment, depending on the Cryptosporidium occurrence data set used.
Approximately 92 percent of the households potentially subject to
the rule are served by PWSs serving at least 10,000 people and 99.8
percent are served by PWSs serving at least 500 people; these PWSs
experience the lowest increases in costs due to significant economies
of scale. Over 95 percent of all households are estimated to face an
annual cost increase of less than $12. Households served by small PWSs
that install advanced technologies will face the greatest increases in
annual costs. EPA expects that the model's projections for these PWSs
are, in some cases, overstated. Some PWSs are likely to find
alternative treatment techniques such as other toolbox options not
included in this analysis, or sources of water (ground water, purchased
water, or consolidating with another PWS) that would be less costly
than installing more expensive treatment technologies.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.010
[[Page 744]]
F. What Are the Incremental Costs and Benefits of the LT2ESWTR?
Incremental costs and benefits are those that are incurred or
realized in reducing Cryptosporidium exposures from one regulatory
alternative to the next. Estimates of incremental costs and benefits
are useful in considering the economic efficiency of different
regulatory alternatives evaluated by EPA. Generally, the goal of an
incremental analysis is to identify the most efficient regulatory
alternative. However, this analysis is incomplete because some benefits
from this rule are unquantified and not monetized. Incremental analyses
should consider both quantified and unquantified (where possible)
benefits and costs.
Usually an incremental analysis implies increasing levels of
stringency along a single parameter, with each alternative providing
all the protection of the previous alternative, plus additional
protection. However, the regulatory alternatives evaluated for the
LT2ESWTR vary by multiple parameters (e.g., treatment bin boundaries,
treatment requirements). The comparison between any two alternatives
is, therefore, between two separate sets of benefits, in the sense that
they may be distributed to somewhat different population groups.
The regulatory alternatives, however, do achieve increasing levels
of benefits at increasing levels of costs. As a result, displaying
incremental net benefits from the baseline and alternative to
alternative is possible. Tables VI.F-1a and VI.F-1b show incremental
costs, benefits, and net benefits for the four regulatory alternatives,
A1-A4, shown in Table VI.A-1, using the enhanced and traditional COI,
respectively. All values are annualized present values expressed in
Year 2003 dollars. The displayed values are the mean estimates for each
occurrence distribution and infectivity model.
With the enhanced COI, incremental costs are generally closest to
incremental benefits for A2, a more stringent alternative than A3,
which is today's final rule. For the traditional COI, incremental costs
most closely equal incremental benefits for A3 under the majority of
conditions evaluated.
G. Are There Benefits From the Reduction of Co-Occurring Contaminants?
While the quantified and monetized benefits for the LT2ESWTR
includes only reductions in illness and mortality attributable to
Cryptosporidium, today's rule will reduce exposure to and disease from
other microbial pathogens and, in some cases, chemical contaminants.
[[Page 745]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.011
[[Page 746]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.012
All of the options in the microbial toolbox that PWSs will
implement to comply with today's rule will also reduce levels of other
microbial pathogens. For example, watershed control programs and intake
relocation
[[Page 747]]
will cut overall pathogen levels by reducing fecal contamination in the
source water. Membrane, bag, and cartridge filters will remove
pathogenic protozoa like Giardia lamblia that are similar in size to or
larger than Cryptosporidium. Lowering finished water turbidity from
conventional and direct filtration will improve removal of pathogens
across a broad size range, including viruses, bacteria, and protozoa.
Inactivation technologies like ozone and UV are highly effective
against a large number of different pathogen types.
Some membrane technologies that PWSs may install to comply with the
LT2ESWTR can also reduce or eliminate chemical contaminants including
arsenic, DBPs, and atrazine. The use of UV for inactivation of
Cryptosporidium may reduce the chlorine dosage that some PWSs must
apply, which can reduce levels of DBPs. EPA has recently finalized a
rule to further control arsenic levels in drinking water and is
concurrently establishing the Stage 2 DBPR to address DBP control.
The extent to which the LT2ESWTR can reduce the overall risk from
other contaminants has not been quantitatively evaluated because EPA
lacks sufficient data on the co-occurrence among Cryptosporidium and
other microbial pathogens and contaminants. Further, due to the
difficulties in establishing which PWSs would have multiple problems,
such as microbial contamination, arsenic, and DBPs or any combination
of the three, no estimate was made of the potential cost savings from
addressing more than one contaminant simultaneously.
H. Are There Increased Risks From Other Contaminants?
It is unlikely that the LT2ESWTR will result in a significant
increase in risk from other contaminants for most PWSs. Many of the
options that PWSs will select to comply with the LT2ESWTR, such as UV,
additional or improved filtration, and watershed control, do not form
DBPs. Ozone, another technology that is effective against
Cryptosporidium, does form DBPs (e.g., bromate). However, bromate is
currently regulated under the Stage 1 DBPR, and PWSs will have to
comply with this regulation if they implement ozone to meet the
LT2ESWTR.
I. What Are the Effects of the Contaminant on the General Population
and Groups Within the General Populations That Are Identified as Likely
To be at Greater Risk of Adverse Health Effects?
Section III of this preamble discusses the health effects
associated with Cryptosporidium on the general population as well as
the effects on other sensitive sub-populations. In addition, health
effects associated with children and pregnant women are discussed in
greater detail in section VII.G of this preamble.
J. What Are the Uncertainties in the Risk, Benefit, and Cost Estimates
for the LT2ESWTR?
For today's final rule, EPA has modeled the current baseline risk
from Cryptosporidium exposure through drinking water, along with the
reduction in risk and the cost for various rule alternatives. There is
uncertainty in the risk calculation, the benefit estimates, the cost
estimates, and the interaction with other regulations. The LT2ESWTR EA
has an extensive discussion of relevant uncertainties (USEPA 2005a),
and a brief summary of the major uncertainties follows.
In regard to the risk estimates, the most significant areas of
uncertainty are Cryptosporidium occurrence, treatment, and infectivity.
Among the three available occurrence data sets, the ICR plant-mean data
were higher than the ICRSSM or ICRSSL plant-mean data at the 90th
percentile. The reasons for these differing results are not well
understood but may stem from year-to-year variation in occurrence and
differences in the sampling and measurement methods employed. The
ICRSSM and ICRSSL data sets use a newer, more reliable sampling method
but include fewer plants and a shorter time frame. Additional
uncertainty is associated with estimating finished water occurrence
because the analysis is based on estimates of treatment plant
performance in removing Cryptosporidium.
EPA has addressed some of the uncertainty in occurrence by
evaluating benefits and costs for regulatory alternatives with each
Cryptosporidium data set. Further, in the 2-dimensional Monte Carlo
simulation models used to estimate risk, key parameters like occurrence
and treatment efficiency are treated as both variable and uncertain.
This approach is intended to account for the limitations in available
data and the recognized variability in these parameters among PWSs.
EPA has also considered occurrence data from additional sources.
For example, the LT2ESWTR EA discusses a study of infectious
Cryptosporidium in the finished water of 82 filtration plants by
Aboytes et.al, 2004. The mean level of infectious Cryptosporidium
measured in this study is higher than EPA has estimated using the ICR,
ICRSSM, or ICRSSL data sets. This result suggests that Cryptosporidium
occurrence at these plants may have exceeded levels during the ICR and
ICRSS surveys or that EPA may have overestimated the efficiency of
treatment plants in removing Cryptosporidium.
In regard to Cryptosporidium infectivity, EPA evaluated data from
human feeding studies conducted with different Cryptosporidium
isolates. The measured infectivity of these isolates varied widely,
however, and how well these isolates represent Cryptosporidium that
causes disease in PWSs is uncertain. In addition, extrapolating from
the higher Cryptosporidium dosing levels used in the human feeding
studies to the exposure levels typical for drinking water (e.g., one
oocyst) is uncertain. Another source of uncertainty is differences that
exist among populations groups, such as individuals that are more
sensitive (e.g., children, immunocompromised) or less sensitive
(previously infected adults).
EPA accounted for some of this uncertainty in infectivity by
treating the human feeding study results for different Cryptosporidium
isolates as random samples from a larger and unknown environmental
distribution of Cryptosporidium infectivity. EPA used a variety of
models for this analysis, as recommended by the SAB, and presents
results for a range of models to account for uncertainty in model
selection. In addition, limited data on levels of Cryptosporidium in
the 1993 Milwaukee outbreak and associated disease incidence suggest
that the infectivity of the Cryptosporidium responsible for that
outbreak is within the range EPA has estimated for the risk assessment
in today's rule.
Unquantified benefits from the reduction of co-occurring microbial
pathogens, as described earlier, are a significant source of
uncertainty in the estimate of benefits for the LT2ESWTR. EPA is also
uncertain about the monetization of avoided disease from
Cryptosporidium and has addressed this uncertainty through the use of
both traditional and enhanced COI values for benefits estimates.
While all of the significant costs of today's rule have been
identified by
[[Page 748]]
EPA, there are uncertainties in the estimates. Occurrence is the most
significant source of uncertainty in costs, and EPA has attempted to
account for this uncertainty through the use of different occurrence
data sets and Monte Carlo modeling as described previously. EPA has
also estimated uncertainty in unit process costs for treatment
technologies. In addition, the cost assessment for today's rule
includes sensitivity analyses, such an assessment of the impact of
influent bromide levels on technology selection. Chapter 6 of the
LT2ESWTR EA provides a fuller description of uncertainties in the cost
estimates (USEPA 2005a).
Last, EPA has recently finalized or is currently finalizing new
regulations for arsenic, radon, Cryptosporidium in small surface water
PWSs, filter backwash recycling, microbial pathogens in PWSs using
ground water, and DBPs. These rules may have overlapping impacts on
some PWSs, but the extent is not possible to estimate due to lack of
information on co-occurrence. However, PWSs may choose treatment
technologies that will address multiple contaminants. Therefore, while
the total cost impact of these drinking water rules is uncertain, it is
most likely less than the estimated total cost of all individual rules
combined.
K. What Is the Benefit/Cost Determination for the LT2ESWTR?
The Agency has determined that the benefits of the LT2ESWTR justify
the costs. As discussed in section VII.C, the rule provides a large
reduction in endemic cryptosporidiosis illness and mortalities. More
stringent alternatives provide greater reductions but at higher costs.
Alternative A1 provides the greatest overall reduction in illnesses and
mortalities but the incremental benefits between this option and
alternative A3 (today's final rule) are relatively small while the
incremental costs are significant. In addition, today's rule, unlike
alternative A1, specifically targets those PWSs whose source water
requires higher levels of treatment.
Tables VI.K-1a and VI.K-1b present net benefits for the four
regulatory alternatives that were evaluated. Generally, analysis of net
benefits is used to identify alternatives where benefits exceed costs,
as well as the alternative that maximizes net benefits. However, as
with the analysis of incremental net benefits discussed previously, the
usefulness of this analysis in evaluating regulatory alternatives for
the LT2ESWTR is somewhat limited because many benefits from this rule
are unquantified and nonmonetized. Analyses of net benefits should
consider both quantified and unquantified (where possible) benefits and
costs.
Also, as noted earlier, the regulatory alternatives considered for
the LT2ESWTR vary both in the population that experiences benefits and
costs (i.e., treatment bin boundaries) and the magnitude of the
benefits and costs (i.e., treatment requirements). Consequently, the
more stringent regulatory alternatives provide benefits to population
groups that do not experience any benefit under less stringent
alternatives.
As shown by Tables VI.K-1a and VI.K-1b, net benefits are positive
for all four regulatory alternatives evaluated under most occurrence
and discount rate scenarios. With both the enhanced COI and traditional
COI, net benefits are highest for the alternative A3, which is today's
final rule, under the majority of occurrence distributions and discount
rates evaluated.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.013
[[Page 749]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.014
In addition to the net benefits of the LT2ESWTR, the Agency used
several other techniques to compare costs and benefits. For example,
EPA calculated the cost of the rule per case avoided. Tables VI.K-2a, b
and c show both the cost of the rule per illness avoided and cost of
the rule per death avoided. This cost effectiveness measure is another
way of examining the benefits and costs of the rule but should not be
used to compare alternatives because an alternative with the lowest
cost per illness/death avoided may not result in the highest net
benefits. With the exception of alternative A1, the rule options look
favorable when the cost per case avoided is compared to both the
weighted cost of cryptosporidiosis illness ($844 and $274 for the two
COI approaches) and the mean value of a statistical death avoided--
approximately $7 million dollars. Additional information about this
analysis and other methods of comparing benefits and costs can be found
in chapter 8 of the LT2ESWTR EA (USEPA 2005a).
[[Page 750]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.015
[[Page 751]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.016
L. Summary of Major Comments
EPA received significant public comment on the analysis of benefits
and costs of the August 11, 2003 proposed LT2ESWTR in the following
areas: Cryptosporidium occurrence, drinking water consumption,
Cryptosporidium infectivity (i.e., dose-response), and valuation of
benefits. The following discussion summarizes public comment in these
areas and EPA's responses.
1. Cryptosporidium Occurrence
With respect to the analysis of Cryptosporidium occurrence, two
areas that received significant public comment are the quality of the
ICR and ICRSS data sets (i.e., whether the estimates derived from them
should be regarded as equally plausible) and the treatment of samples
in which no Cryptosporidium is detected (i.e., observed zeros).
a. Quality of the ICR and ICRSS data sets. As noted earlier, the
ICR, ICRSSM, and ICRSSL data sets differ significantly in the high
concentration portion of the occurrence distribution (e.g., 90th
percentile). While the measurement method employed in the ICRSS had
higher recovery and less variable volumes assayed, the ICR produced a
much greater number of assays and source waters sampled. Lacking a
technical basis to conclude that one data set provides a better
estimate, EPA conducted separate analyses of costs and benefits for all
three data sets. EPA requested comment on this approach.
The majority of commenters on this issue supported EPA's approach
of analyzing the three data sets separately to represent uncertainty
about occurrence. Two commenters suggested that the ICR data would be
more reliable for estimating national occurrence due to the larger
number of samples, while two others viewed the ICRSS data as more
reliable due to the improved analytical method. No commenters provided
a technical analysis indicating that one data set is more accurate.
Given these comments, EPA has retained the approach of analyzing costs
and benefits separately for each occurrence data set in today's final
rule.
b. Treatment of observed zeros. One commenter remarked that the
majority of samples in which no oocysts were detected (i.e., observed
zeros) likely contained no oocysts in the volume assayed. This
commenter was concerned with a parameter in EPA's occurrence analysis
model for ``true zero,'' which characterizes the likelihood that a
source water is entirely free of Cryptosporidium at all times. In EPA's
model, the true zero parameter was assigned a value of 0.1 percent. As
described in USEPA (2005b), EPA based this assumption on the finding
that intensive sampling of surface waters usually detects
Cryptosporidium, even in protected watersheds. The commenter concluded,
however, that the true zero parameter resulted in the model assigning a
value of at least 1 oocyst to 99.9 percent of samples.
EPA responds that the true zero parameter in the occurrence
analysis model does not operate in this way. While the model is set-up
to estimate mean source water concentrations and not the concentrations
in individual volumes assayed, the model recognizes that the majority
of samples in the ICR and ICRSS contained no oocysts. The model does
assume that few, if any, of the source waters sampled in these surveys
never contained a single oocyst (the meaning of the true zero
parameter). EPA has clarified the definition of the true zero parameter
in USEPA (2005b). EPA has also conducted a sensitivity analysis in
which the true zero parameter was varied from values of 0 to 50
percent, with little effect on estimates of risk, benefit, and cost for
today's rule.
2. Drinking Water Consumption
Two commenters were concerned with the distribution for drinking
water consumption that EPA used in the proposed LT2ESWTR. This
distribution, which was based on a 1994-1996 survey by the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), reflects water consumption
from all sources. Commenters recommended two modifications to this
approach: (1) Adjust the distribution to account for factors like
bottled water and boiled water use; and (2) use an alternative
distribution from the USDA survey that reflects consumption of
community water system (CWS) water only.
[[Page 752]]
In response, EPA agrees that the distribution should be adjusted to
remove consumption attributable to bottled water. For the consumption
distribution in today's final rule, EPA subtracted bottled water usage,
based on information in the USDA survey, which had the effect of
reducing consumption by approximately 14 percent in comparison to the
proposal. EPA does not have information on the effectiveness of heating
water to make coffee or tea for inactivating Cryptosporidium and has
not modified the consumption distribution on this basis.
EPA continues to believe that the USDA distribution for consumption
of water from all sources, minus bottled water consumption, provides
the best available estimate for consumption of water from CWSs for
people served by CWSs. The USDA distribution for consumption of CWS
water only, which a commenter recommended, includes people not served
by CWSs (e.g., people with private wells). Inclusion these individuals
has the effect of underestimating the consumption of CWS water for
people served by CWSs in this distribution. In contrast, the
distribution for consumption of water from all sources includes people
not served by CWSs and the sources those people use (e.g., private
wells). This avoids the problem of underestimating consumption for
individuals served by CWS. Accordingly, EPA has retained the use of
this distribution in today's final rule, with the adjustment stated
previously for bottled water consumption.
3. Cryptosporidium Infectivity
In regard to Cryptosporidium infectivity (i.e., dose-response
assessment), EPA received significant comment on limitations in the
human feeding studies (e.g. representativeness of Cryptosporidium
isolates used in the studies, numbers of subjects) and uncertainty in
extrapolating from high study doses to low drinking water doses. EPA
believes that the statistical analysis of dose-response data, as
described in USEPA (2005a), properly accounted for these limitations
and uncertainties.
The statistical models used by EPA treated the isolates studied as
a random sample from a larger population of environmental isolates,
treated the subjects studied as a random sample from the larger
population of healthy individuals, and treated each individual's
outcome as a chance event, where the infection probability is a
function of the challenge dose. Collectively, these uncertainties
contributed to the significant uncertainty in EPA's estimate of the
likelihood of infection given one oocyst ingested.
Since the LT2ESWTR proposal, EPA has reviewed results from
additional human feeding studies with Cryptosporidium isolates and
analyzed data from these and the feeding studies considered for the
proposal with additional dose-response models (USEPA 2005a). As
described in Chapter 5 and Appendix N of the LT2ESWTR EA, the
infectivity estimates from the proposal are near the middle of the
range of estimates derived with the additional feeding study data and
dose-response models. Further, the mean estimates from these new
analyses fall within the 90th percentile uncertainty bounds for
infectivity estimates from the proposal (USEPA 2005a). Consequently,
EPA believes that the infectivity estimates from the additional feeding
study data and dose-response models are consistent with and supportive
of the estimates of infectivity from the proposal. Further, EPA's
estimates of infectivity are consistent with data on the infectivity of
Cryptosporidium in the 1993 Milwaukee outbreak (USEPA 2005a).
4. Valuation of Benefits
In the area of benefits valuation, EPA received significant public
comment on the valuation of morbidity, valuation of lost time under the
Enhanced COI approach, and unquantified benefits.
a. Valuation of morbidity. EPA received a comment that endemic
cases that do not show up in public health surveillance data may be too
mild (and perhaps even asymptomatic) to be economically significant.
EPA believes endemic cases are significant in terms of public health
risk and economic impacts. As discussed earlier, only a small fraction
of the millions of cases of gastrointestinal illnesses are traced to a
specific illness (such as cryptosporidiosis); yet endemic disease
clearly exists and those illnesses, even if mild, have public health
consequences and economic impacts (e.g., missed work). For example, the
benefits model in the EA assumes that 88 percent of all cases are mild,
and yet those illnesses represent significant impacts nationally.
Further, the risk assessment model separately computes infections and
illnesses. Thus, asymptomatic infections are excluded; only avoided
illnesses are assigned monetary benefits.
b. Valuation of lost time under the enhanced cost of illness (COI)
approach. One commenter extensively questioned the approach used to
value lost leisure and nonwork time under the Enhanced COI approach,
noting concerns about the relationship of the approach to standard
economics practices, the plausibility of the resulting values, and the
extent of peer review. The following discussion summarizes EPA's
responses on these issues.
As discussed in detail in the EA (USEPA 2005a), EPA recognizes that
the preferred approach for valuing health risk reductions is to rely on
estimates of individual willingness to pay (WTP). In the absence of
suitable WTP estimates, analysts often rely on approaches similar to
the Traditional COI approach used for this rule, as noted by the
commenter. However, empirical research as well as theoretic concerns
suggest that these types of COI approaches will generally understate
true WTP.
EPA designed the Enhanced COI approach to correct for one potential
source of understatement--the impact of illness on unpaid work and
leisure time. While the Enhanced COI approach is innovative, it is
rooted in standard welfare economic theory and builds on approaches
used to value time in numerous studies in the labor, transportation,
recreation, and health economics literature. The commenter is
concerned, however, that the Enhanced COI approach values nonwork time
at a higher rate than many recreational studies, several of which value
travel time at one-third of the wage rate. EPA's extensive review of
the recreational literature suggests, however, that there is no
consensus regarding the value of travel time, as discussed in the
Appendix P of the EA (USEPA 2005a). In addition, travel has both
pleasant and unpleasant aspects and hence may be valued less than other
leisure activities, many of which may be valued at a rate higher than
foregone wages.
To test the plausibility of the results, the commenter compares the
value of a ``lifetime case'' of cryptosporidiosis to the value of
statistical life (VSL) and suggests that the results (which show that
such a case would be roughly 70 percent of VSL) are improbably high.
However, EPA believes that this comparison is seriously flawed. There
is no generally accepted standard for determining whether values for
nonfatal risk reductions are ``reasonable'' compared to values for
fatal risk reductions. In addition, the calculation of the value of a
lifetime case of cryptosporidiosis contains several computational
errors, and represents the loss of all waking time (not just losses
attributable to cryptosporidiosis) and so is seriously overstated.
Perhaps most important, the approach used to value
[[Page 753]]
time losses in the Enhanced COI estimate is appropriate only for
marginal changes in time use; it is not appropriate for the types of
lifetime changes considered in the comparison.
The Enhanced COI estimates are based on an approach developed in
the EPA report, Valuing Time Losses Due to Illness under the 1996
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (USEPA 2005e). This report
has been subject to two rounds of independent peer review. In
conclusion, EPA believes that including the Enhanced COI in conjunction
with the Traditional COI is justified theoretically and that including
both measures increases EPA's ability to understand the impacts of the
rule.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. 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 Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action''
because it may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more (estimated annual costs are $93 to 133 million and $107 to 150
million at 3 and 7 percent discount rates, respectively). As such, this
action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB
suggestions or recommendations are documented in the public record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 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 2040-0266.
The information collected as a result of this rule will allow the
States and EPA to determine appropriate requirements for specific PWSs
and to evaluate compliance with the rule. For the first 3 years after
LT2ESWTR promulgation, the major information requirements concern
monitoring activities and compliance tracking. The information
collection requirements are mandatory (40 CFR part 141) and the
information collected is not confidential.
The estimate of annual average burden hours for the LT2ESWTR during
the first three years following promulgation is 141,295 hours. The
annual average cost estimate is $4.4 million for labor and $7 million
per year for operation and maintenance including lab costs (which is a
purchase of service). The burden hours per response is 0.63 hours and
the cost per response is $50.35. The frequency of response (average
responses per respondent) is 90.3, annually. The estimated number of
likely respondents is 2,503 (the product of burden hours per response,
frequency, and respondents does not total the annual average burden
hours due to rounding). Note that the burden hour estimates for the
first 3-year cycle include some large PWS but not small PWS monitoring.
Conversely, burden estimate for the second 3-year cycle will include
remaining monitoring for large systems (those serving between 10,000
and 49,999 people) and small PWS monitoring, but not for large PWS
serving 50,000 or more, which will have been completed by then.
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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. In addition, EPA is
amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved OMB control
numbers for various regulations to list the regulatory citations for
the information requirements contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or 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.
Small entities are defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the
Small Business Administrations's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any ``not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.'' However, the RFA 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 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 public water systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed
using this alternative definition in the Federal Register (63 FR 7620,
February 13, 1998), requested public comment, consulted with the Small
Business Administration (SBA), and finalized the alternative definition
in the Consumer Confidence Reports regulation (63 FR 44511, August 19,
1998). As stated in that Final Rule, the alternative definition is
applied to this regulation as well.
[[Page 754]]
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. The small
entities directly regulated by this final rule are PWSs serving fewer
than 10,000 people. We have determined that 152 of the 6,574 small
PWSs, or 2.3 percent, regulated by the LT2ESWTR will experience an
impact of 1 percent or greater of average annual revenues; further, 18
PWSs, which are 0.3 percent of the small PWSs regulated by this rule,
will experience an impact of 3 percent or greater of average annual
revenues (see Table VII.C-1).
Table VII.C-1.--Annualized Compliance Cost as a Percentage of Revenues for Small Entities (2003$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Systems experiencing Systems experiencing
annual costs of >=1% of their costs of >=3% of their
Number of Percent of estimated revenues revenues
PWSs by ownership type and system size small small revenues ---------------------------------------------------
systems systems per Number of Percent of Number of Percent of
system($) systems systems systems systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A B C D=A*E E F=A*G G
--------------------------------------------------------------
Small Government PWSs........................................ 2,827 43 2,649,186 65 2.3 8 0.3
Small Business PWSs.......................................... 2,452 37 2,555,888 57 2.3 7 0.3
Small Organization PWSs...................................... 1,295 20 4,750,838 5 0.4 2 0.1
--------------
All Small Entity PWSs.................................... 6,574 100 2,981,331 152 2.3 18 0.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Data are based on the means of the highest modeled distributions using Information Collection Rule
occurrence data set. Costs are discounted at 3 percent, summed to present value, and annualized over 25 years. Source: Chapter 7 and Appendix H of the
LT2ESWTR EA (USEPA 2005a).
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. The LT2ESWTR
contains a number of provisions to minimize the impact of the rule on
PWSs generally, and on small PWSs in particular. The risk-targeted
approach of the LT2ESWTR will impose additional treatment requirements
only on the subset of PWSs with the highest vulnerability to
Cryptosporidium, as indicated by source water pathogen levels. This
approach will spare the majority of PWSs from the cost of installing
additional treatment. Also, development of the microbial toolbox under
the LT2ESWTR will provide both large and small PWSs with broad
flexibility in selecting cost-effective compliance options to meet
additional treatment requirements.
Small PWSs will monitor for E. coli as a screening analysis for
source waters with low levels of fecal contamination. Cryptosporidium
monitoring will only be required of small PWSs if they exceed the E.
coli trigger value. Because E. coli analysis is much cheaper than
Cryptosporidium analysis, the use of E. coli as a screen will
significantly reduce monitoring costs for the majority of small PWSs.
Further, small PWSs will not be required to initiate their monitoring
until large PWS monitoring has been completed. This will provide small
PWSs with additional time to become familiar with the rule and to
prepare for monitoring and other compliance activities.
Funding may be available from programs administered by EPA and
other Federal agencies to assist small PWSs in complying with the
LT2ESWTR. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) assists PWSs
with financing the costs of infrastructure needed to achieve or
maintain compliance with SDWA requirements. Through the DWSRF, EPA
awards capitalization grants to States, which in turn can provide low-
cost loans and other types of assistance to eligible PWSs. Loans made
under the program can have interest rates between 0 percent and market
rate and repayment terms of up to 20 years. States prioritize funding
based on projects that address the most serious risks to human health
and assist PWSs most in need. Congress provided $1.275 billion for the
DWSRF program in fiscal year 1997, and has provided an additional
$4.113 billion for the DWSRF program for fiscal years 1999 through
2003.
The DWSRF places an emphasis on small and disadvantaged
communities. States must provide a minimum of 15% of the available
funds for loans to small communities. A State has the option of
providing up to 30% of the grant awarded to the State to furnish
additional assistance to State-defined disadvantaged communities. This
assistance can take the form of lower interest rates, principal
forgiveness, or negative interest rate loans. The State may also extend
repayment terms of loans for disadvantaged communities to up to 30
years. A State can set aside up to 2% of the grant to provide technical
assistance to PWSs serving communities with populations fewer than
10,000.
In addition to the DWSRF, money is available from the Department of
Agriculture's Rural Utility Service (RUS) and Housing and Urban
Development's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. RUS
provides loans, guaranteed loans, and grants to improve, repair, or
construct water supply and distribution systems in rural areas and
towns of up to 10,000 people. In fiscal year 2003, RUS had over $1.5
billion of available funds for water and environmental programs. The
CDBG program includes direct grants to States, which in turn are
awarded to smaller communities, rural areas, and colo[ntilde]as in
Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas and direct grants to U.S.
territories and trusts. The CDBG budget for fiscal year 2003 totaled
over $4.4 billion.
Although not required by the RFA to convene a Small Business
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel because EPA determined that the proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, EPA did convene a panel to obtain advice and
recommendations from representatives of the small entities potentially
subject to this rule's requirements. For a description of the SBAR
Panel and stakeholder recommendations, please see the proposed rule
(USEPA 2003a).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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,
[[Page 755]]
and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the
UMRA, 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 to 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 contains a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local,
and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any
one year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a
written statement which is summarized below.
Table VII.D-1 illustrates the annualized public and private costs
for the LT2ESWTR.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.017
A more detailed description of this analysis is presented in
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2005a).
As noted in section III, today's final rule is promulgated pursuant
to section 1412 (b)(1)(A) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as
amended in 1996, which directs EPA to promulgate a national primary
drinking water regulation for a contaminant if EPA determines that the
contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons, occurs
in PWSs with a frequency and at levels of public health concern, and
regulation presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction.
Section VI of this preamble discusses the cost and benefits
associated with the LT2ESWTR. Details are presented in the Economic
Analysis for the LT2ESTWR (USEPA 2005a). EPA quantified costs and
benefits for four regulatory alternatives. The four alternatives are
described in section VI. Table VII.D-2 summarizes the range of annual
costs and benefits for each alternative.
[[Page 756]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.018
To meet the UMRA requirement in section 202, EPA analyzed future
compliance costs and possible disproportionate budgetary effects. The
Agency believes that the cost estimates, indicated earlier and
discussed in more detail in section VI of this preamble, accurately
characterize future compliance costs of today's rule.
In analyzing disproportionate impacts, EPA considered the impact on
(1) different regions of the United States, (2) State, local, and
Tribal governments, (3) urban, rural and other types of communities,
and (4) any segment of the private sector. This analysis is presented
in Chapter 7 of Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2005a).
EPA has concluded that the LT2ESWTR will not cause a
disproportionate budgetary effect. This rule imposes the same
requirements on PWSs nationally and does not disproportionately affect
any segment. This rule will treat similarly situated PWSs (in terms of
size, water quality, available data, installed technology, and presence
of uncovered finished storage facilities) in similar (proportionate)
ways, without regard to geographic location, type of community, or
segment of industry. The LT2ESWTR is a rule where requirements are
proportionate to risk. Although some groups may have differing
budgetary effects as a result of the LT2ESWTR, those costs are
proportional to the need for greater information (monitoring) and risk
posed (degree of treatment required). The variation in cost between
large and small PWSs is due to economies of scale (a larger PWS can
distribute cost across more customers). Regions will have varying
impacts due to the number of affected PWSs.
Under UMRA section 202, EPA is required to estimate the potential
macro-economic effects of the regulation. These types of effects
include those on productivity, economic growth, full employment,
creation of productive jobs, and international competitiveness. Macro-
economic effects tend to be measurable in nationwide econometric models
only if the economic impact of the regulation reaches 0.25 percent to
0.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In 2003, real GDP was
$10,398 billion, so a rule would have to cost at least $26 billion to
have a measurable effect. A regulation with a smaller aggregate effect
is unlikely to have any measurable impact unless it is highly focused
on a particular geographic region or economic sector.
The macro-economic effects on the national economy from the
LT2ESWTR should not have a measurable effect because the total annual
costs for today's rule range from $93 million to $133 million based on
median Cryptosporidium occurrence distributions from the ICRSSL and
Information Collection Rule data sets and a discount rate of 3 percent
($107 to $150 million at a 7 percent discount rate). These annualized
figures will remain constant over the 25-year implementation period
that was evaluated, while GDP will probably continue to rise. Thus, the
LT2ESWTR costs as a percentage of the national GDP will only decline
over time. Costs will not be highly focused on a particular geographic
region or sector.
Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of
section 204 of the UMRA, EPA initiated consultations with the
governmental entities affected by this rule prior to the proposal. A
description of the consultations is found in the proposed rule (USEPA
2003a).
As required under section 205 of UMRA, EPA considered several
regulatory alternatives to address PWSs at risk for contamination by
microbial pathogens, specifically including Cryptosporidium. A detailed
discussion of these alternatives can be found in section VI of the
preamble and also in the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR (USEPA
2005a).
Among the regulatory alternatives considered for the LT2ESWTR, as
described in section VI, EPA believes the alternative in today's rule
is the most cost-effective that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The objective of the LT2ESWTR is to achieve feasible risk reduction
from Cryptosporidium and other pathogens in vulnerable PWSs where
current regulations do not provide sufficient protection.
EPA evaluated a less costly and less burdensome alternative.
However, that alternative would provide no benefit to several thousand
consumers who, under the alternative in today's final rule, will
receive benefits that most likely exceed their costs, based on EPA
estimates. This is illustrated in the LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA
2005a). By failing to reduce risk for consumers where additional
treatment requirements would be cost-effective, the less costly
alternative does not appear to achieve the objectives of the LT2ESWTR.
The other alternatives considered by the Agency achieve the
objectives of the rule, but are more costly, more burdensome, and
potentially less cost-effective. The alternative in today's rule
targets additional treatment requirements to PWSs with the highest
vulnerability to Cryptosporidium and maximizes net benefits under a
broad range of conditions (USEPA 2005a). Consequently, EPA has found
the alternative in today's rule to be the most cost-effective among
those that achieve the objectives of the rule.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA. As described in section VII.C, EPA has certified
that today's rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Average annual expenditures for
small PWSs to comply with the LT2ESWTR range from
[[Page 757]]
$8.1 to $13.4 million at a 3% discount rate and $8.3 to $13.5 million
at a 7% discount rate. While the treatment requirements of the LT2ESWTR
apply uniformly to both small and large PWSs, large PWSs bear a
majority of the total costs of compliance with the rule. This is due to
the fact that large PWSs treat a majority of the drinking water that
originates from surface water sources.
E. Executive Order 13132: 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.''
Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that
has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
regulation.
EPA has concluded that this final rule may have federalism
implications, because it may impose substantial direct compliance costs
on State or local governments, and the Federal government will not
provide the funds necessary to pay those costs. The final rule may
result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate of $100 million or more in any one year. Costs are estimated
to range from $93 to $133 million at a 3 percent discount rate and $107
to $150 million using a 7 percent discount rate based on the median
distribution modeled from ICRSSL and Information Collection Rule
Cryptosporidium occurrence data sets. Accordingly, EPA provides the
following federalism summary impact statement as required by section
6(b) of Executive Order 13132.
EPA consulted with representatives of State and local officials
early in the process of developing today's rule to permit them to have
meaningful and timely input into its development. As described in the
proposed rule (USEPA 2003a), this consultation included State and local
government representatives on the Stage 2 M-DBP Federal Advisory
Committee (whose recommendations were largely adopted in today's rule),
the representatives from small local governments to the SBAR panel, a
meeting with representatives from the Association of State Drinking
Water Administrators, the National Governors' Association, the National
Conference of State Legislatures, the International City/County
Management Association, the National League of Cities, the County
Executives of America, and health departments, consultation with Tribal
governments at four meetings and through the Advisory Committee
process, and comments from State and local governments on a pre-
proposal draft of the LT2ESWTR.
Representatives of State and local officials were generally
concerned with ensuring that drinking water regulations are adequately
protective of public health and that any additional regulations achieve
significant health benefits in return for required expenditures. They
were specifically concerned with the burden of the rule, both in cost
and technical complexity, giving flexibility to PWSs and States,
balancing the control of microbial risks and DBP risks, funding for
implementing new regulations, equal protection for small PWSs, and
early implementation of monitoring by large PWSs.
EPA has concluded that the LT2ESWTR is needed to reduce the public
health risk associated with Cryptosporidium in drinking water. As shown
in section VI, estimated benefits for the rule are significantly higher
than costs. Further, EPA believes that today's rule addresses many of
the concerns expressed by representatives of government officials.
Under the LT2ESWTR, expenditures for additional treatment are
targeted to the fraction of PWSs with the highest vulnerability to
Cryptosporidium, thereby minimizing burden for the majority of PWSs,
which will not be required to provide additional treatment. The
microbial toolbox of compliance options will provide flexibility to
PWSs in meeting additional treatment requirements, and States have the
flexibility to award treatment credits based on site-specific
demonstrations. Disinfection profiling provisions are intended to
ensure that PWSs do not reduce microbial protection as they take steps
to reduce exposures to DBPs.
The LT2ESWTR achieves equal public health protection for small
PWSs. However, the use of E. coli monitoring by small PWSs as a
screening analysis to determine the need for Cryptosporidium monitoring
will reduce monitoring costs for most small PWSs. Capital projects
related to the rule will be eligible for funding from the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund, which includes specific funding for small
communities. EPA is planning to support the initial monitoring by large
PWSs that takes place within the first few years after rule
promulgation. This will substantially reduce the burden on States
associated with early implementation of monitoring requirements.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule
from State and local officials.
As required by section 8(a) of Executive Order 13132, EPA included
a certification from its Federalism Official stating that EPA had met
the Executive Order's requirements in a meaningful and timely manner,
when it sent the draft of this final rule to OMB for review pursuant to
Executive Order 12866. A copy of this certification has been included
in the public version of the official record for this final rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop ``an accountable process to ensure meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' Under Executive Order 13175,
EPA may not issue a regulation that has Tribal implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required
by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by Tribal governments, or
EPA consults with Tribal officials early in the process of developing
the proposed regulation and develops a Tribal summary impact statement.
EPA has concluded that this final rule may have Tribal
implications, because it may impose substantial direct compliance costs
on Tribal governments, and the Federal government will not provide the
funds necessary to pay those costs. EPA has identified 93 Tribal water
systems serving a total population of 82,216 that may be subject to the
LT2ESWTR. They will bear an estimated total annualized cost of $207,105
at a 3 percent discount rate ($309,583 at 7 percent) to
[[Page 758]]
implement this rule. Estimated mean annualized cost per system ranges
from $1,944 to $7,068 at a 3 percent discount rate ($2,905 to $10,681
at 7 percent) depending on PWS size (see Chapter 7 of the LT2ESWTR
Economic Analysis (USEPA 2005a) for details). Accordingly, EPA provides
the following Tribal summary impact statement as required by section
5(b).
EPA consulted with Tribal officials early in the process of
developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely
input into its development. This consultation is described in the
proposed rule (USEPA 2003a). Tribal officials were represented on the
M-DBP Advisory Committee.
As required by section 7(a), EPA's Tribal Consultation Official has
certified that the requirements of the Executive Order have been met in
a meaningful and timely manner. A copy of this certification is
included in the docket for this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health 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 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.
This final rule is subject to the Executive Order because it is an
economically significant regulatory action as defined in Executive
Order 12866, and we believe that the environmental health or safety
risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on
children. Accordingly, we have evaluated the environmental health or
safety effects of Cryptosporidium on children. The results of this
evaluation are contained in Cryptosporidium: Risk for Infants and
Children (USEPA 2001d), which is available in the public docket for
this action, and are summarized in this section of the preamble.
Further, while available information is not adequate to conduct a
quantitative risk assessment specifically for children, EPA has
assessed the risk associated with Cryptosporidium in drinking water for
the general population, including children. This assessment is
described in the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2005a) and
is summarized in section VI of this preamble.
Children's Environmental Health
Cryptosporidiosis in children is similar to adult disease (USEPA
2001d). Diarrhea is the most common symptom. Other common symptoms in
otherwise healthy (i.e., immunocompetent) children include anorexia,
vomiting, abdominal pain, fever, dehydration and weight loss.
The risk of illness and death due to cryptosporidiosis depends on
several factors, including age, nutrition, exposure, genetic
variability, disease and the immune status of the individual. Mortality
resulting from diarrhea generally occurs at a greater rate among the
very young and elderly (Gerba et al., 1996). During the 1993 Milwaukee
drinking water outbreak, associated mortalities in children were
reported. Also, children with laboratory-confirmed cryptosporidiosis
were more likely to have an underlying disease that altered their
immune status (Cicirello et al., 1997). In that study, the observed
association between increasing age of children and increased numbers of
laboratory-confirmed cryptosporidiosis suggested to the authors that
the data are consistent with increased tap water consumption of older
children. Asymptomatic infection can have a substantial effect on
childhood growth (Bern et al., 2002).
Cryptosporidiosis appears to be more prevalent in populations, such
as children, that may not have established immunity against the disease
and may be in greater contact with environmentally contaminated
surfaces (DuPont et al., 1995). In the United States, children aged one
to four years are more likely than adults to have the disease. The most
recent reported data on cryptosporidiosis shows the occurrence rate
(for the year 1999) is higher in children ages one to four (3.03
incidence rate per 100,000) than in any adult age group (CDC, 2001).
Evidence from blood sera antibodies collected from children during the
1993 Milwaukee outbreak suggest that children had greater levels of
Cryptosporidium infection than predicted for the general community
(based on the random-digit dialing telephone survey method) (McDonald
et al., 2001).
Data indicate a lower incidence of cryptosporidiosis infection
during the first year of life. This is attributed to breast-fed infants
consuming less tap water and, hence, having less exposure to
Cryptosporidium, as well as the possibility that mothers confer short
term immunity to their children. For example, in a survey of over
30,000 stool sample analyses from different patients in the United
Kingdom, the one to five 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 less than six months
(Casemore, 1990). Similarly, in the U.S., of 2,566 reported
Cryptosporidium illnesses in 1999, 525 occurred in ages one to four
(incidence rate of 3.03 per 100,000) compared with 58 cases in infants
under one year (incidence rate of 1.42 per 100,000) (CDC, 2001).
An infected child may spread the disease to other children or
family members (Heijbel et al., 1987, Osewe et al., 1996). Millard et
al. (1994) documented greater household secondary transmission of
cryptosporidiosis from children than from adults to household and other
close contacts. Children continued to shed oocysts for more than two
weeks (mean 16.5 days) after diarrhea cessation (Tangerman et al.,
1991).
While Cryptosporidium may have a disproportionate effect on
children, available data are not adequate to distinctly assess the
health risk for children resulting from Cryptosporidium-contaminated
drinking water. In assessing risk to children when evaluating
regulatory alternatives for the LT2ESWTR, EPA assumed the same risk for
children as for the population as a whole.
Section VI of this preamble presents the regulatory alternatives
that EPA evaluated for the proposed LT2ESWTR. Among the four
alternatives the Agency considered, three involved a risk-targeting
approach in which additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements are
based on source water monitoring results. A fourth alternative involved
additional treatment requirements for all PWSs. The alternative
requiring additional treatment by all PWSs was not selected because of
concerns about feasibility and because it imposed costs but provided
few benefits to PWSs with high quality source water (i.e., relatively
low Cryptosporidium risk). The three risk-targeting alternatives were
evaluated based on several factors, including costs, benefits, net
benefits, feasibility of implementation, and other specific impacts
(e.g., impacts on small PWSs or sensitive subpopulations).
[[Page 759]]
The alternative that today's final rule establishes was recommended
by the M-DBP Federal Advisory Committee and selected by EPA as the
Preferred Regulatory Alternative because it was deemed feasible and
provides significant public health benefits in terms of avoided
illnesses and deaths. EPA's analysis of benefits and costs indicates
that this alternative ranks highly among those evaluated with respect
to maximizing net benefits, as shown in the LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis
(USEPA 2005a). This document is available in the docket for this
action.
The result of the LT2ESWTR 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 LT2ESWTR may,
therefore, result in greater risk reduction for children than for the
general population.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This
determination is based on the following analysis.
The first consideration is whether the LT2ESWTR would adversely
affect the supply of energy. The LT2ESWTR does not regulate power
generation, either directly or indirectly. The public and private
utilities that the LT2ESWTR regulates do not, as a rule, generate
power. Further, the cost increases borne by customers of water
utilities as a result of the LT2ESWTR are a low percentage of the total
cost of water, except for a very few small PWSs that might install
advanced technologies and then need to spread that cost over a narrow
customer base. Therefore, the customers that are power generation
utilities are unlikely to face any significant effects as a result of
the LT2ESWTR. In sum, the LT2ESWTR does not regulate the supply of
energy, does not generally regulate the utilities that supply energy,
and is unlikely to affect significantly the customer base of energy
suppliers. Thus, the LT2ESWTR would not translate into adverse effects
on the supply of energy.
The second consideration is whether the LT2ESWTR would adversely
affect the distribution of energy. The LT2ESWTR does not regulate any
aspect of energy distribution. The utilities that are regulated by the
LT2ESWTR already have electrical service. As derived later in this
section, the final rule is projected to increase peak electricity
demand at water utilities by only 0.036 percent. Therefore, EPA
estimates that the existing connections are adequate and that the
LT2ESWTR has no discernable adverse effect on energy distribution.
The third consideration is whether the LT2ESWTR would adversely
affect the use of energy. Because some drinking water utilities are
expected to add treatment technologies that use electrical power, this
potential impact is evaluated in more detail. The analyses that
underlay the estimation of costs for the LT2ESWTR are national in scope
and do not identify specific plants or utilities that may install
treatment in response to the rule. As a result, no analysis of the
effect on specific energy suppliers is possible with the available
data. The approach used to estimate the impact of energy use,
therefore, focuses on national-level impacts. The analysis estimates
the additional energy use due to the LT2ESWTR, and compares that to the
national levels of power generation in terms of average and peak loads.
The first step in the analysis is to estimate the energy used by
the technologies expected to be installed as a result of the LT2ESWTR.
Energy use is not directly stated in Technologies and Costs for Control
of Microbial Contaminants and Disinfection By-Products (USEPA 2003c),
but the annual cost of energy for each technology addition or upgrade
necessitated by the LT2ESWTR is provided. An estimate of plant-level
energy use is derived by dividing the total energy cost per plant for a
range of flows by an average national cost of electricity of $0.070/kWh
(USDOE 2004a). These calculations are shown in detail in Chapter 7 of
the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2005a). The energy use
per plant for each flow range and technology is then multiplied by the
number of plants predicted to install each technology in a given flow
range. The energy requirements for each flow range are then added to
produce a national total. No electricity use is subtracted to account
for the technologies that may be replaced by new technologies,
resulting in a conservative estimate of the increase in energy use.
Results of the analysis are shown in Table VII.H-1 for each of the
modeled Cryptosporidium occurrence distributions. The incremental
national annual energy usage is estimated at 165 million megawatt-hours
(mW) based on the modeled Information Collection Rule occurrence
distribution.
[[Page 760]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA06.019
To determine if the additional energy required for PWSs to comply
with the rule would have a significant adverse effect on the use of
energy, the numbers in Table VII.H-1 are compared to the national
production figures for electricity. According to the U.S. Department of
Energy's Information Administration, electricity producers generated
3,848 million mW of electricity in 2003 (USDOE 2004b). Therefore, even
using the highest assumed energy use for the LT2ESWTR, the rule when
fully implemented would result in only a 0.004 percent increase in
annual average energy use.
In addition to average energy use, the impact at times of peak
power demand is important. To examine whether increased energy usage
might significantly affect the capacity margins of energy suppliers,
their peak season generating capacity reserve was compared to an
estimate of peak incremental power demand by water utilities.
Both energy use and water use are highest in the summer months, so
the most significant effects on supply would be seen then. In the year
of 2003, U.S. generation capacity exceeded consumption by 15 percent,
or approximately 160,00 mW (USDOE EIA 2004b). Assuming around-the-clock
operation of water treatment plants, the total energy requirement can
be divided by 8,760 hours per year to obtain an average power demand of
19 mW for the modeled Information Collection Rule occurrence
distribution. A more detailed derivation of this value is shown in
Chapter 7 of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR (USEPA 2005a).
Assuming that power demand is proportional to water flow through the
plant, and that peak flow can be as high as twice the average daily
flow during the summer months, about 38 mW could be needed for
treatment technologies installed to comply with the LT2ESWTR. This is
only 0.024 percent of the capacity margin available at peak use.
Although EPA recognizes that not all areas have a 15 percent
capacity margin and that this margin varies across regions and through
time, this analysis reflects the effect of the rule on national energy
supply, distribution, or use. While certain areas, notably California,
have experienced shortfalls in generating capacity in the recent past,
a peak incremental power requirement of 38 mW nationwide is not likely
to significantly change the energy supply, distribution, or use in any
given area. Considering this analysis, EPA has concluded that LT2ESWTR
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (``NTTAA'') of 1995, Public Law
104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 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
standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to
use methods previously approved in 40 CFR 136.3 for the analysis of E.
coli in surface waters. These include several voluntary consensus
methods that were developed or adopted by the following organizations:
American Public Health Association in Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th, 19th, and 18th Editions, the
American Society of Testing Materials in Annual Book of ASTM
Standards--Water and Environmental Technology, and the Association of
Analytical Chemists in Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC
International, 16th Edition. EPA has concluded that these methods have
the necessary sensitivity and specificity to meet the data quality
objectives of the LT2ESWTR.
The Agency conducted a search to identify potentially applicable
voluntary consensus standards for analysis of Cryptosporidium. However,
we identified no such standards. Therefore,
[[Page 761]]
EPA approves the use of the following methods for Cryptosporidium
analysis: Method 1623: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water by
Filtration/IMS/FA, 2004, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-815-R-05-002 or Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in Water by
Filtration/IMS/FA, 2004, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-815-R-05-001.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations or Low-Income Populations
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. EPA
has considered environmental justice related issues concerning the
potential impacts of this action and consulted with minority and low-
income stakeholders. A description of this consultation can be found in
the proposed rule (USEPA 2003a).
K. 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
did consult with the Science Advisory Board, the National Drinking
Water Advisory Council (NDWAC), and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services on today's rule.
EPA charged the SAB panel with reviewing the following aspects of
the LT2ESWTR proposal:
The analysis of Cryptosporidium occurrence;
The pre- and post-LT2ESWTR Cryptosporidium risk
assessment; and
The treatment credits for the following four microbial
toolbox components: raw water off-stream storage, pre-sedimentation,
lime softening, and lower finished water turbidity.
EPA met with the SAB to discuss the LT2ESWTR on June 13, 2001
(Washington, DC), September 25-26, 2001 (teleconference), and December
10-12, 2001 (Los Angeles, CA). The SAB issued its final report for this
review, Disinfection Byproducts and Surface Water Treatment: A EPA
Science Advisory Board Review of Certain Elements of the Stage 2
Regulatory Proposals, in May 2003.
Comments from the SAB were generally supportive of EPA's analysis
of Cryptosporidium occurrence and the Cryptosporidium risk assessment
for today's rule. The SAB recommended some additional quality assurance
checks for statistical models, improved descriptions of underlying data
sets, and better characterization of uncertainty for key parameters.
USEPA 2005a and 2005b provide information on revisions EPA made in
response to these comments.
SAB comments on microbial toolbox options and the Agency's
responses to those comments are described in section IIII.D of this
preamble. In general, the SAB supported treatment credit for two-stage
softening, recommended additional performance criteria to award
treatment credit to presedimentation basins, recommended modifications
to the treatment credit for combined and individual filter performance,
and opposed treatment credit for off-stream raw water storage.
EPA met with the NDWAC on November 8, 2001, in Washington, DC, to
discuss the LT2ESWTR proposal. EPA specifically requested comments from
the NDWAC on the regulatory approach taken in the proposed microbial
toolbox (e.g., proposal of specific design and implementation criteria
for treatment credits). The Council was generally supportive of EPA
establishing criteria for awarding treatment credit to toolbox
components, but recommended that EPA provide flexibility for States to
address PWS specific situations. EPA believes that the demonstration of
performance credit, described in section IV.D.9 provides this
flexibility by allowing States to award higher or lower levels of
treatment credit for microbial toolbox components based on site
specific conditions.
EPA has consulted with the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) regarding Cryptosporidium health effects and has
provided HHS with today's rule.
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. EPA made every effort to
write this preamble to the final rule in as clear, concise, and
unambiguous manner as possible.
M. Analysis of the Likely Effect of Compliance With the LT2ESWTR on the
Technical, Financial, and Managerial Capacity of Public Water Systems
Section 1420(d)(3) of SDWA, as amended, requires that in
promulgating an NPDWR, the Administrator shall include an analysis of
the likely effect of compliance with the regulation on the technical,
managerial, and financial capacity of public water systems. This
analysis can be found in the LT2ESWTR Economic Analysis (USEPA 2005a).
Analyses reflect only the impact of new or revised requirements, as
established by the LT2ESWTR; the impacts of previously established
requirements on system capacity are not considered.
EPA has defined overall water system capacity as the ability to
plan for, achieve, and maintain compliance with applicable drinking
water standards. Capacity encompasses three components: technical,
managerial, and financial. Technical capacity is the physical and
operational ability of a water system to meet SDWA requirements. This
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 the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Capacity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source water adequacy............. Does the system have a reliable
source of water with adequate
quantity? Is the source generally
of good quality and adequately
protected?
[[Page 762]]
Infrastructure adequacy........... Can the system provide water that
meets SDWA standards? What is the
condition of its infrastructure,
including wells or source water
intakes, treatment and storage
facilities, and distribution
systems? What is the
infrastructure's life expectancy?
Does the system have a capital
improvement plan?
Technical knowledge and Are the system's operators
implementation. certified? Do the operators have
sufficient knowledge of applicable
standards? Can the operators
effectively implement this
technical knowledge? Do the
operators understand the system's
technical and operational
characteristics? Does the system
have an effective O&M program?
-----------------------------------
Managerial Capacity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ownership accountability.......... Are the owners clearly identified?
Can they be held accountable for
the system?
Staffing and organization......... Are the operators and managers
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 (i.e., to conduct
implementation, monitor for E. coli
and Cryptosporidium, install
treatment, and cover or disinfect
reservoir discharge to meet the
LT2ESWTR requirements)? 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?
Creditworthiness.................. 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?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
After determining the type and number of systems to which each
requirement applies, EPA evaluated the capacity impact of each rule
requirement on large and small systems affected by that particular
requirement. EPA determined that the overall impacts on small systems'
technical, managerial, and financial capacity will vary. Monitoring and
familiarization with new rules will have no significant effects on
small systems, with the exception of moderate revenue constraints on
those systems that need to implement monitoring for Cryptosporidium.
The largest impacts will occur as a result of attaining 2.5 log
treatment levels, covering uncovered reservoirs, or disinfecting
reservoir discharge. EPA assumed that large systems will have the
technical, financial, and managerial capacity to implement LT2ESWTR
requirements based on the scale and complexity of their operations. The
nature of their operations generally assures that they have access to
the technical and managerial expertise to carry out all activities
required by the LT2ESWTR. It is also generally easier for large systems
to fund capital improvements than small systems, since costs can be
spread over a larger customer base, making them smaller on a per-
household basis.
To meet challenges posed by rule requirements, it is likely that
some small and medium systems will need to develop or enhance linkages
with technical and financial assistance providers (including State
extension agents). Technical and financial assistance providers can
help systems analyze their needs as well as the trade-offs between cost
and health protection. In addition, they may be able to assist systems
in finding the funding necessary to install and operate new equipment.
The Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996, established the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to make funds available to drinking
water systems to finance infrastructure improvements. EPA also works
closely with organizations such as the National Rural Water Association
and the American Water Works Association to develop technical and
managerial tools, materials, and assistance to aid small systems.
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 a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective March 6, 2006.
VIII. References
Aboytes, Ramon, G. Di Giovanni, F. Abrams, C. Rheinecker, W.
McElroy, N. Shaw, and M.W. LeChevallier. 2004. Detection of
Infectious Cryptosporidium in Filtered Drinking Water. Journal of
AWWA 96(9):88-97.
APHA. 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater; 18th Edition. American Public Health Association,
Washington D.C.
Arora, H., M. LeChevallier, R. Aboytes, E. Bouwer, C. O'Melia, W.
Ball, W. Weiss, and T. Speth. 2000. Full-scale evaluation of
riverbank filtration at three Midwest water treatment plants.
Proceedings of the Water Quality Technology Conference, Salt Lake
City, Utah, American Water Works Association, Denver, Colorado.
Arrowood, M.J. 1997. Diagnosis. In: Cryptosporidium and
cryptosporidiosis, R. Fayer, ed. CRC Press, New York.
ASTM. 2001. Standard test method for on-line measurement of
turbidity below 5 NTU in water. D-6698-01.
ASTM. 2003. Standard test method for determination of turbidity
below 5 NTU in static mode. D-6855-03.
Battigelli, D. and M. Sobsey. 1993. The inactivation of Hepatitis A
virus, poliovirus, and coliphage MS2 by lime softening and chlorine/
monochloramine disinfection. Proceedings of the Water Quality
Technology Conference of the American Water Works Association,
Denver, CO.
Bern, C., Y. Ortega, W. Checkley, J. Roberts, A. Lescano, L.
Cabrera, M. Verastegui, E. Black, C. Sterling, and H. Gilman. 2002.
Epidemiologic differences between cyclosporiasis and
cryptosporidiosis in Peruvian children. Emerging Infectious
Diseases. 8:6:581-5.
Bukhari, Z., T. Hargy, J. Bolton, B. Dussert, and J. Clancy. 1999.
Medium-pressure UV for oocyst inactivation. J. AWWA. 91:3:86-94.
Carey, C.M., H. Lee, and J.T. Trevors. 2004. Biology, persistence
and detection of Cryptosporidium parvum and Cryptosporidium hominis
oocyst. Wat. Res. 38: 818-862.
Casemore, D. 1990. Epidemiological aspects of human
cryptosporidiosis. Epidemiol. Infect. 104:1-28.
[[Page 763]]
CDC. 1993. Surveillance for Waterborne-Disease Outbreaks--United
States, 1991-1992. MMWR. 42/SS-5:1-22.
CDC. 1996. Surveillance for Waterborne-Disease Outbreaks--United
States, 1993-1994. MMWR. 45/SS-1:1-33.
CDC. 1998. Surveillance for Waterborne-Disease Outbreaks--United
States, 1995-1996. MMWR. 47/SS-5:1-33.
CDC. 2000. Surveillance for Waterborne-Disease Outbreaks--United
States, 1997-1998. MMWR. 49/SS-4:1-36.
CDC. 2001. Preliminary FoodNet Data on the Incidence of Foodborne
Illnesses--Selected Sites, United States, 2000. MMWR. 50(13):241-
246.
CDC. 2002. Surveillance for Waterborne-Disease outbreaks: United
States, 1999-2000. MMWR 51(SS-8):1-47.
Chappell, C., P. Okhuysen, C. Sterling, C. Wang, W. Jakubowski and
H. Dupont. 1999. Infectivity of Cryptosporidium parvum in healthy
adults with pre-existing anti-C. Parvum serum immunoglobulin G. Am.
J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 60:157-164.
Ciardelli, C. 1996a. Giardia and Cryptosporidium challenge of the
HIF-14 vessel and PP-D-1 cartridges. Analytical Services, Inc.,
Williston, VT.
Ciardelli, C. 1996b. Giardia and Cryptosporidium challenge of the
HUR-170-HP filter. Analytical Services, Inc., Williston, VT.
Cicirello, H., K. Kehl, D. Addiss, M. Chusid, R. Glass, J. Davis,
and P. Havens. 1997. Cryptosporidiosis in children during a massive
waterborne outbreak in Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Clinical, laboratory
and epidemiologic findings. Epidemiol. Infect. 119 (1): 53-60.
Clancy, J., Z. Bukhari, T. Hargy, M. Thomas, J. Bolton, B. Dussert.
1998. Inactivation of Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts Using Medium-
Pressure Ultraviolet Light in Bench and Pilot Scale Studies.
Proceedings 1998 American Water Works Association Water Quality
Technology Conference, San Diego, CA, November 1-4:
Clancy, J., Z. Bukhari, T. Hargy, J. Bolton, B. Dussert, and M.
Marhsall. 2000. Using UV to inactivate Cryptosporidium. J. AWWA.
92(9):97-104.
Clancy, J., T. Hargy, D. Battigelli, M. Marshall, D. Korich, and W.
Nicholson. 2002. Susceptibility of multiple strains of C. parvum to
UV light. AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO
Clark, S.C., M. Morabbi, T. Hargy, J. Chandler, and J. Wiginton.
2001. Softening: The Ultimate Microbial Tool?. Proceedings of the
Water Quality Technology Conferenc, Nashville, TN, November 11-15.
Publisher: American Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
Clark, R., M. Sivagensan, E. Rice, and J. Chen. 2002a. Development
of a CT equation for the inactivation of Cryptosporidium oocysts
with ozone. Wat. Res. 36: 3141-3149.
Clark, R., M. Sivagensan, E. Rice, and J. Chen. 2002b. Development
of a CT equation for the inactivation of Cryptosporidium oocysts
with chlorine dioxide. Wat. Res. (in press).
Connell, K, C. Rodgers, H. Shank-Givens, J. Scheller, M. Pope, and
K. Miller. 2000. Building a better protozoa data set. J. AWWA.
92(10):30-43.
Cornwell, D.A., M.J. MacPhee, N.E. McTigue, H. Arora, G. DiGiovanni,
M. LeChevallier, and J.S. Taylor. 2001. Treatment options for
Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and other contaminants in recycled
backwash water. AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Cornwell, D. and M. LeChevallier (2002). Treatment options for
removal of Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and other contaminants in
recycled backwash water. American Water Works Association Research
Foundation, Denver, CO.
Corso, P., M. Kramer, K. Blair, D. Addiss, J. Davis, A. Haddix.
2003. The cost of illness associated with the massive waterborne
outbreak of Cryptosporidium infections in 1993 in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 9:4:426-31.
Craik, S., G. Finch, J. Bolton, and M. Belosevic, 2000. Inactivation
of Giardia muris cysts using medium-pressure ultraviolet radiation
in filtered drinking water. Wat. Res. 34:18:4325-32.
Craik, S., D. Weldon, G. Finch, J. Bolton, and M. Belosevic. 2001.
Inactivation of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts using medium- and
low-pressure ultraviolet radiation. Wat. Res. 35:1387-98
Craun, F., and R. Calderon. 1996. Microbial risks in groundwater
systems: Epidemiology of waterborne outbreaks. Under the Microscope:
Examining microbes in groundwater. Proceedings of the Groundwater
Foundation's 12th Annual Fall Symposium, Boston. September.
Current, W. 1986. Cryptosproridium: Its biology and potential for
environmental transmission. Crit. Rev. in Env. Control. 17:1:21-51.
Driedger, A.M., J.L. Rennecker, and B.J. Marinas. 2001. Inactivation
of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts with ozone and monochloramine at
low temperature. Wat. Res. 35(1)41-48.
Dugan, N., K. Fox, J. Owens, and R. Miltner. 2001. Controlling
Cryptosporidium oocysts using conventional treatment. J. AWWA.
93:12::64-76.
DuPont, H., C. Chappell, C. Sterling, P. Okhuysen, J. Rose, and W.
Jakubowski. 1995. The Infectivity of Cryptosporidium parvum in
healthy volunteers. New Eng. J. Med. 332(13):855-859.
Dwyer, P., M. Collins, A. Margolin, and Hogan. 1995. Assessment of
MS2 Bacteriophage Giardia Cysts Cryptosporidium Oocysts and Organic
Carbon Removals by Hollow Fiber Ultrafiltration. AWWA Membrane
Technology Conference Proceedings, Reno NV, pp. 487.
Edzwald, J. and M. Kelly. 1998. Control of Cryptosporidium from
reservoirs to clarifiers to filters. Wat. Sci. Technol. 37(2):1-8.
Embrey, M. 1999. Adenovirus in drinking water, literature summary.
Final report. Prepared by The George Washington University School of
Public Health and Health Services, Department of Environmental and
Occupational Health, Washington, DC.
Emelko, M., P. Huck, and R. Slawson. 1999. Design and Operational
Strategies for Optimizing Cryptosporidium Removal by Filters.
Proceedings of 1999 Water Quality Technology Conference, American
Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
Emelko, M., P. Huck, and II. Douglas, and J. van den Oever. 2000.
Cryptosporidium and Microsphere Removal During Low Turbidity End-of-
Run and Early Breakthrough Filtration. Proceeding Of Water Quality
Technology Conference, American Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
Enriquez, C. and C. Greba. 1999. Evaluation of the Osmonics Water
Purification Filters FGF, FAP and SXE in their Ability to Remove
Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts. Final Report. University of Arizona,
Tuscon, AZ.
Farthing M.J. 2000. Clinical aspects of human cryptosporidiosis. In:
Cryptosporidiosis and microsporidiosis,vol. 6,1st ed., F. Petry,
editor. S. Kargar AG, New York. 50-74.
Fayer, R., and B. Ungar. 1986. Cryptosporidium spp. and
cryptosporidiosis. Microbial Review. 50(4):458-483.
Fayer, R. and T. Nerad. 1996. Effects of low temperatures on
viability of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol., 62:4:1431-1433.
Fayer, R., L. Gasbarre, P. Pasquali, A. Canals, S. Almeria, and D.
Zarlenga. 1998a. Cryptosporidium parvum infection in bovine
neonates-dynamic clinical, parasitic, and immunologic patterns. Int.
J. Parasitol., 28:1:49-56.
Fayer, R., J.M. Trout, and M.C. Jenkins. 1998b. Infectivity of
Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts stored in water at environmental
temperatures. J. Parasitol. 84(6)1165-1169.
Finch, G.R., L.L. Gyurek, L.R. Liyanage, and M. Belosevic. 1997.
Effects of various disinfection methods on the inactivation of
Cryptosporidium. AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Fogel, D., J. Isaac-Renton, R. Guasparini, W. Moorehead, and J.
Ongerth. 1993. Removing Giardia and Cryptosporidium by slow sand
filtration. J. AWWA. 85:11:77-84.
Francy et al. 2004. Effects of seeding procedures and water quality
on recovery of Cryptosporidium oocysts from stream water by using
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 1623. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology. 70(7):4118-4128.
Frisby, H.R., D.G. Addiss, W.J. Reiser, B. Hancock, J.M. Vergeront,
N.J. Hoxie, J.P. Davis. 1997. Clinical and epidemiologic features of
a massive waterborne outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in persons with
HIV infection. J. AIDS and Hum. Retrovirology 16:367-373.
Frost, F.J., T. Muller, G.F. Craun, R.L. Calderon, and P.A. Roeffer.
2001. Paired
[[Page 764]]
city Cryptosporidium serosurvey in the southwest USA, Epidemiol.
Infect. 126:301-307.
Frost, F.J., T. Muller, G.F. Craun, W.B. Lockwood, R.L. Calderon.
2002. Serological evidence of endemic waterborne Cryptosporidium
infections. Annals of Epidemiology 12:222-227.
Geldreich, E.E., and S. Shaw. 1993. New York City Water Supply
Microbial Crisis. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Gerba, C., J. Rose, and C. Haas. 1996. Sensitive populations: who is
at the greatest risk? International Journal of Food Microbiology:
30(1-2), 10pp.
Goodrich, J., S. Li, and B. Lykins. 1995. Cost and Performance
Evaluations of Alternative Filtration Technologies for Small
Communities. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American
Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
Graczyk, T.K. Cranfield, M.R., Fayer, R. and Anderson, M.S. 1996.
Viability and Infectivity of Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts are
Retained Upon Intestinal Passage Through a Refractory Avian Host.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology 62(9):3234-3237.
Great Lakes Instruments, 1992. Analytical Method for Turbidity
Measurement: Great Lakes Instrument Method 2, GLI, Milwaukee, WI.
8pp.
Gregory, R. and T. Zabel. 1990. Sedimentation and Flotation in Water
Quality and Treatment: A Handbook of Community Water Supplies. F.W.
Pontious, ed. American Water Works Assoc. 4th ed. New York: McGraw
Hill. 427-444.
Hagen, K. 1998. Removal of Particles, Bacteria and Parasites With
Ultrafiltration for Drinking Water Treatment. Desalination: The
International Journal on the Science and Technology of Desalting and
Water Purification. 1(3): 85-91.
Hall T., J. Pressdee, and E. Carrington. 1994. Removal of
Cryptosporidium oocysts by water treatment processes. Report No.
FR0457, Foundation for Water Research, Bucks, UK.
Harrington W., A. Krupnick, and W. Spofford. 1985. The benefits of
preventing an outbreak of giardiasis due to drinking water
contamination. Resources for the Future Report.
Harrington, G., H. Chen, A. Harris, II. Xagoraraki, D. Battigelli,
and J. Standridge. 2001. Removal of Emerging Waterborne Pathogens.
American Water Works Association Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Harter, T., S. Wagner and E. Atwill. 2000. Colloid transport and
filtration of Cryptosporidium parvum in sandy soils and aquifer
sediments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34:62-70.
Havelaar, A., M. van Olphen, and J. Schijven. 1995. Removal and
inactivation of viruses by drinking water treatment processes under
full scale conditions, Wat. Sci. Technol. 31:55062.
Heijbel, H., K. Slaine, B. Seigel, P. Wall, S. McNabb, W. Gibbons,
and G. Istre. 1987. Outbreak of diarrhea in a day care center with
spread to household members: The role of Cryptosporidium. Pediatr.
Infect. Dis. J. 6(6):532-535.
Hoxie, N., J. Davis, J. Vergeront, R. Nashold, and K. Blair. 1997.
Cryptosporidiosis-associated mortality following a massive
waterborne outbreak in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Amer. J. Publ. Health.
87(12):2032-2035.
Huck, P.M., B. Coffey, C. O'Melia, and M. Emelko. 2000. Removal of
Cryptosporidium by Filtration Under Conditions of Process Challenge.
Proceedings from the Water Quality Technology Conference of the
American Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
Jacangelo, J.G, M.E. Aeita, K.E. Carns, E.W. Cummings, and J.
Mallevialle. 1989. Assessing Hollow-Fiber Ultrafiltration for
Particle Removal. J. AWWA, 81:11:68.
Jacangelo, J., S. Adham and J. Laine. 1995. Mechanism of
Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and MS2 virus removal by MF and UF. J.
AWWA 87(9):107-21.
Jacangelo, J., S. Adham, and J-M Laine. 1997. Membrane Filtration
for Microbial Removal, Report No. 90715, American Water Works
Association Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Kachalesky, L.A., and T. Masterson. 1995. Membrane Filtration of
Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent. AWWA Membrane Technology Conference
Proceedings, Reno NV, pp. 517.
Kato, S., M. Jenkins, W. Ghiorse, E. Fogarty, and D. Bowman. 2001.
Inactivation of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in field soil.
Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health. 32(2):183-9.
Kelley, M., P. Warrier, J. Brokaw, K. Barrett, and S. Komisar. 1995.
A study of two U.S. Army installation drinking water sources and
treatment systems for the removal of Giardia and Cryptosporidium.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Water Works
Association, Denver, CO.
Korich, D.G., J.R. Mead, M.S. Madore, N.A. Sinclair, and C.R.
Sterling. 1990. Effects of ozone, chlorine dioxide, chlorine, and
monochloramine on Cryptosporidium parvum oocyst viability. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 56(5)1423-1428.
Landis, H., J. Thompson, J. Robinson, and E. Bltachley. 2000.
Inactivation responses of Cryptosporidium parvum to UV radiation and
gamma radiation. Proceedings AWWA Water Quality Technical
Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, November 5-9.
LeChevallier, M., W. Norton, and R. Lee. 1991. Giardia and
Cryptosporidium spp. in filtered drinking water supplies. Appl.
Environ. Microbial. 57(9):2617-2621.
LeChevallier, M. and W. Norton. 1992. Examining relationships
between particle counts and Giardia, Cryptosporidium and turbidity.
J. AWWA. 84(120):52-60.
LeChevallier, M. and W. Norton. 1995. Giardia and Cryptosporidium in
raw and finished water. J. AWWA. 87(9):54-68.
LeChevallier, M., W. Norton, and T. Atherholt. 1997. Protozoa in
open reservoirs. J. AWWA. 89(9):84-96.
LeChevallier, M.W., G. D. Di Giovanni, J.L. Clancy, Z. Bukhari, S.
Bukhari, J.S. Rosen, J. Sobrinho, M.M. Frey. 2003. Comparison of
Method 1623 and Cell Culture-PCR for Deterction of Cryptosporidium
spp. in Source Waters. J. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69:2:971-979.
Letterman R., C. Johnson, S. Viswanathan, and J. Dwarakanathan.
2001. A study of low level turbidity measurements. Published by the
American Water Works Association Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Li, S., J. Goodrich, J. Owens, G. Willeke, F. Schaefer and R. Clark.
1997. Reliability of surrogates for determining Cryptosporidium
removal. J. AWWA. 89(5):90.
Li, H., G. Finch, D. Smith, and M. Belosevic. 2001. Sequential
Disinfection Desgin Criteria for Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
Oocysts in Drinking Water. American Water Works Association Research
Foundation, Denver, CO.
Logsdon, G., M. Frey, T. Stefanich, S. Johnson, D. Feely, J. Rose,
and M. Sobsey. 1994. The removal and disinfection efficiency of lime
softening processes for Giardia and viruses. American Water Works
Association Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Long, W.R. 1983. Evaluation of Cartridge Filters for the Removal of
Giardia lamblia Cyst Models from Drinking Water Systems. Journal of
Environmental Health. 45(5):220.
MacKenzie, W R and N J Hoxie, M E Proctor, M S Gradus, K A Blair, D
E Peterson, J J Kazmierczak, D A Addiss, K R Fox, J B Rose, and J P
Davis. 1994. A massive outbreak of Cryptosporidium infection
transmitted through the public water supply. New England Journal of
Medicine 331(3): 161-167.
Mazounie, P., F. Bernazeau, and P. Alla. 2000. Removal of
Cryptosporidium by High Rate Contact Filtration: The Performance of
the Prospect Water Filtration Plant During the Sydney Water Crisis.
Water Science and Technology. 41(7):93-101.
McDonald, A., W. MacKenzie, D. Addiss, M. Gradus, G. Linke, E.
Zembrowski, M. Hurd, M. Arroweed, P. Lammie, and J. Priest. 2001.
Cryptosporidium parvum-specific antibody responses among children
residing in Milwaukee during the 1993 waterborne outbreak. Jour.
Infectious Diseases 183:1373-1379.
McTigue, N., M. LeChevallier, H. Arora, and J. Clancy. 1998.
National assessment of particle removal by filtration. American
Water Works Association Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Mead, P.S., Slutsker, L., Dietz, V., McCaig, L.F., Bresee, J.S.,
Shapiro, C., Griffin, P.M., and Tauxe, R.V. 1999. Food-Related
Illness and Death in the United States. Center for Disease Control
and Prevention 5(5):607-625.
Medema, G., M. Juhasz-Hoterman, and J. Luitjen. 2000. Removal of
micro-organisms by bank filtration in a gravel-sand soil.
Proceedings of the International Riverbank Filtration Conference,
November 2-4, D[uuml]sseldorf,
[[Page 765]]
W. Julich and J. Schubert, eds., Internationale Arbeitgemeinschaft
der Wasserwerke im Rheineinzugsgebiet, Amsterdam.
Messner, M. 2003. Estimating lot variability (Chlorine dioxide CT
table). USEPA Report. April 30, 2003.
Millard, P., K. Gensheimer, D. Addiss, D. Sosin, G. Beckett, A.
Houck-Jankoski, and A. Hudson. 1994. An outbreak of
cryptosporidiosis from fresh-pressed apple cider. JAMA. 272:1592-
1596.
Morgan-Ryan, U., A. Fall, L. Ward, N. Hijjawi, II. Sulaiman, R.
Fayer, R. Thompson, M. Olson, A. Lal, and L. Xiao. 2002.
Cryptosporidium hominis n. sp. (Apicomplexa: Cryptosporidiidae) from
Homo sapiens. Jounal of Eukaryotic Microbiology. 49:6:443-440.
National Research Council. 1997. Safe water from every tap. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Nichols et al. 2004. Survival of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts
after prolonged exposure to still natural mineral waters. Journal of
Food Protection 67(3):517-523.
Nieminski, E. and J. Ongerth. 1995. Removing Giardia and
Cryptosporidium by conventional treatment and direct filtration. J.
AWWA 87(9):96-106.
Nieminski, E. and W. Bellamy. 2000. Application of Surrogate
Measures to Improve Treatment Plant Performance. AWWA Research
Foundation, Denver, CO.
NSF International. 2000a. Environmental Technology Verification
Report: Physical Removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia
cysts in Drinking Water, Aquasource North America, Ultrafiltration
System Model A35, Pittsburgh, PA.
NSF International. 2000b. Environmental Technology Verification
Report: Physical Removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia
cysts in Drinking Water, Pall Corporation, WPM-1 Microfiltration
Pilot System, Pittsburgh, PA.
NSF International. 2000c. Environmental Technology Verification
Report: Physical Removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia
cysts in Drinking Water, Leopold Membrane Systems, Ultrabar
Ultrafiltration System with 60 Inch Mark III Membrane Element,
Pittsburgh, PA.
NSF International. 2000d. Environmental Technology Verification
Report: Physical Removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia
cysts in Drinking Water, Zenon, ZeeWeed ZW-500 Ultrafiltration
Membrane System, Pittsburgh, PA.
NSF International. 2000e. Environmental Technology Verification
Report: Physical Removal of Microbiological and Particulate
Contaminants in Drinking Water, Ionics, UF-1-7T Ultrafiltration
Membrane System, Escondido, CA.
NSF International. 2000f. Environmental Technology Verification
Report: Physical Removal of Microbiological and Particulate
Contaminants in Drinking Water, Zenon, Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed
ZW-500 Ultrafiltration Membrane System, Escondido, CA.
NSF International. 2000g. Environmental Technology Verification
Report: Physical Removal of Microbiological and Particulate
Contaminants in Drinking Water, Hydranautics, Hydracap
Ultrafiltration Membrane System, Escondido, CA.
NSF International. 2001a. Environmental technology verification
report, physical removal of Giardia- and Cryptosporidium-sized
particles in drinking water: Rosedale Products, Inc. Bag and
Cartridge Filter System Model GFS-302P2-150S-ESBB. (01/08/PEADW395),
Ann Arbor, MI.
NSF International. 2001b. Environmental technology verification
report, physical removal of Giardia- and Cryptosporidium-sized
particles in drinking water: Lapoint Industries Aqua-Rite Potable
Water Filtration System. (01/08/PEADW395), Ann Arbor, MI.
NSF International. 2002a. Proposed Modification to ETV Protocol for
Equipment Verification Testing for Physical Removal of
Microbiological and Particulate Contaminants, Test Plan for Membrane
Filtration. Ann Arbor, MI.
NSF International. 2002b. Environmental Technology Verification
Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for Physical Removal of
Microbiological and Particulate Contaminants. (40CFR35.6450), Ann
Arbor, MI.
Okhuysen, P.C., C.L. Chappell, C.R. Sterling, W. Jakubowski, and
H.L. DuPont. 1998. Susceptibility and Serologic Response of Healthy
Adults to Reinfection with Cryptosporidium parvum. American Society
for Microbiology. 66:2:441-443.
Okhuysen, P.C., C.L. Chappell, J.H. Crabb, C.R. Sterling, and H.L.
DuPont. 1999. Virulence of three distinct Cryptosporidium parvum
isolates for healthy adults. Journal of Infectious Diseases.
180:4:1275-1281.
Okhuysen, P.C., S.M. Rich, C.L. Chappell, K.A. Grimes, G. Widmer, X.
Feng, S. Tzipori. 2002. Infectivity of a Cryptosporidium parvum
isolate of cervine origin for healthy adults and interferon-gamma
knockout mice. J Infect Dis. 185(9):1320-5.
Oliveri, V., G. Willinghan, J. Vickers, and C. McGahey. 1991.
Continuous Microfiltration of Secondary Wastewater Effluent. AWWA
Membrane Technology Conference Proceedings, Orlando, FL.
Ongerth, J. and J. Pecoraro. 1995. Removing Cryptosporidium using
multimedia filters. J. AWWA. 87(12):83-89.
Ongerth, J. and P. Hutton. 1997. DE filtration to remove
Cryptosporidium. J. AWWA. 89(12):39-46.
Ongerth, J. and P. Hutton. 2001. Testing of diatomaceous earth
filtration for removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts. J. AWWA. 93(12):
54-63.
Oppenheimer J., E. Aieta, R. Trussell, J. Jacangelo, and N. Najim.
2000. Evaluation of Cryptosporidium inactivation in natural waters.
American Water Works Association Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Oppenheimer, J., T. Gillogly, G. Stolarik, and R. Ward. 2002.
Comparing the efficiency of low and medium pressure UV light for
inactivating Giardia muris and Cryptosporidium parvum in waters with
low and high levels of turbidity. Proceedings of the Annual
Conference of the American Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
Osewe, P, D. Addis, K. Blair, A. Hightower, M. Kamb, and J. Davis.
1996. Cryptosporidiosis in Wisconsin: A case-control study of post-
outbreak transmission. Epidemiol. Infect. 117:297-304.
Owens J., R. Miltner, T. Slifko, and J. Rose. 1999. In vitro
excystation and infectivity in mice and cell culture to assess
chlorine dioxide inactivation of Cryptosporidium oocysts, in
Proceedings of the Water Quality Technology Conference of the
American Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
Owens J., R. Miltner, E. Rice, C. Johnson, D. Dahling, F. Schaefer,
and H. Shukairy 2000. Pilot-scale ozone inactivation of
Cryptosporidium and other microorganisms in natural water. Ozone
Sci. Eng. 22:5:501-517.
Pang, L., M. Close and M. Noonan. 1998. Rhodamine WT and Bacillus
subtilis transport through an alluvial gravel aquifer. Ground Water.
36:112-122.
Patania, N., Jacangelo, J., Cummings, L., Wilczak, A., Riley, K.,
and Oppenheimer, J. 1995. Optimization of Filtration for Cyst
Removal. AWWARF. Denver, CO. 178pp.
Patania, N., P. Mazounie, F. Bernazeau, G. Maclean, and P. Alla.
1999. Removal of Cryptosporidium by contact filtration: The Sydney
experience. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American
Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
Payment, P. and E. Franco. 1993. Clostridium perfringens and somatic
coliphages as indicators of the efficiency of drinking water
treatment for viruses and protozoan cysts. Appl. Environ. Micro.
59(8):2418-2424.
Plummer, J.D., J.K. Edzwald, and M.B. Kelly. 1995. Removing
Cryptosporidium by dissolved-air flotation. J. AWWA. 87(9):85-95.
Pope, M., M. Bussen, M. Feige, L. Shadix, S. Gonder, C. Rodgers, Y.
Chambers, J. Pulz, K. Miller, K. Connell, and J. Standridge. 2003.
Assessment of the effects of holding time and temperature on E. coli
densities in surface water samples. Appl. Environ. Micro.
69(10):6201-7.
Pokorny, N.J., S.C. Weir, R.A. Carreno, J.T. Trevors, H. Lee. 2002.
Influence of temperature on Cryptosporidium parvum oocyst
infectivity in river water samples as detected by tissue culture
assay. J Parasitol. 88(3):641-3.
Qian, S., M. Donnelly, D. Schmelling, M. Messner, K. Linden, and C.
Cotton. 2004. Ultraviolet light inactivation of protozoa in drinking
water: a Bayesian meta-analysis. Wat. Res. 38(2) 317-326
Ransome, M.E., T.N. Whitmore, and E.G. Carrington. 1993. Effects of
Disinfectants on the Viability of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts.
Water Supply. 11:75-89.
Rennecker J., B. Marinas, J. Owens and E. Rice. 1999. Inactivation
of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts with ozone. Wat. Res. 33(11):2481-
2488.
[[Page 766]]
Rennecker, J.L., A.M. Driedger, S.A. Rubin, and B.J. Marinas. 2000.
Synergy in sequential inactivation of Cryptosporidium parvum with
ozone/free chlorine and ozone/monochloramine. Wat. Res. 34(17):4121-
4130.
Rice, E., K. Fox, R. Miltner, D. Lytle, and C. Johnson. 1996.
Evaluating Plant Performance with Endospores. J. AWWA. 88(9):122-
130.
Robertson, L.J., A.T. Campbell, and H.V Smith. 1992. Survival of
Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts under various environmental
pressures. Appl. Env. Microbiol., 58:11:3494-3500.
Roessler, N. 1998. Control of Cryptosporidium in bottled water using
cartridge filtration systems. Filtration & Separation. 35(1):37-39.
Rossignol J.F., H. Hidalgo, M. Feregrino, F. Higuera, W.H. Gomez,
J.L. Romero, J. Padierna, A. Geyne, M.S. Ayers. 1998. A double-
`blind' ``placebo controlled study of nitazoxanide in the treatment
of cryptosporidial diarrhoea in AIDS patients in Mexico. Trans R Soc
Trop Med Hyg 92(6):663-6.
Ruffell K., J. Rennecker, and B. Marinas. 2000. Inactivation of
Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts with chlorine dioxide. Wat. Res.
34(3):868-876.
SAB (EPA Science Advisory Board). 2003. Disinfection Byproducts and
Surface Water Treatment: A EPA Science Advisory Board Review of
Certain Elements of the Stage 2 Regulatory Proposals. A Review by
the Drinking Water Committee of the EPA Science Advisory Board
Executive Committee. EPA-SAB-DWC-03-005.
Sadar, M. 1999. Turbidimeter Instrument Comparison: Low-level Sample
Measurements Technical Information Series. Hach Company. ap/dp 4/99
1ed rev1 D90.5 Lit No. 7063.
Schaub, S., H. Hargett, M. Schmidt and W. Burrows. 1993. Reverse
osmosis water purification unit: Efficacy of cartridge filters for
removal of bacteria and protozoan cysts when RO elements are
bypassed. U.S. Army Biomedical Research and Development Laboratory,
Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD.
Scheller, J, K. Connell, H. Shank-Givens, and C. Rodgers. 2002.
Design, Implementation, and Results of USEPA's 70-utility ICR
Laboratory Spiking Program. Information Collection Rule Data
Analysis. McGuire, M, J. McLain, and A. Obolensky, eds.
Schuler, P. and M. Ghosh. 1990. Diatomaceous earth filtration of
cysts and other particulates using chemical additives. J. AWWA
82(12):67-75.
Schuler, P. and M. Ghosh. 1991. Slow sand filtration of cysts and
other particulates. Proceedings of the annual conference of the
American Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
Shin, G., K. Linden, M. Arrowood, and M. Sobsey. 2001. Low-Pressure
UV Inactivation and DNA Repair Potential of Cryptosporidium parvum
Oocysts. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67(7):3029-3032.
Silverman, G., L. Nagy, and B. Olson. 1983. Variations in
particulate matter, algae, and bacteria in an uncovered finished-
drinking-water reservoir. J. AWWA. 75(4):191-5.
Sivaganesan, M. 2003. Estimating lot variability for development of
ozone CT table. USEPA Report. February 24, 2003.
Solo-Gabriele, H. and S. Neumeister. 1996. U.S. outbreaks of
cryptosporidiosis. J. AWWA. 88:76-86.
Sommer, R., S. Appelt, W. Pribil, and T. Slifko. 2001. UV
Irradiation in a Standard Laboratory Batch Apparatus (Wavelength
253.7 nm). Draft Report.
States, S., K. Stadterman, L. Ammon, p. Vogel, J. Baldizar, D.
Wright, L. Conley, and J. Sykora. 1997. Protozoa in river water:
sources, occurrence, and treatment. J. AWWA. 89:(9)74-83.
Tangerman, R., S. Gordon, P. Wiesner, and L. Kreckmanet. 1991. An
outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in a day-care center in Georgia,
American Jour. of Epidemiology. 133:471-476.
Timms, S., J. Slade, and C. Fricker. 1995. Removal of
Cryptosporidium by slow sand filtration. Wat. Sci. Technol. 31(5-
6):81-84.
Trussel, R., P. Gagliardo, S. Adham, amd A. Olivieri. 1998.
Membranes as an Alternate to Disinfection. Microfiltration II
Conference of the National Water Research Institute Proceedings,
November 12-13, San Diego, CA.
USDOE. 2004a. Table ES1.A. Total Electric Power Industry Summary
Statistics, 2004 and 2003. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/tablees1a.html
USDOE. 2004b. Table 7.1. Electricity Overview (Billion
Kilowatthours). http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/txt/mer7-1
USEPA. 1989a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations;
Filtration, Disinfection; Turbidity, Giardia lamblia, Viruses,
Legionella, and Heterotrophic Bacteria; Final Rule. Part III.
Federal Register, 54:124:27486. (June 29, 1989).
USEPA. 1989b. National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations;
Total Coliform Rule; Final Rule. Part III. Federal Register,
54:124:27544. (June 29, 1989).
USEPA. 1991a. Optimizing Water Treatment Plant Performance Using the
Composite Correction Program. EPA 625-6-91-027.
USEPA. 1991b. Guidance Manual for Compliance with the Filtration and
Disinfection Requirements for Public Water Systems Using Surface
Water Sources. Published by American Water Works Assoc. Denver, CO.
USEPA. 1993. EPA Method 180.1. Nephelometric Method. EPA 600/R-93-
100.
USEPA. 1994. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Requirements. 59 FR 38832; July 29, 1994.
USEPA. 1997. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Notice of Data Availability;
Proposed Rule. 62 FR 59486, November 3, 1997.
USEPA. 1998a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. 63 FR 69477, December 16,
1998.
USEPA. 1998b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Stage 1
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule. 63 FR 69389;
December 16, 1998.
USEPA. 1998c. Revisions to State Primacy Requirements To Implement
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments. 63 FR 23362, April 28, 1998.
USEPA. 1999a. Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in Water by Filtration/
IMS/FA. EPA-821-R-99-001.
USEPA. 1999b. Method 1623: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water by
Filtration/IMS/FA. EPA-821-R-99-006.
USEPA. 1999c. Guidance Manual for Compliance with the Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule: Turbidity Provisions. EPA-
815-R-99-010.
USEPA. 1999d. Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance
Manual. EPA 815-R-99-013.
USEPA. 1999e. Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs Guidance Manual.
EPA 815-R-99-011.
USEPA. 2000a. Stage 2 Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts Federal
Advisory Committee Agreement in Principle. 65 FR 83015; December 29,
2000.
USEPA. 2000b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Public
Notification Rule; Final Rule. 65 FR 25982; May 4, 2000.
USEPA. 2000c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for
Preparing Economic Analyses. Washington, DC. EPA 240-R-00-003,
September 2000.
USEPA. 2000d. SAB Report from the Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee on EPA's White Paper ``Valuing the Benefits of Fatal
Cancer Risk Reduction.'' EPA-SAB-EEAC-00-013.
USEPA. 2001a. National Primary Drinking Water; Filter Backwash
Recycling Rule; Final Rule. 66 FR 31086; June 8, 2001. EPA-815-Z-01-
001.
USEPA. 2001b. Cryptosporidium: Human Health Criteria Document. EPA-
822-K-94-001.
USEPA. 2001c. Cryptosporidium: Drinking Water Advisory. EPA-822-R-
01-009.
USEPA. 2001d. Cryptosporidium: Risk for Infants and Children.
February 23, 2001.
USEPA. 2001e. Method 1622: ``Cryptosporidium in Water by Filtration/
IMS/FA'' EPA-821-R-01-026, April 2001.
USEPA. 2001f. Method 1623: ``Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water by
Filtration/IMS/FA'' EPA 821-R-01-025, April 2001.
USEPA. 2001g. Low-Pressure Membrane Filtration for Pathogen Removal:
Application, Implementation and Regulatory Issues. EPA 815-C-01-001.
USEPA. 2001h. Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the
Analysis of Pollutants; Analytical Methods for Biological Pollutants
in Ambient Water; Proposed Rule. Federal Register. August 30, 2001.
USEPA. 2002a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term
1
[[Page 767]]
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; Final Rule. Federal Register.
January 14, 2002. 67 FR 1812. EPA 815-Z-02-001.
USEPA. 2002b. Process for Designing a Watershed Initiative. 67 FR
36172, May 23, 2002.
USEPA. 2002c. Method 1103.1: Escherichia coli (E. coli) In Water By
Membrane Filtration Using membrane-Thermotolerant Escherichia coli
Agar (mTEC). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC. EPA-821-R-02-020.
USEPA. 2002d. Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program for
Analysis of Cryptosporidium Under the Safe Drinking Water Act;
Agency Information Collection: Proposed Collection; Comment Request.
Federal Register: March 4, 2002. 67 FR 9731.
USEPA. 2003a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term
2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; Proposed Rule. 68 FR 47640,
August 11, 2003.
USEPA. 2003b. Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the
Analysis of Pollutants; Analytical Methods for Biological Pollutants
in Ambient Water. 68 FR 43272, July 21, 2003.
USEPA. 2005a. Economic Analysis for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-821-R-06-001.
USEPA. 2005b. Occurrence and Exposure Assessment for the Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-821-R-06-002.
USEPA. 2005c. Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in Water by Filtration/
IMS/FA. EPA 815-R-05-001.
USEPA. 2005d. Method 1623: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water by
Filtration/IMS/FA. EPA 815-R-05-002.
USEPA. 2005e. Valuing Time Losses Due to Illness under the 1996
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA Office of Water.
Prepared by IEC Consultants.
Wang, J., R. Song, and S. Hubbs. 2001. Particle removal through
riverbank filtration process, in W. Julich and J. Schubert, eds.,
Proceedings of the Internation Riverbank Filtration Conference,
November 2-4, 2000, Dusseldorf, Germany, Internationale
Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wasserwork im Rheineinzugsgebiet.
Ware and Schaefer. 2005. The effects of time and temperature on flow
cytometry enumerated live Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts. Letters in
Applied Microbiology 41:385-389.
Yang, S., S.K. Benson, C. Du, and M.C. Healey. 2000. Infection of
immunosuppressed C57BL/6N adult mice with a single oocyst of
Cryptosporidium parvum. J Parasitol. 86(4):884-7.
Yates, R., K. Scott, J. Green, J. Bruno, and R. De Leon. 1998. Using
Aerobic Spores to Evaluate Treatment Plant Performance. Proceedings,
Annual Conference of the American Water Works Association, Denver,
CO.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Reporting and recordkeeping.
40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indians-lands, Incorporation
by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 142
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Chemicals, Indians-lands, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
Dated: December 15, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
0
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]
0
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,
1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; Executive Order 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., 6901-6992k, 7401-
7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
0
2. In Sec. 9.1 the table is amended as follows:
0
a. Under the heading ``National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation'' by adding entries in numerical order for ``Sec.
141.706-141.710, 141.713-141.714, 141.716-141.723''.
0
b. Under the heading ``National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation'' by removing entries Sec. 142.15(c), 142.15(c)(6)-(7)
and adding entries in numerical order for ``142.14(a)(9), 142.15(c)(6),
and 142.16(n)'' as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR citation OMB control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
141.706-141.710...................................... 2040-0266
141.713-141.714...................................... 2040-0266
141.716-141.723...................................... 2040-0266
------------------------------------------------------
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
142.14(a)(9)......................................... 2040-0266
* * * * * * *
142.15(c)(6)......................................... 2040-0266
* * * * * * *
142.16(n)............................................ 2040-0266
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 768]]
PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
0
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.
0
4. Section 141.2 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order,
definitions for ``Bag filters'', ``Bank filtration'', ``Cartridge
filters'', ``Flowing stream'', ``Lake/reservoir'', ``Membrane
filtration'', ``Plant intake'', ``Presedimentation'', and ``Two-stage
lime softening'', and revising the definition for ``Uncovered finished
water storage facility'' to read as follows:
Sec. 141.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Bag filters are pressure-driven separation devices that remove
particulate matter larger than 1 micrometer using an engineered porous
filtration media. They are typically constructed of a non-rigid, fabric
filtration media housed in a pressure vessel in which the direction of
flow is from the inside of the bag to outside.
Bank filtration is a water treatment process that uses a well to
recover surface water that has naturally infiltrated into ground water
through a river bed or bank(s). Infiltration is typically enhanced by
the hydraulic gradient imposed by a nearby pumping water supply or
other well(s).
* * * * *
Cartridge filters are pressure-driven separation devices that
remove particulate matter larger than 1 micrometer using an engineered
porous filtration media. They are typically constructed as rigid or
semi-rigid, self-supporting filter elements housed in pressure vessels
in which flow is from the outside of the cartridge to the inside.
* * * * *
Flowing stream is a course of running water flowing in a definite
channel.
* * * * *
Lake/reservoir refers to a natural or man made basin or hollow on
the Earth's surface in which water collects or is stored that may or
may not have a current or single direction of flow.
* * * * *
Membrane filtration is a pressure or vacuum driven separation
process in which particulate matter larger than 1 micrometer is
rejected by an engineered barrier, primarily through a size-exclusion
mechanism, and which has a measurable removal efficiency of a target
organism that can be verified through the application of a direct
integrity test. This definition includes the common membrane
technologies of microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and
reverse osmosis.
* * * * *
Plant intake refers to the works or structures at the head of a
conduit through which water is diverted from a source (e.g., river or
lake) into the treatment plant.
* * * * *
Presedimentation is a preliminary treatment process used to remove
gravel, sand and other particulate material from the source water
through settling before the water enters the primary clarification and
filtration processes in a treatment plant.
* * * * *
Two-stage lime softening is a process in which chemical addition
and hardness precipitation occur in each of two distinct unit
clarification processes in series prior to filtration.
Uncovered finished water storage facility is a tank, reservoir, or
other facility used to store water that will undergo no further
treatment to reduce microbial pathogens except residual disinfection
and is directly open to the atmosphere.
* * * * *
0
5. Subpart Q of part 141 is amended by adding Sec. 141.211 to read as
follows:
Sec. 141.211 Special notice for repeated failure to conduct
monitoring of the source water for Cryptosporidium and for failure to
determine bin classification or mean Cryptosporidium level.
(a) When is the special notice for repeated failure to monitor to
be given? The owner or operator of a community or non-community water
system that is required to monitor source water under Sec. 141.701
must notify persons served by the water system that monitoring has not
been completed as specified no later than 30 days after the system has
failed to collect any 3 months of monitoring as specified in Sec.
141.701(c). The notice must be repeated as specified in Sec.
141.203(b).
(b) When is the special notice for failure to determine bin
classification or mean Cryptosporidium level to be given? The owner or
operator of a community or non-community water system that is required
to determine a bin classification under Sec. 141.710, or to determine
mean Cryptosporidium level under Sec. 141.712, must notify persons
served by the water system that the determination has not been made as
required no later than 30 days after the system has failed report the
determination as specified in Sec. 141.710(e) or Sec. 141.712(a),
respectively. The notice must be repeated as specified in Sec.
141.203(b). The notice is not required if the system is complying with
a State-approved schedule to address the violation.
(c) What is the form and manner of the special notice? The form and
manner of the public notice must follow the requirements for a Tier 2
public notice prescribed in Sec. 141.203(c). The public notice must be
presented as required in Sec. 141.205(c).
(d) What mandatory language must be contained in the special
notice? The notice must contain the following language, including the
language necessary to fill in the blanks.
(1) The special notice for repeated failure to conduct monitoring
must contain the following language:
We are required to monitor the source of your drinking water for
Cryptosporidium. Results of the monitoring are to be used to
determine whether water treatment at the (treatment plant name) is
sufficient to adequately remove Cryptosporidium from your drinking
water. We are required to complete this monitoring and make this
determination by (required bin determination date). We ``did not
monitor or test'' or ``did not complete all monitoring or testing''
on schedule and, therefore, we may not be able to determine by the
required date what treatment modifications, if any, must be made to
ensure adequate Cryptosporidium removal. Missing this deadline may,
in turn, jeopardize our ability to have the required treatment
modifications, if any, completed by the deadline required, (date).
For more information, please call (name of water system contact)
of (name of water system) at (phone number).
(2) The special notice for failure to determine bin classification
or mean Cryptosporidium level must contain the following language:
We are required to monitor the source of your drinking water for
Cryptosporidium in order to determine by (date) whether water
treatment at the (treatment plant name) is sufficient to adequately
remove Cryptosporidium from your drinking water. We have not made
this determination by the required date. Our failure to do this may
jeopardize our ability to have the required treatment modifications,
if any, completed by the required deadline of (date). For more
information, please call (name of water system contact) of (name of
water system) at (phone number).
(3) Each special notice must also include a description of what the
system is doing to correct the violation and when the system expects to
return to compliance or resolve the situation.
0
6. Appendix A to Subpart Q of part 141 is amended by adding entry
number 10 under I.A. to read as follows:
Subpart Q--Public Notification of Drinking Water Violations
[[Page 769]]
Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part 141--NPDWR Violations and Other Situations Requiring Public Notice \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCL/MRDL/TT violations \2\ Monitoring & testing procedure
-------------------------------- violations
----------------------------------------
Contaminant Tier of Tier of
public Citation public
notice notice Citation
required required
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Violations of National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR):
\3\
A. Microbiological Contaminants
* * * * * * *
10. LT2ESWTR violations............ 2 141.710-141.720 \22\ 2, 3 141.701-141.705 and
141.708-141.709.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Violations and other situations not listed in this table (e.g., failure to prepare Consumer Confidence
Reports) do not require notice, unless otherwise determined by the primary 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 Sec.
141.202(a) and Sec. 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.
* * * * * * *
\22\ Failure to collect three or more samples for Cryptosporidium analysis is a Tier 2 violation requiring
special notice as specified in Sec. 141.211. All other monitoring and testing procedure violations are Tier
3.
0
7. Part 141 is amended by adding a new subpart W to read as follows:
Subpart W--Enhanced Treatment for Cryptosporidium
General Requirements
Sec.
141.700 General requirements.
Source Water Monitoring Requirements
141.701 Source water monitoring.
141.702 Sampling schedules.
141.703 Sampling locations.
141.704 Analytical methods.
141.705 Approved laboratories.
141.706 Reporting source water monitoring results.
141.707 Grandfathering previously collected data.
Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Requirements
141.708 Requirements when making a significant change in
disinfection practice.
141.709 Developing the disinfection profile and benchmark.
Treatment Technique Requirements
141.710 Bin classification for filtered systems.
141.711 Filtered system additional Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements.
141.712 Unfiltered system Cryptosporidium treatment requirements.
141.713 Schedule for compliance with Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements.
141.714 Requirements for uncovered finished water storage
facilities.
Requirements for Microbial Toolbox Components
141.715 Microbial toolbox options for meeting Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements.
141.716 Source toolbox components.
141.717 Pre-filtration treatment toolbox components.
141.718 Treatment performance toolbox components.
141.719 Additional filtration toolbox components.
141.720 Inactivation toolbox components.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
141.721 Reporting requirements.
141.722 Recordkeeping requirements.
Requirements for Sanitary Surveys Performed by EPA
141.723 Requirements to respond to significant deficiencies
identified in sanitary surveys performed by EPA.
Subpart W--Enhanced Treatment for Cryptosporidium
General Requirements
Sec. 141.700 General requirements.
(a) The requirements of this subpart W are national primary
drinking water regulations. The regulations in this subpart establish
or extend treatment technique requirements in lieu of maximum
contaminant levels for Cryptosporidium. These requirements are in
addition to requirements for filtration and disinfection in subparts H,
P, and T of this part.
(b) Applicability. The requirements of this subpart apply to all
subpart H systems, which are public water systems supplied by a surface
water source and public water systems supplied by a ground water source
under the direct influence of surface water.
(1) Wholesale systems, as defined in Sec. 141.2, must comply with
the requirements of this subpart based on the population of the largest
system in the combined distribution system.
(2) The requirements of this subpart for filtered systems apply to
systems required by National Primary Drinking Water Regulations to
provide filtration treatment, whether or not the system is currently
operating a filtration system.
(3) The requirements of this subpart for unfiltered systems apply
only to unfiltered systems that timely met and continue to meet the
filtration avoidance criteria in subparts H, P, and T of this part, as
applicable.
(c) Requirements. Systems subject to this subpart must comply with
the following requirements:
(1) Systems must conduct an initial and a second round of source
water monitoring for each plant that treats a surface water or GWUDI
source. This monitoring may include sampling for Cryptosporidium, E.
coli, and turbidity as described in Sec. Sec. 141.701 through 141.706,
to determine what level, if any, of additional Cryptosporidium
treatment they must provide.
(2) Systems that plan to make a significant change to their
disinfection practice must develop disinfection profiles and calculate
disinfection benchmarks, as described in Sec. Sec. 141.708 through
141.709.
(3) Filtered systems must determine their Cryptosporidium treatment
bin classification as described in Sec. 141.710 and provide additional
treatment for Cryptosporidium, if required, as described in Sec.
141.711. All unfiltered systems must provide treatment for
Cryptosporidium as described in Sec. 141.712. Filtered and unfiltered
systems must implement Cryptosporidium treatment according to the
schedule in Sec. 141.713.
[[Page 770]]
(4) Systems with uncovered finished water storage facilities must
comply with the requirements to cover the facility or treat the
discharge from the facility as described in Sec. 141.714.
(5) Systems required to provide additional treatment for
Cryptosporidium must implement microbial toolbox options that are
designed and operated as described in Sec. Sec. 141.715 through
141.720.
(6) Systems must comply with the applicable recordkeeping and
reporting requirements described in Sec. Sec. 141.721 through 141.722.
(7) Systems must address significant deficiencies identified in
sanitary surveys performed by EPA as described in Sec. 141.723.
Source Water Monitoring Requirements
Sec. 141.701 Source water monitoring.
(a) Initial round of source water monitoring. Systems must conduct
the following monitoring on the schedule in paragraph (c) of this
section unless they meet the monitoring exemption criteria in paragraph
(d) of this section.
(1) Filtered systems serving at least 10,000 people must sample
their source water for Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity at least
monthly for 24 months.
(2) Unfiltered systems serving at least 10,000 people must sample
their source water for Cryptosporidium at least monthly for 24 months.
(3)(i) Filtered systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must
sample their source water for E. coli at least once every two weeks for
12 months.
(ii) A filtered system serving fewer than 10,000 people may avoid
E. coli monitoring if the system notifies the State that it will
monitor for Cryptosporidium as described in paragraph (a)(4) of this
section. The system must notify the State no later than 3 months prior
to the date the system is otherwise required to start E. coli
monitoring under Sec. 141.701(c).
(4) Filtered systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must sample
their source water for Cryptosporidium at least twice per month for 12
months or at least monthly for 24 months if they meet one of the
following, based on monitoring conducted under paragraph (a)(3) of this
section:
(i) For systems using lake/reservoir sources, the annual mean E.
coli concentration is greater than 10 E. coli/100 mL.
(ii) For systems using flowing stream sources, the annual mean E.
coli concentration is greater than 50 E. coli/100 mL.
(iii) The system does not conduct E. coli monitoring as described
in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(iv) Systems using ground water under the direct influence of
surface water (GWUDI) must comply with the requirements of paragraph
(a)(4) of this section based on the E. coli level that applies to the
nearest surface water body. If no surface water body is nearby, the
system must comply based on the requirements that apply to systems
using lake/reservoir sources.
(5) For filtered systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, the
State may approve monitoring for an indicator other than E. coli under
paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The State also may approve an
alternative to the E. coli concentration in paragraph (a)(4)(i), (ii)
or (iv) of this section to trigger Cryptosporidium monitoring. This
approval by the State must be provided to the system in writing and
must include the basis for the State's determination that the
alternative indicator and/or trigger level will provide a more accurate
identification of whether a system will exceed the Bin 1
Cryptosporidium level in Sec. 141.710.
(6) Unfiltered systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must sample
their source water for Cryptosporidium at least twice per month for 12
months or at least monthly for 24 months.
(7) Systems may sample more frequently than required under this
section if the sampling frequency is evenly spaced throughout the
monitoring period.
(b) Second round of source water monitoring. Systems must conduct a
second round of source water monitoring that meets the requirements for
monitoring parameters, frequency, and duration described in paragraph
(a) of this section, unless they meet the monitoring exemption criteria
in paragraph (d) of this section. Systems must conduct this monitoring
on the schedule in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Monitoring schedule. Systems must begin the monitoring required
in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section no later than the month
beginning with the date listed in this table:
Source Water Monitoring Starting Dates Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And must begin the
Must begin the first second round of
round of source source water
Systems that serve . . . water monitoring no monitoring no later
later than the month than the month
beginning . . . beginning . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) At least 100,000 people. (i) October 1, 2006. (ii) April 1, 2015.
(2) From 50,000 to 99,999 (i) April 1, 2007... (ii) October 1,
people. 2015.
(3) From 10,000 to 49,999 (i) April 1, 2008... (ii) October 1,
people. 2016.
(4) Fewer than 10,000 and (i) October 1, 2008. (ii) October 1,
monitor for E. coli \a\. 2017.
(5) Fewer than 10,000 and (i) April 1, 2010... (ii) April 1, 2019.
monitor for Cryptosporidium
\b\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Applies only to filtered systems.
\b\ Applies to filtered systems that meet the conditions of paragraph
(a)(4) of this section and unfiltered systems.
(d) Monitoring avoidance. (1) Filtered systems are not required to
conduct source water monitoring under this subpart if the system will
provide a total of at least 5.5-log of treatment for Cryptosporidium,
equivalent to meeting the treatment requirements of Bin 4 in Sec.
141.711.
(2) Unfiltered systems are not required to conduct source water
monitoring under this subpart if the system will provide a total of at
least 3-log Cryptosporidium inactivation, equivalent to meeting the
treatment requirements for unfiltered systems with a mean
Cryptosporidium concentration of greater than 0.01 oocysts/L in Sec.
141.712.
(3) If a system chooses to provide the level of treatment in
paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable, rather than
start source water monitoring, the system must notify the State in
writing no later than the date the system is otherwise required to
submit a sampling schedule for monitoring under Sec. 141.702.
Alternatively, a system may choose to stop sampling at any point after
it has initiated monitoring if it notifies the State in writing that it
will provide this level of treatment. Systems must install and operate
technologies to provide this level of treatment by the
[[Page 771]]
applicable treatment compliance date in Sec. 141.713.
(e) Plants operating only part of the year. Systems with subpart H
plants that operate for only part of the year must conduct source water
monitoring in accordance with this subpart, but with the following
modifications:
(1) Systems must sample their source water only during the months
that the plant operates unless the State specifies another monitoring
period based on plant operating practices.
(2) Systems with plants that operate less than six months per year
and that monitor for Cryptosporidium must collect at least six
Cryptosporidium samples per year during each of two years of
monitoring. Samples must be evenly spaced throughout the period the
plant operates.
(f)(1) New sources. A system that begins using a new source of
surface water or GWUDI after the system is required to begin monitoring
under paragraph (c) of this section must monitor the new source on a
schedule the State approves. Source water monitoring must meet the
requirements of this subpart. The system must also meet the bin
classification and Cryptosporidium treatment requirements of Sec. Sec.
141.710 and 141.711 or Sec. 141.712, as applicable, for the new source
on a schedule the State approves.
(2) The requirements of Sec. 141.701(f) apply to subpart H systems
that begin operation after the monitoring start date applicable to the
system's size under paragraph (c) of this section.
(3) The system must begin a second round of source water monitoring
no later than 6 years following initial bin classification under Sec.
141.710 or determination of the mean Cryptosporidium level under Sec.
141.712, as applicable.
(g) Failure to collect any source water sample required under this
section in accordance with the sampling schedule, sampling location,
analytical method, approved laboratory, and reporting requirements of
Sec. Sec. 141.702 through 141.706 is a monitoring violation.
(h) Grandfathering monitoring data. Systems may use (grandfather)
monitoring data collected prior to the applicable monitoring start date
in paragraph (c) of this section to meet the initial source water
monitoring requirements in paragraph (a) of this section. Grandfathered
data may substitute for an equivalent number of months at the end of
the monitoring period. All data submitted under this paragraph must
meet the requirements in Sec. 141.707.
Sec. 141.702 Sampling schedules.
(a) Systems required to conduct source water monitoring under Sec.
141.701 must submit a sampling schedule that specifies the calendar
dates when the system will collect each required sample.
(1) Systems must submit sampling schedules no later than 3 months
prior to the applicable date listed in Sec. 141.701(c) for each round
of required monitoring.
(2)(i) Systems serving at least 10,000 people must submit their
sampling schedule for the initial round of source water monitoring
under Sec. 141.701(a) to EPA electronically at https://intranet.epa.gov/lt2/.
(ii) If a system is unable to submit the sampling schedule
electronically, the system may use an alternative approach for
submitting the sampling schedule that EPA approves.
(3) Systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must submit their
sampling schedules for the initial round of source water monitoring
Sec. 141.701(a) to the State.
(4) Systems must submit sampling schedules for the second round of
source water monitoring Sec. 141.701(b) to the State.
(5) If EPA or the State does not respond to a system regarding its
sampling schedule, the system must sample at the reported schedule.
(b) Systems must collect samples within two days before or two days
after the dates indicated in their sampling schedule (i.e., within a
five-day period around the schedule date) unless one of the conditions
of paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section applies.
(1) If an extreme condition or situation exists that may pose
danger to the sample collector, or that cannot be avoided and causes
the system to be unable to sample in the scheduled five-day period, the
system must sample as close to the scheduled date as is feasible unless
the State approves an alternative sampling date. The system must submit
an explanation for the delayed sampling date to the State concurrent
with the shipment of the sample to the laboratory.
(2)(i) If a system is unable to report a valid analytical result
for a scheduled sampling date due to equipment failure, loss of or
damage to the sample, failure to comply with the analytical method
requirements, including the quality control requirements in Sec.
141.704, or the failure of an approved laboratory to analyze the
sample, then the system must collect a replacement sample.
(ii) The system must collect the replacement sample not later than
21 days after receiving information that an analytical result cannot be
reported for the scheduled date unless the system demonstrates that
collecting a replacement sample within this time frame is not feasible
or the State approves an alternative resampling date. The system must
submit an explanation for the delayed sampling date to the State
concurrent with the shipment of the sample to the laboratory.
(c) Systems that fail to meet the criteria of paragraph (b) of this
section for any source water sample required under Sec. 141.701 must
revise their sampling schedules to add dates for collecting all missed
samples. Systems must submit the revised schedule to the State for
approval prior to when the system begins collecting the missed samples.
Sec. 141.703 Sampling locations.
(a) Systems required to conduct source water monitoring under Sec.
141.701 must collect samples for each plant that treats a surface water
or GWUDI source. Where multiple plants draw water from the same
influent, such as the same pipe or intake, the State may approve one
set of monitoring results to be used to satisfy the requirements of
Sec. 141.701 for all plants.
(b)(1) Systems must collect source water samples prior to chemical
treatment, such as coagulants, oxidants and disinfectants, unless the
system meets the condition of paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) The State may approve a system to collect a source water sample
after chemical treatment. To grant this approval, the State must
determine that collecting a sample prior to chemical treatment is not
feasible for the system and that the chemical treatment is unlikely to
have a significant adverse effect on the analysis of the sample.
(c) Systems that recycle filter backwash water must collect source
water samples prior to the point of filter backwash water addition.
(d) Bank filtration. (1) Systems that receive Cryptosporidium
treatment credit for bank filtration under Sec. 141.173(b) or Sec.
141.552(a), as applicable, must collect source water samples in the
surface water prior to bank filtration.
(2) Systems that use bank filtration as pretreatment to a
filtration plant must collect source water samples from the well (i.e.,
after bank filtration). Use of bank filtration during monitoring must
be consistent with routine operational practice. Systems collecting
samples after a bank filtration process may not receive treatment
credit for the bank filtration under Sec. 141.717(c).
[[Page 772]]
(e) Multiple sources. Systems with plants that use multiple water
sources, including multiple surface water sources and blended surface
water and ground water sources, must collect samples as specified in
paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section. The use of multiple sources
during monitoring must be consistent with routine operational practice.
(1) If a sampling tap is available where the sources are combined
prior to treatment, systems must collect samples from the tap.
(2) If a sampling tap where the sources are combined prior to
treatment is not available, systems must collect samples at each source
near the intake on the same day and must follow either paragraph
(e)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section for sample analysis.
(i) Systems may composite samples from each source into one sample
prior to analysis. The volume of sample from each source must be
weighted according to the proportion of the source in the total plant
flow at the time the sample is collected.
(ii) Systems may analyze samples from each source separately and
calculate a weighted average of the analysis results for each sampling
date. The weighted average must be calculated by multiplying the
analysis result for each source by the fraction the source contributed
to total plant flow at the time the sample was collected and then
summing these values.
(f) Additional Requirements. Systems must submit a description of
their sampling location(s) to the State at the same time as the
sampling schedule required under Sec. 141.702. This description must
address the position of the sampling location in relation to the
system's water source(s) and treatment processes, including
pretreatment, points of chemical treatment, and filter backwash
recycle. If the State does not respond to a system regarding sampling
location(s), the system must sample at the reported location(s).
Sec. 141.704 Analytical methods.
(a) Cryptosporidium. Systems must analyze for Cryptosporidium using
Method 1623: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water by Filtration/IMS/FA,
2005, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-815-R-05-002
or Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in Water by Filtration/IMS/FA, 2005,
United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-815-R-05-001, which
are incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register
approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of these methods online
from http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/lt2 or from the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460
(Telephone: 800-426-4791). You may inspect a copy at the Water Docket
in the EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC,
(Telephone: 202-566-2426) or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_-register/code--of--federal--regulations/ibr--locations.html.
(1) Systems must analyze at least a 10 L sample or a packed pellet
volume of at least 2 mL as generated by the methods listed in paragraph
(a) of this section. Systems unable to process a 10 L sample must
analyze as much sample volume as can be filtered by two filters
approved by EPA for the methods listed in paragraph (a) of this
section, up to a packed pellet volume of at least 2 mL.
(2)(i) Matrix spike (MS) samples, as required by the methods in
paragraph (a) of this section, must be spiked and filtered by a
laboratory approved for Cryptosporidium analysis under Sec. 141.705.
(ii) If the volume of the MS sample is greater than 10 L, the
system may filter all but 10 L of the MS sample in the field, and ship
the filtered sample and the remaining 10 L of source water to the
laboratory. In this case, the laboratory must spike the remaining 10 L
of water and filter it through the filter used to collect the balance
of the sample in the field.
(3) Flow cytometer-counted spiking suspensions must be used for MS
samples and ongoing precision and recovery (OPR) samples.
(b) E. coli. Systems must use methods for enumeration of E. coli in
source water approved in Sec. 136.3(a) of this title.
(1) The time from sample collection to initiation of analysis may
not exceed 30 hours unless the system meets the condition of paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
(2) The State may approve on a case-by-case basis the holding of an
E. coli sample for up to 48 hours between sample collection and
initiation of analysis if the State determines that analyzing an E.
coli sample within 30 hours is not feasible. E. coli samples held
between 30 to 48 hours must be analyzed by the Colilert reagent version
of Standard Method 9223B as listed in Sec. 136.3(a) of this title.
(3) Systems must maintain samples between 0[deg]C and 10[deg]C
during storage and transit to the laboratory.
(c) Turbidity. Systems must use methods for turbidity measurement
approved in Sec. 141.74(a)(1).
Sec. 141.705 Approved laboratories.
(a) Cryptosporidium. Systems must have Cryptosporidium samples
analyzed by a laboratory that is approved under EPA's Laboratory
Quality Assurance Evaluation Program for Analysis of Cryptosporidium in
Water or a laboratory that has been certified for Cryptosporidium
analysis by an equivalent State laboratory certification program.
(b) E. coli. Any laboratory certified by the EPA, the National
Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference or the State for
total coliform or fecal coliform analysis under Sec. 141.74 is approved
for E. coli analysis under this subpart when the laboratory uses the
same technique for E. coli that the laboratory uses for Sec. 141.74.
(c) Turbidity. Measurements of turbidity must be made by a party
approved by the State.
Sec. 141.706 Reporting source water monitoring results.
(a) Systems must report results from the source water monitoring
required under Sec. 141.701 no later than 10 days after the end of the
first month following the month when the sample is collected.
(b)(1) All systems serving at least 10,000 people must report the
results from the initial source water monitoring required under Sec.
141.701(a) to EPA electronically at https://intranet.epa.gov/lt2/.
(2) If a system is unable to report monitoring results
electronically, the system may use an alternative approach for
reporting monitoring results that EPA approves.
(c) Systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must report results
from the initial source water monitoring required under Sec.
141.701(a) to the State.
(d) All systems must report results from the second round of source
water monitoring required under Sec. 141.701(b) to the State.
(e) Systems must report the applicable information in paragraphs
(e)(1) and (2) of this section for the source water monitoring required
under Sec. 141.701.
(1) Systems must report the following data elements for each
Cryptosporidium analysis:
Data element.
1. PWS ID.
2. Facility ID.
[[Page 773]]
3. Sample collection date.
4. Sample type (field or matrix spike).
5. Sample volume filtered (L), to nearest \1/4\ L.
6. Was 100% of filtered volume examined.
7. Number of oocysts counted.
(i) For matrix spike samples, systems must also report the sample
volume spiked and estimated number of oocysts spiked. These data are
not required for field samples.
(ii) For samples in which less than 10 L is filtered or less than
100% of the sample volume is examined, systems must also report the
number of filters used and the packed pellet volume.
(iii) For samples in which less than 100% of sample volume is
examined, systems must also report the volume of resuspended
concentrate and volume of this resuspension processed through
immunomagnetic separation.
(2) Systems must report the following data elements for each E.
coli analysis:
Data element.
1. PWS ID.
2. Facility ID.
3. Sample collection date.
4. Analytical method number.
5. Method type.
6. Source type (flowing stream, lake/reservoir, GWUDI).
7. E. coli/100 mL.
8. Turbidity.\1\
\1\ Systems serving fewer than 10,000 people that are not required to
monitor for turbidity under Sec. 141.701 are not required to report
turbidity with their E. coli results.
Sec. 141.707 Grandfathering previously collected data.
(a)(1) Systems may comply with the initial source water monitoring
requirements of Sec. 141.701(a) by grandfathering sample results
collected before the system is required to begin monitoring (i.e.,
previously collected data). To be grandfathered, the sample results and
analysis must meet the criteria in this section and the State must
approve.
(2) A filtered system may grandfather Cryptosporidium samples to
meet the requirements of Sec. 141.701(a) when the system does not have
corresponding E. coli and turbidity samples. A system that grandfathers
Cryptosporidium samples without E. coli and turbidity samples is not
required to collect E. coli and turbidity samples when the system
completes the requirements for Cryptosporidium monitoring under Sec.
141.701(a).
(b) E. coli sample analysis. The analysis of E. coli samples must
meet the analytical method and approved laboratory requirements of
Sec. Sec. 141.704 through 141.705.
(c) Cryptosporidium sample analysis. The analysis of
Cryptosporidium samples must meet the criteria in this paragraph.
(1) Laboratories analyzed Cryptosporidium samples using one of the
analytical methods in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (vi) of this
section, which are incorporated by reference. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of these
methods on-line from the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 1201 Constitution Ave, NW,
Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 800-426-4791). You may inspect a copy
at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW, Washington, DC, (Telephone: 202-566-2426) or at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_ register/code--of--federal--
regulations/ibr--locations.html.
(i) Method 1623: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water by
Filtration/IMS/FA, 2005, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-815-R-05-002.
(ii) Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in Water by Filtration/IMS/FA,
2005, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-815-R-05-001.
(iii) Method 1623: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water by
Filtration/IMS/FA, 2001, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-821-R-01-025.
(iv) Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in Water by Filtration/IMS/FA,
2001, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-821--R-01-026.
(v) Method 1623: Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water by
Filtration/IMS/FA, 1999, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-821-R-99-006.
(vi) Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in Water by Filtration/IMS/FA,
1999, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-821-R-99-001.
(2) For each Cryptosporidium sample, the laboratory analyzed at
least 10 L of sample or at least 2 mL of packed pellet or as much
volume as could be filtered by 2 filters that EPA approved for the
methods listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(d) Sampling location. The sampling location must meet the
conditions in Sec. 141.703.
(e) Sampling frequency. Cryptosporidium samples were collected no
less frequently than each calendar month on a regular schedule,
beginning no earlier than January 1999. Sample collection intervals may
vary for the conditions specified in Sec. 141.702(b)(1) and (2) if the
system provides documentation of the condition when reporting
monitoring results.
(1) The State may approve grandfathering of previously collected
data where there are time gaps in the sampling frequency if the system
conducts additional monitoring the State specifies to ensure that the
data used to comply with the initial source water monitoring
requirements of Sec. 141.701(a) are seasonally representative and
unbiased.
(2) Systems may grandfather previously collected data where the
sampling frequency within each month varied. If the Cryptosporidium
sampling frequency varied, systems must follow the monthly averaging
procedure in Sec. 141.710(b)(5) or Sec. 141.712(a)(3), as applicable,
when calculating the bin classification for filtered systems or the
mean Cryptosporidium concentration for unfiltered systems.
(f) Reporting monitoring results for grandfathering. Systems that
request to grandfather previously collected monitoring results must
report the following information by the applicable dates listed in this
paragraph. Systems serving at least 10,000 people must report this
information to EPA unless the State approves reporting to the State
rather than EPA. Systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must report
this information to the State.
(1) Systems must report that they intend to submit previously
collected monitoring results for grandfathering. This report must
specify the number of previously collected results the system will
submit, the dates of the first and last sample, and whether a system
will conduct additional source water monitoring to meet the
requirements of Sec. 141.701(a). Systems must report this information
no later than the date the sampling schedule under Sec. 141.702 is
required.
(2) Systems must report previously collected monitoring results for
grandfathering, along with the associated documentation listed in
paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, no later than two
months after the applicable date listed in Sec. 141.701(c).
(i) For each sample result, systems must report the applicable data
elements in Sec. 141.706.
(ii) Systems must certify that the reported monitoring results
include all results the system generated during the time period
beginning with the first reported result and ending with the final
reported result. This applies to samples that were collected from the
[[Page 774]]
sampling location specified for source water monitoring under this
subpart, not spiked, and analyzed using the laboratory's routine
process for the analytical methods listed in this section.
(iii) Systems must certify that the samples were representative of
a plant's source water(s) and the source water(s) have not changed.
Systems must report a description of the sampling location(s), which
must address the position of the sampling location in relation to the
system's water source(s) and treatment processes, including points of
chemical addition and filter backwash recycle.
(iv) For Cryptosporidium samples, the laboratory or laboratories
that analyzed the samples must provide a letter certifying that the
quality control criteria specified in the methods listed in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section were met for each sample batch associated with
the reported results. Alternatively, the laboratory may provide bench
sheets and sample examination report forms for each field, matrix
spike, IPR, OPR, and method blank sample associated with the reported
results.
(g) If the State determines that a previously collected data set
submitted for grandfathering was generated during source water
conditions that were not normal for the system, such as a drought, the
State may disapprove the data. Alternatively, the State may approve the
previously collected data if the system reports additional source water
monitoring data, as determined by the State, to ensure that the data
set used under Sec. 141.710 or Sec. 141.712 represents average source
water conditions for the system.
(h) If a system submits previously collected data that fully meet
the number of samples required for initial source water monitoring
under Sec. 141.701(a) and some of the data are rejected due to not
meeting the requirements of this section, systems must conduct
additional monitoring to replace rejected data on a schedule the State
approves. Systems are not required to begin this additional monitoring
until two months after notification that data have been rejected and
additional monitoring is necessary.
Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Requirements
Sec. 141.708 Requirements when making a significant change in
disinfection practice.
(a) Following the completion of initial source water monitoring
under Sec. 141.701(a), a system that plans to make a significant
change to its disinfection practice, as defined in paragraph (b) of
this section, must develop disinfection profiles and calculate
disinfection benchmarks for Giardia lamblia and viruses as described in
Sec. 141.709. Prior to changing the disinfection practice, the system
must notify the State and must include in this notice the information
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) A completed disinfection profile and disinfection benchmark for
Giardia lamblia and viruses as described in Sec. 141.709.
(2) A description of the proposed change in disinfection practice.
(3) An analysis of how the proposed change will affect the current
level of disinfection.
(b) Significant changes to disinfection practice are defined as
follows:
(1) Changes to the point of disinfection;
(2) Changes to the disinfectant(s) used in the treatment plant;
(3) Changes to the disinfection process; or
(4) Any other modification identified by the State as a significant
change to disinfection practice.
Sec. 141.709 Developing the disinfection profile and benchmark.
(a) Systems required to develop disinfection profiles under Sec.
141.708 must follow the requirements of this section. Systems must
monitor at least weekly for a period of 12 consecutive months to
determine the total log inactivation for Giardia lamblia and viruses.
If systems monitor more frequently, the monitoring frequency must be
evenly spaced. Systems that operate for fewer than 12 months per year
must monitor weekly during the period of operation. Systems must
determine log inactivation for Giardia lamblia through the entire
plant, based on CT99.9 values in Tables 1.1 through 1.6, 2.1
and 3.1 of Sec. 141.74(b) as applicable. Systems must determine log
inactivation for viruses through the entire treatment plant based on a
protocol approved by the State.
(b) Systems with a single point of disinfectant application prior
to the entrance to the distribution system must conduct the monitoring
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. Systems with more
than one point of disinfectant application must conduct the monitoring
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section for each disinfection
segment. Systems must monitor the parameters necessary to determine the
total inactivation ratio, using analytical methods in Sec. 141.74(a).
(1) For systems using a disinfectant other than UV, the temperature
of the disinfected water must be measured at each residual disinfectant
concentration sampling point during peak hourly flow or at an
alternative location approved by the State.
(2) For systems using chlorine, the pH of the disinfected water
must be measured at each chlorine residual disinfectant concentration
sampling point during peak hourly flow or at an alternative location
approved by the State.
(3) The disinfectant contact time(s) (t) must be determined during
peak hourly flow.
(4) The residual disinfectant concentration(s) (C) of the water
before or at the first customer and prior to each additional point of
disinfectant application must be measured during peak hourly flow.
(c) In lieu of conducting new monitoring under paragraph (b) of
this section, systems may elect to meet the requirements of paragraphs
(c)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) Systems that have at least one year of existing data that are
substantially equivalent to data collected under the provisions of
paragraph (b) of this section may use these data to develop
disinfection profiles as specified in this section if the system has
neither made a significant change to its treatment practice nor changed
sources since the data were collected. Systems may develop disinfection
profiles using up to three years of existing data.
(2) Systems may use disinfection profile(s) developed under Sec.
141.172 or Sec. Sec. 141.530 through 141.536 in lieu of developing a
new profile if the system has neither made a significant change to its
treatment practice nor changed sources since the profile was developed.
Systems that have not developed a virus profile under Sec. 141.172 or
Sec. Sec. 141.530 through 141.536 must develop a virus profile using
the same monitoring data on which the Giardia lamblia profile is based.
(d) Systems must calculate the total inactivation ratio for Giardia
lamblia as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Systems using only one point of disinfectant application may
determine the total inactivation ratio for the disinfection segment
based on either of the methods in paragraph (d)(1)(i) or (ii) of this
section.
(i) Determine one inactivation ratio (CTcalc/CT99.9)
before or at the first customer during peak hourly flow.
(ii) Determine successive CTcalc/CT99.9 values,
representing sequential inactivation ratios, between the point of
disinfectant application and a point before or at the first customer
during peak hourly flow. The system must
[[Page 775]]
calculate the total inactivation ratio by determining (CTcalc/
CT99.9) for each sequence and then adding the (CTcalc/
CT99.9) values together to determine ([Sigma] (CTcalc/
CT99.9)).
(2) Systems using more than one point of disinfectant application
before the first customer must determine the CT value of each
disinfection segment immediately prior to the next point of
disinfectant application, or for the final segment, before or at the
first customer, during peak hourly flow. The (CTcalc/CT99.9)
value of each segment and ([Sigma] (CTcalc/CT99.9)) must be
calculated using the method in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section.
(3) The system must determine the total logs of inactivation by
multiplying the value calculated in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this
section by 3.0.
(4) Systems must calculate the log of inactivation for viruses
using a protocol approved by the State.
(e) Systems must use the procedures specified in paragraphs (e)(1)
and (2) of this section to calculate a disinfection benchmark.
(1) For each year of profiling data collected and calculated under
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, systems must determine the
lowest mean monthly level of both Giardia lamblia and virus
inactivation. Systems must determine the mean Giardia lamblia and virus
inactivation for each calendar month for each year of profiling data by
dividing the sum of daily or weekly Giardia lamblia and virus log
inactivation by the number of values calculated for that month.
(2) The disinfection benchmark is the lowest monthly mean value
(for systems with one year of profiling data) or the mean of the lowest
monthly mean values (for systems with more than one year of profiling
data) of Giardia lamblia and virus log inactivation in each year of
profiling data.
Treatment Technique Requirements
Sec. 141.710 Bin classification for filtered systems.
(a) Following completion of the initial round of source water
monitoring required under Sec. 141.701(a), filtered systems must
calculate an initial Cryptosporidium bin concentration for each plant
for which monitoring was required. Calculation of the bin concentration
must use the Cryptosporidium results reported under Sec. 141.701(a)
and must follow the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(b)(1) For systems that collect a total of at least 48 samples, the
bin concentration is equal to the arithmetic mean of all sample
concentrations.
(2) For systems that collect a total of at least 24 samples, but
not more than 47 samples, the bin concentration is equal to the highest
arithmetic mean of all sample concentrations in any 12 consecutive
months during which Cryptosporidium samples were collected.
(3) For systems that serve fewer than 10,000 people and monitor for
Cryptosporidium for only one year (i.e., collect 24 samples in 12
months), the bin concentration is equal to the arithmetic mean of all
sample concentrations.
(4) For systems with plants operating only part of the year that
monitor fewer than 12 months per year under Sec. 141.701(e), the bin
concentration is equal to the highest arithmetic mean of all sample
concentrations during any year of Cryptosporidium monitoring.
(5) If the monthly Cryptosporidium sampling frequency varies,
systems must first calculate a monthly average for each month of
monitoring. Systems must then use these monthly average concentrations,
rather than individual sample concentrations, in the applicable
calculation for bin classification in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(c) Filtered systems must determine their initial bin
classification from the following table and using the Cryptosporidium
bin concentration calculated under paragraphs (a)-(b) of this section:
Bin Classification Table for Filtered Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
With a Cryptosporidium The bin
For systems that are: bin concentration of . classification
. .\1\ is . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . required to monitor for Cryptosporidium <0.075 Bin 1.
Cryptosporidium under Sec. oocyst/L.
141.701.
0.075 oocysts/L Bin 2.
<=Cryptosporidium
<1.0 oocysts/L.
1.0 oocysts/L Bin 3.
<=Cryptosporidium
<3.0 oocysts/L.
Cryptosporidium >=3.0 Bin 4.
oocysts/L.
. . . serving fewer than NA.................... Bin 1.
10,000 people and NOT
required to monitor for
Cryptosporidium under Sec.
141.701(a)(4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on calculations in paragraph (a) or (d) of this section, as
applicable.
(d) Following completion of the second round of source water
monitoring required under Sec. 141.701(b), filtered systems must
recalculate their Cryptosporidium bin concentration using the
Cryptosporidium results reported under Sec. 141.701(b) and following
the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
Systems must then redetermine their bin classification using this bin
concentration and the table in paragraph (c) of this section.
(e)(1) Filtered systems must report their initial bin
classification under paragraph (c) of this section to the State for
approval no later than 6 months after the system is required to
complete initial source water monitoring based on the schedule in Sec.
141.701(c).
(2) Systems must report their bin classification under paragraph
(d) of this section to the State for approval no later than 6 months
after the system is required to complete the second round of source
water monitoring based on the schedule in Sec. 141.701(c).
(3) The bin classification report to the State must include a
summary of source water monitoring data and the calculation procedure
used to determine bin classification.
(f) Failure to comply with the conditions of paragraph (e) of this
section is a violation of the treatment technique requirement.
Sec. 141.711 Filtered system additional Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements.
(a) Filtered systems must provide the level of additional treatment
for Cryptosporidium specified in this paragraph based on their bin
classification as determined under Sec. 141.710 and according to the
schedule in Sec. 141.713.
[[Page 776]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the system uses the following filtration treatment in full compliance with subparts
H, P, and T of this part (as applicable), then the additional Cryptosporidium treatment
If the system bin requirements are . . .
classification is . . -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. Conventional Slow sand or Alternative
filtration treatment Direct filtration diatomaceous earth filtration
(including softening) filtration technologies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 1................. No additional No additional No additional No additional
treatment. treatment. treatment. treatment.
Bin 2................. 1-log treatment...... 1.5-log treatment.... 1-log treatment..... (\1\)
Bin 3................. 2-log treatment...... 2.5-log treatment.... 2-log treatment..... (\2\)
Bin 4................. 2.5-log treatment.... 3-log treatment...... 2.5-log treatment... (\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As determined by the State such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 4.0-log.
\2\ As determined by the State such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 5.0-log.
\3\ As determined by the State such that the total Cryptosporidium removal and inactivation is at least 5.5-log.
(b)(1) Filtered systems must use one or more of the treatment and
management options listed in Sec. 141.715, termed the microbial
toolbox, to comply with the additional Cryptosporidium treatment
required in paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) Systems classified in Bin 3 and Bin 4 must achieve at least 1-
log of the additional Cryptosporidium treatment required under
paragraph (a) of this section using either one or a combination of the
following: bag filters, bank filtration, cartridge filters, chlorine
dioxide, membranes, ozone, or UV, as described in Sec. Sec. 141.716
through 141.720.
(c) Failure by a system in any month to achieve treatment credit by
meeting criteria in Sec. Sec. 141.716 through 141.720 for microbial
toolbox options that is at least equal to the level of treatment
required in paragraph (a) of this section is a violation of the
treatment technique requirement.
(d) If the State determines during a sanitary survey or an
equivalent source water assessment that after a system completed the
monitoring conducted under Sec. 141.701(a) or Sec. 141.701(b),
significant changes occurred in the system's watershed that could lead
to increased contamination of the source water by Cryptosporidium, the
system must take actions specified by the State to address the
contamination. These actions may include additional source water
monitoring and/or implementing microbial toolbox options listed in
Sec. 141.715.
Sec. 141.712 Unfiltered system Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements.
(a) Determination of mean Cryptosporidium level. (1) Following
completion of the initial source water monitoring required under Sec.
141.701(a), unfiltered systems must calculate the arithmetic mean of
all Cryptosporidium sample concentrations reported under Sec.
141.701(a). Systems must report this value to the State for approval no
later than 6 months after the month the system is required to complete
initial source water monitoring based on the schedule in Sec.
141.701(c).
(2) Following completion of the second round of source water
monitoring required under Sec. 141.701(b), unfiltered systems must
calculate the arithmetic mean of all Cryptosporidium sample
concentrations reported under Sec. 141.701(b). Systems must report
this value to the State for approval no later than 6 months after the
month the system is required to complete the second round of source
water monitoring based on the schedule in Sec. 141.701(c).
(3) If the monthly Cryptosporidium sampling frequency varies,
systems must first calculate a monthly average for each month of
monitoring. Systems must then use these monthly average concentrations,
rather than individual sample concentrations, in the calculation of the
mean Cryptosporidium level in paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
(4) The report to the State of the mean Cryptosporidium levels
calculated under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section must include
a summary of the source water monitoring data used for the calculation.
(5) Failure to comply with the conditions of paragraph (a) of this
section is a violation of the treatment technique requirement.
(b) Cryptosporidium inactivation requirements. Unfiltered systems
must provide the level of inactivation for Cryptosporidium specified in
this paragraph, based on their mean Cryptosporidium levels as
determined under paragraph (a) of this section and according to the
schedule in Sec. 141.713.
(1) Unfiltered systems with a mean Cryptosporidium level of 0.01
oocysts/L or less must provide at least 2-log Cryptosporidium
inactivation.
(2) Unfiltered systems with a mean Cryptosporidium level of greater
than 0.01 oocysts/L must provide at least 3-log Cryptosporidium
inactivation.
(c) Inactivation treatment technology requirements. Unfiltered
systems must use chlorine dioxide, ozone, or UV as described in Sec.
141.720 to meet the Cryptosporidium inactivation requirements of this
section.
(1) Systems that use chlorine dioxide or ozone and fail to achieve
the Cryptosporidium inactivation required in paragraph (b) of this
section on more than one day in the calendar month are in violation of
the treatment technique requirement.
(2) Systems that use UV light and fail to achieve the
Cryptosporidium inactivation required in paragraph (b) of this section
by meeting the criteria in Sec. 141.720(d)(3)(ii) are in violation of
the treatment technique requirement.
(d) Use of two disinfectants. Unfiltered systems must meet the
combined Cryptosporidium inactivation requirements of this section and
Giardia lamblia and virus inactivation requirements of Sec. 141.72(a)
using a minimum of two disinfectants, and each of two disinfectants
must separately achieve the total inactivation required for either
Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, or viruses.
Sec. 141.713 Schedule for compliance with Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements.
(a) Following initial bin classification under Sec. 141.710(c),
filtered systems must provide the level of treatment for
Cryptosporidium required under Sec. 141.711 according to the schedule
in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Following initial determination of the mean Cryptosporidium
level under Sec. 141.712(a)(1), unfiltered systems must provide the
level of treatment for Cryptosporidium required under Sec. 141.712
according to the schedule in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Cryptosporidium treatment compliance dates.
[[Page 777]]
Cryptosporidium Treatment Compliance Dates Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Must comply with
Cryptosporidium treatment
Systems that serve . . . requirements no later than .
. . \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) At least 100,000 people............... (i) April 1, 2012.
(2) From 50,000 to 99,999 people.......... (i) October 1, 2012.
(3) From 10,000 to 49,999 people.......... (i) October 1, 2013.
(4) Fewer than 10,000 people.............. (i) October 1, 2014.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a States may allow up to an additional two years for complying with the
treatment requirement for systems making capital improvements.
(d) If the bin classification for a filtered system changes
following the second round of source water monitoring, as determined
under Sec. 141.710(d), the system must provide the level of treatment
for Cryptosporidium required under Sec. 141.711 on a schedule the
State approves.
(e) If the mean Cryptosporidium level for an unfiltered system
changes following the second round of monitoring, as determined under
Sec. 141.712(a)(2), and if the system must provide a different level
of Cryptosporidium treatment under Sec. 141.712 due to this change,
the system must meet this treatment requirement on a schedule the State
approves.
Sec. 141.714 Requirements for uncovered finished water storage
facilities.
(a) Systems using uncovered finished water storage facilities must
comply with the conditions of this section.
(b) Systems must notify the State of the use of each uncovered
finished water storage facility no later than April 1, 2008.
(c) Systems must meet the conditions of paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of
this section for each uncovered finished water storage facility or be
in compliance with a State-approved schedule to meet these conditions
no later than April 1, 2009.
(1) Systems must cover any uncovered finished water storage
facility.
(2) Systems must treat the discharge from the uncovered finished
water storage facility to the distribution system to achieve
inactivation and/or removal of at least 4-log virus, 3-log Giardia
lamblia, and 2-log Cryptosporidium using a protocol approved by the
State.
(d) Failure to comply with the requirements of this section is a
violation of the treatment technique requirement.
Requirements for Microbial Toolbox Components
Sec. 141.715 Microbial toolbox options for meeting Cryptosporidium
treatment requirements.
(a)(1) Systems receive the treatment credits listed in the table in
paragraph (b) of this section by meeting the conditions for microbial
toolbox options described in Sec. Sec. 141.716 through 141.720.
Systems apply these treatment credits to meet the treatment
requirements in Sec. 141.711 or Sec. 141.712, as applicable.
(2) Unfiltered systems are eligible for treatment credits for the
microbial toolbox options described in Sec. 141.720 only.
(b) The following table summarizes options in the microbial
toolbox:
Microbial Toolbox Summary Table: Options, Treatment Credits and Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cryptosporidium treatment credit with
Toolbox Option design and implementation criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Protection and Management Toolbox Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Watershed control program 0.5-log credit for State-approved program
comprising required elements, annual
program status report to State, and
regular watershed survey. Unfiltered
systems are not eligible for credit.
Specific criteria are in Sec.
141.716(a).
(2) Alternative source/intake No prescribed credit. Systems may conduct
management. simultaneous monitoring for treatment
bin classification at alternative intake
locations or under alternative intake
management strategies. Specific criteria
are in Sec. 141.716(b).
------------------------------
Pre Filtration Toolbox Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Presedimentation basin 0.5-log credit during any month that
with coagulation. presedimentation basins achieve a
monthly mean reduction of 0.5-log or
greater in turbidity or alternative
State-approved performance criteria. To
be eligible, basins must be operated
continuously with coagulant addition and
all plant flow must pass through basins.
Specific criteria are in Sec.
141.717(a).
(4) Two-stage lime softening. 0.5-log credit for two-stage softening
where chemical addition and hardness
precipitation occur in both stages. All
plant flow must pass through both
stages. Single-stage softening is
credited as equivalent to conventional
treatment. Specific criteria are in Sec.
141.717(b).
(5) Bank filtration.......... 0.5-log credit for 25-foot setback; 1.0-
log credit for 50-foot setback; aquifer
must be unconsolidated sand containing
at least 10 percent fines; average
turbidity in wells must be less than 1
NTU. Systems using wells followed by
filtration when conducting source water
monitoring must sample the well to
determine bin classification and are not
eligible for additional credit. Specific
criteria are in Sec. 141.717(c).
------------------------------
Treatment Performance Toolbox Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) Combined filter 0.5-log credit for combined filter
performance. effluent turbidity less than or equal to
0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of
measurements each month. Specific
criteria are in Sec. 141.718(a).
(7) Individual filter 0.5-log credit (in addition to 0.5-log
performance. combined filter performance credit) if
individual filter effluent turbidity is
less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at
least 95 percent of samples each month
in each filter and is never greater than
0.3 NTU in two consecutive measurements
in any filter. Specific criteria are in
Sec. 141.718(b).
(8) Demonstration of Credit awarded to unit process or
performance. treatment train based on a demonstration
to the State with a State- approved
protocol. Specific criteria are in Sec.
141.718(c).
------------------------------
[[Page 778]]
Additional Filtration Toolbox Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(9) Bag or cartridge filters Up to 2-log credit based on the removal
(individual filters). efficiency demonstrated during challenge
testing with a 1.0-log factor of safety.
Specific criteria are in Sec.
141.719(a).
(10) Bag or cartridge filters Up to 2.5-log credit based on the removal
(in series). efficiency demonstrated during challenge
testing with a 0.5-log factor of safety.
Specific criteria are in Sec.
141.719(a).
(11) Membrane filtration..... Log credit equivalent to removal
efficiency demonstrated in challenge
test for device if supported by direct
integrity testing. Specific criteria are
in Sec. 141.719(b).
(12) Second stage filtration. 0.5-log credit for second separate
granular media filtration stage if
treatment train includes coagulation
prior to first filter. Specific criteria
are in Sec. 141.719(c)
(13) Slow sand filters....... 2.5-log credit as a secondary filtration
step; 3.0-log credit as a primary
filtration process. No prior
chlorination for either option. Specific
criteria are in Sec. 141.719(d).
------------------------------
Inactivation Toolbox Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(14) Chlorine dioxide........ Log credit based on measured CT in
relation to CT table. Specific criteria
in Sec. 141.720(b)
(15) Ozone................... Log credit based on measured CT in
relation to CT table. Specific criteria
in Sec. 141.720(b).
(16) UV...................... Log credit based on validated UV dose in
relation to UV dose table; reactor
validation testing required to establish
UV dose and associated operating
conditions. Specific criteria in Sec.
141.720(d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 141.716 Source toolbox components.
(a) Watershed control program. Systems receive 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for implementing a watershed control
program that meets the requirements of this section.
(1) Systems that intend to apply for the watershed control program
credit must notify the State of this intent no later than two years
prior to the treatment compliance date applicable to the system in
Sec. 141.713.
(2) Systems must submit to the State a proposed watershed control
plan no later than one year before the applicable treatment compliance
date in Sec. 141.713. The State must approve the watershed control
plan for the system to receive watershed control program treatment
credit. The watershed control plan must include the elements in
paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Identification of an ``area of influence'' outside of which the
likelihood of Cryptosporidium or fecal contamination affecting the
treatment plant intake is not significant. This is the area to be
evaluated in future watershed surveys under paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of
this section.
(ii) Identification of both potential and actual sources of
Cryptosporidium contamination and an assessment of the relative impact
of these sources on the system's source water quality.
(iii) An analysis of the effectiveness and feasibility of control
measures that could reduce Cryptosporidium loading from sources of
contamination to the system's source water.
(iv) A statement of goals and specific actions the system will
undertake to reduce source water Cryptosporidium levels. The plan must
explain how the actions are expected to contribute to specific goals,
identify watershed partners and their roles, identify resource
requirements and commitments, and include a schedule for plan
implementation with deadlines for completing specific actions
identified in the plan.
(3) Systems with existing watershed control programs (i.e.,
programs in place on January 5, 2006) are eligible to seek this credit.
Their watershed control plans must meet the criteria in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section and must specify ongoing and future actions that
will reduce source water Cryptosporidium levels.
(4) If the State does not respond to a system regarding approval of
a watershed control plan submitted under this section and the system
meets the other requirements of this section, the watershed control
program will be considered approved and 0.5 log Cryptosporidium
treatment credit will be awarded unless and until the State
subsequently withdraws such approval.
(5) Systems must complete the actions in paragraphs (a)(5)(i)
through (iii) of this section to maintain the 0.5-log credit.
(i) Submit an annual watershed control program status report to the
State. The annual watershed control program status report must describe
the system's implementation of the approved plan and assess the
adequacy of the plan to meet its goals. It must explain how the system
is addressing any shortcomings in plan implementation, including those
previously identified by the State or as the result of the watershed
survey conducted under paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section. It must
also describe any significant changes that have occurred in the
watershed since the last watershed sanitary survey. If a system
determines during implementation that making a significant change to
its approved watershed control program is necessary, the system must
notify the State prior to making any such changes. If any change is
likely to reduce the level of source water protection, the system must
also list in its notification the actions the system will take to
mitigate this effect.
(ii) Undergo a watershed sanitary survey every three years for
community water systems and every five years for noncommunity water
systems and submit the survey report to the State. The survey must be
conducted according to State guidelines and by persons the State
approves.
(A) The watershed sanitary survey must meet the following criteria:
encompass the region identified in the State-approved watershed control
plan as the area of influence; assess the implementation of actions to
reduce source water Cryptosporidium levels; and identify any
significant new sources of Cryptosporidium.
(B) If the State determines that significant changes may have
occurred in the watershed since the previous watershed sanitary survey,
systems must undergo another watershed sanitary survey by a date the
State requires, which may be earlier than the regular date in paragraph
(a)(5)(ii) of this section.
(iii) The system must make the watershed control plan, annual
status reports, and watershed sanitary survey reports available to the
public upon
[[Page 779]]
request. These documents must be in a plain language style and include
criteria by which to evaluate the success of the program in achieving
plan goals. The State may approve systems to withhold from the public
portions of the annual status report, watershed control plan, and
watershed sanitary survey based on water supply security
considerations.
(6) If the State determines that a system is not carrying out the
approved watershed control plan, the State may withdraw the watershed
control program treatment credit.
(b) Alternative source. (1) A system may conduct source water
monitoring that reflects a different intake location (either in the
same source or for an alternate source) or a different procedure for
the timing or level of withdrawal from the source (alternative source
monitoring). If the State approves, a system may determine its bin
classification under Sec. 141.710 based on the alternative source
monitoring results.
(2) If systems conduct alternative source monitoring under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, systems must also monitor their
current plant intake concurrently as described in Sec. 141.701.
(3) Alternative source monitoring under paragraph (b)(1) of this
section must meet the requirements for source monitoring to determine
bin classification, as described in Sec. Sec. 141.701 through 141.706.
Systems must report the alternative source monitoring results to the
State, along with supporting information documenting the operating
conditions under which the samples were collected.
(4) If a system determines its bin classification under Sec.
141.710 using alternative source monitoring results that reflect a
different intake location or a different procedure for managing the
timing or level of withdrawal from the source, the system must relocate
the intake or permanently adopt the withdrawal procedure, as
applicable, no later than the applicable treatment compliance date in
Sec. 141.713.
Sec. 141.717 Pre-filtration treatment toolbox components.
(a) Presedimentation. Systems receive 0.5-log Cryptosporidium
treatment credit for a presedimentation basin during any month the
process meets the criteria in this paragraph.
(1) The presedimentation basin must be in continuous operation and
must treat the entire plant flow taken from a surface water or GWUDI
source.
(2) The system must continuously add a coagulant to the
presedimentation basin.
(3) The presedimentation basin must achieve the performance
criteria in paragraph (3)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) Demonstrates at least 0.5-log mean reduction of influent
turbidity. This reduction must be determined using daily turbidity
measurements in the presedimentation process influent and effluent and
must be calculated as follows: log10(monthly mean of daily
influent turbidity)-log10(monthly mean of daily effluent
turbidity).
(ii) Complies with State-approved performance criteria that
demonstrate at least 0.5-log mean removal of micron-sized particulate
material through the presedimentation process.
(b) Two-stage lime softening. Systems receive an additional 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a two-stage lime softening plant
if chemical addition and hardness precipitation occur in two separate
and sequential softening stages prior to filtration. Both softening
stages must treat the entire plant flow taken from a surface water or
GWUDI source.
(c) Bank filtration. Systems receive Cryptosporidium treatment
credit for bank filtration that serves as pretreatment to a filtration
plant by meeting the criteria in this paragraph. Systems using bank
filtration when they begin source water monitoring under Sec.
141.701(a) must collect samples as described in Sec. 141.703(d) and
are not eligible for this credit.
(1) Wells with a ground water flow path of at least 25 feet receive
0.5-log treatment credit; wells with a ground water flow path of at
least 50 feet receive 1.0-log treatment credit. The ground water flow
path must be determined as specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this
section.
(2) Only wells in granular aquifers are eligible for treatment
credit. Granular aquifers are those comprised of sand, clay, silt, rock
fragments, pebbles or larger particles, and minor cement. A system must
characterize the aquifer at the well site to determine aquifer
properties. Systems must extract a core from the aquifer and
demonstrate that in at least 90 percent of the core length, grains less
than 1.0 mm in diameter constitute at least 10 percent of the core
material.
(3) Only horizontal and vertical wells are eligible for treatment
credit.
(4) For vertical wells, the ground water flow path is the measured
distance from the edge of the surface water body under high flow
conditions (determined by the 100 year floodplain elevation boundary or
by the floodway, as defined in Federal Emergency Management Agency
flood hazard maps) to the well screen. For horizontal wells, the ground
water flow path is the measured distance from the bed of the river
under normal flow conditions to the closest horizontal well lateral
screen.
(5) Systems must monitor each wellhead for turbidity at least once
every four hours while the bank filtration process is in operation. If
monthly average turbidity levels, based on daily maximum values in the
well, exceed 1 NTU, the system must report this result to the State and
conduct an assessment within 30 days to determine the cause of the high
turbidity levels in the well. If the State determines that microbial
removal has been compromised, the State may revoke treatment credit
until the system implements corrective actions approved by the State to
remediate the problem.
(6) Springs and infiltration galleries are not eligible for
treatment credit under this section, but are eligible for credit under
Sec. 141.718(c).
(7) Bank filtration demonstration of performance. The State may
approve Cryptosporidium treatment credit for bank filtration based on a
demonstration of performance study that meets the criteria in this
paragraph. This treatment credit may be greater than 1.0-log and may be
awarded to bank filtration that does not meet the criteria in
paragraphs (c)(1)-(5) of this section.
(i) The study must follow a State-approved protocol and must
involve the collection of data on the removal of Cryptosporidium or a
surrogate for Cryptosporidium and related hydrogeologic and water
quality parameters during the full range of operating conditions.
(ii) The study must include sampling both from the production
well(s) and from monitoring wells that are screened and located along
the shortest flow path between the surface water source and the
production well(s).
Sec. 141.718 Treatment performance toolbox components.
(a) Combined filter performance. Systems using conventional
filtration treatment or direct filtration treatment receive an
additional 0.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit during any month
the system meets the criteria in this paragraph. Combined filter
effluent (CFE) turbidity must be less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at
least 95 percent of the measurements. Turbidity must be measured as
described in Sec. 141.74(a) and (c).
(b) Individual filter performance. Systems using conventional
filtration treatment or direct filtration treatment receive 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit, which can be in
[[Page 780]]
addition to the 0.5-log credit under paragraph (a) of this section,
during any month the system meets the criteria in this paragraph.
Compliance with these criteria must be based on individual filter
turbidity monitoring as described in Sec. 141.174 or Sec. 141.560, as
applicable.
(1) The filtered water turbidity for each individual filter must be
less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent of the
measurements recorded each month.
(2) No individual filter may have a measured turbidity greater than
0.3 NTU in two consecutive measurements taken 15 minutes apart.
(3) Any system that has received treatment credit for individual
filter performance and fails to meet the requirements of paragraph
(b)(1) or (2) of this section during any month does not receive a
treatment technique violation under Sec. 141.711(c) if the State
determines the following:
(i) The failure was due to unusual and short-term circumstances
that could not reasonably be prevented through optimizing treatment
plant design, operation, and maintenance.
(ii) The system has experienced no more than two such failures in
any calendar year.
(c) Demonstration of performance. The State may approve
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for drinking water treatment processes
based on a demonstration of performance study that meets the criteria
in this paragraph. This treatment credit may be greater than or less
than the prescribed treatment credits in Sec. 141.711 or Sec. Sec.
141.717 through 141.720 and may be awarded to treatment processes that
do not meet the criteria for the prescribed credits.
(1) Systems cannot receive the prescribed treatment credit for any
toolbox box option in Sec. Sec. 141.717 through 141.720 if that
toolbox option is included in a demonstration of performance study for
which treatment credit is awarded under this paragraph.
(2) The demonstration of performance study must follow a State-
approved protocol and must demonstrate the level of Cryptosporidium
reduction the treatment process will achieve under the full range of
expected operating conditions for the system.
(3) Approval by the State must be in writing and may include
monitoring and treatment performance criteria that the system must
demonstrate and report on an ongoing basis to remain eligible for the
treatment credit. The State may designate such criteria where necessary
to verify that the conditions under which the demonstration of
performance credit was approved are maintained during routine
operation.
Sec. 141.719 Additional filtration toolbox components.
(a) Bag and cartridge filters. Systems receive Cryptosporidium
treatment credit of up to 2.0-log for individual bag or cartridge
filters and up to 2.5-log for bag or cartridge filters operated in
series by meeting the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) through (10) of
this section. To be eligible for this credit, systems must report the
results of challenge testing that meets the requirements of paragraphs
(a)(2) through (9) of this section to the State. The filters must treat
the entire plant flow taken from a subpart H source.
(1) The Cryptosporidium treatment credit awarded to bag or
cartridge filters must be based on the removal efficiency demonstrated
during challenge testing that is conducted according to the criteria in
paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(9) of this section. A factor of safety
equal to 1-log for individual bag or cartridge filters and 0.5-log for
bag or cartridge filters in series must be applied to challenge testing
results to determine removal credit. Systems may use results from
challenge testing conducted prior to January 5, 2006 if the prior
testing was consistent with the criteria specified in paragraphs (a)(2)
through (9) of this section.
(2) Challenge testing must be performed on full-scale bag or
cartridge filters, and the associated filter housing or pressure
vessel, that are identical in material and construction to the filters
and housings the system will use for removal of Cryptosporidium. Bag or
cartridge filters must be challenge tested in the same configuration
that the system will use, either as individual filters or as a series
configuration of filters.
(3) Challenge testing must be conducted using Cryptosporidium or a
surrogate that is removed no more efficiently than Cryptosporidium. The
microorganism or surrogate used during challenge testing is referred to
as the challenge particulate. The concentration of the challenge
particulate must be determined using a method capable of discreetly
quantifying the specific microorganism or surrogate used in the test;
gross measurements such as turbidity may not be used.
(4) The maximum feed water concentration that can be used during a
challenge test must be based on the detection limit of the challenge
particulate in the filtrate (i.e., filtrate detection limit) and must
be calculated using the following equation:
Maximum Feed Concentration = 1 x 10 4 x (Filtrate Detection
Limit)
(5) Challenge testing must be conducted at the maximum design flow
rate for the filter as specified by the manufacturer.
(6) Each filter evaluated must be tested for a duration sufficient
to reach 100 percent of the terminal pressure drop, which establishes
the maximum pressure drop under which the filter may be used to comply
with the requirements of this subpart.
(7) Removal efficiency of a filter must be determined from the
results of the challenge test and expressed in terms of log removal
values using the following equation:
LRV = LOG10(Cf)-LOG10(Cp)
Where:
LRV = log removal value demonstrated during challenge testing;
Cf = the feed concentration measured during the challenge
test; and Cp = the filtrate concentration measured during
the challenge test. In applying this equation, the same units must be
used for the feed and filtrate concentrations. If the challenge
particulate is not detected in the filtrate, then the term
Cp must be set equal to the detection limit.
(8) Each filter tested must be challenged with the challenge
particulate during three periods over the filtration cycle: within two
hours of start-up of a new filter; when the pressure drop is between 45
and 55 percent of the terminal pressure drop; and at the end of the
cycle after the pressure drop has reached 100 percent of the terminal
pressure drop. An LRV must be calculated for each of these challenge
periods for each filter tested. The LRV for the filter
(LRVfilter) must be assigned the value of the minimum LRV
observed during the three challenge periods for that filter.
(9) If fewer than 20 filters are tested, the overall removal
efficiency for the filter product line must be set equal to the lowest
LRVfilter among the filters tested. If 20 or more filters
are tested, the overall removal efficiency for the filter product line
must be set equal to the 10th percentile of the set of
LRVfilter values for the various filters tested. The
percentile is defined by (i/(n+1)) where i is the rank of n individual
data points ordered lowest to highest. If necessary, the 10th
percentile may be calculated using linear interpolation.
(10) If a previously tested filter is modified in a manner that
could change the removal efficiency of the filter product line,
challenge testing to demonstrate the removal efficiency of
[[Page 781]]
the modified filter must be conducted and submitted to the State.
(b) Membrane filtration. (1) Systems receive Cryptosporidium
treatment credit for membrane filtration that meets the criteria of
this paragraph. Membrane cartridge filters that meet the definition of
membrane filtration in Sec. 141.2 are eligible for this credit. The
level of treatment credit a system receives is equal to the lower of
the values determined under paragraph (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(i) The removal efficiency demonstrated during challenge testing
conducted under the conditions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(ii) The maximum removal efficiency that can be verified through
direct integrity testing used with the membrane filtration process
under the conditions in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(2) Challenge Testing. The membrane used by the system must undergo
challenge testing to evaluate removal efficiency, and the system must
report the results of challenge testing to the State. Challenge testing
must be conducted according to the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)
through (vii) of this section. Systems may use data from challenge
testing conducted prior to January 5, 2006 if the prior testing was
consistent with the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (vii) of
this section.
(i) Challenge testing must be conducted on either a full-scale
membrane module, identical in material and construction to the membrane
modules used in the system's treatment facility, or a smaller-scale
membrane module, identical in material and similar in construction to
the full-scale module. A module is defined as the smallest component of
a membrane unit in which a specific membrane surface area is housed in
a device with a filtrate outlet structure.
(ii) Challenge testing must be conducted using Cryptosporidium
oocysts or a surrogate that is removed no more efficiently than
Cryptosporidium oocysts. The organism or surrogate used during
challenge testing is referred to as the challenge particulate. The
concentration of the challenge particulate, in both the feed and
filtrate water, must be determined using a method capable of discretely
quantifying the specific challenge particulate used in the test; gross
measurements such as turbidity may not be used.
(iii) The maximum feed water concentration that can be used during
a challenge test is based on the detection limit of the challenge
particulate in the filtrate and must be determined according to the
following equation:
Maximum Feed Concentration = 3.16 x 106 x (Filtrate
Detection Limit)
(iv) Challenge testing must be conducted under representative
hydraulic conditions at the maximum design flux and maximum design
process recovery specified by the manufacturer for the membrane module.
Flux is defined as the throughput of a pressure driven membrane process
expressed as flow per unit of membrane area. Recovery is defined as the
volumetric percent of feed water that is converted to filtrate over the
course of an operating cycle uninterrupted by events such as chemical
cleaning or a solids removal process (i.e., backwashing).
(v) Removal efficiency of a membrane module must be calculated from
the challenge test results and expressed as a log removal value
according to the following equation:
LRV = LOG10(Cf) x LOG10(Cp)
Where:
LRV = log removal value demonstrated during the challenge test;
Cf = the feed concentration measured during the challenge
test; and Cp = the filtrate concentration measured during
the challenge test. Equivalent units must be used for the feed and
filtrate concentrations. If the challenge particulate is not detected
in the filtrate, the term Cp is set equal to the detection
limit for the purpose of calculating the LRV. An LRV must be calculated
for each membrane module evaluated during the challenge test.
(vi) The removal efficiency of a membrane filtration process
demonstrated during challenge testing must be expressed as a log
removal value (LRVC-Test). If fewer than 20 modules are
tested, then LRVC-Test is equal to the lowest of the
representative LRVs among the modules tested. If 20 or more modules are
tested, then LRVC-Test is equal to the 10th percentile of
the representative LRVs among the modules tested. The percentile is
defined by (i/(n+1)) where i is the rank of n individual data points
ordered lowest to highest. If necessary, the 10th percentile may be
calculated using linear interpolation.
(vii) The challenge test must establish a quality control release
value (QCRV) for a non-destructive performance test that demonstrates
the Cryptosporidium removal capability of the membrane filtration
module. This performance test must be applied to each production
membrane module used by the system that was not directly challenge
tested in order to verify Cryptosporidium removal capability.
Production modules that do not meet the established QCRV are not
eligible for the treatment credit demonstrated during the challenge
test.
(viii) If a previously tested membrane is modified in a manner that
could change the removal efficiency of the membrane or the
applicability of the non-destructive performance test and associated
QCRV, additional challenge testing to demonstrate the removal
efficiency of, and determine a new QCRV for, the modified membrane must
be conducted and submitted to the State.
(3) Direct integrity testing. Systems must conduct direct integrity
testing in a manner that demonstrates a removal efficiency equal to or
greater than the removal credit awarded to the membrane filtration
process and meets the requirements described in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)
through (vi) of this section. A direct integrity test is defined as a
physical test applied to a membrane unit in order to identify and
isolate integrity breaches (i.e., one or more leaks that could result
in contamination of the filtrate).
(i) The direct integrity test must be independently applied to each
membrane unit in service. A membrane unit is defined as a group of
membrane modules that share common valving that allows the unit to be
isolated from the rest of the system for the purpose of integrity
testing or other maintenance.
(ii) The direct integrity method must have a resolution of 3
micrometers or less, where resolution is defined as the size of the
smallest integrity breach that contributes to a response from the
direct integrity test.
(iii) The direct integrity test must have a sensitivity sufficient
to verify the log treatment credit awarded to the membrane filtration
process by the State, where sensitivity is defined as the maximum log
removal value that can be reliably verified by a direct integrity test.
Sensitivity must be determined using the approach in either paragraph
(b)(3)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section as applicable to the type of
direct integrity test the system uses.
(A) For direct integrity tests that use an applied pressure or
vacuum, the direct integrity test sensitivity must be calculated
according to the following equation:
LRVDIT = LOG10 (Qp /(VCF x
Qbreach))
Where:
LRVDIT = the sensitivity of the direct integrity test;
Qp = total design filtrate flow from the membrane unit;
Qbreach = flow of water from an
[[Page 782]]
integrity breach associated with the smallest integrity test response
that can be reliably measured, and VCF = volumetric concentration
factor. The volumetric concentration factor is the ratio of the
suspended solids concentration on the high pressure side of the
membrane relative to that in the feed water.
(B) For direct integrity tests that use a particulate or molecular
marker, the direct integrity test sensitivity must be calculated
according to the following equation:
LRVDIT = LOG10(Cf)-
LOG10(Cp)
Where:
LRVDIT = the sensitivity of the direct integrity test;
Cf = the typical feed concentration of the marker used in
the test; and Cp = the filtrate concentration of the marker
from an integral membrane unit.
(iv) Systems must establish a control limit within the sensitivity
limits of the direct integrity test that is indicative of an integral
membrane unit capable of meeting the removal credit awarded by the
State.
(v) If the result of a direct integrity test exceeds the control
limit established under paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section, the
system must remove the membrane unit from service. Systems must conduct
a direct integrity test to verify any repairs, and may return the
membrane unit to service only if the direct integrity test is within
the established control limit.
(vi) Systems must conduct direct integrity testing on each membrane
unit at a frequency of not less than once each day that the membrane
unit is in operation. The State may approve less frequent testing,
based on demonstrated process reliability, the use of multiple barriers
effective for Cryptosporidium, or reliable process safeguards.
(4) Indirect integrity monitoring. Systems must conduct continuous
indirect integrity monitoring on each membrane unit according to the
criteria in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (v) of this section. Indirect
integrity monitoring is defined as monitoring some aspect of filtrate
water quality that is indicative of the removal of particulate matter.
A system that implements continuous direct integrity testing of
membrane units in accordance with the criteria in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)
through (v) of this section is not subject to the requirements for
continuous indirect integrity monitoring. Systems must submit a monthly
report to the State summarizing all continuous indirect integrity
monitoring results triggering direct integrity testing and the
corrective action that was taken in each case.
(i) Unless the State approves an alternative parameter, continuous
indirect integrity monitoring must include continuous filtrate
turbidity monitoring.
(ii) Continuous monitoring must be conducted at a frequency of no
less than once every 15 minutes.
(iii) Continuous monitoring must be separately conducted on each
membrane unit.
(iv) If indirect integrity monitoring includes turbidity and if the
filtrate turbidity readings are above 0.15 NTU for a period greater
than 15 minutes (i.e., two consecutive 15-minute readings above 0.15
NTU), direct integrity testing must immediately be performed on the
associated membrane unit as specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through
(v) of this section.
(v) If indirect integrity monitoring includes a State-approved
alternative parameter and if the alternative parameter exceeds a State-
approved control limit for a period greater than 15 minutes, direct
integrity testing must immediately be performed on the associated
membrane units as specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this
section.
(c) Second stage filtration. Systems receive 0.5-log
Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a separate second stage of
filtration that consists of sand, dual media, GAC, or other fine grain
media following granular media filtration if the State approves. To be
eligible for this credit, the first stage of filtration must be
preceded by a coagulation step and both filtration stages must treat
the entire plant flow taken from a surface water or GWUDI source. A
cap, such as GAC, on a single stage of filtration is not eligible for
this credit. The State must approve the treatment credit based on an
assessment of the design characteristics of the filtration process.
(d) Slow sand filtration (as secondary filter). Systems are
eligible to receive 2.5-log Cryptosporidium treatment credit for a slow
sand filtration process that follows a separate stage of filtration if
both filtration stages treat entire plant flow taken from a surface
water or GWUDI source and no disinfectant residual is present in the
influent water to the slow sand filtration process. The State must
approve the treatment credit based on an assessment of the design
characteristics of the filtration process. This paragraph does not
apply to treatment credit awarded to slow sand filtration used as a
primary filtration process.
Sec. 141.720 Inactivation toolbox components.
(a) Calculation of CT values. (1) CT is the product of the
disinfectant contact time (T, in minutes) and disinfectant
concentration (C, in milligrams per liter). Systems with treatment
credit for chlorine dioxide or ozone under paragraph (b) or (c) of this
section must calculate CT at least once each day, with both C and T
measured during peak hourly flow as specified in Sec. Sec. 141.74(a)
through (b).
(2) Systems with several disinfection segments in sequence may
calculate CT for each segment, where a disinfection segment is defined
as a treatment unit process with a measurable disinfectant residual
level and a liquid volume. Under this approach, systems must add the
Cryptosporidium CT values in each segment to determine the total CT for
the treatment plant.
(b) CT values for chlorine dioxide and ozone. (1) Systems receive
the Cryptosporidium treatment credit listed in this table by meeting
the corresponding chlorine dioxide CT value for the applicable water
temperature, as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
CT Values (mg[middot]min/L) for Cryptosporidium Inactivation by Chlorine Dioxide \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Temperature, [deg]C
Log credit ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=0.5 1 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 25 30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) 0.25........................................................ 159 153 140 128 107 90 69 45 29 19 12
(ii) 0.5........................................................ 319 305 279 256 214 180 138 89 58 38 24
(iii) 1.0....................................................... 637 610 558 511 429 360 277 179 116 75 49
(iv) 1.5........................................................ 956 915 838 767 643 539 415 268 174 113 73
(v) 2.0......................................................... 1275 1220 1117 1023 858 719 553 357 232 150 98
(vi) 2.5........................................................ 1594 1525 1396 1278 1072 899 691 447 289 188 122
[[Page 783]]
(vii) 3.0....................................................... 1912 1830 1675 1534 1286 1079 830 536 347 226 147
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Systems may use this equation to determine log credit between the indicated values: Log credit = (0.001506 x (1.09116) Temp) x CT.
(2) Systems receive the Cryptosporidium treatment credit listed in
this table by meeting the corresponding ozone CT values for the
applicable water temperature, as described in paragraph (a) of this
section.
CT Values (mg[middot]min/L) for Cryptosporidium Inactivation by Ozone \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Temperature, [deg]C
Log credit ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=0.5 1 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 25 30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) 0.25........................................................ 6.0 5.8 5.2 4.8 4.0 3.3 2.5 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.39
(ii) 0.5........................................................ 12 12 10 9.5 7.9 6.5 4.9 3.1 2.0 1.2 0.78
(iii) 1.0....................................................... 24 23 21 19 16 13 9.9 6.2 3.9 2.5 1.6
(iv) 1.5........................................................ 36 35 31 29 24 20 15 9.3 5.9 3.7 2.4
(v) 2.0......................................................... 48 46 42 38 32 26 20 12 7.8 4.9 3.1
(vi) 2.5........................................................ 60 58 52 48 40 33 25 16 9.8 6.2 3.9
(vii) 3.0....................................................... 72 69 63 57 47 39 30 19 12 7.4 4.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Systems may use this equation to determine log credit between the indicated values: Log credit = (0.0397 x (1.09757)Temp) x CT.
(c) Site-specific study. The State may approve alternative chlorine
dioxide or ozone CT values to those listed in paragraph (b) of this
section on a site-specific basis. The State must base this approval on
a site-specific study a system conducts that follows a State-approved
protocol.
(d) Ultraviolet light. Systems receive Cryptosporidium, Giardia
lamblia, and virus treatment credits for ultraviolet (UV) light
reactors by achieving the corresponding UV dose values shown in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Systems must validate and monitor UV
reactors as described in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section to
demonstrate that they are achieving a particular UV dose value for
treatment credit.
(1) UV dose table. The treatment credits listed in this table are
for UV light at a wavelength of 254 nm as produced by a low pressure
mercury vapor lamp. To receive treatment credit for other lamp types,
systems must demonstrate an equivalent germicidal dose through reactor
validation testing, as described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
The UV dose values in this table are applicable only to post-filter
applications of UV in filtered systems and to unfiltered systems.
UV Dose Table for Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, and Virus Inactivation Credit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cryptosporidium Giardia lamblia
Log credit UV dose (mJ/ UV dose (mJ/ Virus UV dose
cm\2\) cm\2\) (mJ/cm\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) 0.5................................................ 1.6 1.5 39
(ii) 1.0............................................... 2.5 2.1 58
(iii) 1.5.............................................. 3.9 3.0 79
(iv) 2.0............................................... 5.8 5.2 100
(v) 2.5................................................ 8.5 7.7 121
(vi) 3.0............................................... 12 11 143
(vii) 3.5.............................................. 15 15 163
(viii) 4.0............................................. 22 22 186
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Reactor validation testing. Systems must use UV reactors that
have undergone validation testing to determine the operating conditions
under which the reactor delivers the UV dose required in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section (i.e., validated operating conditions). These
operating conditions must include flow rate, UV intensity as measured
by a UV sensor, and UV lamp status.
(i) When determining validated operating conditions, systems must
account for the following factors: UV absorbance of the water; lamp
fouling and aging; measurement uncertainty of on-line sensors; UV dose
distributions arising from the velocity profiles through the reactor;
failure of UV lamps or other critical system components; and inlet and
outlet piping or channel configurations of the UV reactor.
(ii) Validation testing must include the following: Full scale
testing of a reactor that conforms uniformly to the UV reactors used by
the system and inactivation of a test microorganism whose dose response
characteristics have been quantified with a low pressure mercury vapor
lamp.
(iii) The State may approve an alternative approach to validation
testing.
(3) Reactor monitoring. (i) Systems must monitor their UV reactors
to determine if the reactors are operating within validated conditions,
as determined under paragraph (d)(2) of this section. This monitoring
must include UV intensity as measured by a UV sensor, flow rate, lamp
status, and other parameters the State designates
[[Page 784]]
based on UV reactor operation. Systems must verify the calibration of
UV sensors and must recalibrate sensors in accordance with a protocol
the State approves.
(ii) To receive treatment credit for UV light, systems must treat
at least 95 percent of the water delivered to the public during each
month by UV reactors operating within validated conditions for the
required UV dose, as described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this
section. Systems must demonstrate compliance with this condition by the
monitoring required under paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
Sec. 141.721 Reporting requirements.
(a) Systems must report sampling schedules under Sec. 141.702 and
source water monitoring results under Sec. 141.706 unless they notify
the State that they will not conduct source water monitoring due to
meeting the criteria of Sec. 141.701(d).
(b) Systems must report the use of uncovered finished water storage
facilities to the State as described in Sec. 141.714.
(c) Filtered systems must report their Cryptosporidium bin
classification as described in Sec. 141.710.
(d) Unfiltered systems must report their mean source water
Cryptosporidium level as described in Sec. 141.712.
(e) Systems must report disinfection profiles and benchmarks to the
State as described in Sec. Sec. 141.708 through 141.709 prior to
making a significant change in disinfection practice.
(f) Systems must report to the State in accordance with the
following table for any microbial toolbox options used to comply with
treatment requirements under Sec. 141.711 or Sec. 141.712.
Alternatively, the State may approve a system to certify operation
within required parameters for treatment credit rather than reporting
monthly operational data for toolbox options.
Microbial Toolbox Reporting Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems must submit the
Toolbox option following information On the following schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Watershed control program (WCP).......... (i) Notice of intention to No later than two years before
develop a new or continue an the applicable treatment
existing watershed control compliance date in Sec.
program. 141.713
(ii) Watershed control plan..... No later than one year before
the applicable treatment
compliance date in Sec.
141.713.
(iii) Annual watershed control Every 12 months, beginning one
program status report. year after the applicable
treatment compliance date in
Sec. 141.713.
(iv) Watershed sanitary survey For community water systems,
report. every three years beginning
three years after the
applicable treatment
compliance date in Sec.
141.713. For noncommunity
water systems, every five
years beginning five years
after the applicable treatment
compliance date in Sec.
141.713.
(2) Alternative source/intake management..... Verification that system has No later than the applicable
relocated the intake or adopted treatment compliance date in
the intake withdrawal procedure Sec. 141.713.
reflected in monitoring results.
(3) Presedimentation......................... Monthly verification of the Monthly reporting within 10
following: (i) Continuous basin days following the month in
operation (ii) Treatment of which the monitoring was
100% of the flow (iii) conducted, beginning on the
Continuous addition of a applicable treatment
coagulant (iv) At least 0.5-log compliance date in Sec.
mean reduction of influent 141.713.
turbidity or compliance with
alternative State-approved
performance criteria.
(4) Two-stage lime softening................. Monthly verification of the Monthly reporting within 10
following: (i) Chemical days following the month in
addition and hardness which the monitoring was
precipitation occurred in two conducted, beginning on the
separate and sequential applicable treatment
softening stages prior to compliance date in Sec.
filtration (ii) Both stages 141.713.
treated 100% of the plant flow.
(5) Bank filtration.......................... (i) Initial demonstration of the No later than the applicable
following: (A) Unconsolidated, treatment compliance date in
predominantly sandy aquifer (B) Sec. 141.713.
Setback distance of at least 25
ft. (0.5-log credit) or 50 ft.
(1.0-log credit).
(ii) If monthly average of daily Report within 30 days following
max turbidity is greater than 1 the month in which the
NTU then system must report monitoring was conducted,
result and submit an assessment beginning on the applicable
of the cause.. treatment compliance date in
Sec. 141.713.
(6) Combined filter performance.............. Monthly verification of combined Monthly reporting within 10
filter effluent (CFE) turbidity days following the month in
levels less than or equal to which the monitoring was
0.15 NTU in at least 95 percent conducted, beginning on the
of the 4 hour CFE measurements applicable treatment
taken each month. compliance date in Sec.
141.713.
(7) Individual filter performance............ Monthly verification of the Monthly reporting within 10
following: (i) Individual days following the month in
filter effluent (IFE ) which the monitoring was
turbidity levels less than or conducted, beginning on the
equal to 0.15 NTU in at least applicable treatment
95 percent of samples each compliance date in Sec.
month in each filter (ii) No 141.713.]
individual filter greater than
0.3 NTU in two consecutive
readings 15 minutes apart.
(8) Demonstration of performance............. (i) Results from testing No later than the applicable
following a State approved treatment compliance date in
protocol. Sec. 141.713.
(ii) As required by the State, Within 10 days following the
monthly verification of month in which monitoring was
operation within conditions of conducted, beginning on the
State approval for applicable treatment
demonstration of performance compliance date in Sec.
credit. 141.713.
[[Page 785]]
(9) Bag filters and cartridge filters........ (i) Demonstration that the No later than the applicable
following criteria are met: (A) treatment compliance date in
Process meets the definition of Sec. 141.713.
bag or cartridge filtration;
(B) Removal efficiency
established through challenge
testing that meets criteria in
this subpart.
(ii) Monthly verification that Within 10 days following the
100% of plant flow was filtered. month in which monitoring was
conducted, beginning on the
applicable treatment
compliance date in Sec.
141.713.
(10) Membrane filtration..................... (i) Results of verification No later than the applicable
testing demonstrating the treatment compliance date in
following: (A) Removal Sec. 141.713.
efficiency established through
challenge testing that meets
criteria in this subpart; (B)
Integrity test method and
parameters, including
resolution, sensitivity, test
frequency, control limits, and
associated baseline.
(ii) Monthly report summarizing Within 10 days following the
the following: (A) All direct month in which monitoring was
integrity tests above the conducted, beginning on the
control limit; (B) If applicable treatment
applicable, any turbidity or compliance date in Sec.
alternative state-approved 141.713.
indirect integrity monitoring
results triggering direct
integrity testing and the
corrective action that was
taken.
(11) Second stage filtration................. Monthly verification that 100% Within 10 days following the
of flow was filtered through month in which monitoring was
both stages and that first conducted, beginning on the
stage was preceded by applicable treatment
coagulation step. compliance date in Sec.
141.713.
(12) Slow sand filtration (as secondary Monthly verification that both a Within 10 days following the
filter). slow sand filter and a month in which monitoring was
preceding separate stage of conducted, beginning on the
filtration treated 100% of flow applicable treatment
from subpart H sources.. compliance date in Sec.
141.713.
(13) Chlorine dioxide........................ Summary of CT values for each Within 10 days following the
day as described in Sec. month in which monitoring was
141.720.. conducted, beginning on the
applicable treatment
compliance date in Sec.
141.713.
(14) Ozone................................... Summary of CT values for each Within 10 days following the
day as described in Sec. month in which monitoring was
141.720.. conducted, beginning on the
applicable treatment
compliance date in Sec.
141.713.
(15) UV...................................... (i) Validation test results No later than the applicable
demonstrating operating treatment compliance date in
conditions that achieve Sec. 141.713.
required UV dose. Within 10 days following the
(ii) Monthly report summarizing month in which monitoring was
the percentage of water conducted, beginning on the
entering the distribution applicable treatment
system that was not treated by compliance date in Sec.
UV reactors operating within 141.713.
validated conditions for the
required dose as specified in
141.720(d)..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 141.722 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) Systems must keep results from the initial round of source
water monitoring under Sec. 141.701(a) and the second round of source
water monitoring under Sec. 141.701(b) until 3 years after bin
classification under Sec. 141.710 for filtered systems or
determination of the mean Cryptosporidium level under Sec. 141.710 for
unfiltered systems for the particular round of monitoring.
(b) Systems must keep any notification to the State that they will
not conduct source water monitoring due to meeting the criteria of
Sec. 141.701(d) for 3 years.
(c) Systems must keep the results of treatment monitoring
associated with microbial toolbox options under Sec. Sec. 141.716
through 141.720 and with uncovered finished water reservoirs under
Sec. 141.714, as applicable, for 3 years.
Requirements for Sanitary Surveys Performed by EPA
Sec. 141.723 Requirements to respond to significant deficiencies
identified in sanitary surveys performed by EPA.
(a) A sanitary survey is an onsite review of the water source
(identifying sources of contamination by using results of source water
assessments where available), facilities, equipment, operation,
maintenance, and monitoring compliance of a PWS to evaluate the
adequacy of the PWS, its sources and operations, and the distribution
of safe drinking water.
(b) For the purposes of this section, a significant deficiency
includes a defect in design, operation, or maintenance, or a failure or
malfunction of the sources, treatment, storage, or distribution system
that EPA determines to be causing, or has the potential for causing the
introduction of contamination into the water delivered to consumers.
(c) For sanitary surveys performed by EPA, systems must respond in
writing to significant deficiencies identified in sanitary survey
reports no later than 45 days after receipt of the report, indicating
how and on what schedule the system will address significant
deficiencies noted in the survey.
(d) Systems must correct significant deficiencies identified in
sanitary survey reports according to the schedule approved by EPA, or
if there is no approved schedule, according to the schedule reported
under paragraph (c) of this section if such deficiencies are within the
control of the system.
PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
0
8. 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.
0
9. Section 142.14 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(9) to read as
follows:
Sec. 142.14 Records kept by States.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
[[Page 786]]
(9) Any decisions made pursuant to the provisions of part 141,
subpart W of this chapter.
(i) Results of source water E. coli and Cryptosporidium monitoring.
(ii) The bin classification after the initial and after the second
round of source water monitoring for each filtered system, as described
in Sec. 141.710 of this chapter.
(iii) Any change in treatment requirements for filtered systems due
to watershed assessment during sanitary surveys, as described in Sec.
141.711(d) of this chapter.
(iv) The determination of whether the mean Cryptosporidium level is
greater than 0.01 oocysts/L after the initial and after the second
round of source water monitoring for each unfiltered system, as
described in Sec. 141.712(a) of this chapter.
(v) The treatment processes or control measures that systems use to
meet their Cryptosporidium treatment requirements under Sec. 141.711
or Sec. 141.712 of this chapter.
(vi) A list of systems required to cover or treat the effluent of
an uncovered finished water storage facility, as specified in Sec.
141.714 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 142.15 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(6) to read as
follows:
Sec. 142.15 Reports by States.
(c) * * *
(6) Subpart W. (i) The bin classification after the initial and
after the second round of source water monitoring for each filtered
system, as described in Sec. 141.710 of this chapter.
(ii) Any change in treatment requirements for these systems due to
watershed assessment during sanitary surveys, as described in Sec.
141.711(d) of this chapter.
(iii) The determination of whether the mean Cryptosporidium level
is greater than 0.01 oocysts/L both after the initial and after the
second round of source water monitoring for each unfiltered system, as
described in Sec. 141.712(a) of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 142.16 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as
follows:
Sec. 142.16 Special primacy conditions.
* * * * *
(n) Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFR part 141, subpart W. In
addition to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in this part,
including the requirements that State regulations be at least as
stringent as Federal requirements, an application for approval of a
State program revision that adopts 40 CFR part 141, subpart W, must
contain a description of how the State will accomplish the following
program requirements where allowed in State programs.
(1) Approve an alternative to the E. coli levels that trigger
Cryptosporidium monitoring by filtered systems serving fewer than
10,000 people, as described in Sec. 141.701(a)(5).
(2) Assess significant changes in the watershed and source water as
part of the sanitary survey process and determine appropriate follow-up
action for systems, as described in Sec. 141.711(d) of this chapter.
(3) Approve watershed control programs for the 0.5-log treatment
credit in the microbial toolbox, as described in Sec. 141.716(a) of
this chapter.
(4) Approve protocols for demonstration of performance treatment
credits in the microbial toolbox, as allowed under Sec. 141.718(c) of
this chapter.
(5) Approve protocols for alternative ozone and chlorine dioxide CT
values in the microbial toolbox, as allowed under Sec. 141.720(c) of
this chapter.
(6) Approve an alternative approach to UV reactor validation
testing in the microbial toolbox, as allowed under Sec.
141.720(d)(2)(iii) of this chapter.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-4 Filed 1-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P