94-17650. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Requirements; Proposed Rule ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 145 (Friday, July 29, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-17650]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: July 29, 1994]
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    Part III
    
    
    
    
    
    Environmental Protection Agency
    
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    
    40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
    
    
    
    
    National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Enhanced Surface Water 
    Treatment Requirements; Proposed Rule
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    
    40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
    
    [WH-FRL-4998-1]
    
     
    National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Enhanced Surface 
    Water Treatment Requirements
    
    AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    
    ACTION: Proposed rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend the Surface Water Treatment Rule to 
    provide additional protection against disease-causing organisms 
    (pathogens) in drinking water. This action would primarily focus on 
    treatment requirements for the waterborne pathogens Giardia, 
    Cryptosporidium, and viruses. With the exception of one requirement 
    (sanitary surveys), this action would apply to all public water systems 
    that use surface water or ground water under the influence of surface 
    water, and serve 10,000 people or more. Among the features of the rule 
    would be a stricter watershed control requirement for systems using 
    surface water that wish to avoid filtration; a change in the definition 
    of ground water under the influence of surface water to include the 
    presence of Cryptosporidium; a periodic sanitary survey requirement for 
    all systems using surface water or ground water under the influence of 
    surface water, including those that serve fewer than 10,000 people; a 
    health goal (maximum contaminant level goal) of zero for 
    Cryptosporidium; and several alternative requirements for augmenting 
    treatment control of Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and viruses.
    
    DATES: Comments should be postmarked or delivered by hand on or before 
    May 30, 1996. Comments received after this date may not be considered. 
    Public hearings will be held at the addresses indicated below under 
    ADDRESSES on August 30, 1996 (and 31, if necessary) in Denver, CO and 
    on September 13, 1994 (and 14, if necessary) in Washington, DC.
    
    ADDRESSES: Send written comments to ESWTR Docket Clerk, Water Docket 
    (MC-4101); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M Street, SW; 
    Washington, DC 20460. Please submit any references cited in your 
    comments. EPA would appreciate an original and three copies of your 
    comments and enclosures (including references). Commenters who want EPA 
    to acknowledge receipt of their comments should include a self-
    addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted 
    because EPA cannot ensure that they will be submitted to the Water 
    Docket. The Agency requests commenters to follow the instructions 
    regarding format provided in Section IX of the Preamble, immediately 
    before the list of references.
        The Agency will hold public hearings on the proposal at two 
    different locations indicated below:
    
    1. Denver Federal Center, 6th and Kipling Streets, Building 25, Lecture 
    Halls A and B (3d Street), Denver, CO 80225 on August 30 (and 31, if 
    necessary), 1994.
    2. EPA Education Center Auditorium, 401 M Street SW., Washington, D.C. 
    20460, on September 13 (and 14, if necessary), 1994.
    
        The hearings will begin at 1:00 p.m., with registration at 12:30 
    p.m., on the first day. The hearings will begin at 9:30 a.m., with 
    registration at 9:00 a.m., on the second day. The Hearings will end at 
    4:00 p.m., unless concluded earlier. Anyone planning to attend the 
    public hearings (especially those who plan to make statements) may 
    register in advance by writing the ESWTR Public Hearing Officer, Office 
    of Ground Water and Drinking Water (4603), USEPA, 401 M Street, S.W., 
    Washington, D.C. 20460; or by calling Tina Mazzocchetti, (703) 931-
    4600. Oral and written comments may be submitted at the public hearing. 
    Persons who wish to make oral presentations are encouraged to have 
    written copies (preferably three) of their complete comments for 
    inclusion in the official record.
        The proposed rule with supporting documents and all comments 
    received are available for review at the Water Docket at the address 
    above. For access to Docket materials, call (202) 260-3027 between 9 am 
    and 3:30 pm for an appointment.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Safe Drinking Water Hotline, 
    Telephone (800) 426-4791. The Safe Drinking Water Hotline is open 
    Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 
    p.m. Eastern Time. For technical inquiries, contact Stig Regli or Paul 
    S. Berger, Ph.D., Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC 4603), 
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington DC 
    20460; telephone (202) 260-7379 (Regli) or (202) 260-3039 (Berger); or 
    Bruce A. Macler, Ph.D., Water Management Division, Region 9, U.S. 
    Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street (W-6-1), San 
    Francisco, CA 94105-3901; telephone (415) 744-1884.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Table of Contents
    
    I. Statutory Authority
    II. Regulatory Background
    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
        A. Basis for Amending Existing SWTR: Limitations of SWTR
        B. General Approach for Revising SWTR
        C. Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Goal and Treatment 
    Technique for Cryptosporidium
        D. Proposed Revisions to SWTR under All Treatment Alternatives
        1. Inclusion of Cryptosporidium in definition of ``groundwater 
    under the direct influence of surface water''
        2. Inclusion of Cryptosporidium in watershed control 
    requirements
        3. Sanitary surveys for all surface water systems
        4. Possible supplemental requirements
        E. Alternative Treatment Requirements
        1. Options for defining pathogen densities in source waters
        2. Treatment alternatives for controlling pathogens
    IV. State Implementation
        A. Special State Primacy Requirements
        B. State Recordkeeping Requirements
        C. State Reporting Requirements
    V. Public Notification Language
    VI. Economic Analysis
        A. Cost of Proposed Rule
        B. Benefits of Proposed Rule
    VII. Other Statutory Requirements
        A. Executive Order 12866
        B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act
        D. Science Advisory Board, National Drinking Water Advisory 
    Council, and Secretary of Health and Human Services
        E. Consultation with State, Local, and Tribal Governments
    VIII. Request for Public Comment
    IX. Instructions to Commenters
    X. References
    
    I. Statutory Authority
    
        The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA or the Act), as amended in 1986, 
    requires EPA to publish a ``maximum contaminant level goal'' (MCLG) for 
    each contaminant which, in the judgment of the EPA Administrator, ``may 
    have any adverse effect on the health of persons and which are known or 
    anticipated to occur in public water systems'' (Section 1412(b)(3)(A)). 
    MCLGs are to be set at a level at which ``no known or anticipated 
    adverse effects on the health of persons occur and which allows an 
    adequate margin of safety'' (Section 1412(b)(4)).
        At the same time EPA publishes an MCLG, which is a non-enforceable 
    health goal, it also must publish a National Primary Drinking Water 
    Regulation (NPDWR) that specifies either a maximum contaminant level 
    (MCL) or treatment technique (Section 1401(1), 1412(a)(3), and 
    1412(b)(7)(A)). A treatment technique may be set in lieu of an MCL if 
    it is not ``economically or technologically feasible'' to determine the 
    level of a contaminant.
        Section 1412(b)(3) of the Act requires EPA to publish regulations 
    for at least 25 contaminants at three year intervals. Section 
    1412(b)(9) requires EPA to review each NPDWR every three years and 
    revise it if appropriate.
        Section 1412(b)(7)(C) requires the EPA Administrator to publish a 
    NPDWR ``specifying criteria under which filtration (including 
    coagulation and sedimentation, as appropriate) is required as a 
    treatment technique for public water systems supplied by surface water 
    sources''. In establishing these criteria, EPA is required to consider 
    ``the quality of source waters, protection afforded by watershed 
    management, treatment practices (such as disinfection and length of 
    water storage) and other factors relevant to protection of health''. 
    This section of the Act also requires EPA to promulgate a NPDWR 
    requiring disinfection as a treatment technique for all public water 
    systems and a rule specifying criteria by which variances to this 
    requirement may be granted.
        Section 1445(a)(1) of the Act requires a public water system to 
    ``establish and maintain such records, make such reports, conduct such 
    monitoring, and provide such information as the Administrator may 
    reasonably require by regulation . . .''.
        Section 1414(c) requires each owner or operator of a public water 
    system to give notice to persons served by it of any failure to comply 
    with an MCL, treatment technique, or testing procedure required by a 
    NPDWR and any failure to comply with any monitoring required pursuant 
    to section 1445 of the Act.
    
    II. Regulatory Background
    
        Two NPDWRs control disease-causing microorganisms (pathogens) in 
    public water supplies--the Total Coliform Rule (TCR)(54 FR 27544; June 
    29, 1989) and the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR)(54 FR 27486; June 
    29, 1989). A third regulation, the Groundwater Disinfection Rule 
    (GWDR), which is currently under development, will add further 
    protection for systems using ground water.
        The SWTR met the requirements of Section 1412(b)(7)(C) and, for 
    surface waters, Section 1412(b)(8) of the SDWA, as amended in 1986. The 
    SWTR requires all systems using surface water, or ground water under 
    the direct influence of surface water, to disinfect. In addition, all 
    such systems are required to filter their water unless they demonstrate 
    that they have an effective watershed protection program and meet other 
    EPA-specified requirements (Sec. 141.71). The watershed control program 
    must minimize the potential for source water contamination by Giardia 
    cysts and viruses, and typically includes characterization of watershed 
    hydrology, land ownership by the system, and activities on the 
    watershed that might have an adverse effect on source water quality. 
    The rule also requires an annual on-site inspection of all systems that 
    wish to avoid filtration. This inspection must demonstrate that the 
    required watershed control program and disinfection treatment processes 
    are adequately designed and maintained. The SWTR also established MCLGs 
    of zero for Giardia lamblia, viruses and Legionella.
        The SWTR requires all systems to achieve at least 99.9% (3-log) 
    removal/inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts, and 99.99% (4-log) 
    removal/inactivation of enteric viruses. The intention of these 
    provisions was to provide appropriate multiple barriers of treatment to 
    control pathogen occurrence in finished drinking water. This rule was 
    promulgated as a treatment technique rather than an MCL, because EPA 
    believed that routine monitoring for the pathogens was not economically 
    or technologically feasible. Another pathogen, Cryptosporidium, was 
    considered for regulation under the SWTR, but was not addressed, 
    because EPA lacked sufficient health, occurrence, and water treatment 
    control data regarding this organism at that time.
        The TCR established MCLGs of zero for total coliforms, which 
    includes fecal coliforms and E. coli. MCLs, monitoring requirements, 
    and analytical requirements were promulgated for these organisms. The 
    TCR requires all public water systems that collect fewer than five 
    samples per month to have an on-site sanitary survey every five years 
    (ten years for some systems). The purpose of this requirement is to 
    help ensure the long-term quality and safety of drinking water in small 
    systems that cannot be accomplished by infrequent coliform monitoring.
        The TCR and SWTR were promulgated to minimize both epidemic and 
    endemic waterborne microbial illness. The public health goal, as 
    described in the preamble to the SWTR, was to provide treatment to 
    ensure an acceptable risk of less than one waterborne microbial illness 
    per year per 10,000 people.
        In addition to the SWTR, TCR, and GWDR, EPA is also developing a 
    rule that would limit concentration levels of disinfectants and the 
    chemical disinfection byproducts (DBPs) resulting from their use. The 
    use of chemical disinfectants in water treatment results in a 
    substantial decrease in waterborne microbial illness and is an integral 
    part of a multiple-barrier removal/inactivation approach. However, 
    disinfectants and DBPs may present potential health risks themselves. 
    DBPs form when disinfectants used for microbial control in drinking 
    water react with various organic chemicals in the source water. Some of 
    these are known to be toxic to humans or are considered to be probable 
    human carcinogens. As such, a number of disinfectants and DBPs were 
    included on the 1991 Drinking Water Priority List (56 FR 1470, January 
    14, 1991) as candidates for future regulations. To address these health 
    issues, EPA is proposing elsewhere in today's Federal Register the 
    disinfectants/disinfection byproducts (D/DBP) rule, which includes 
    NPDWRs for several disinfectants and disinfectant byproducts.
        To develop the D/DBP Rule, EPA instituted a formal regulation 
    negotiation process in 1992 with potentially affected parties (57 FR 
    53866; Nov. 13, 1992). The committee established to negotiate the 
    regulation included representatives from water utilities, State and 
    local health and regulatory agencies, environmental groups, consumer 
    groups, and EPA (hereafter the Negotiating Committee or the Committee). 
    One of the major goals addressed by the Committee was to develop an 
    approach that would reduce the level of exposure from disinfectants and 
    DBPs without undermining the control of pathogens. The intention was to 
    ensure that drinking water is microbiologically safe at the limits set 
    for disinfectants and DBPs and that these chemicals do not pose an 
    unacceptable risk at these limits. The approach in developing this rule 
    considered the constraints of simultaneously treating water for these 
    different concerns. As part of this effort, the Negotiating Committee 
    decided that the SWTR may need to be revised to address health risk 
    from high densities of pathogens in poor quality source waters and from 
    the protozoan, Cryptosporidium. If such requirements were deemed 
    necessary, and could be promulgated concurrently with new D/DBP 
    regulations (the regulations proposed elsewhere in today's Federal 
    Register and termed ``Stage 1 D/DBPR''), a system could comply with 
    both regulations and meet the intended public health goals.
        The Negotiating Committee also decided that to develop a reasonable 
    set of rules, including today's proposed rule, and to understand more 
    fully the limitations of the current SWTR, additional field data were 
    critical. Thus, the Committee agreed to the development of an 
    information collection rule (ICR) that would require, in part, systems 
    serving a population of 10,000 or greater to determine the density of 
    specific pathogens in their source water and to characterize their 
    treatment processes. Under the ICR, systems serving populations greater 
    than 100,000 would also be required to monitor for pathogens in their 
    finished water (depending upon the pathogen density in the source 
    water), and the concentration of DBPs and parameters related to their 
    formation at various steps in the treatment process. To this end, EPA 
    proposed the ICR on February 10, 1994 (59 FR 6332) that would require 
    this additional information. The Committee agreed to the requirements 
    in the proposed ICR as necessary and reasonable.
        According to the regulatory strategy developed by the Committee, 
    systems serving a population of 10,000 or greater would use the 
    monitoring and treatment data collected under the ICR to decide what 
    additional treatment measures, if any, would be necessary to protect 
    the public from pathogens while controlling for DBPs. This decision 
    would be based on criteria specified either in amendments to the SWTR 
    or by guidance. Today's proposed rule includes a variety of regulatory 
    options, from requiring systems to provide minimum levels of treatment 
    based upon the density of pathogens in the source water to maintaining 
    the existing requirements of the SWTR.
        According to the Committee's strategy, amendments to the SWTR would 
    be developed under two rules. The first of these rules, which is 
    today's proposed rule, would be an interim enhanced SWTR (ESWTR) that 
    would only pertain to systems serving 10,000 people or greater. Data 
    collected under the ICR would be used to determine the appropriate 
    regulatory option(s) under this rule, and then to implement it at the 
    time systems are required to comply with the Stage 1 D/DBP regulations. 
    Following the full compilation and analysis of all data collected under 
    the ICR rule and from other research findings, EPA would propose a 
    long-term ESWTR with which systems serving fewer than 10,000 people 
    would comply while also complying with the Stage 1 D/DBP rule. The 
    long-term ESWTR might also include additional refinements for systems 
    serving 10,000 people or greater. Today's proposal also satisfies the 
    provision in section 1412(b)(9) of the SDWA for review of NPDWRs every 
    three years; the SWTR was promulgated on June 29, 1989, and became 
    effective in stages, beginning December 31, 1990.
    
    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
    
    A. Basis for Amending Existing SWTR: Limitations of SWTR
    
        As discussed above, the SWTR requires all systems using surface 
    water, or ground water under the direct influence of surface water, to 
    disinfect. It also requires all such systems to filter their water 
    unless they can demonstrate that they have an effective watershed 
    control program, meet source water quality criteria, achieve minimum 
    disinfection requirements, and have no evidence of reported waterborne 
    disease among the served population. The SWTR also specifies that 
    systems using surface water must treat water to remove/inactivate at 
    least 99.9% of the Giardia lamblia cysts and at least 99.99% of the 
    enteric viruses, regardless of their densities in the source waters. 
    The SWTR does not require a system to monitor its source water or 
    drinking water for these pathogens. At the time of promulgation, EPA 
    recognized a variety of uncertainties and unknowns regarding potential 
    health risks, but these were not possible to address at that time. 
    Subsequently, additional information has become available that 
    indicated possible deficiencies in the SWTR. Some of these deficiencies 
    are described below.
    SWTR Did Not Address Cryptosporidium
        During the development of the SWTR, the United States experienced 
    its first recognized waterborne disease outbreak of cryptosporidiosis, 
    caused by the protozoan, Cryptosporidium (D'Antonio et al., 1985). 
    Other outbreaks caused by this pathogen have since been reported both 
    in the United States and other countries (Smith et al., 1988; Hayes et 
    al., 1989; Levine and Craun, 1990; Moore et al., 1993; Craun, 1993). 
    Because of the lack of data before 1989 on Cryptosporidium oocyst 
    occurrence and removal by treatment, EPA decided to regulate this 
    pathogen in a future rulemaking, rather than to delay publication of 
    the SWTR until this data was available. Thus, the SWTR does not now 
    specifically address Cryptosporidium treatment removal/inactivation 
    requirements, watershed control requirements for Cryptosporidium for 
    systems that wish to avoid filtration, or a definition of ground water 
    under the influence of surface water that includes Cryptosporidium. 
    Moreover, the assumptions about Giardia reduction under the SWTR may 
    not be applicable to Cryptosporidium, which, based on laboratory 
    studies, is much more resistant to common disinfection practices than 
    is Giardia (Korich et al., 1990; Korich et al., 1992). Since 
    publication of the SWTR in 1989, some information on Cryptosporidium 
    occurrence and control measures has been published. EPA will have new 
    data available shortly from systems that monitor for this organism 
    under the ICR and from research currently being carried out by the 
    Agency and the water industry. As a result, EPA believes that it will 
    soon be in a better position to develop a suitable regulation for 
    Cryptosporidium.
    Specified Pathogen Reductions May Be Inadequate
        The 3-log removal/inactivation of Giardia and 4-log removal/
    inactivation of enteric viruses required by the SWTR were developed to 
    provide adequate protection from pathogens in average quality source 
    water, and thus may be inadequate when a system is supplied by poorer 
    quality source water with high levels of these or other pathogens. In 
    developing the SWTR, EPA assumed, on the basis of data available at 
    that time, that this level of treatment was adequate for the vast 
    majority of systems.
        Additionally, risk assessments for the pathogens of concern had 
    high degrees of uncertainty, such that the risks associated with a 
    given level of pathogen contamination were unclear. Moreover, methods 
    for quantifying these organisms were not generally available. 
    Therefore, the Agency believed that a simple, yet conservative 
    treatment requirement was most appropriate. However, it was apparent 
    during the development of the SWTR that the level of treatment being 
    specified might not always be adequate. Therefore, the Agency published 
    associated guidance recommending greater treatment for systems supplied 
    by poorer quality source waters (EPA, 1991a).
        Subsequent data on Giardia and virus densities in source water and 
    drinking water, however, bring into question the assumption that the 
    treatment specified in the SWTR was adequate for most systems. These 
    new data suggest that the concentrations of Giardia cysts and viruses 
    in the source waters of many systems may be too great for the specified 
    level of treatment to adequately control waterborne pathogens. For 
    example, LeChevallier et al. (1991a,b) examined Giardia and 
    Cryptosporidium levels in the source waters and filtered drinking 
    waters of 66 surface water systems in 14 States and one Canadian 
    province. They detected at least one of these two organisms in 97% of 
    the raw water samples. Giardia densities ranged from 0.04 to 66 cysts/L 
    (geometric mean of 2.77 cysts/L), while Cryptosporidium densities 
    ranged from 0.07 to 484 oocysts/L (geometric mean of 2.70 oocysts/L).
        These investigators also detected at least one of the two organisms 
    in the drinking water of 39% of the systems. For those drinking waters 
    that were positive, Giardia densities ranged from 0.29-64 cysts/100L 
    (geometric mean 4.45 cysts/100L), while Cryptosporidium densities 
    ranged from 0.13 to 48 oocysts/100L (geometric mean 1.52 oocysts/100L). 
    According to the investigators, 78% of the systems that were positive 
    for Giardia or Cryptosporidium met the turbidity standards specified by 
    the SWTR. Based on a risk assessment model developed for Giardia, 24% 
    of the 66 systems might not meet the health goal in the SWTR of no more 
    than the one Giardia infection annually per 10,000 people per year 
    (LeChavallier et al., 1991b). (This incidence of infection is a 
    conservative estimate of illness, since not all infected people become 
    ill.) This study suggests that the SWTR may need to be revised if an 
    annual 10-4 risk level, or some other desired risk level, is to be 
    achieved by all systems in the United States.
        EPA used the data in LeChevallier et al. (1991a,b) to calculate the 
    percentage of systems that use source waters containing various 
    densities of Giardia cysts. The Agency calculated that about 85% of the 
    source waters in the study contained 10 cysts/100L or more, while about 
    45% contained 100 cysts/100L or more. Many of these systems currently 
    provide four, five, or even six or more logs of removal/inactivation 
    and therefore are able to achieve EPA's 10-4 annual risk goal. 
    However, if such systems were to reduce existing levels of disinfection 
    to more easily meet new D/DBP regulations, and only marginally meet the 
    three-log removal/inactivation requirement for Giardia specified in the 
    current SWTR, they could experience significant increases in microbial 
    risk (Regli et al., 1993; Grubbs et al., 1992; EPA, 1994)).
        An epidemiology study by Payment et al. (1991) also suggests that 
    the pathogen density reductions specified by the SWTR may not be 
    sufficient for adequate protection. The goal of this study was to 
    determine the extent to which drinking water caused gastrointestinal 
    disease in a community served by poor quality source water that was 
    subjected to full conventional treatment. In this study, the 
    investigators carried out a trial where 299 households in a community 
    drank water from a reverse-osmosis water filter, while 307 households 
    used the usual tapwater. According to the data, 35% of the reported 
    gastrointestinal illness was associated with the drinking water. The 
    etiologic agent(s) were not identified, but a plausible explanation is 
    that pathogens were in the finished water. A recent analysis by Haas et 
    al. (1993) also suggests that high levels of microbial risk far above 
    the health goal of the existing SWTR may be occurring in systems with 
    highly contaminated source waters that may only minimally comply with 
    the SWTR.
        Several other recent studies have shown that Giardia and 
    Cryptosporidium cysts/oocysts can be found in filtered drinking waters 
    in systems served by highly contaminated source waters (Clancy, 1993; 
    EPA, 1993). If treatment is inadequate in reducing pathogens to an 
    acceptable level, EPA must consider revising and strengthening 
    treatment requirements. A mitigating factor is that, based upon a 
    microscopic examination of the cysts/oocysts detected by LeChevallier 
    et al. (1991b), most of the cysts/oocysts in the drinking water may not 
    be viable. This observation, however, has not yet been confirmed.
    Virus CT Values May Be Greater Than Assumed by SWTR
        The SWTR assumes that disinfection more readily controls viruses 
    than may actually be the case. The Guidance Manual to the SWTR (EPA, 
    1991a) identifies the disinfection CT values (disinfectant 
    concentration times the contact time) for viruses. These data are based 
    on laboratory studies in which a dispersed suspension (i.e., non-cell 
    associated, non-aggregated) of hepatitis A virus was used. These CT 
    values relative to the much higher CT values needed for Giardia 
    inactivation for systems to comply with the SWTR have led to the 
    assumption by some that systems which satisfactorily control for 
    Giardia cysts will adequately control for pathogenic viruses. (The CT 
    values to comply with the level of disinfection inactivation 
    requirements for viruses in the Guidance Manual to the SWTR are one to 
    two orders of magnitude below the CT values necessary to achieve the 
    inactivation requirements for Giardia.)
        However this assumption may not always be valid. In environmental 
    waters, viruses are usually aggregated or associated with cell debris, 
    some of which may not be removed entirely by filtration processes. Such 
    cell-associated aggregates are considerably more resistant to 
    disinfection than free viruses (Williams, 1985; Sobsey, 1991). 
    Moreover, some pathogenic enteric viruses may be substantially more 
    resistant to disinfection than hepatitis A (Keswick et al., 1985). In 
    addition, laboratory studies to determine CT values for viruses, even 
    with applied uncertainty factors, may underestimate the actual CT 
    values necessary to achieve the desired level of inactivation, since 
    viruses in the environment may be hardier and less susceptible to 
    disinfection.
        The detection of viruses in fully treated waters (i.e., after 
    coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection) (Gerba and 
    Rose, 1990; Payment, 1985; Hurst, 1991) also suggests that viruses in 
    environmental sources have greater CT values than those published in 
    the Guidance Manual. Hurst (1991), for example, summarized the 
    published data on viruses in drinking water, and found that the 
    percentage of samples positive for viruses ranged from 0 to 100%. In 
    one study, Payment et al. (1985) detected enteroviruses in 7% of 
    finished water samples (1,000 L samples from 7 systems), with an 
    average density of 0.0006 most probable number of cytopathogenic units. 
    In another study, Payment (1981) detected 1-10 enteroviruses/100L in 
    most drinking water samples in a system using poor quality source 
    water.
        The above data also suggests that EPA needs to reassess the 4-log 
    level of treatment required for viruses under the SWTR. Under this 
    requirement, a system may only provide a 2-log inactivation of viruses 
    by disinfection and still meet the 4-log overall treatment requirement 
    (under current EPA guidance, systems using conventional treatment are 
    assumed to achieve a 2- log removal of viruses by clarification 
    processes alone). For some systems, virus densities in surface waters 
    may be sufficiently high to warrant at least a 4-log or greater level 
    of inactivation by disinfection alone (and a 6-log or greater removal 
    of viruses with clarification and disinfection) to achieve desired risk 
    levels (Regli et al., 1991). The Agency would like to determine what 
    minimum level of disinfection inactivation is necessary for surface 
    water supplies to ensure adequate virus control, regardless of Giardia 
    densities. EPA intends to use data from the ICR to: (1) Help clarify 
    the adequacy of using Giardia as a target organism to control for 
    viruses in systems with different source water qualities, (2) determine 
    what assumptions can be made regarding quantification of virus removal 
    for different treatment processes and disinfection conditions, and (3) 
    determine what, if any, changes to the SWTR are needed to control 
    pathogenic viruses.
    DBP Rule May Undermine Pathogen Control
        Some systems currently exceed the required Giardia and virus 
    reductions specified by the SWTR. The DBP Rule may potentially 
    undermine pathogen control in these systems by prompting them to reduce 
    DBP concentrations at the expense of pathogen control (e.g., by 
    shifting point of disinfection to later in the treatment chain, 
    reducing disinfection dose, or switching to a weaker disinfectant such 
    as chloramines). These systems would still have to comply with the 
    removal/inactivation criteria in the current SWTR, but would do so with 
    a lower margin of safety. This situation might result in a substantial 
    increase in waterborne illness for systems using a poor quality source 
    water. For example, according to a model developed by EPA (Regli et 
    al., 1993), a reduction of the MCL for total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) 
    (one of the toxic byproducts) from 100g/L to 75g/L 
    could increase the incidence of waterborne giardiasis in some systems 
    by as many as 10,000 per million people per year, if the existing SWTR 
    is not amended to require higher levels of treatment for poor quality 
    source waters.
        This situation is further evidence that EPA may need to revise the 
    SWTR to ensure that measures taken by systems to comply with the 
    forthcoming DBP Rule do not increase the health risk from pathogens.
    
    B. General Approach for Revising SWTR
    
        Under the negotiated rulemaking, the Negotiating Committee agreed 
    to propose three rules: (1) ICR, proposed on February 10, 1994 (59 FR 
    6332), (2) D/DBP regulations (proposed in today's Federal Register), 
    and (3) ESWTR. EPA is planning to remedy the shortcomings of the SWTR 
    indicated above through two sequential stages--an interim ESWTR and a 
    long-term ESWTR. Today's rule proposes the interim ESWTR. The Agency 
    and the Negotiating Committee decided that this phased approach was 
    appropriate because of the uncertainties associated with lack of data. 
    EPA needs much more data on the concentrations of Giardia, 
    Cryptosporidium, and enteric viruses for various qualities of source 
    waters, with variations over time and season, to determine the need for 
    additional treatment. Some members of the Negotiating Committee 
    believed that health effects information, especially dose response data 
    for pathogens of concern, is also important to ensure that EPA selects 
    the most appropriate control option. In addition, EPA needs more field 
    data on the effectiveness of different types of water treatment for 
    controlling these pathogens. Data from the ICR and various research 
    studies would provide much of this information, sufficient in EPA's 
    view to refine the present proposed interim rule. Additional work would 
    culminate in a long-term ESWTR that would be protective for all surface 
    water system sizes (including those that serve fewer than 10,000 
    people) and would also include possible refinements to any interim 
    requirements for larger systems. EPA believes that the interim and 
    long-term ESWTR rules are essential for providing adequate human health 
    protection; however, some members of the Negotiating Committee believed 
    that the most appropriate regulatory criteria to provide this 
    protection are not yet apparent.
    Schedule of Regulations
        Table I-1 indicates the schedule agreed to by the Negotiating 
    Committee for proposing, promulgating, and implementing these rules. 
    Implementation dates for the ICR are indicated under the columns of the 
    Stage 2 D/DBP rule and ESWTR to reflect the relationship between these 
    rules. Although the schedule for proposing these rules has slipped 
    slightly, EPA believes the scheduled promulgation dates for the ESWTR 
    and D/DBP Rule can still be met.
        The Negotiating Committee believes that the December 1996 scheduled 
    date for promulgating the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule reflects the shortest time 
    possible by which the interim ESWTR, if necessary, could also be 
    promulgated. EPA is proposing that the Stage 1 D/DBP regulations and 
    the interim ESWTR become effective on the same date of June 30, 1998, 
    for those surface water systems, or ground water systems under the 
    direct influence of surface water, serving 10,000 people or more. This 
    strategy is necessary so that systems do not degrade pathogen control 
    in attempting to comply with the Stage 1 D/DBP regulations.
    
        Table I-1.--Proposed D/DBP, ESWTR, ICR Rule Development Schedule    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Time                                                                  
     line      State 1 DBP rule      Stage 2 DBP rule           ESWTR       
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            
    12/93..  ....................  Propose information   Propose information
                                    collection            collection        
                                    requirements for      requirements for  
                                    systems>100k.         systems >10k.     
    3/94...  Propose required      Propose Stage 2.      Propose interim    
              enhanced              MCLs for TTHMs (40    ESWTR for         
              coagulation for       g/l), HAA5   systems>10k.      
              systems with          (30 g/l),                      
              conventional          BAT is precursor                        
              treatment. MCLs-      removal with                            
              TTHMs (80g/  chlorination.                           
              l), HAA5 (60ug/l),                                            
              bromate, chlorite.                                            
              Disinfectant limits.                                          
    6/94...  ....................  Promulgate ICR......  Promulgate ICR.    
    8/94...  Close of public       ....................  Public comment     
              comment period.                             period for        
                                                          proposed ESWTR    
                                                          closes.           
    10/94..  ....................  Systems>100k begin    Systems>100k begin 
                                    ICR monitoring.       ICR monitoring.   
    1/95...  ....................  ....................  Systems 10-100k    
                                                          begin source water
                                                          monitoring.       
    10/95..  ....................  SW systems>100k, GW                      
                                    systems>50k begin                       
                                    bench/pilot studies                     
                                    unless source water                     
                                    quality criteria                        
                                    met.                                    
    11/95..  ....................  ....................  NOA for monitoring 
                                                          data, direction of
                                                          interim ESWTR.    
    1/96...  ....................  ....................  Systems>10k        
                                                          complete ICR      
                                                          monitoring. End   
                                                          NOA public comment
                                                          period.           
    3/96...  ....................  Systems complete ICR  Systems>100k       
                                    monitoring.           complete ICR      
                                                          monitoring.       
    12/96..  Promulgate Stage 1..  ....................  Promulgate interim 
                                                          ESWTR for         
                                                          systems>10k.      
    6/97...  ....................  Notice of             Propose long-term  
                                    availability for      ESWTR for         
                                    Stage 2 reproposal.   systems<10k, possible="" changes="" for="" systems="">10k.  
    10/97..  ....................  Complete and submit                      
                                    results of bench/                       
                                    pilot studies.                          
    12/97..  ....................  Initiate reproposal--                    
                                    begin with 3/94                         
                                    proposal.                               
    6/98...  Effective. Effective  Close of public       Interim ESWTR      
              for SW systems        comment period.       effective for     
              serving                                     systems>10k. 1994-
              greater>10k,                                6 monitoring data 
              extended compliance                         used to determine 
              date for GAC or                             treatment level.  
              membrane technology.                                          
    12/98..  ....................  Propose for CWSs,     Publish long-term  
                                    NTNCWSs.              ESWTR.            
    6/00...  Stage 1 limits        Promulgate Stage 2    Long-term ESWTR    
              effective for         for all CWSs,         effective for all 
              surface water         NTNCWSs.              system sizes.     
              systems<10k, gw="" systems="">10k.                                                  
    1/02...  Stage 1 limits        Stage 2 effective,                       
              effective for GW      compliance for GAC/                     
              systems<10k unless="" membranes="" by="" 2004.="" stage="" 2="" criteria="" supersede.="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" epa="" is="" proposing="" to="" delay="" the="" effective="" date="" of="" the="" stage="" 1="" d/dbp="" regulations="" for="" systems="" serving="" less="" than="" 10,000="" people="" until="" june="" 30,="" 2000,="" to="" allow="" such="" systems="" time="" to="" comply="" with="" the="" long-term="" eswtr.="" epa="" believes="" that="" this="" date="" reflects="" the="" shortest="" time="" possible="" that="" would="" allow="" the="" long-term="" eswtr="" to="" be="" proposed,="" promulgated,="" and="" become="" effective,="" thereby="" providing="" the="" necessary="" protection="" from="" any="" downside="" microbial="" risk="" that="" might="" otherwise="" result="" when="" systems="" of="" this="" size="" achieve="" compliance="" with="" the="" stage="" 1="" d/dbp="" rule.="" since="" epa="" is="" proposing="" the="" interim="" eswtr="" before="" systems="" begin="" collecting="" the="" monitoring="" data="" specified="" by="" the="" icr,="" the="" agency's="" final="" direction="" for="" the="" interim="" eswtr="" is="" not="" yet="" clear.="" for="" this="" reason,="" the="" agency="" is="" proposing="" a="" number="" of="" regulatory="" alternatives,="" including="" one="" that="" would="" not="" revise="" the="" existing="" swtr.="" after="" epa="" receives="" and="" processes="" pertinent="" monitoring="" data="" generated="" under="" the="" icr,="" the="" agency="" will="" prepare="" a="" federal="" register="" notice="" (referred="" to="" as="" a="" notice="" of="" availability)="" that="" will="" present="" the="" processed="" data="" to="" the="" public,="" the="" agency's="" interpretation="" of="" that="" data,="" and="" the="" specific="" regulatory="" strategy="" the="" agency="" is="" considering.="" public="" comments="" on="" this="" federal="" register="" package="" will="" influence="" the="" direction="" the="" agency="" ultimately="" takes="" in="" developing="" the="" interim="" eswtr.="" epa="" is="" extending="" the="" comment="" period="" to="" the="" proposed="" interim="" eswtr="" to="" may="" 30,="" 1996,="" which="" is="" beyond="" the="" original="" date="" indicated="" in="" table="" i-1="" (august="" 1994).="" the="" agency="" believes="" this="" adjustment="" is="" necessary="" to="" take="" into="" account="" the="" slippage="" in="" the="" anticipated="" icr="" promulgation="" date,="" which="" will="" necessarily="" also="" result="" in="" a="" slippage="" in="" the="" noa="" publication="" date="" to="" early="" spring="" 1996.="" the="" agency="" believes="" that="" it="" would="" be="" more="" reasonable="" and="" efficient="" for="" epa="" not="" to="" close="" the="" comment="" period="" for="" the="" eswtr="" before="" the="" comment="" period="" ends="" for="" the="" noa.="" unlike="" the="" interim="" eswtr,="" the="" long-term="" eswtr="" will="" cover="" all="" surface="" water="" systems,="" including="" those="" serving="" fewer="" than="" 10,000="" people.="" the="" anticipated="" primary="" thrust="" of="" these="" final="" regulations="" will="" be="" to="" cover="" these="" smaller="" systems,="" rather="" than="" to="" make="" major="" changes="" in="" the="" treatment="" requirements="" for="" larger="" systems,="" although="" some="" refinements="" are="" possible.="" epa="" expects="" the="" criteria="" for="" defining="" the="" specified="" treatment="" needed="" for="" smaller="" systems="" will="" be="" simpler="" than="" that="" for="" the="" larger="" systems="" and="" may,="" for="" example,="" only="" require="" monitoring="" of="" easily="" measured="" indicators="" rather="" than="" pathogens,="" especially="" if="" an="" adequate="" correlation="" is="" observed="" between="" indicator="" and="" pathogen="" densities="" under="" the="" icr="" and="" other="" related="" research.="" pathogen="" monitoring="" in="" small="" systems="" may="" be="" possible,="" if="" inexpensive,="" simple="" analytical="" tests="" for="" viruses="" and/or="" protozoa="" can="" be="" developed,="" evaluated,="" and="" approved.="" epa="" may="" also="" cover="" small="" systems="" by="" using="" the="" icr="" data="" to="" develop="" national="" occurrence="" patterns="" that="" would="" allow="" the="" agency="" to="" establish="" more="" appropriate="" treatment="" criteria="" for="" small="" systems.="" the="" agency="" anticipates="" that="" by="" characterizing="" source="" water="" quality="" using="" any="" one="" or="" a="" combination="" of="" these="" approaches,="" a="" small="" system="" could="" evaluate="" the="" adequacy="" of="" its="" existing="" level="" of="" treatment="" for="" pathogen="" control="" and="" determine="" the="" need="" for="" treatment="" modifications.="" data="" collection="" and="" monitoring="" if="" epa="" decides="" to="" revise="" the="" swtr="" to="" require="" higher="" levels="" of="" treatment="" for="" poorer="" quality="" source="" waters,="" information="" on="" microbial="" densities="" in="" these="" sources="" gathered="" under="" the="" icr="" can="" be="" used="" by="" utilities,="" states="" and="" epa="" to="" determine="" required="" levels="" of="" treatment="" for="" individual="" systems.="" if="" such="" information="" is="" not="" available="" for="" a="" system="" (e.g.,="" if="" a="" system="" that="" had="" not="" performed="" icr="" monitoring="" serves="" a="" community="" which="" grows="" in="" population="" from="" less="" than="" to="" greater="" than="" 10,000="" people),="" epa="" would="" require="" such="" a="" system="" to="" collect="" sufficient="" information="" on="" microbial="" densities="" of="" its="" source="" water="" and="" treatment="" practices="" to="" allow="" the="" state="" to="" make="" this="" determination.="" the="" eswtr="" may="" also="" require="" systems="" serving="" 10,000="" people="" or="" greater="" to="" monitor="" their="" source="" waters="" periodically="" to="" determine="" whether="" changes="" have="" occurred="" in="" the="" quality="" of="" that="" water="" since="" the="" icr="" monitoring.="" any="" deterioration="" in="" source="" water="" quality="" may="" necessitate="" additional="" pathogen="" control="" measures.="" for="" monitoring="" subsequent="" to="" the="" icr="" for="" giardia="" and="" cryptosporidium,="" epa="" intends="" to="" require="" the="" use="" of="" the="" immunofluorescence="" method="" specified="" by="" the="" icr.="" if="" performance="" data="" support="" their="" use,="" newer="" assays="" currently="" under="" development="" may="" be="" considered.="" one="" of="" these="" assays="" is="" based="" on="" the="" observation="" that="" particles="" in="" a="" rotating="" electric="" field="" also="" rotate="" if="" the="" frequency="" is="" right.="" investigators="" using="" this="" principle="" have="" developed="" a="" novel="" assay,="" referred="" to="" as="" the="" electrorotation="" assay,="" that="" can="" apparently="" easily="" distinguish="" between="" the="" target="" organism="" (e.g.,="" cryptosporidium)="" and="" other="" organisms="" and="" particle="" debris="" if="" the="" field="" frequency="" is="" adjusted="" properly.="" at="" this="" frequency,="" the="" target="" organism="" rotates="" and="" other="" particles="" do="" not,="" an="" observation="" easily="" visualized="" under="" the="" microscope.="" preliminary="" data="" reported="" by="" the="" developer="" for="" sterile="" natural="" water="" samples="" spiked="" with="" cryptosporidium="" are="" similar="" to="" those="" obtained="" with="" an="" immunofluorescence="" method.="" if="" these="" data="" are="" confirmed,="" the="" assay="" would="" be="" far="" less="" expensive,="" simpler,="" and="" more="" rapid="" than="" the="" standard="" method.="" in="" addition="" to="" this="" assay,="" other="" potential="" assays="" for="" giardia="" and="" cryptosporidium="" include="" polymerase="" chain="" reaction="" (pcr)="" and="" flow="" cytometry.="" the="" pcr="" is="" a="" powerful="" and="" rapid="" tool="" for="" detecting="" genetic="" material="" that="" is="" initially="" present="" in="" very="" low="" concentrations.="" it="" involves="" the="" amplification="" of="" genetic="" material="" in="" a="" laboratory="" instrument="" until="" sufficient="" quantities="" are="" available="" for="" analysis.="" recent="" publications="" have="" described="" the="" use="" of="" pcr="" in="" detecting="" giardia="" and="" its="" potential="" for="" differentiating="" between="" live="" and="" dead="" cysts="" (mahbubani,="" et="" al.="" 1991).="" flow="" cytometry="" is="" a="" process="" that="" measures="" physical="" or="" chemical="" characteristics="" of="" cells="" passing="" single="" file="" through="" the="" measuring="" apparatus="" in="" a="" fluid="" stream="" (shapiro,="" 1992).="" this="" process="" is="" rapid="" and="" may="" be="" useful="" for="" distinguishing="" between="" and="" quantifying="" giardia="" and="" cryptosporidium.="" c.="" proposed="" maximum="" contaminant="" level="" goal="" and="" treatment="" technique="" for="" cryptosporidium="" as="" stated="" above,="" the="" protozoan="" cryptosporidium="" parvum="" has="" recently="" been="" implicated="" in="" a="" number="" of="" large="" waterborne="" disease="" outbreaks="" in="" the="" united="" states.="" the="" disease="" cryptosporidiosis="" is="" caused="" by="" ingestion="" of="" the="" environmentally-resistant="" oocysts="" of="" cryptosporidium,="" which="" are="" readily="" carried="" by="" the="" waterborne="" route.="" both="" human="" and="" other="" animals="" may="" excrete="" these="" oocysts.="" transmission="" of="" this="" disease="" often="" occurs="" through="" ingestion="" of="" the="" infective="" oocysts="" from="" contaminated="" water="" or="" food,="" but="" may="" also="" result="" from="" direct="" or="" indirect="" contact="" with="" infected="" persons="" or="" animals.="" symptoms="" of="" cryptosporidiosis="" include="" diarrhea,="" abdominal="" discomfort,="" nausea,="" vomiting,="" dehydration,="" weight="" loss,="" and="" other="" gastrointestinal="" symptoms="" (current="" et="" al.,="" 1983).="" these="" may="" persist="" for="" several="" days="" to="" several="" months.="" young="" children="" and="" immunocompromised="" persons="" are="" most="" susceptible="" to="" infection="" (wittenberg="" et="" al.,="" 1989;="" de="" mol="" et="" al.,="" 1984),="" but="" people="" of="" all="" ages="" may="" become="" infected.="" while="" cryptosporidiosis="" is="" generally="" a="" self-limiting="" disease="" with="" a="" complete="" recovery="" in="" otherwise="" healthy="" persons,="" it="" can="" be="" very="" serious="" in="" immunosuppressed="" persons,="" such="" as="" persons="" with="" aids,="" those="" receiving="" treatment="" for="" certain="" types="" of="" cancer,="" and="" organ-transplant="" recipients="" (de="" mol="" et="" al.,="" 1984;="" cdc,="" 1982).="" several="" studies="" in="" great="" britain="" have="" documented="" a="" waterborne="" route="" for="" cryptosporidiosis="" in="" aids="" patients="" and="" in="" persons="" receiving="" immunosuppressive="" transplant="" therapy="" (casemore,="" 1990).="" there="" appears="" to="" be="" an="" immune="" response="" to="" cryptosporidium,="" but="" it="" is="" not="" known="" if="" this="" results="" in="" protection="" (fayer="" and="" ungar,="" 1986).="" data="" suggest="" that="" a="" person,="" once="" infected,="" can="" transmit="" this="" infection="" by="" direct="" contact="" to="" other="" susceptible="" persons="" (casemore="" and="" jackson,="" 1984).="" between="" 1984-1993,="" there="" were="" a="" number="" of="" reported="" outbreaks="" of="" significant="" waterborne="" cryptosporidiosis="" in="" the="" u.s.="" and="" great="" britain,="" totaling="" many="" tens="" of="" thousands="" of="" cases="" (d'antonio="" et="" al.,="" 1985;="" smith="" et="" al.,="" 1988;="" hayes="" et="" al.,="" 1989;="" herwaldt="" et="" al.,="" 1991;="" levine="" and="" craun,="" 1990;="" moore="" et="" al.,="" 1993).="" the="" trend="" in="" numbers="" of="" outbreaks="" has="" been="" on="" the="" increase,="" probably="" due="" to="" greater="" recognition="" and="" subsequent="" reporting="" of="" cryptosporidium="" in="" outbreaks="" during="" recent="" years.="" prevalence="" data="" for="" human="" cryptosporidiosis="" in="" all="" age="" groups="" ranged="" from="" 1="" to="" 2="" percent="" in="" europe,="" 0.6="" to="" 4.3="" percent="" for="" north="" america,="" and="" 3="" to="" 20="" percent="" for="" asia,="" australia,="" africa,="" and="" south="" america="" (epa,="" 1993).="" the="" role="" of="" water="" in="" the="" transmission="" of="" cryptosporidiosis="" has="" been="" proven.="" however,="" the="" known="" percentages="" of="" cases="" from="" water="" compared="" to="" other="" routes="" may="" substantially="" under-="" represent="" the="" water="" route.="" the="" route="" of="" transmission="" for="" many="" cases="" of="" cryptosporidiosis="" was="" not="" determined,="" but="" may="" have="" been="" waterborne.="" during="" the="" spring="" of="" 1993,="" there="" was="" a="" severe="" waterborne="" disease="" outbreak="" of="" cryptosporidiosis="" in="" milwaukee,="" wisconsin,="" with="" an="" estimated="" 400,000="" cases="" of="" diarrhea="" and="" apparently="" several="" deaths="" associated="" with="" the="" disease="" in="" severely="" immunocompromised="" persons.="" another="" recent="" outbreak="" of="" waterborne="" cryptosporidiosis="" occurred="" in="" jackson="" county,="" oregon,="" during="" the="" winter="" and="" spring="" of="" 1992,="" where="" as="" many="" as="" 15,000="" people="" (10%="" of="" the="" population)="" displayed="" cryptosporidiosis-like="" symptoms="" (awwa,="" 1992).="" it="" is="" estimated="" that="" over="" 162="" million="" people="" are="" served="" by="" public="" water="" systems="" using="" surface="" water,="" most="" of="" which="" are="" filtered="" and="" disinfected.="" of="" these,="" as="" of="" june="" 1989,="" an="" estimated="" 21="" million="" people="" were="" receiving="" unfiltered="" surface="" water="" that="" is="" only="" disinfected.="" epa="" anticipates="" that,="" as="" a="" result="" of="" the="" swtr,="" more="" than="" 80="" percent="" of="" the="" unfiltered="" systems="" will="" install="" filtration.="" nevertheless,="" in="" spite="" of="" filtration="" and="" disinfection,="" cryptosporidium="" oocysts="" have="" been="" found="" in="" filtered="" drinking="" water="" (lechevallier="" et="" al.,="" 1991b;="" epa,="" 1993)="" and="" most="" waterborne="" outbreaks="" of="" cryptosporidiosis="" have="" been="" associated="" with="" filtered="" surface="" water="" systems.="" therefore,="" it="" appears="" that="" surface="" water="" systems="" that="" filter="" and="" disinfect="" may="" still="" be="" vulnerable="" to="" cryptosporidium,="" depending="" on="" source="" water="" quality="" and="" treatment="" effectiveness.="" in="" addition,="" some="" surface="" water="" systems="" that="" were="" able="" to="" avoid="" filtration="" under="" the="" swtr="" may="" need="" to="" filter="" to="" provide="" adequate="" protection="" against="" cryptosporidium.="" epa="" is="" proposing="" an="" mclg="" for="" cryptosporidium="" because="" cryptosporidium="" oocysts="" have="" been="" demonstrated="" to="" be="" a="" significant="" health="" threat="" for="" all="" persons="" consuming="" untreated="" or="" inadequately="" treated="" surface="" waters="" and="" ground="" waters="" under="" the="" influence="" of="" surface="" waters.="" the="" proposed="" mclg="" is="" based="" upon="" animal="" studies="" and="" the="" human="" epidemiology="" of="" waterborne="" outbreaks="" of="" cryptosporidiosis.="" while="" it="" is="" clear="" that="" cryptosporidium="" can="" infect="" humans,="" dose-="" response="" data="" for="" infection="" and="" illness="" rates="" are="" lacking.="" therefore,="" risk="" assessments="" for="" this="" organism="" based="" on="" human="" data="" are="" not="" currently="" possible.="" however,="" the="" results="" of="" several="" animal="" studies="" have="" been="" published="" on="" the="" infectious="" dose="" of="" cryptosporidium="" oocysts.="" korich="" et="" al.="" (1990)="" examined="" neonatal="" mice="" inoculated="" with="" 600,="" 6,000,="" or="" 60,000="" oocysts.="" in="" this="" study,="" the="" mean="" infectious="" dose="" (id50)="" was="" determined="" by="" initial="" experiments="" to="" be="" 60="" oocysts.="" mice="" receiving="" 60="" or="" more="" oocysts="" were="" typically="" infected="" while="" those="" receiving="" less="" than="" 60="" oocysts="" often="" did="" not="" demonstrate="" any="" infection.="" the="" work="" of="" miller="" et="" al.="" (1990),="" while="" limited="" because="" of="" the="" small="" number="" of="" animals="" tested,="" was="" conducted="" on="" macaque="" monkeys.="" ten="" oocysts="" via="" oral="" intubation="" were="" capable="" of="" causing="" infection="" and="" the="" signs="" and="" symptoms="" resembled="" the="" effects="" seen="" in="" children="" and="" immunocompromised="" humans="" with="" cryptosporidiosis.="" feeding="" studies="" in="" mice="" described="" by="" ernest="" et="" al.="" (1986)="" indicated="" that="" inoculation="" with="" 100,="" 500,="" or="" 1,000="" oocysts="" caused="" infection="" in="" 22,="" 66,="" and="" 78="" percent,="" respectively,="" of="" the="" mice="" in="" each="" dose="" group.="" studies="" to="" date="" strongly="" suggest="" that="" there="" are="" strain="" differences="" or="" virulence="" factors="" that="" may="" greatly="" influence="" the="" ability="" of="" cryptosporidium="" to="" infect="" humans="" and="" animals="" via="" the="" oral="" route.="" the="" comparative="" infectivity="" of="" specific="" strains="" for="" humans="" and="" various="" animal="" models="" has="" not="" been="" accurately="" established.="" the="" use="" of="" animal="" models="" for="" determining="" infectious="" dose="" may="" overestimate="" the="" number="" of="" oocysts="" required="" for="" human="" infection.="" also,="" technical="" questions="" remain="" that="" affect="" epa's="" consideration="" of="" the="" reliability="" and="" meaning="" of="" the="" available="" data.="" for="" example,="" the="" length="" of="" time="" and="" procedures="" used="" in="" storage="" of="" oocysts="" in="" the="" laboratory="" before="" infectivity="" studies="" begin="" may="" influence="" infectivity="" determinations.="" there="" are="" currently="" no="" proven="" in-vitro="" methods="" to="" determine="" whether="" oocysts="" used="" in="" testing="" are="" all="" viable.="" because="" some="" strains="" of="" cryptosporidium="" parvum="" appear="" to="" be="" highly="" infectious,="" and="" because="" there="" is="" no="" current="" generally="" accepted="" practical="" means="" for="" distinguishing="" whether="" detected="" oocysts="" are="" viable="" or="" for="" determining="" the="" infectious="" dose="" of="" any="" particular="" strain,="" epa="" believes="" this="" organism="" should="" be="" assumed="" to="" be="" without="" an="" infectivity="" threshold="" for="" purposes="" of="" this="" rule.="" that="" is,="" consumption="" of="" one="" cryptosporidium="" oocyst="" would="" be="" considered="" sufficient="" to="" initiate="" human="" infection="" as="" a="" possible="" consequence.="" also,="" direct="" person-to-person="" spread="" of="" infection="" may="" readily="" occur,="" thus="" magnifying="" the="" significance="" of="" the="" original="" waterborne="" infection.="" therefore,="" the="" presence="" of="" this="" organism="" at="" any="" level="" in="" consumed="" drinking="" water="" cannot="" be="" considered="" safe="" for="" human="" consumption.="" for="" these="" reasons="" and="" to="" be="" consistent="" with="" epa="" drinking="" water="" standards="" for="" giardia,="" enteric="" viruses,="" legionella,="" e.="" coli="" and="" coliform="" bacteria,="" epa="" proposes="" that="" the="" mclg="" for="" cryptosporidium="" oocysts="" in="" water="" be="" zero.="" public="" comments="" are="" requested="" on="" this="" rationale="" for="" setting="" an="" mclg="" of="" zero="" and="" a="" treatment="" technique="" for="" cryptosporidium.="" d.="" proposed="" revisions="" to="" swtr="" under="" all="" treatment="" alternatives="" this="" section="" proposes="" three="" revisions="" of="" the="" swtr="" that="" would="" apply="" regardless="" of="" which="" of="" the="" four="" treatment="" alternatives="" in="" section="" e="" that="" epa="" selects.="" this="" section="" also="" requests="" public="" comment="" on="" several="" additional="" measures="" (section="" 4,="" below).="" 1.="" inclusion="" of="" cryptosporidium="" in="" definition="" of="" ``groundwater="" under="" the="" direct="" influence="" of="" surface="" water''="" the="" swtr="" at="" 40="" cfr="" 141.2="" defines="" ``groundwater="" under="" the="" direct="" influence="" of="" surface="" water''="" as="" ``any="" water="" beneath="" the="" surface="" of="" the="" ground="" with="" (1)="" significant="" occurrence="" of="" insects="" or="" other="" macroorganisms,="" algae,="" or="" large-diameter="" pathogens="" such="" as="" giardia="" lamblia,="" or="" (2)="" significant="" and="" relatively="" rapid="" shifts="" in="" water="" characteristics="" such="" as="" turbidity,="" temperature,="" conductivity,="" or="" ph="" which="" closely="" correlate="" to="" climatological="" or="" surface="" water="" conditions="" *="" *="" *''.="" systems="" using="" such="" ground="" waters="" as="" a="" source="" for="" drinking="" water="" are="" subject="" to="" the="" provisions="" of="" the="" swtr.="" determination="" of="" whether="" a="" ground="" water="" is="" under="" the="" direct="" influence="" of="" surface="" water="" requires="" careful="" evaluation="" of="" site-specific="" information="" on="" water="" quality,="" well="" construction="" characteristics,="" and="" hydrogeology.="" epa="" defined="" groundwater="" under="" the="" direct="" influence="" of="" surface="" water="" in="" the="" swtr="" to="" ensure="" that="" public="" water="" supply="" systems="" using="" this="" type="" of="" source="" water="" would="" provide="" appropriate="" treatment="" to="" minimize="" health="" risks="" from="" pathogens.="" since="" viruses="" and="" bacteria="" are="" known="" to="" contaminate="" true="" ground="" waters,="" epa="" focused="" attention="" on="" those="" contaminants="" that="" do="" not="" normally="" occur="" in="" true="" ground="" waters="" and="" whose="" presence="" suggests="" direct="" surface="" water="" contamination.="" among="" those="" contaminants="" are="" certain="" pathogenic="" protozoa,="" such="" as="" cryptosporidium="" parvum="" and="" giardia="" lamblia.="" these="" protozoa="" are="" common="" in="" surface="" waters.="" at="" the="" time="" of="" promulgation="" of="" the="" swtr,="" routine="" methods="" for="" detection="" of="" cryptosporidium="" were="" not="" generally="" available="" and,="" therefore,="" cryptosporidium="" was="" not="" specifically="" addressed="" under="" the="" definition="" of="" ``groundwater="" under="" the="" direct="" influence="" of="" surface="" water''.="" epa="" is="" currently="" revising="" its="" existing="" guidance="" (epa,="" 1991a;="" epa,="" 1992)="" to="" address="" this="" issue.="" epa="" proposes="" to="" amend="" the="" swtr="" by="" including="" cryptosporidium="" in="" the="" definition="" of="" a="" ``ground="" water="" under="" the="" direct="" influence="" of="" surface="" water''.="" under="" the="" rule,="" a="" system="" using="" ground="" water="" considered="" vulnerable="" to="" cryptosporidium="" contamination="" would="" be="" subject="" to="" the="" provisions="" of="" the="" swtr.="" the="" agency="" proposes="" that="" this="" determination="" be="" made="" by="" the="" state="" for="" individual="" sources="" using="" state-established="" criteria="" for="" requirements="" and="" documentation.="" the="" agency="" believes="" that="" this="" would="" allow="" states="" sufficient="" flexibility="" to="" accommodate="" local="" and="" regional="" hydrogeological="" conditions="" and="" maintain="" consistency="" with="" state="" well="" construction="" requirements,="" watershed="" management="" policies,="" and="" wellhead="" protection="" plans.="" because="" cryptosporidium="" can="" occur="" episodically,="" the="" inability="" to="" detect="" this="" organism="" in="" a="" ground="" water="" at="" any="" given="" time="" would="" not="" necessarily="" suggest="" that="" ground="" water="" is="" not="" under="" the="" direct="" influence="" of="" surface="" water.="" the="" presence="" of="" cryptosporidium,="" however,="" would="" indicate="" fecal="" contamination="" and="" direct="" influence="" of="" surface="" water.="" the="" swtr="" does="" not="" necessarily="" require="" a="" system="" that="" uses="" ground="" water="" to="" filter="" if="" it="" detects="" cryptosporidium,="" giardia,="" or="" other="" contaminants="" associated="" with="" surface="" water="" in="" the="" ground="" water,="" or="" if="" the="" groundwater="" is="" categorized="" as="" being="" under="" the="" direct="" influence="" of="" surface="" water.="" the="" presence="" of="" these="" organisms="" may="" be="" the="" result="" of="" faulty="" well="" construction="" that="" can="" be="" remedied="" by="" inexpensive="" measures.="" also,="" the="" rule="" allows="" states="" to="" grant="" removal/inactivation="" credit="" for="" the="" ``natural="" disinfection''="" achieved="" during="" flow="" from="" the="" surface="" water="" source="" to="" a="" well;="" such="" natural="" disinfection="" could="" mitigate="" the="" treatment="" level="" that="" might="" otherwise="" be="" required.="" for="" the="" state="" to="" grant="" removal/inactivation="" credit="" for="" a="" system,="" that="" system="" would="" have="" to="" demonstrate="" the="" extent="" to="" which="" giardia="" and="" cryptosporidium="" are="" removed="" by="" site-specific="" natural="" removal="" processes="" before="" the="" water="" enters="" the="" well.="" however,="" strategies="" for="" granting="" such="" credits="" are="" currently="" limited="" because="" accurate="" pathogen="" removal/inactivation="" rates="" during="" transport="" through="" the="" ground="" cannot="" yet="" be="" easily="" predicted.="" epa="" solicits="" comment="" on="" the="" inclusion="" of="" cryptosporidium="" in="" the="" determination="" of="" ground="" water="" under="" the="" influence="" of="" surface="" water,="" on="" the="" larger="" consideration="" of="" revisions="" to="" guidance="" on="" this="" issue,="" and="" on="" the="" most="" appropriate="" procedures="" for="" determining="" removal/inactivation="" credits="" and="" treatment="" requirements="" for="" systems="" using="" ground="" waters="" under="" the="" direct="" influence="" of="" surface="" water.="" 2.="" inclusion="" of="" cryptosporidium="" in="" watershed="" control="" requirements="" the="" swtr="" at="" sec.="" 141.71="" specifies="" the="" conditions="" under="" which="" a="" public="" water="" system="" using="" a="" surface="" water="" source="" can="" avoid="" filtration.="" among="" the="" conditions="" is="" a="" requirement="" that="" the="" system="" maintain="" a="" watershed="" control="" program="" that="" minimizes="" the="" potential="" for="" source="" water="" contamination="" by="" giardia="" lamblia="" and="" viruses="" (sec.="" 141.71(b)(2)).="" this="" program="" must="" include="" a="" characterization="" of="" the="" watershed="" hydrology="" characteristics,="" land="" ownership,="" and="" activities="" which="" may="" have="" an="" adverse="" effect="" on="" source="" water="" quality.="" epa="" is="" proposing="" to="" extend="" the="" watershed="" control="" requirements="" to="" include="" the="" control="" of="" cryptosporidium="" in="" the="" source="" water="" in="" a="" manner="" analogous="" to="" the="" existing="" requirements="" in="" sec.="" 141.71(b)(2)="" for="" giardia="" cysts="" and="" viruses.="" the="" rationale="" is="" that="" cryptosporidium="" is="" a="" pathogen="" that="" cannot="" be="" easily="" controlled="" with="" conventional="" disinfection="" practices,="" and="" therefore="" its="" presence="" in="" source="" water="" serving="" unfiltered="" surface="" water="" systems="" must="" be="" limited.="" specifically,="" cryptosporidium="" would="" be="" included="" in="" the="" watershed="" protection="" control="" provisions="" wherever="" giardia="" is="" mentioned.="" 3.="" sanitary="" surveys="" for="" all="" surface="" water="" systems="" the="" swtr="" at="" sec.="" 141.71(b)(3)="" requires="" that="" systems="" wishing="" to="" avoid="" filtration="" must="" be="" subject="" to="" an="" annual="" on-site="" inspection="" performed="" by="" the="" state="" or="" a="" party="" approved="" by="" the="" state.="" the="" results="" of="" this="" system="" inspection="" must="" indicate="" to="" the="" state's="" satisfaction="" that="" the="" disinfection="" treatment="" process="" and="" the="" watershed="" control="" program="" are="" adequately="" designed="" and="" maintained.="" epa="" proposes="" to="" amend="" the="" swtr="" to="" require="" all="" systems="" that="" use="" surface="" water,="" or="" ground="" water="" under="" the="" direct="" influence="" of="" surface="" water,="" to="" have="" a="" periodic="" sanitary="" survey,="" regardless="" of="" whether="" they="" filter="" or="" not.="" states="" would="" be="" required="" to="" review="" the="" results="" of="" each="" sanitary="" survey="" to="" determine="" whether="" the="" existing="" monitoring="" and="" treatment="" practices="" for="" that="" system="" are="" adequate,="" and="" if="" not,="" what="" corrective="" measures="" are="" needed="" to="" provide="" adequate="" drinking="" water="" quality.="" if="" epa="" publishes="" a="" regulation="" that="" requires="" systems="" to="" treat="" their="" water="" on="" the="" basis="" of="" pathogen="" densities="" in="" the="" source="" water="" (see="" section="" e="" below),="" the="" agency="" would="" require="" systems,="" as="" part="" of="" the="" sanitary="" survey,="" to="" assess="" quantitatively="" whether="" the="" source="" water="" quality="" has="" changed="" sufficiently="" since="" the="" previous="" sanitary="" survey="" to="" warrant="" changes="" in="" treatment="" practice.="" under="" this="" rule,="" the="" system="" would="" be="" responsible="" for="" insuring="" that="" the="" sanitary="" survey="" is="" accomplished.="" only="" the="" state="" or="" an="" agent="" approved="" by="" the="" state="" would="" be="" able="" to="" conduct="" this="" sanitary="" survey,="" except="" in="" the="" unusual="" case="" where="" a="" state="" has="" not="" yet="" implemented="" this="" requirement,="" i.e.,="" the="" state="" has="" neither="" performed="" a="" sanitary="" survey="" nor="" generated="" a="" list="" of="" approved="" agents.="" for="" these="" unusual="" cases,="" the="" agency="" solicits="" comment="" on="" what="" epa="" prerequisites,="" if="" any,="" should="" be="" specified="" in="" the="" rule="" or="" guidance="" for="" individuals="" performing="" sanitary="" surveys="" (e.g.,="" bs="" degree="" in="" environmental="" engineering,="" professional="" engineer="" certificate,="" sanitarians,="" etc.).="" sanitary="" surveys="" are="" defined="" in="" sec.="" 141.2="" as="" ``an="" on-site="" review="" of="" the="" water="" source,="" facilities,="" equipment,="" operation="" and="" maintenance="" of="" a="" public="" water="" system="" for="" the="" purpose="" of="" evaluating="" the="" adequacy="" of="" such="" sources,="" facilities,="" equipment,="" operation="" and="" maintenance="" for="" producing="" and="" distributing="" safe="" drinking="" water.''="" guidance="" for="" conducting="" a="" sanitary="" survey="" for="" unfiltered="" systems="" appears="" in="" the="" swtr="" guidance="" manual="" (epa,="" 1991),="" even="" though="" such="" a="" survey="" is="" not="" specifically="" required="" by="" the="" swtr.="" epa="" solicits="" comment="" on="" how="" this="" guidance="" manual="" should="" be="" revised="" to="" address="" concerns="" for="" filtered="" systems,="" and="" for="" cryptosporidium.="" the="" requirement="" for="" a="" sanitary="" survey="" under="" this="" rule="" would="" be="" similar="" to="" that="" in="" the="" tcr,="" which="" requires="" periodic="" sanitary="" surveys="" for="" some="" systems.="" specifically,="" the="" tcr="" at="" sec.="" 141.21(d)="" requires="" periodic="" sanitary="" surveys="" for="" systems="" that="" collect="" fewer="" than="" five="" routine="" samples="" per="" month.="" these="" surveys="" are="" performed="" by="" the="" state="" or="" a="" party="" approved="" by="" the="" state.="" the="" results="" of="" the="" sanitary="" surveys="" are="" to="" be="" used="" by="" the="" state="" to="" determine="" whether="" the="" monitoring="" frequency="" is="" appropriate,="" and="" if="" not,="" what="" the="" new="" frequency="" should="" be="" and="" whether="" the="" system="" needs="" to="" undertake="" any="" specific="" measures="" to="" improve="" water="" quality.="" these="" surveys="" are="" to="" be="" performed="" every="" five="" years="" or="" ten="" years,="" depending="" on="" circumstances.="" these="" surveys="" are="" somewhat="" more="" extensive="" than="" the="" on-site="" inspection="" required="" under="" the="" existing="" swtr="" and="" include="" an="" evaluation="" of="" the="" distribution="" system.="" in="" addition="" to="" the="" sanitary="" survey="" in="" the="" tcr="" and="" the="" proposed="" requirement="" for="" surface="" water="" systems,="" epa="" intends="" to="" propose="" a="" sanitary="" survey="" requirement="" in="" the="" forthcoming="" groundwater="" disinfection="" rule="" for="" all="" public="" water="" supply="" systems="" using="" groundwater="" that="" wish="" to="" avoid="" disinfection.="" the="" agency="" believes="" that="" periodic="" sanitary="" surveys,="" along="" with="" appropriate="" corrective="" measures,="" are="" indispensable="" for="" assuring="" the="" long-term="" quality="" and="" safety="" of="" drinking="" water.="" many="" states="" already="" perform="" sanitary="" surveys="" on="" most="" or="" all="" systems.="" by="" taking="" steps="" to="" correct="" deficiencies="" exposed="" by="" a="" sanitary="" survey,="" the="" system="" provides="" an="" additional="" barrier="" to="" microbial="" contamination="" of="" drinking="" water.="" compliance="" with="" this="" requirement="" would="" not="" eliminate="" the="" requirement="" for="" unfiltered="" systems="" to="" conduct="" annual="" on-site="" inspections,="" although="" applicable="" information="" from="" these="" on-site="" inspections="" could="" be="" used="" to="" satisfy="" some="" elements="" of="" the="" sanitary="" survey.="" during="" the="" years="" when="" the="" sanitary="" survey="" is="" conducted,="" the="" sanitary="" survey="" would="" fulfill="" the="" on-site="" inspection="" requirement.="" with="" promulgation="" of="" these="" rules,="" epa="" hopes="" to="" focus="" more="" attention="" on="" watersheds="" and="" watershed="" protection="" activities="" to="" enhance="" and="" maintain="" the="" quality="" of="" both="" surface="" waters="" and="" ground="" waters="" as="" sources="" for="" drinking="" water.="" the="" agency="" recognizes="" that="" in="" many="" areas="" of="" the="" united="" states,="" watersheds="" that="" serve="" as="" drinking="" water="" sources="" are="" increasingly="" vulnerable="" to="" degradation.="" moreover,="" the="" current="" status="" of="" technology="" and="" scarce="" funding="" may="" limit="" the="" levels="" of="" water="" treatment="" reasonably="" possible.="" therefore,="" the="" agency="" wishes="" to="" minimize="" the="" contamination="" of="" source="" waters="" to="" maintain="" or="" improve="" the="" health="" benefits="" from="" drinking="" water="" treatment.="" while="" the="" rule="" proposed="" here="" derives="" from="" provisions="" of="" the="" sdwa,="" protection="" of="" watersheds="" is="" also="" consistent="" with="" provisions="" of="" the="" clean="" water="" act.="" one="" issue="" that="" the="" negotiating="" committee="" considered="" throughout="" the="" negotiation="" process="" was="" the="" relationship="" and="" role="" of="" watershed="" protection="" to="" these="" regulations.="" the="" committee="" sought="" to="" promote="" watershed="" protection="" and="" to="" provide="" incentives="" to="" establish="" new="" watershed="" protection="" programs="" and="" to="" improve="" existing="" ones.="" this="" goal="" was="" prompted="" by="" the="" benefits="" that="" watershed="" protection="" provides="" not="" only="" for="" disinfectant="" byproduct="" control,="" but="" for="" the="" control="" of="" a="" wide="" range="" of="" potential="" drinking="" water="" contaminants.="" watershed="" protection="" minimizes="" pathogen="" contamination="" in="" water="" sources,="" and="" hence="" the="" amount="" of="" physical="" treatment="" and/or="" disinfectant="" needed="" to="" achieve="" a="" specified="" level="" of="" microbial="" risk="" in="" a="" finished="" water="" supply.="" it="" also="" may="" reduce="" the="" level="" of="" turbidity,="" pesticides,="" volatile="" organic="" compounds,="" and="" other="" synthetic="" organic="" drinking="" water="" contaminants="" found="" in="" some="" water="" sources.="" watershed="" protection="" results="" in="" benefits="" for="" water="" supply="" systems="" by="" minimizing="" reservoir="" sedimentation="" and="" eutrophication="" and="" by="" reducing="" water="" treatment="" operation="" and="" maintenance="" costs.="" watershed="" protection="" also="" provides="" other="" environmental="" benefits="" through="" improvements="" in="" fisheries="" and="" ecosystem="" protection.="" the="" types="" of="" watershed="" programs="" that="" the="" committee="" wished="" to="" encourage="" are="" those="" that="" consider="" agricultural="" controls,="" silvicultural="" controls,="" urban="" non-point="" controls,="" point="" discharge="" controls,="" and="" land="" use="" protection="" that="" are="" tailored="" to="" the="" environmental="" and="" human="" characteristics="" of="" the="" individual="" watershed.="" these="" characteristics="" include="" the="" hydrology="" and="" geology="" of="" the="" watershed;="" the="" nature="" of="" human="" sources="" of="" contaminants;="" and="" the="" legal,="" financial="" and="" political="" constraints="" of="" entities="" that="" affect="" the="" watershed.="" sanitary="" survey="" frequency.="" epa="" is="" considering="" requiring="" sanitary="" surveys="" either="" every="" three="" years="" or="" every="" five="" years,="" and="" requests="" public="" comment="" on="" this="" issue.="" there="" is="" a="" major="" concern="" that="" changes="" over="" time="" in="" watershed="" characteristics,="" such="" as="" those="" resulting="" from="" development="" or="" other="" changes="" in="" land="" use,="" may="" degrade="" surface="" source="" water="" quality="" significantly.="" treatment="" facilities="" and="" distribution="" systems="" likewise="" may="" deteriorate="" over="" time.="" it="" is="" important="" to="" address="" such="" adverse="" changes="" as="" soon="" as="" possible.="" consequently,="" more="" frequent="" sanitary="" surveys="" should="" result="" in="" safer="" and="" more="" reliable="" drinking="" water.="" this="" is="" the="" advantage="" of="" a="" three-year="" survey="" over="" a="" five-year="" survey.="" yet="" a="" survey="" every="" five="" years="" is="" less="" expensive="" and="" is="" more="" consistent="" with="" the="" provisions="" of="" the="" tcr.="" epa="" considers="" a="" five-year="" frequency="" to="" be="" minimal="" for="" assessing="" watershed="" and="" system="" conditions="" associated="" with="" surface="" waters.="" to="" provide="" adequate="" lead="" time="" to="" the="" state="" for="" implementing="" any="" sanitary="" survey="" requirement,="" epa="" would="" not="" require="" systems="" to="" complete="" the="" initial="" sanitary="" survey="" until="" five="" years="" after="" the="" effective="" date="" of="" this="" rule.="" this="" lead="" time="" would="" not="" apply="" to="" systems="" that="" collect="" fewer="" than="" five="" samples="" per="" month="" under="" the="" tcr,="" since="" they="" should="" already="" have="" had="" their="" initial="" survey.="" epa="" does="" not="" believe="" this="" sanitary="" survey="" requirement="" would="" be="" onerous="" to="" systems,="" since="" systems="" collecting="" fewer="" than="" five="" samples/="" month="" (i.e.,="" serving="" fewer="" than="" 4101="" people)="" are="" already="" required="" to="" conduct="" sanitary="" surveys="" under="" the="" tcr,="" and="" larger="" systems="" should="" have="" greater="" financial="" resources="" than="" these="" smaller="" ones.="" 4.="" possible="" supplemental="" requirements="" a.="" uncovered="" finished="" water="" reservoirs.="" epa="" guidelines="" recommend="" that="" all="" finished="" water="" reservoirs="" and="" storage="" tanks="" be="" covered="" (epa,="" 1991a,b).="" the="" american="" water="" works="" association="" (awwa)="" also="" has="" issued="" a="" policy="" statement="" strongly="" supporting="" the="" covering="" of="" reservoirs="" that="" store="" potable="" water="" (awwa,="" 1993).="" in="" addition,="" a="" workshop="" in="" 1981="" convened="" by="" epa,="" in="" conjunction="" with="" the="" american="" society="" for="" microbiology,="" to="" advise="" epa="" on="" a="" variety="" of="" drinking="" water="" issues="" recommended="" that="" epa="" require="" systems="" to="" cover="" all="" new="" finished="" water="" reservoirs="" (epa,="" 1983).="" by="" covering="" reservoirs="" and="" storage="" tanks,="" systems="" would="" reduce="" the="" potential="" for="" contamination="" of="" the="" finished="" water="" by="" pathogens="" and="" hazardous="" chemicals.="" it="" would="" also="" limit="" the="" potential="" for="" taste="" and="" odor="" problems="" and="" increased="" operation="" and="" maintenance="" costs="" resulting="" from="" environmental="" factors="" such="" as="" sunlight="" (bailey="" and="" lippy,="" 1978).="" potential="" sources="" of="" contamination="" to="" uncovered="" reservoirs="" and="" tanks="" include="" airborne="" chemicals,="" surface="" water="" runoff,="" animal="" carcasses,="" animal="" or="" bird="" droppings,="" growth="" of="" algae="" and="" other="" aquatic="" organisms="" due="" to="" sunlight="" that="" results="" in="" biomass,="" and="" violations="" of="" reservoir="" security="" (bailey="" and="" lippy,="" 1978).="" because="" of="" these="" adverse="" consequences,="" epa="" is="" considering="" whether="" to="" issue="" regulations="" that="" require="" systems="" to="" cover="" finished="" water="" reservoirs="" and="" storage="" tanks.="" the="" agency="" solicits="" public="" comment="" on="" whether="" such="" a="" national="" regulation="" is="" appropriate,="" whether="" such="" a="" requirement="" should="" be="" at="" state="" discretion="" only,="" what="" costs="" would="" be="" incurred="" by="" systems="" under="" such="" a="" regulation,="" and="" under="" what="" conditions="" a="" waiver="" from="" this="" rule="" would="" be="" appropriate.="" cross-connection="" control="" program.="" plumbing="" cross-connections="" are="" actual="" or="" potential="" connections="" between="" a="" potable="" and="" non-potable="" water="" supply="" (epa,="" 1989b).="" according="" to="" craun="" (1991),="" 24%="" of="" the="" waterborne="" disease="" outbreaks="" that="" occurred="" during="" 1981-1990="" were="" caused="" by="" water="" contamination="" in="" the="" distribution="" system,="" primarily="" as="" the="" result="" of="" cross-connections="" and="" main="" repairs.="" during="" this="" period,="" 11="" reported="" outbreaks="" with="" 1350="" associated="" cases="" were="" blamed="" on="" cross-connection="" problems="" in="" community="" water="" systems="" (craun,="" 1994).="" while="" the="" vast="" majority="" of="" outbreaks="" associated="" with="" cross="" connections="" are="" caused="" by="" pathogens,="" a="" few="" are="" caused="" by="" chemicals.="" epa="" does="" not="" have="" a="" regulation="" mandating="" a="" cross-connection="" control="" program,="" but="" does="" address="" the="" issue="" in="" the="" tcr.="" section="" 141.63(d)(3),="" for="" example,="" identifies="" proper="" maintenance="" of="" the="" distribution="" system="" as="" one="" of="" the="" best="" technologies,="" treatment="" techniques,="" and="" other="" means="" for="" achieving="" compliance="" with="" the="" mcl="" for="" total="" coliforms.="" in="" a="" subsequent="" clarification,="" epa="" explained="" that="" this="" statement="" in="" the="" rule="" includes="" a="" cross-connection="" control="" program.="" in="" addition,="" in="" a="" rule="" that="" stayed="" the="" no="" variances="" provision="" of="" the="" tcr,="" i.e.,="" allows="" states="" to="" grant="" variances,="" epa="" recommended="" that="" one="" of="" the="" criteria="" that="" states="" could="" use="" to="" identify="" systems="" that="" could="" operate="" under="" a="" variance="" without="" posing="" an="" unreasonable="" risk="" to="" health="" was="" that="" the="" system="" has="" a="" cross-connection="" control="" program="" acceptable="" to="" the="" state="" and="" performs="" an="" audit="" of="" its="" effectiveness="" (56="" fr="" 1556,="" january="" 15,="" 1991).="" the="" awwa="" also="" has="" a="" policy="" statement="" on="" cross="" connections="" urging="" systems="" to="" set="" up="" a="" program="" for="" their="" control="" (awwa,="" 1993).="" epa="" is="" seeking="" public="" comment="" on="" whether="" epa="" should="" require="" states="" and/or="" systems="" to="" have="" a="" cross-connection="" control="" program;="" what="" specific="" criteria,="" if="" any,="" should="" be="" included="" therein;="" and="" how="" often="" such="" a="" program="" should="" be="" evaluated.="" should="" epa="" require="" that="" only="" those="" connections="" identified="" as="" a="" cross="" connection="" by="" the="" public="" water="" system="" or="" the="" state="" be="" subject="" to="" a="" cross="" connection="" program?="" epa="" also="" seeks="" comment="" on="" what="" conditions="" would="" a="" waiver="" from="" this="" rule="" be="" appropriate.="" in="" addition,="" the="" agency="" requests="" commenters="" to="" identify="" other="" regulatory="" measures="" epa="" should="" consider="" to="" prevent="" the="" contamination="" of="" drinking="" water="" already="" in="" the="" distribution="" system="" (e.g.,="" minimum="" pressure="" requirements="" in="" the="" distribution="" system).="" state="" notification="" of="" high="" turbidity="" levels.="" the="" swtr="" requires="" filtered="" systems="" to="" report="" turbidity="" measurements="" to="" the="" state="" within="" ten="" days="" after="" the="" end="" of="" each="" month="" the="" system="" serves="" water="" to="" the="" public="" (sec.="" 141.75(b)(1)).="" if="" at="" any="" time="" the="" turbidity="" exceeds="" 5="" ntu,="" however,="" the="" system="" must="" notify="" the="" state="" as="" soon="" as="" possible,="" but="" no="" later="" than="" the="" end="" of="" the="" next="" business="" day="" (sec.="" 141.75(b)(3)(ii)).="" in="" addition,="" the="" system="" must="" notify="" the="" public="" as="" soon="" as="" possible,="" but="" in="" no="" case="" later="" than="" 14="" days="" after="" the="" violation="" (non-acute="" violation,="" sec.="" 141.32(a)="" and="" sec.="" 141.32(b)(10)).="" epa="" is="" considering="" broadening="" the="" requirement="" for="" systems="" to="" notify="" the="" state="" as="" soon="" as="" possible.="" the="" agency="" might,="" for="" example,="" require="" systems="" to="" notify="" the="" state="" as="" soon="" as="" possible="" if="" at="" any="" point="" during="" the="" month="" it="" becomes="" apparent="" that="" a="" system="" will="" exceed="" the="" monthly="" turbidity="" performance="" standard="" in="" sec.="" 141.73="" (0.5="" ntu="" for="" conventional="" filtration="" or="" direct="" filtration,="" 1="" ntu="" for="" slow="" sand="" filtration="" or="" diatomaceous="" earth)="" for="" an="" extended="" period="" of="" time="" (e.g.,="" more="" than="" 12="" consecutive="" hours),="" regardless="" of="" whether="" the="" system="" will="" violate="" the="" monthly="" standard.="" in="" addition,="" the="" agency="" might="" require="" systems="" to="" notify="" the="" state="" as="" soon="" as="" possible="" if="" at="" any="" point="" during="" the="" month="" it="" becomes="" apparent="" that="" a="" system="" will="" violate="" the="" monthly="" turbidity="" performance="" standard="" in="" sec.="" 141.73,="" rather="" than="" await="" the="" end="" of="" the="" month,="" as="" specified="" in="" the="" existing="" swtr.="" there="" are="" sound="" public="" health="" reasons="" for="" requiring="" swift="" state="" notification="" for="" persistent="" turbidity="" levels="" above="" the="" performance="" standards="" in="" sec.="" 141.73.="" pathogens="" may="" accompany="" the="" turbidity="" particles="" that="" exit="" the="" filters,="" especially="" with="" poor="" quality="" source="" waters.="" high="" turbidity="" levels="" in="" the="" filtered="" water,="" even="" for="" a="" limited="" time,="" may="" represent="" a="" significant="" risk="" to="" the="" public.="" increasing="" the="" disinfection="" residual="" in="" such="" cases="" is="" essential,="" but="" some="" pathogens="" (e.g.,="" giardia="" and="" cryptosporidium)="" are="" relatively="" resistant="" to="" disinfection.="" early="" notification="" would="" allow="" the="" states="" to="" require="" the="" system="" to="" issue="" an="" immediate="" public="" notice="" of="" the="" turbidity="" violation="" if="" the="" nature="" of="" the="" violation="" is="" considered="" to="" be="" an="" immediate="" health="" concern.="" epa="" solicits="" comment="" on="" whether="" the="" agency="" should="" require="" systems="" to="" notify="" the="" state="" as="" soon="" as="" possible="" for="" persistent="" turbidity="" levels="" above="" the="" performance="" standards="" or="" for="" any="" other="" situation="" that="" is="" not="" now="" a="" violation="" of="" the="" turbidity="" standards.="" e.="" alternative="" treatment="" requirements="" this="" section="" proposes="" five="" alternative="" treatment="" requirements="" for="" removing="" giardia,="" cryptosporidium,="" and/or="" viruses.="" the="" final="" rule="" might="" include="" one="" or="" some="" combination="" of="" these="" alternatives.="" these="" regulatory="" alternatives="" would="" require="" systems="" to="" remove="" a="" specified="" level="" of="" pathogen="" based="" upon="" its="" density="" in="" the="" raw="" water,="" as="" measured="" either="" under="" the="" icr="" or="" another="" comparable="" approach.="" the="" greater="" the="" pathogen="" density="" in="" raw="" water,="" the="" greater="" would="" be="" the="" pathogen="" reduction="" required="" by="" treatment.="" this="" section="" also="" examines="" several="" statistical="" options="" for="" defining="" pathogen="" densities="" in="" source="" waters.="" the="" regulatory="" impact="" analysis="" for="" this="" proposal="" includes="" preliminary="" estimates="" of="" the="" incremental="" costs="" for="" several="" of="" these="" options="" and="" discusses="" what="" incremental="" risk="" reductions="" would="" be="" needed="" to="" offset="" these="" costs="" from="" a="" cost="" benefit="" perspective.="" as="" the="" icr="" data="" become="" available,="" epa="" intends="" to="" develop="" the="" risk="" reduction="" and="" cost="" estimates="" of="" these="" different="" options="" for="" defining="" pathogen="" densities="" in="" source="" waters,="" for="" different="" treatment="" alternatives,="" and="" to="" publish="" this="" analysis="" in="" a="" notice="" of="" availability.="" after="" reviewing="" public="" comments="" and="" additional="" information="" and="" data,="" epa="" intends="" to="" select="" one="" or="" more="" options="" that="" provides="" the="" greatest="" improvement="" in="" public="" health="" taking="" into="" account="" any="" adverse="" health="" effects="" associated="" with="" treatment="" strategies="" required="" and="" the="" costs="" of="" these="" improvements.="" 1.="" options="" for="" defining="" pathogen="" densities="" in="" source="" waters="" epa="" is="" considering="" several="" options="" for="" defining="" the="" raw="" water="" pathogen="" density="" that="" systems="" would="" use="" to="" determine="" their="" needed="" level="" of="" treatment.="" as="" part="" of="" this,="" epa="" is="" considering="" both="" the="" technical="" and="" public="" health="" implications="" of="" these="" options.="" the="" public="" health="" risk="" from="" waterborne="" microorganisms="" depends="" on="" their="" density="" in="" source="" water="" and="" their="" infectious="" dose="" levels.="" since="" the="" calculated="" infectious="" dose="" levels="" for="" giardia="" and="" other="" pathogens="" do="" not="" address="" high-risk="" populations,="" e.g.,="" the="" very="" young="" and="" old="" and="" immunocompromised="" individuals,="" they="" may="" not="" be="" conservative="" with="" respect="" to="" protecting="" public="" health.="" therefore,="" epa="" could="" provide="" a="" margin="" of="" safety="" for="" such="" populations="" by="" requiring="" a="" system="" to="" define="" the="" pathogen="" density="" used="" for="" determining="" the="" required="" treatment="" level="" in="" terms="" of="" a="" conservative="" statistical="" method,="" i.e.,="" one="" that="" would="" provide="" a="" higher="" pathogen="" density="" than="" an="" arithmetic="" mean.="" such="" analysis="" would="" also="" need="" to="" consider="" various="" assumptions="" regarding="" the="" likelihood="" of="" a="" detected="" organism="" being="" viable="" and="" infectious.="" currently="" it="" is="" not="" yet="" possible="" to="" determine="" whether="" a="" protozoan="" cyst="" in="" water="" is="" viable="" or,="" if="" viable,="" infectious.="" epa="" and="" other="" groups,="" however,="" are="" conducting="" research="" in="" this="" area.="" the="" approach="" epa="" selects="" for="" calculating="" pathogen="" density="" should="" consider="" the="" wide="" temporal="" and="" spatial="" variations="" in="" densities="" that="" occur="" in="" raw="" water="" and="" should="" be="" appropriate="" for="" the="" calculation="" of="" the="" attendant="" health="" risks.="" among="" the="" approaches="" being="" considered="" by="" the="" agency="" are="" the="" arithmetic="" mean,="" geometric="" mean,="" 90th="" percentile,="" and="" maximum="" measured="" value.="" these="" are="" discussed="" below.="" epa="" expects="" that="" systems="" subject="" to="" this="" rule="" will="" use="" their="" data="" collected="" under="" the="" icr="" as="" a="" basis="" for="" determining="" source="" water="" pathogen="" densities="" and="" selection="" of="" appropriate="" treatment="" levels.="" the="" negotiating="" committee="" recommended="" this="" approach="" so="" that="" systems="" would="" have="" sufficient="" time="" to="" determine="" the="" need="" for,="" design,="" and="" install="" any="" necessary="" treatment="" to="" comply="" with="" both="" the="" eswtr="" and="" d/dbpr="" requirements="" in="" a="" consistent,="" integrated="" manner.="" this="" approach="" would="" require="" states,="" as="" part="" of="" their="" primacy="" applications="" for="" the="" eswtr,="" to="" include="" provisions="" for="" acquiring="" icr="" data="" from="" epa's="" icr="" data="" base="" when="" it="" becomes="" available,="" directly="" from="" the="" system="" or="" a="" database.="" epa="" recognizes="" that="" some="" systems="" that="" currently="" serve="" fewer="" than="" 10,000="" people,="" and="" thus="" not="" subject="" to="" icr="" monitoring,="" may="" eventually,="" as="" a="" result="" of="" their="" growth,="" become="" subject="" to="" the="" interim="" eswtr.="" once="" such="" a="" system="" serves="" 10,000="" people="" or="" more,="" the="" rule="" would="" require="" it="" to="" collect="" data="" sufficient="" to="" determine="" the="" source="" water="" pathogen="" densities="" in="" a="" manner="" analogous="" to="" that="" specified="" in="" the="" icr.="" the="" system="" would="" then="" use="" these="" data="" to="" determine="" the="" level="" of="" treatment="" needed.="" epa="" solicits="" comment="" on="" this="" approach.="" a.="" use="" of="" arithmetic="" mean="" of="" data.="" the="" arithmetic="" mean="" is="" the="" sum="" of="" the="" pathogen="" densities="" from="" all="" collected="" samples="" divided="" by="" the="" number="" of="" samples.="" an="" arithmetic="" mean="" would="" be="" calculated="" for="" each="" pathogen.="" the="" arithmetic="" mean="" is="" most="" appropriate="" when="" the="" densities="" are="" relatively="" uniform,="" both="" spatially="" and="" temporally,="" and="" symmetrical="" about="" the="" mean.="" use="" of="" the="" arithmetic="" mean="" is="" most="" useful="" when="" the="" distribution="" of="" measured="" values="" approximates="" a="" normal="" distribution.="" relative="" to="" the="" geometric="" mean,="" the="" arithmetic="" mean="" allows="" an="" easier="" calculation="" of="" confidence="" intervals="" and="" may="" be="" more="" conservative.="" when="" considering="" the="" multiple="" exposures="" associated="" with="" drinking="" water="" ingestion="" at="" the="" low="" microbial="" risk="" levels="" associated="" with="" treated="" water,="" risks="" can="" be="" considered="" as="" additive="" and="" linearly="" related.="" under="" these="" circumstances,="" the="" arithmetic="" mean="" is="" superior="" to="" the="" geometric="" mean="" in="" the="" estimation="" of="" central="" tendency="" (regli="" et="" al.,="" 1991).="" b.="" use="" of="" geometric="" mean="" of="" data.="" the="" geometric="" mean="" is="" defined="" by="" the="" equation:="">m=log-1 (1/n x [log X1+log X2+...log Xn]),
    
    Where n = number of samples and Xi is the measured density for 
    each sample. For example, the geometric mean of the values 1, 10, and 
    100 would be 10. The geometric mean is more appropriate than the 
    arithmetic mean for representing the central tendency for data that 
    have a skewed distribution. However, the geometric mean is less 
    conservative, i.e., it would generally estimate a lower mean density 
    and therefore lower risk for pathogens than the arithmetic mean (for 
    example, the arithmetic mean of 1, 10, and 100 is 37, versus the 
    geometric mean of 10). Nevertheless, depending upon the assumptions 
    made in the risk assessment calculation (e.g., percentage of cysts/
    oocysts viable), use of the geometric mean may be adequately 
    conservative for estimating exposures and consequently appropriate 
    levels of treatment (Regli et al., 1991).
        c. Use of the 90th percentile value. Another alternative for 
    defining pathogen density is to base this value on the 90th percentile 
    of all data for a particular pathogen. This is the value below which 
    fall 90% of the data points and above which fall 10% of the data 
    points. This approach is more conservative in terms of risk than the 
    arithmetic mean and geometric mean, because for sources where pathogen 
    density varies significantly throughout the year, use of this value 
    will be more representative of the elevated risk associated with peak 
    contamination periods.
        Use of the 90th percentile measured value, however, has the obvious 
    drawback that it requires a sufficient number of samples to provide a 
    good 90th percentile estimate without interpolation. In many cases, 
    particularly for small water systems, cost considerations will prevent 
    extensive sampling. For example, the proposed ICR would require only 
    six raw water samples over the period of a year for systems from 10,000 
    to 100,000 people served. The 90th percentile value could be 
    interpolated from the two highest values.
        d. Use of the maximum measured value. This approach would dictate 
    the use of the highest density measured under the ICR for raw water. 
    Since few systems have the resources for routine, frequent, and long-
    term sampling for pathogens such as Giardia, Cryptosporidium and 
    viruses, it is clear that episodic periods of microbial contamination 
    may escape detection. EPA is particularly concerned with the risks from 
    unusually high level contamination events that might exceed the 
    removal/inactivation capacity of a treatment system. While the maximum 
    measured value may not be representative of the normal pathogen density 
    in a source water, it would be more indicative of potential short-term 
    risks.
        Additionally, since the published dose-response values for Giardia 
    and other pathogens were developed in healthy adult populations and 
    therefore are not conservative with respect to protecting public 
    health, EPA might select use of the maximum value, which is the most 
    conservative statistical option, to offset this problem. Alternatively, 
    it may be more appropriate to use a less conservative method for 
    estimating microbial densities but to use more conservative criteria 
    for deriving the actual level of treatment requirements as they relate 
    to pathogen densities. For example, if EPA assumes that all Giardia 
    cysts detected are viable and infectious to humans in specifying the 
    level of treatment needed, this approach may be sufficiently 
    conservative to warrant the density calculation by one of the other 
    above described methods.
        A major problem with basing the density calculation on the maximum 
    value is that if a utility collects more than the minimum number of 
    samples required in the interest of better defining potential 
    exposures, it has a greater likelihood of collecting a sample with a 
    higher pathogen density than would occur with the minimum required 
    number of samples. In this case, the system may face a more stringent 
    (and thus more expensive) standard.
        Use of the maximum measured density may be more appropriate than 
    other statistical methods for systems that have not collected 
    sufficient data to allow calculation of an adequately representative 
    mean value or 90th percentile value. With such limited data, the 
    maximum value might be suitable for determining level of treatment.
        EPA is soliciting comment on which approach is most appropriate for 
    defining pathogen density. The Agency is also requesting comment on 
    whether the approach used should be based on the number of pathogen 
    samples collected, i.e., the maximum measured value would be required 
    for systems taking only six samples under the ICR (systems serving 
    between 10,000 and 100,000 people) and 90th percentile value for 
    systems that collect at least 10 samples.
        2. Treatment alternatives for controlling pathogens. To determine 
    what regulatory controls are most appropriate for controlling pathogens 
    in drinking water, EPA must decide what constitutes acceptably safe 
    drinking water. The SDWA frames this discussion in determining MCLGs 
    and MCLs. MCLG levels, which are not legally enforceable, are based 
    solely on health concerns. As required by the SDWA, they are set ``at 
    the level at which no known or anticipated adverse effects on the 
    health of persons occur and which allows an adequate margin of 
    safety''. The corresponding enforceable regulation consists of either 
    an MCL set as close to the MCLG as feasible, taking cost and 
    availability of treatment into account; or, when it is not 
    technologically or economically feasible to monitor for the 
    contaminants, a treatment technique(s) to achieve an acceptable risk.
        The SWTR promulgated an MCLG for Giardia of zero, i.e., no Giardia 
    cysts should be allowed in drinking water. A system using surface water 
    cannot usually attain this goal in any practical sense. Therefore, the 
    SWTR preamble suggested a more practical health goal for Giardia: 
    drinking water should not cause more than one Giardia lamblia infection 
    annually per 10,000 exposed persons (10-4 risk). In contrast to 
    this goal, EPA policy for specific chemical carcinogens is for 
    theoretical lifetime upper bound risks to be no greater than within a 
    range of 10-4 to 10-6. For non-carcinogenic chemical 
    contaminants, EPA policy is to base the MCLG on the reference dose 
    (RfD) for the given chemical. The RfD is calculated to be below any 
    known level of exposure resulting in adverse health effects, so that 
    drinking water at the resulting MCLG over a lifetime should be without 
    known risk.
        In developing the D/DBP rule (proposed elsewhere in today's Federal 
    Register), EPA is attempting to ensure that drinking water remains 
    microbiologically safe at the limits set for disinfectants and 
    byproducts, and that the disinfectants and byproducts themselves do not 
    pose an unacceptable risk at these limits.
        Based on data on microbial illness and death in the U.S. compiled 
    by Bennett et al. (1987), the estimated annual risk of waterborne 
    illness during 1985 was about 4 x 10-3 and the estimated lifetime 
    risk of death was about 3 x 10-4. As stated above, the goal of the 
    SWTR was for systems to achieve a risk of less than 10-4 
    infections per year for Giardia. Because Giardia is relatively 
    difficult to inactivate compared to virus and bacterial pathogens, the 
    SWTR assumed that water treatment adequate to achieve a 10-4 risk 
    for Giardia would provide an even higher level of protection against 
    pathogenic viruses and bacteria in untreated surface waters. Applying 
    the Bennett et al. (1987) data regarding the ratio of mortality to 
    waterborne illness (0.1 percent = 10-3), if a system achieves an 
    incidence of 10-4 waterborne infections per year or less, the 
    associated lifetime risk of death would be less than 7 x 10-6. 
    This is a 40-fold decrease in risk relative to those estimated by 
    Bennett et al. (1987), who used 1985 data.
        The above calculations refer to the average individual and an 
    average pathogenic organism. Available dose-response data show that the 
    risk of infection for a given pathogen density in the consumed water 
    ranges over several orders of magnitude for different organisms (Regli 
    et al., 1991). Setting a generic microbiological drinking water 
    standard based on one dose-response curve will either overestimate or 
    underestimate risks from other organisms. The risk of death from 
    infection likewise varies widely with the organism (Bennett et al., 
    1987). Therefore, the severity of the illness associated with a given 
    organism must be considered.
        Additional considerations in assessing acceptable waterborne 
    microbial risks involve the human subpopulations sensitive to 
    infection, illness and death. Infection does not always result in 
    illness; many infections are asymptomatic (Rendtorff, 1954; Lopez et 
    al., 1980). The progression and severity of illness following microbial 
    infection are more a function of individual physiology than the 
    magnitude of dose, as is true for many toxic chemicals. Acute 
    gastrointestinal illness, the most common microbial illness, is 
    generally considered non-life threatening in normally healthy adults. 
    However, this is not necessarily true for those subpopulations that are 
    more sensitive to microbial infection or illness. Some studies (Glass 
    et al., 1991; Lew et al., 1991) indicate that infants and those over 70 
    years old have mortalities of 3-5 percent from diarrhea requiring 
    hospitalization. As discussed above, Cryptosporidium infections, mild 
    in healthy persons, are sometimes fatal to the immuno-compromised. 
    Other identified sensitive human subpopulations include pregnant women 
    and those with cardiovascular disease. EPA estimates that about 15% of 
    the U.S. population is in these higher risk groups.
        Prudent health policy would be to protect these groups from their 
    higher risks of waterborne microbial infection. Use of a one percent 
    mortality-to-illness rate (instead of a 0.1 percent) to represent more 
    deadly organisms and a 10-fold uncertainty factor (as used in EPA's RfD 
    calculations) to account for these sensitive subpopulations may be 
    appropriate for estimating potential risks resulting from systems 
    achieving regulatory goals. A risk calculation based on this approach, 
    assuming that the system achieves the risk goal of 10-4 annual 
    infections for the average population, might result in a 7 x 10-5 
    (i.e., 10-4 x 10-2 x 70 years) lifetime risk of death for 
    certain subpopulations. The 7 x 10-5 lifetime risk of death (which 
    is a more severe endpoint than cancer) is barely within the 10-4-
    10-6 guideline for excess lifetime cancer risk that EPA uses for 
    regulating chemical carcinogens in drinking water.
        These calculations, while based on estimates and approximations and 
    having large uncertainties, suggest that the risk level of 10-4 
    annual infections may be acceptable, albeit barely so. If EPA were to 
    accept a more stringent annual risk level of 10-5 or 10-6 
    infections to achieve a greater consistency between lifetime mortality 
    risks from waterborne pathogens and most regulated drinking water 
    chemicals, substantial increases in treatment might be required. EPA 
    solicits comment on the appropriateness and magnitude of specific 
    acceptable risk levels for microbial infection and illness.
        To counter waterborne illness, EPA is proposing five treatment 
    alternatives for controlling Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and/or viruses. 
    Within each alternative, several options are addressed. The Agency may 
    promulgate one or more of these alternatives. Alternative A addresses 
    enhanced treatment for Giardia only. Alternatives B and C address 
    treatment for Cryptosporidium only. Alternative D addresses enhanced 
    treatment for viruses only. Alternative E maintains existing level of 
    treatment requirements for Giardia and viruses. EPA requests comment on 
    what alternative(s) is most suitable.
        a. Alternative A. Enhanced treatment for Giardia. This alternative 
    bases the extent of treatment required on the Giardia density in the 
    source water. The SWTR currently requires a 99.9 percent (3-log) 
    removal/inactivation of Giardia for all surface waters, regardless of 
    Giardia cyst concentration in the source water. As discussed above and 
    in the SWTR, EPA believes that for source waters of high quality (low 
    pathogen densities), this level of treatment should result in less than 
    one case of giardiasis (and most other waterborne disease) per 10,000 
    people per year. This risk level for Giardia is associated with an 
    infectious Giardia cyst density in the source water of less than one 
    cyst/100 liters and assumes that 3 logs of removal/inactivation is 
    consistently achieved on such source water. For more information about 
    Giardia risk calculations and associated uncertainties and assumptions, 
    refer to Rose et al. (1991), Regli et al. (1991), and Macler and Regli 
    (1993).
        Under Alternative A, systems using source waters with higher 
    Giardia densities would be required to meet higher levels of treatment 
    to satisfy the desired acceptable risk level, e.g., the annual 
    10-4 risk or perhaps a more stringent goal. Specifically, under 
    one option of alternative A, EPA is proposing that systems meet the 
    level of treatment for Giardia associated with the following Giardia 
    concentrations in the source water to achieve a 10-4 annual risk 
    level:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Required treatment 
                   No. of giardia/100L                    level (percent)   
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    <1............................................... 99.9="" (3-log).="" 1-9..............................................="" 99.99="" (4-log).="" 10-99............................................="" 99.999="" (5-log).="">99..............................................  99.9999 (6-log).     
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The determination by utilities and States of removal and 
    inactivation efficiencies for specific treatment strategies would be 
    based on EPA guidance and information, as is currently done under the 
    existing SWTR. EPA would revise the existing SWTR Guidance Manual based 
    on data collected under the ICR and research to complement any criteria 
    promulgated under the ESWTR. The Agency expects that data collected 
    under the ICR will be used by States and utilities to define the source 
    water concentration and consequently the appropriate level of treatment 
    for individual systems. If a utility has not collected data on pathogen 
    densities in source water under the ICR, it would be required to do so 
    to define the appropriate level of treatment.
        Depending on the method used for calculating pathogen density, 
    assumptions used for estimating risk (e.g., whether to assume that all 
    or only a portion of the detected cysts in the source water are viable 
    and infectious to humans), the desired acceptable risk level, concern 
    about DBP risk, and the technical and economic feasibility of achieving 
    different levels of treatment, it may be appropriate to specify 
    treatment requirements that address higher source water pathogen 
    concentrations than described above. EPA is not aware to what extent 
    physical removal greater than 2.5 logs can reasonably be achieved by 
    systems using conventional water treatment approaches commonly 
    practiced in the United States. The Agency believes that systems that 
    optimize their treatment may be able to achieve substantially higher 
    levels of removal. Membrane filtration techniques, although promising 
    for much higher levels of removal, may not yet be technologically or 
    economically feasible for large numbers of systems. The balance of the 
    removal/inactivation requirement may have to rely on the use of 
    chemical disinfectants. However, while EPA has confidence in the use of 
    disinfectants to achieve current SWTR requirements, it has not been 
    demonstrated that CT values extrapolated from tables in the SWTR or 
    other sources are valid for higher levels of disinfection (e.g., to 
    achieve a 4- or 5-log reduction of Giardia). EPA requests comment on 
    approaches to achieve higher levels of treatment by physical means and 
    on the use of existing CT values in the EPA guidance (EPA, 1991) to 
    predict, by extrapolation, higher levels of inactivation that could be 
    achieved by disinfection.
        EPA is considering an alternative version of the above described 
    treatment requirements that would instead require greater Giardia 
    reductions for source waters beginning with Giardia concentrations of 
    10 or more cysts/100 liters, as indicated below:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Required treatment 
                     No. giardia/100L                     level (percent)   
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    10-99............................................  99.99 (4-log).       
    100-999..........................................  99.999 (5-log).      
    >1000............................................  99.9999 (6-log).     
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        EPA solicits comment on the two treatment options described above 
    and on associated variations.
        b. Alternative B. Specific treatment for Cryptosporidium. EPA is 
    proposing a treatment technique rather than an MCL for Cryptosporidium, 
    because EPA believes that it is not currently economically or 
    technologically feasible for a system to monitor for this organism in 
    the finished water to determine whether it meets an acceptable risk 
    level. The Agency bases its belief on three factors: (1) The 
    variability of Cryptosporidium spatially and temporally may be 
    considerable, and consequently systems would have to collect frequent 
    samples and inordinately large sample volumes to properly characterize 
    the density of this organism, (2) current methods for Cryptosporidium 
    analysis are difficult and expensive, (3) it is not yet possible to 
    predict the risk resulting from a specific level of exposure to 
    Cryptosporidium, and (4) even if Cryptosporidium could be detected at 
    the lowest concentrations of concern in the finished water, the 
    exposure and associated risk would have already occurred, thereby 
    reducing the significance of monitoring non-compliance.
        Under this rule, all community and non-community public water 
    systems using any surface water source, or groundwater under the direct 
    influence of surface water, would be required to treat these sources as 
    described below. EPA anticipates that human dose-response data for 
    Cryptosporidium will be available within the next year and will include 
    these data in a Notice of Availability, probably in March 1996. Because 
    they are not yet available, basing the treatment level on a specific 
    acceptable risk level, as proposed by EPA for Giardia, cannot be used 
    for Cryptosporidium in the present notice. Data collected to date 
    suggest that the dose-response for Cryptosporidium may be similar to 
    that for Giardia. If this is true, then the required reduction level 
    for Cryptosporidium may be the same as for Giardia to achieve an 
    equivalent risk level for similar source water densities.
        In the absence of dose-response data, EPA is proposing a wide 
    variety of options. One sub-alternative would be to base the level of 
    treatment on the Cryptosporidium densities found in the source water, 
    as presented in the Table below. 
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Required treatment 
                No. cryptosporidium/100L                  level (percent)   
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    <1............................................... 99.9="" (3-log).="" 1-9..............................................="" 99.99="" (4-log).="" 10-99............................................="" 99.999="" (5-log).="">99..............................................  99.9999 (6-log).     
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        EPA is concerned, however, that it may not be technologically or 
    economically feasible to achieve the treatment levels above, given that 
    Cryptosporidium is much more resistant to disinfection than is Giardia. 
    Conventional treatment of coagulation, sedimentation and filtration may 
    not reliably achieve more than 2.5-log or 3-log Cryptosporidium oocyst 
    reduction under typical operating conditions. While membrane filtration 
    technologies (ultrafiltration, nanofiltration), possibly following 
    conventional treatment processes, appear to promise considerably 
    greater reductions in Cryptosporidium densities, their widespread use 
    for this purpose raises other concerns such as waste disposal of the 
    concentrate, water wastage, potential failure of the membrane, and 
    significant costs. Unless systems can feasibly achieve higher removal 
    levels for Cryptosporidium by physical means, they would have to 
    achieve this additional reduction by the use of disinfectants. However, 
    uncertainties exist with respect to disinfection of Cryptosporidium. 
    Current data suggests that chlorine and chlorine-based disinfectants 
    are relatively ineffective in inactivating Cryptosporidium, and the 
    Agency is not certain if alternative disinfectants, such as ozone, are 
    more effective than chlorine to allow systems to comply with the 
    removal/inactivation levels above.
        With this in mind, EPA is also considering two other treatment sub-
    alternatives for Cryptosporidium, as follows: 
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Required treatment 
                No. cryptosporidium/100L                  level (percent)   
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    <1............................................... 99="" (2-log).="" 1-9..............................................="" 99.9="" (3-log).="" 10-99............................................="" 99.99="" (4-log).="">99..............................................  99.999 (5-log).      
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Required treatment 
                No. cryptosporidium/100L                  level (percent)   
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    <10.............................................. 99="" (2-log).="" 10-99............................................="" 99.9="" (3-log).="">99..............................................  99.99 (4-log).       
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        EPA requests comment on all treatment alternatives discussed above 
    for Cryptosporidium.
        c. Alternative C. 99% (2-log) removal of Cryptosporidium. Under 
    this alternative, EPA would require systems to achieve at least 99% (2-
    log) removal of Cryptosporidium by filtration (with pretreatment) 
    alone. This alternative is based on the premise that the 3-log removal/
    inactivation requirement specified for Giardia is not economically or 
    technologically feasible for Cryptosporidium, since laboratory data 
    suggests that Cryptosporidium is considerably more resistant to 
    disinfection than is Giardia. In addition, it may not be practical to 
    remove more than two logs of Cryptosporidium consistently by 
    clarification and filtration processes. EPA believes, however, that a 
    two-log removal of Cryptosporidium is feasible using current 
    conventional treatment methods of coagulation, sedimentation and 
    filtration, as specified under the SWTR.
        Under this treatment option, EPA would continue to assess new field 
    and laboratory data to control Cryptosporidium by physical removal and 
    disinfection. If these data indicate that proportionally higher levels 
    of Cryptosporidium removal/inactivation can be achieved at a reasonable 
    cost, then EPA would revise the ESWTR accordingly as part of the long-
    term ESWTR regulatory development. The Agency would also revise the 
    SWTR Guidance Manual to suggest approaches for improving system design 
    and operations for controlling Cryptosporidium. When sufficient human 
    dose-response information for Cryptosporidium becomes available to 
    allow calculation of drinking water health risks from this organism, 
    EPA will consider a risk-based approach to establishing adequate 
    treatment levels.
        EPA solicits comment on whether a higher minimum removal 
    requirement than two logs should be specified for Cryptosporidium under 
    this alternative. The Agency also requests comment on whether the 
    removal requirement should be increased if treatment were to include 
    disinfection.
        d. Alternative D. Specific disinfection treatment for viruses. The 
    SWTR required systems to achieve a four-log reduction/ inactivation of 
    viruses. This is to be achieved through a combination of filtration and 
    disinfection or, for systems not required to filter their source 
    waters, by disinfection alone. Viruses are of particular concern, given 
    that one or several virus particles may be infectious (Regli et al., 
    1991) and that several enteric viruses are associated with relatively 
    high mortality rates (Bennett et al., 1987). Failure or impairment of 
    filtration performance could allow substantial pathogen contamination 
    of drinking water, particularly if the disinfection barrier following 
    filtration is minimal.
        The SWTR considered Giardia to be a surrogate for viruses, and 
    assumed that if viruses were present in the source water, treatment 
    requirements adequate to reduce Giardia by three logs would also reduce 
    viruses to safe levels. This assumption may not be appropriate if a 
    system were to achieve a 3-log removal of Giardia by physical means and 
    provide little disinfection inactivation. Viruses may be present in 
    substantial numbers even in the absence of detectable Giardia cysts.
        Treatment designed to minimize Giardia may not be optimal for 
    viruses. Viruses are substantially smaller than Giardia cysts or 
    Cryptosporidium oocysts and may pass through certain filter media that 
    will remove the larger protozoa. Therefore, use of data on Giardia, 
    Cryptosporidium, or even coliform bacteria (intermediate in size 
    between viruses and protozoa) in assessing treatment efficacy may not 
    be adequate for virus control. Studies by Payment et al. (1991) showed 
    that conventionally treated water meeting current Canadian microbial 
    drinking water advisory levels still led to substantial illness in the 
    studied population. These authors suggested that much of this illness 
    could have resulted from viral infection.
        For the above reasons, particularly for strengthening the treatment 
    barrier by disinfection, EPA is proposing to require that systems 
    provide sufficient disinfection such that by disinfection alone it 
    would achieve at least a 0.5-log inactivation of Giardia or, 
    alternatively, a 4-log inactivation of viruses. This requirement would 
    be independent of the level of physical removal, e.g., if filtration 
    was able to remove three logs of Giardia, the system would still have 
    to provide at least an additional 0.5-log inactivation of Giardia or 4-
    log inactivation of viruses by disinfection. Therefore, this would mean 
    that the system would provide 6 logs of virus removal/inactivation, 
    assuming it is removing 2-logs of viruses by filtration alone. EPA 
    would provide guidance to indicate the appropriate CT values to use 
    with these two alternatives.
        The SWTR assumed that a 0.5-log inactivation of Giardia would 
    result in a 4-log inactivation of viruses. This assumption was based on 
    a study where the effect of free chlorine on the hepatitis A virus was 
    examined (Sobsey, 1991). Subsequent investigations, however, have 
    suggested that some viruses, such as the Norwalk agent, are 
    substantially more resistant to disinfection by chlorine than is the 
    hepatitis A agent. Additionally, use of disinfectants other than free 
    chlorine to achieve the 0.5-log inactivation of Giardia may not yield a 
    4-log inactivation of viruses. Therefore, a requirement to provide 
    sufficient disinfection to inactivate 4 logs of viruses may be more 
    conservative than the alternative requirement of providing sufficient 
    disinfection to inactivate 0.5 logs of Giardia.
        Either of these two approaches could result in several additional 
    logs of pathogen removal/inactivation for systems that practice 
    conventional treatment. For example, where the system can remove by 
    physical means at least 2-logs of viruses, the disinfection requirement 
    would yield a total 6-log removal/inactivation of viruses (i.e, 2 logs 
    by physical means and 4 logs by disinfection).
        e. Alternative E. No change to existing SWTR treatment requirements 
    for Giardia and viruses. Under this alternative, the existing SWTR 
    requirements for treatment for Giardia and viruses would not change. 
    For Cryptosporidium control, EPA could either regulate this organism 
    directly (e.g., Alternative C above) or make a finding that 
    Cryptosporidium is adequately controlled by filtration and disinfection 
    requirements in the existing SWTR. The Agency may choose this 
    alternative to allow the Agency time to fully develop analyses of the 
    ICR data and accumulate additional data on pathogen occurrence, 
    treatment performance, and health effects, given the view that the 
    current SWTR has not been in effect long enough to evaluate the 
    projected improvements in drinking water quality and resulting public 
    health benefits. EPA would consider additional regulatory alternatives 
    while developing the long-term ESWTR, based on this new data. The 
    Agency requests comment on this alternative, as well.
    
    IV. State Implementation
    
        This section describes the regulations and other procedures and 
    policies States would have to adopt, or have in place, to implement the 
    rule proposed today. States must continue to meet all other conditions 
    of primacy in 40 CFR Part 142.
        Section 1413 of the SDWA establishes requirements that a State must 
    meet to maintain primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for its 
    public water systems. These include (1) adopting drinking water 
    regulations that are no less stringent than Federal NPDWRs in effect 
    under sections 1412(a) and 1412(b) of the Act, (2) adopting and 
    implementing adequate procedures for enforcement, (3) keeping records 
    and making reports available on its activities that EPA requires by 
    regulation, (4) issuing variances and exemptions (if allowed by the 
    State) under conditions no less stringent than allowed by sections 1415 
    and 1416, and (5) adopting and being capable of implementing an 
    adequate plan for the provision 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 (PWSS) program, as authorized under section 1413 of the 
    Act. In addition to adopting the basic primacy requirements, States may 
    be required to adopt special primacy provisions pertaining to a 
    specific regulation. These regulation-specific provisions may be 
    necessary where implementation of the NPDWR involves activities beyond 
    those in the generic rule. States are required by 40 CFR 142.12 to 
    include these regulation-specific provisions in an application for 
    approval of their program revisions. These State primacy requirements 
    would apply to the rule proposed today, along with the special primacy 
    requirements discussed below.
        To implement today's proposed rule, States would be required to 
    adopt revisions to Sec. 141.2, Definitions; Sec. 141.52, Maximum 
    contaminant level goals for microbiological contaminants; Sec. 141.70, 
    General requirements; Sec. 141.71, Criteria for avoiding filtration; 
    and Sec. 141.74, Analytical and monitoring requirements.
    
    A. Special State Primacy Requirements
    
        In addition to adopting drinking water regulations at least as 
    stringent as the Federal regulations listed above, EPA would require 
    that States adopt certain additional provisions related to this 
    regulation to have their program revision application approved by EPA. 
    Because this rule would provide considerable State latitude on 
    implementation, today's rule would require a State to include, as part 
    of its State program submission, its implementation policies and 
    procedures. This information would advise the regulated community of 
    State requirements and help EPA in its oversight of State programs. In 
    concert with promulgating the interim ESWTR, EPA would revise the SWTR 
    Guidance Manual (EPA, 1991). This guidance would assist States in 
    developing appropriate criteria in the regulations they adopted.
        To ensure that the State program includes all the elements 
    necessary for a complete enforcement program, today's notice proposes 
    that to obtain EPA approval for implementing this rule, the State's 
    application would be required to include the following:
        (1) Adoption of the promulgated ESWTR.
        (2) Description of the protocol the State will use to judge the 
    adequacy of watershed protection programs for minimizing the potential 
    for contamination by Giardia cysts, Cryptosporidium oocysts, and 
    viruses in the source water. The SWTR required States to specify the 
    methodology they would use to judge the adequacy of a watershed control 
    program to control the presence of waterborne Giardia. This rule would 
    add Cryptosporidium. The addition of Cryptosporidium is significant 
    because it may prohibit or substantially limit certain watershed uses 
    such as cattle farming and feedlots. The location of cattle feedlots on 
    a watershed would require additional control measures.
        (3) Description of the criteria and methods the State will use for 
    the conduct and review of sanitary surveys. If the State elects to 
    allow non-State personnel to conduct the surveys, the State must 
    specify the criteria for approval and oversight of these personnel and 
    of the surveys.
        (4) Description of the procedures for determining the level of 
    treatment required of systems to meet removal and/or inactivation 
    requirements under the rule. If Alternative A described in Section IIIE 
    above is promulgated, demonstration by the State that it has in place 
    enforceable design and operating criteria for achieving the levels of 
    Giardia removal and/or inactivation required. If either Alternative B 
    or C described in Section IIIE above is promulgated, demonstration by 
    the State that it has in place enforceable design and operating 
    criteria for achieving the levels of Cryptosporidium removal and/or 
    inactivation required. Compliance with the design and operating 
    criteria would be judged on a system-by-system basis.
    
    B. State Recordkeeping Requirements
    
        Changes to the existing recordkeeping requirements to implement the 
    provisions proposed in this notice would require, under general 
    recordkeeping requirements, States to maintain records on the level of 
    treatment necessary to achieve the required levels of removal and/or 
    inactivation of Giardia, Cryptosporidium and/or viruses. States would 
    also be required to maintain a record of any decisions made as a result 
    of sanitary surveys. These records must be kept for 40 years (as 
    currently required by Sec. 142.14 for other State decision records) or 
    until a subsequent determination is made, whichever is shorter. If the 
    final rule requires systems to base level of treatment on source water 
    pathogen densities, then the State must maintain record of these 
    densities.
    
    C. State Reporting Requirements
    
        Currently States must report to EPA information under 40 CFR 142.15 
    regarding violations, variances and exemptions, enforcement actions and 
    general operations of State public water supply programs. Today's rule 
    would require States to provide additional information to EPA within 
    the context of the existing special report requirements for the SWTR 
    (Sec. 142.15(c)(1)) on microbial densities in the source water and the 
    resulting required levels of treatment for each public water system 
    supplied by a surface water source or by ground water under the direct 
    influence of surface water.
    
    V. Public Notice Language
    
        The SDWA (section 1414(c)) requires that notices of violation of 
    the MCL or treatment requirement for a specific contaminant include 
    EPA-specified language on the adverse health effects of that 
    contaminant. Requirements for public notification are found in 40 CFR 
    141.32. In this notice, EPA is proposing that the existing language for 
    violating the treatment technique requirements in Subpart H of the 
    SWTR, found in 40 CFR 141.32(e)(10), not be changed. This decision is 
    based on EPA's belief that language is sufficiently broad to include 
    the adverse health effects from Cryptosporidium exposure.
    
    VI. Economic Analysis
    
    A. Cost of Proposed Rule
    
        This proposed rule would result in treatment costs, monitoring 
    costs, and State implementation costs. These costs are difficult to 
    estimate because of uncertainty in the number of systems that would 
    have to improve treatment and the extent of that improved treatment. 
    This information would depend primarily on the results of future 
    monitoring under the ICR. Under the ICR, systems using surface water 
    and serving 10,000 people or more would determine raw water pathogen 
    densities and, in some cases, the efficiency of treatment for reducing 
    pathogen concentrations. Given the above uncertainties, the cost 
    estimates can now only be addressed in the most general way, across a 
    wide range of possibilities.
        With regard to treatment costs, if ICR results indicate that the 
    existing SWTR ensures adequate levels of treatment for most systems, 
    then minimal additional treatment costs would be necessary. Regardless 
    of whether the SWTR is amended to require higher levels of treatment, 
    at least some systems would be expected to upgrade existing levels of 
    treatment based on EPA guidance and ICR monitoring results. Similarly, 
    some systems might reduce existing levels of disinfection upon a 
    finding that their source water is of better quality than expected. 
    Also, some costs will be incurred by systems correcting for 
    deficiencies identified through the sanitary survey requirement.
        If ICR monitoring indicates that many source waters contain 
    considerably higher pathogen concentrations than anticipated under the 
    SWTR, then substantial national treatment costs would result in 
    mitigating the associated health risk. These costs could involve 
    increasing disinfection contact time or dosage, switching to stronger 
    disinfectants, or improving filtration efficiencies through upgrades or 
    installation of new technologies.
        In estimating possible costs resulting from an ESWTR EPA assumed 
    that (1) national Giardia density in source waters are represented by 
    the survey results of LeChevallier et al. (1991a), (2) all systems are 
    at least meeting the treatment requirements of the existing SWTR, (3) 
    some systems, as indicated by the survey results of LeChevallier et al 
    (1991), are providing higher levels of treatment than required by the 
    SWTR, (4) systems would be required to provide sufficient treatment of 
    their source water to achieve no greater than a 10-4 annual risk 
    level for Giardia, based on the dose-response data and risk assessment 
    methodology developed by Rose et al. (1991) and Grubbs et al. (1992), 
    (5) additional Giardia reduction beyond the requirements of the SWTR to 
    achieve the 10-4 risk level would be achieved solely by using 
    chlorine as the disinfectant and providing additional disinfectant 
    contact time (i.e., increasing the CT value by increasing the contact 
    basin size), (6) when all ancillary construction costs including site-
    specific factors are taken into account, the average total capital cost 
    per system is twice the capital cost of increasing the size of the 
    contact basin alone. Based on the assumptions of Rose et al. (1991) and 
    Grubbs et al. (1992), EPA calculates that systems would need a Giardia 
    removal/inactivation level of 3, 4, 5, or 6 logs for Giardia 
    concentrations in the source water of <1 cysts/100="" l,="" 1-9="" cysts/100="" l,="" 10-99="" cysts/100="" l,="" and="" 100="" cysts/100="" l="" or="" greater,="" respectively.="" national="" cost="" estimates="" for="" systems="" to="" comply="" with="" an="" interim="" eswtr="" as="" described="" above="" are="" provided="" in="" table="" vi-1.="" as="" discussed="" in="" section="" iii.b="" of="" this="" preamble,="" depending="" upon="" the="" criteria="" that="" are="" promulgated="" under="" the="" interim="" eswtr,="" epa="" also="" intends="" to="" propose="" requirements="" for="" systems="" serving="" less="" than="" 10,000="" people,="" under="" a="" long-="" term="" eswtr,="" to="" prevent="" any="" undue="" downside="" microbial="" risks="" that="" might="" otherwise="" result="" while="" systems="" of="" this="" size="" achieve="" compliance="" with="" the="" stage="" 1="" d/dbp="" rule.="" therefore,="" table="" vi-1="" also="" includes="" cost="" estimates="" for="" systems="" serving="" less="" than="" 10,000="" people,="" even="" though="" these="" costs="" are="" not="" attributed="" to="" the="" interim="" eswtr.="" table="" vi-1="" presents="" the="" additional="" contact="" basin="" costs="" needed="" for="" twelve="" system="" size="" categories="" (population="" served);="" for="" each="" size="" category,="" the="" number="" and="" type="" of="" systems="" affected="" (filtered="" without="" softening="" or="" filtered="" with="" softening),="" the="" associated="" total="" capital="" costs,="" and="" the="" associated="" total="" annualized="" costs.="" in="" this="" calculation,="" operation="" and="" maintenance="" costs="" are="" assumed="" to="" be="" negligible="" since="" systems="" are="" already="" disinfecting="" and="" most="" of="" the="" additional="" inactivation="" could="" be="" achieved="" by="" additional="" disinfectant="" contact="" time.="" details="" of="" this="" analysis="" and="" other="" assumptions="" are="" described="" in="" the="" regulatory="" impact="" analysis="" for="" the="" eswtr="" (epa,="" 1994).="" under="" this="" approach,="" epa="" estimates="" that="" the="" capital="" and="" annualized="" costs="" nationwide="" for="" systems="" serving="" at="" least="" 10,000="" people="" would="" be="" $3661="" million="" and="" $391="" million,="" respectively.="" using="" the="" same="" assumptions="" for="" systems="" serving="" fewer="" than="" 10,000="" people="" would="" result="" in="" an="" additional="" $820="" million="" capital="" costs="" and="" $114="" million="" annualized="" costs="" nationwide,="" or="" a="" total="" for="" all="" system="" sizes="" of="" $4481="" million="" in="" capital="" costs="" and="" $504="" million="" in="" annualized="" costs.="" the="">-4 annual risk level target was used as an example; 
    costs for achieving different acceptable risk levels, of course, will 
    differ considerably. Although other treatment measures could be used to 
    reduce Giardia levels, EPA believed that the national cost based on 
    providing additional disinfectant contact time is probably 
    representative, on average, of other modifications that systems might 
    implement. The Agency chose this methodology for estimating costs 
    because it was the most simple. Moreover, insufficient data prevents 
    the Agency from predicting with any reliability the mix of different 
    technologies systems would use to comply. EPA recognizes that in lieu 
    of expanding contact basin size, some systems may achieve the required 
    Giardia reductions through increased disinfectant dosages, improved 
    sedimentation and filtration efficiencies, or use of a stronger 
    disinfectant such as ozone. Smaller systems, especially those serving 
    fewer than 1,000 people, might use cartridge filters, or membrane 
    technology rather than additional contact time to achieve compliance 
    with the long-term ESWTR and other drinking water regulations at lower 
    cost. In addition, the costs for utilities to meet the D/DBP 
    regulations (proposed elsewhere in today's Federal Register) are not 
    necessarily additive with the costs for utilities to meet either the 
    interim or long-term ESWTR. For example, systems installing membrane 
    technology to comply with the D/DBP rule would also be expected through 
    use of this technology to comply with the ESWTR. Use of technologies 
    other than increasing contact basin time might be more feasible and 
    less expensive for some systems, depending on site-specific factors 
    (e.g., limited availability of land) and overall treatment objectives 
    (e.g., meeting other regulatory requirements such as the D/DBR rule).
        EPA solicits comment on how many systems might use these 
    alternative approaches for meeting ESWTR requirements and whether the 
    use of such technologies would lead to substantially different cost 
    estimates. EPA does not believe there are sufficient data to predict 
    the costs for reducing Cryptosporidium to a desired risk level as has 
    been done for Giardia. EPA solicits comment on what approaches might be 
    taken for estimating national treatment costs for systems to provide 
    different levels of Cryptosporidium removal depending on 
    Cryptosporidium densities in the source water. Also, EPA requests 
    comment on whether it is reasonable to assume that any treatment 
    changes that are made to remove Cryptosporidium would also remove 
    Giardia, thereby not duplicating costs for compliance.
        Table VI-2 indicates a range of estimated increases in household 
    costs by system size category for systems needing to achieve an 
    additional 0.5 log to 3 log reduction of Giardia to comply with the 
    ESWTR option described above. By this analysis 35 percent of the 
    systems would not be required to make any changes in treatment and 
    would incur no costs. For the interim ESWTR, estimated increases in 
    household costs for systems required to make changes in treatment would 
    range from $11 to $49 per household per year in the smallest size 
    category (serving a median population of 15,000 people) to $3.1 to $24 
    per household per year in the largest size category (serving a median 
    population of 1,550,000 people).
        If the analyzed criteria for the interim ESWTR were extended to 
    smaller systems under the long-term ESWTR, and systems used additional 
    disinfectant contact time to meet such criteria, increases in 
    annualized household costs would range from $360 to $1100 per household 
    per year in the smallest size category (serving a median population of 
    57 people) to $27 to $85 per household per year in systems with a 
    median population of 5,500. As stated above, EPA believes that smaller 
    systems should be able to use a more economic treatment alternative 
    than additional disinfectant contact time.
        EPA solicits comment on whether the system level costs to achieve 
    the different log reductions indicated in Table VI-2 by disinfection, 
    or other means, are reasonable and accurate.
        Table VI-3 indicates the estimated labor effort by the number of 
    full time employees (FTEs), hours, and dollar costs for States to 
    implement the interim ESWTR. If systems, rather than the State, were to 
    fund some or all sanitary surveys, then State costs would be reduced 
    accordingly. Further details of this analysis are available in the 
    Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA, 1994). 
    
                                              Table VI-1--Estimated National Contact Basin Costs for Enhanced SWTR                                          
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Cost estimates based on additional disinfectant contact basin size\1\           
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Number of affected systems      Total capital cost (M$)      Total annualized cost (M$)  
                                                 Population per  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               System size category                  system            Filtering systems              Filtering systems              Filtering systems      
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    W/out                         W/out                          W/out                      
                                                                    soft     W/soft     Total     soft     W/soft      Total     soft     W/soft      Total 
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1.........................................  25-100                 493         8       501        22        0.5        23         4       0.09         4
    2.........................................  101-500                454        13       467        42        1.4        43         8       0.3          8
    3.........................................  501-1K                 415        47       462        86       12          98        16       2           18
    4.........................................  1K-3.3K                586        61       647       200       24         224        25       3           28
    5.........................................  3.3K-10K               627       104       731       360       72         432        45       9           54
    6.........................................  10K-25K                291        67       358       330       94         424        34      10           44
    7.........................................  25K-50K                167        42       209       340      110         450        36      12           47
    8.........................................  50K-75K                 77        24       101       230       92         322        24      10           34
    9.........................................  75K-100K                63         7        70       250       37         287        26       4           30
    10........................................  100K-500K               88        24       112       620      230         850        67      25           92
    11........................................  500K-1M                 22         5        27       600      170         770        64      18           83
    12........................................  1M+                      9         1        10       460       97         557        50      11           60
                                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals:                                                                                                                                                 
          Interim Rule (Systems > 10K)........  ................       716       170       887      2830      831        3661       302      88          391
          Long-Term Rule (All Systems)........  ................     3,290       404     3,694     3,540      941       4,481       401     103         504 
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notes:                                                                                                                                                  
    \1\Cost estimates were developed on the basis of the following assumptions: 1) 35 percent of surface water systems currently meet ESWTR inactivation    
      requirements (based on LeChevallier et al., 1991); 2) the amount of additional inactivation required by systems that do not currently meet ESWTR      
      requirements is based on the distribution of source water Giardia concentrations in the LeChevallier data; and 3) the additional basin volume is based
      upon CT requirements of the SWTR guidance document with: pH = 8 (non-softening) or 9 (softening), t10 : ttheoretical = 0.7, temperature = 5  deg.C,   
      and C12 residual = 1 mg/l.                                                                                                                            
    
    
      Table VI-2--Estimated Increases in Annual Houshold Costs for Systems Expanding Contact Basin Size to Meet an  
                                                    Enhanced SWTR\2\                                                
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Total household costs, $/hh/yr\3\             
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------
                   Cat. #                   Median pop.            Filter\4\               Filter and Soften\4\     
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Min     Avg\1\     Max       Min     Avg\1\      Max   
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1...................................              57     360       420        960     430       500        1,100
    2...................................             225     170       200        450     200       240          540
    3...................................             750      88       120        310     110       150          350
    4...................................           1,910      36        52        110      43        59          130
    5...................................           5,500      27        28         67      30        34           85
    6...................................          15,000      11        15         40      13        19           49
    7...................................          35,000       7.9      12         30      10        15           39
    8...................................          60,000       6.6      10         26       8.8      13           34
    9...................................          88,100       6.1       8.8       24       7.5      12           32
    10..................................         175,000       5.1       8.5       24       6.6      11           33
    11..................................         730,000       3.5       6.7       20       4.7       9.1         27
    12..................................       1,550,000       3.1       6.0       18       4.2       8.2        24 
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notes:                                                                                                          
    \1\Costs assume that 35 percent of systems currently meet ESWTR requirements (LeChevallier et al., 1991) and    
      therefore do not require contact basin modifications.                                                         
    \2\Assumes Giardia and level of treatment distributions per LeChevallier et al, 1991 are nationally             
      representative of arithmetic averages, and that systems under ESWTR are required to provide additional        
      disinfection inactivation to meet a less than 1/10,000 annual infection rate at the first customer calculated 
      according to the Giardia infectivity dose response curve of Rose et al. (1991).                               
    \3\Household costs represent costs for affected systems. Minimum costs are based on costs for systems requiring 
      additional 0.5 log inactivation while maximum costs are based on requiring an additional 3-log inactivation.  
      Average costs are based on distribution of costs for achieving different inactivations based on data by       
      LeChevallier et al. (1991).                                                                                   
    \4\Contact basin size dependent upon chlorine residual, pH and temperature. Contact basin costs will increase if
      chlorine residual or temperature decrease or if pH increases. For non-softening systems (``Filter'' and       
      ``Unfilt'') pH=8, temperature=5  deg.C, and chlorine residual=1 mg/L. For softening systems (``Soften''),     
      pH=9, temperature=5  deg.C, and chlorine residual=1 mg/L.                                                     
    
    
                  Table VI-3.--Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule State Program Costs Model              
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 National burden                    
               Variable                  Default assumptions                -------------------------      Cost     
                                                                               In FTEs    In hours                  
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Regulation Adoption and         0.5 FTE per State.............        1        28.0       47,040      $1,540,000
     Program Development.                                                                                           
    Review Plans and Specs........  10 days/large system..........      112    \1\N/A         \1\N/A          \1\N/A
    Log Removal Determination.....  3 days per surface water             19        19.0       31,958      1,046,250 
                                     system.                                                                        
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal (x)............  ..............................  .......        47         78,998       2,586,250
    Staff Training (Rule Specific)  10 days per technical FTE=f(x)        0         2.1        3,591         117,557
    Sanitary Surveys\3\...........  5 days/lg. sys./survey; 2 days/      79        78.7      132,147      4,326,250 
                                     sm. sys./survey.                                                               
                                   =================================================================================
          Total...................  ..............................  .......       128        214,736       7,030,057
    Average Annual Cost over 3.5    ..............................  .......        37         61,353      2,008,588 
     years\2\.                                                                                                      
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Costs for reviewing plans and specifications for the ESWTR are counted as a joint activity undertaken with   
      the same step of implementing the Stage 1 DBP Rule and are included in the DBP Rule RIA.                      
    \2\Total cost and burden are divided by 3.5 years, the time between promulgation of this rule and the final     
      ESWTR.                                                                                                        
    \3\Recordkeeping burden is assumed to equal approximately 2% of the burden shown (i.e. approximately 1.6 FTEs,  
      2,640 hours, $86,000).                                                                                        
    
    B. Benefits of Proposed Rule
    
        The level of reduction of waterborne illness resulting from 
    implementation of this rule will largely depend on the particular 
    option(s) promulgated. Even if EPA could predict the most suitable 
    option(s), the Agency cannot yet predict the number of illnesses 
    avoided until more data become available. EPA anticipates that much of 
    such data, particularly on national pathogen occurrence and existing 
    treatment levels, will become available under the forthcoming ICR.
        With the limited available data, EPA has used a disinfection 
    byproducts risk assessment model (DBPRAM) to estimate potential risks 
    from Giardia that might result from systems complying with different 
    DBP standards both with the existing SWTR and an ESWTR (Grubbs et al 
    1992; Regli et al 1993; Cromwell et al 1992). In this analysis, EPA 
    assumed that the ESWTR would require systems to remove/inactivate 
    Giardia by 3, 4, 5, or 6 logs if the Giardia concentrations in the 
    source water were <1 cysts/100="" l,="" 1-9="" cysts/100="" l,="" 10-99="" cysts/100="" l,="" and="" 100="" cysts/100="" l="" or="" more,="" respectively.="" this="" assumption="" is="" consistent="" with="" current="" epa="" guidance="" (epa,="" 1991a).="" because="" of="" the="" limited="" data,="" epa="" used="" the="" dbpram="" only="" for="" the="" category="" of="" surface="" water="" systems="" that="" serve="" at="" least="" 10,000="" people="" and="" practice="" coagulation,="" sedimentation,="" and="" filtration,="" but="" do="" not="" soften="" the="" water.="" collectively="" this="" group="" of="" systems="" provides="" water="" to="" about="" 103="" million="" people.="" epa="" assumed="" as="" part="" of="" the="" modeling="" effort="" that="" (1)="" giardia="" densities="" in="" source="" waters="" in="" the="" u.s.="" are="" represented="" by="" the="" survey="" data="" of="" lechevallier="" et="" al.="" (1991a),="" (2)="" systems="" are="" using,="" or="" will="" use,="" the="" least="" expensive="" technologies="" to="" comply="" with="" the="" swtr="" and="" existing="" tthm="" standard,="" and="" (3)="" systems="" comply="" only="" minimally="" with="" both="" the="" swtr="" (i.e.,="" provide="" a="" 3-log="" removal/inactivation="" of="" giardia="" cysts="" and="" maintain="" a="" disinfectant="" residual="" throughout="" the="" distribution="" system)="" and="" the="" existing="" tthm="" standard.="" using="" these="" assumptions,="" the="" model="" predicts="" that,="" without="" revising="" the="" swtr,="" several="" hundred="" thousand="" people="" would="" become="" infected="" by="" giardia="" each="" year.="" these="" predicted="" risks="" may="" be="" significantly="" overstated="" because="" many="" systems="" currently="" appear="" to="" provide="" more="" treatment="" than="" is="" minimally="" required="" under="" the="" swtr="" (lechevallier="" et="" al.,="" 1991b).="" also,="" concentrations="" of="" giardia="" cysts="" in="" source="" waters="" in="" the="" u.s.="" may="" be="" significantly="" less="" than="" those="" indicated="" by="" the="" survey="" results="" of="" lechevallier="" et="" al.="" (1991a),="" which="" did="" not="" cover="" all="" geographical="" locations.="" the="" dbpram="" also="" predicted="" that,="" in="" the="" absence="" of="" any="" revision="" to="" the="" swtr,="" as="" the="" hypothetical="" mcl="" for="" dbps="" decreases="" (i.e.,="" either="" for="" tthms="" or="" the="" sum="" of="" five="" haloacetic="" acids),="" the="" incidence="" of="" giardia="" infection="" significantly="" increases.="" one="" reason="" for="" this="" result="" is="" that="" lower="" mcls="" would="" lead="" systems="" to="" use="" more="" efficient="" precursor="" removal="" technologies,="" resulting="" in="" a="" lower="" disinfectant="" demand="" in="" the="" water.="" therefore,="" since="" less="" disinfectant="" is="" necessary,="" a="" lower="" ct="" value="" may="" result="" at="" the="" first="" customer.="" without="" the="" removal="" of="" dbp="" precursors="" (or="" associated="" disinfectant="" demand),="" systems="" would="" need="" to="" maintain="" a="" higher="" ct="" value="" at="" the="" first="" customer="" to="" maintain="" a="" disinfectant="" residual="" throughout="" the="" distribution="" system.="" a="" second="" reason="" why="" the="" predicted="" incidence="" of="" giardia="" infection="" increases="" as="" the="" mcl="" for="" dbps="" is="" lowered="" is="" that="" the="" model="" assumes="" that="" many="" systems="" would="" switch="" to="" chloramine="" as="" a="" residual="" disinfectant,="" or="" to="" ozone="" followed="" by="" chloramine,="" to="" limit="" the="" formation="" of="" chlorinated="" dbps.="" chloramine="" is="" a="" weaker="" disinfectant="" than="" chlorine="" and="" consequently="" would="" result="" in="" less="" giardia="" inactivation.="" similarly,="" the="" model="" also="" assumes="" that="" if="" a="" system="" were="" to="" switch="" to="" ozone="" for="" primary="" disinfection,="" followed="" by="" chloramine,="" the="" system="" would="" provide="" only="" enough="" disinfection="" to="" inactivate="" 0.5="" logs="" of="" giardia="" to="" minimally="" meet="" the="" swtr="" (assuming="" that="" 2.5="" log="" of="" giardia="" removal="" is="" achieved="" by="" physical="" means).="" this="" latter="" assumption="" may="" underestimate="" the="" actual="" level="" of="" giardia="" inactivation="" that="" a="" system="" would="" likely="" provide,="" since="" for="" a="" relatively="" small="" increase="" in="" cost="" compared="" to="" that="" for="" ozone="" installation,="" the="" system="" could="" achieve="" (by="" increasing="" the="" ozone="" dose="" or="" contact="" time)="" a="" significantly="" greater="" level="" of="" inactivation="" than="" the="" 3-="" log="" reduction="" specified="" by="" the="" swtr="" for="" giardia.="" the="" dbpram="" also="" predicts="" that="" under="" more="" stringent="" dbp="" standards,="" if="" such="" systems="" were="" to="" only="" minimally="" meet="" the="" swtr,="" the="" incidence="" of="" waterborne="" disease="" outbreaks="" would="" significantly="" increase="" in="" systems="" with="" the="" worst="" quality="" source="" waters="" (but="" apparently="" not="" in="" those="" with="" good="" quality="" source="" waters)="" (grubbs="" et="" al.,="" 1992;="" regli="" et="" al.,="" 1993).="" in="" its="" modeling="" effort,="" epa="" defined="" waterborne="" disease="" outbreaks="" (epidemic="" disease)="" as="" one="" in="" which="" at="" least="" 1%="" of="" the="" population="" became="" infected="" (conservatively="" used="" as="" an="" indicator="" for="" illness)="" within="" a="" 30-="" day="" period;="" this="" definition="" was="" used="" because="" epa="" believes="" that="" at="" incidence="" lower="" than="" 1%="" health="" authorities="" are="" generally="" not="" aware="" that="" an="" outbreak="" is="" in="" progress,="" unless="" the="" disease="" is="" typically="" very="" debilitating="" or="" life-threatening.="" according="" to="" harrington="" et="" al.="" (1985),="" the="" total="" cost="" of="" disease="" avoidance="" behavior,="" such="" as="" boiling="" or="" purchase="" of="" bottled="" water="" by="" the="" entire="" community,="" during="" an="" outbreak="" far="" exceeds="" the="" total="" cost="" of="" treating="" the="" illness.="" the="" dbpram="" predicts="" that="" eswtr="" compliance,="" as="" described="" above,="" would="" result="" in="" no="" more="" than="" a="" few="" hundred="" infections="" caused="" by="" waterborne="" giardia="" per="" year="" per="" 100="" million="" people.="" this="" is="" several="" hundred="" thousand="" cases="" fewer="" than="" predicted="" in="" the="" absence="" of="" an="" eswtr.="" in="" the="" absence="" of="" more="" data="" and="" for="" the="" purpose="" of="" simplicity,="" the="" model="" assumes="" that="" systems="" would="" use="" the="" arithmetic="" mean="" (based="" on="" lechevallier="" et="" al.,="" 1991a)="" to="" calculate="" pathogen="" densities,="" and="" use="" the="" coldest="" water="" temperature="" and="" maximum="" flow="" rate="" (design="" rate)="" to="" determine="" disinfection="" conditions="" at="" which="" plants="" would="" operate.="" use="" of="" the="" arithmetic="" mean="" may="" underestimate="" the="" predicted="" risk="" since="" values="" above="" the="" mean="" may="" result="" in="" a="" greater="" number="" of="" infections="" than="" values="" below="" the="" mean.="" in="" contrast,="" using="" the="" design="" flow="" rate="" throughout="" the="" year="" for="" model="" predictions="" overestimates="" the="" predicted="" risk,="" because="" the="" flow="" rate="" should="" be="" significantly="" less="" during="" colder="" weather,="" which="" would="" result="" in="" longer="" contact="" times="" and="" greater="" ct="" values,="" and="" therefore="" greater="" inactivation="" of="" giardia="" than="" if="" the="" system="" operated="" under="" design="" flow="" conditions="" during="" this="" period.="" in="" addition,="" use="" of="" the="" coldest="" water="" temperature="" throughout="" the="" year="" for="" model="" predictions="" also="" overestimates="" the="" predicted="" risk,="" because="" disinfectants="" are="" more="" effective="" at="" warmer="" water="" temperatures="" for="" a="" given="" ct.="" in="" the="" absence="" of="" more="" data,="" epa="" cannot="" determine="" whether="" the="" model="" assumptions,="" collectively,="" may="" significantly="" bias="" the="" model="" predictions.="" epa="" solicits="" comment="" on="" this="" issue="" and="" requests="" suggestions="" on="" how="" epa="" can="" improve="" the="" assumptions="" in="" the="" model,="" based="" upon="" data="" collected="" under="" the="" icr="" (59="" fr="" 6332;="" proposed="" february="" 10,="" 1994).="" the="" model="" also="" predicts="" that="" if="" systems="" complied="" with="" an="" eswtr,="" no="" waterborne="" disease="" outbreaks="" (as="" defined="" above)="" attributed="" to="" giardia="" would="" occur.="" since="" giardia="" is="" more="" resistant="" to="" disinfection="" than="" most="" other="" pathogens="" (cryptosporidium="" being="" a="" notable="" exception),="" epa="" assumes="" that="" the="" incidence="" of="" waterborne="" disease="" caused="" by="" other="" pathogens="" would="" also="" be="" substantially="" reduced.="" the="" disease,="" giardiasis,="" causes="" a="" gastrointestinal="" disorder="" that="" may="" be="" mild="" or="" severe="" and="" incapacitating,="" and="" that="" generally="" lasts="" from="" one="" to="" four="" weeks.="" although="" mortality="" is="" very="" low="" (0.0001%),="" some="" patients,="" including="" otherwise="" healthy="" individuals,="" require="" hospitalization="" (about="" 4600="" annually)="" (bennett="" et="" al.,="" 1987;="" addiss="" and="" lengerich,="" 1994).="" an="" individual="" with="" giardiasis="" typically="" has="" one="" or="" more="" of="" the="" following="" symptoms:="" diarrhea,="" cramps,="" abdominal="" distress,="" flatulence,="" fatigue,="" vomiting,="" chills,="" fever,="" and="" marked="" weight="" loss.="" in="" one="" study="" of="" 105="" stool-positive="" cases="" of="" travelers="" returning="" to="" the="" u.s.,="" 39="" percent="" had="" mild="" symptoms,="" 41="" percent="" had="" moderate="" symptoms,="" 6.7="" percent="" had="" incapacitating="" or="" severe="" symptoms,="" and="" 13.3="" percent="" had="" no="" symptoms="" (wolfe,="" 1990).="" all="" age="" groups="" are="" affected.="" the="" average="" time="" between="" infection="" and="" the="" onset="" of="" disease="" is="" about="" two="" weeks,="" although="" this="" may="" vary="" considerably.="" chronic="" cases="" that="" persist="" for="" months="" or="" longer="" are="" not="" uncommon.="" in="" the="" original="" swtr="" regulatory="" impact="" analysis="" (epa,="" 1989a),="" the="" estimated="" economic="" cost="" associated="" with="" waterborne="" giardiasis="" was="" based="" on="" a="" study="" of="" costs="" incurred="" during="" an="" outbreak="" of="" waterborne="" giardiasis="" in="" 1983="" that="" occurred="" in="" scranton,="" pennsylvania="" (harrington,="" et="" al.,="" 1985).="" in="" this="" study,="" the="" investigators="" estimated="" that="" the="" medical="" cost="" and="" the="" cost="" of="" time="" lost="" from="" work="" associated="" with="" the="" outbreak="" was="" in="" the="" range="" of="" $1245="" to="" $1878="" per="" case="" (1984="" dollars).="" the="" lower="" cost="" values="" the="" time="" loss="" for="" homemakers,="" retired="" persons,="" and="" unemployed="" persons="" as="" zero,="" while="" the="" higher="" cost="" values="" the="" time="" loss="" for="" these="" people="" at="" the="" average="" wage="" rate.="" the="" above="" estimate="" was="" based="" on="" the="" results="" of="" a="" survey="" of="" 370="" people="" who="" had="" ``confirmed''="" cases="" of="" giardiasis,="" i.e.,="" a="" positive="" stool="" sample.="" epa="" assumed="" in="" the="" analysis="" that="" the="" costs="" associated="" with="" confirmed="" cases="" are="" representative="" of="" the="" costs="" associated="" with="" those="" who="" had="" symptoms="" of="" giardiasis,="" but="" where="" no="" stool="" sample="" was="" examined,="" since="" medical="" costs="" (minus="" the="" cost="" for="" a="" stool="" specimen="" examination)="" and="" cost="" for="" time="" lost="" from="" work="" should="" be="" similar="" when="" symptoms="" are="" similar.="" the="" $1245-$1878="" estimate="" above="" does="" not="" take="" into="" account="" fatalities="" associated="" with="" waterborne="" disease.="" according="" to="" bennett="" et="" al.="" (1987),="" about="" 0.1="" percent="" of="" cases="" of="" waterborne="" disease="" are="" fatal.="" although="" these="" investigators="" estimate="" that="" the="" mortality="" rate="" for="" giardiasis="" is="" much="" lower="" than="" 0.1="" percent,="" epa="" believes="" that="" control="" of="" giardia="" will="" also="" control="" other="" waterborne="" disease="" agents="" that="" have="" a="" higher="" mortality="" rate="" than="" giardia.="" therefore,="" by="" omitting="" the="" risk="" of="" mortality="" associated="" with="" waterborne="" disease,="" epa's="" analysis="" may="" represent="" a="" significant="" underestimate="" of="" the="" benefits.="" in="" addition,="" epa's="" analysis="" did="" not="" consider="" benefits="" associated="" with="" avoiding="" the="" economic="" and="" psychological="" costs="" to="" the="" affected="" community="" (including="" businesses="" and="" government)="" associated="" with="" a="" waterborne="" disease="" outbreak,="" nor="" did="" it="" consider="" the="" benefits="" of="" additional="" public="" confidence="" in="" an="" enhanced="" water="" supply.="" these="" benefits="" were="" not="" considered="" in="" the="" analysis="" because="" of="" the="" difficulty="" of="" quantifying="" them.="" adjusting="" the="" $1878/case="" value="" for="" inflation="" (through="" 1993),="" and="" including="" a="" factor="" for="" willingness-to-pay,="" epa="" estimates="" the="" benefit="" would="" be="" $3,000="" per="" giardia="" infection="" avoided.="" using="" this="" estimate,="" the="" 400,000="" to="" 500,000="" giardia="" infections="" per="" year="" that="" could="" be="" avoided="" in="" large="" surface="" water="" systems="" would="" have="" an="" economic="" value="" of="" $1.2="" to="" $1.5="" billion="" per="" year.="" this="" suggests="" that="" the="" benefit="" nationwide="" of="" avoiding="" giardia="" infections="" in="" large="" systems="" is="" as="" much="" as="" three="" or="" four="" times="" greater="" than="" the="" estimated="" $391="" million="" national="" cost="" per="" year="" to="" provide="" additional="" disinfectant="" contact="" time.="" at="" a="" household="" level,="" the="" interim="" eswtr="" would="" impose="" costs="" ranging="" from="" $11-="" $49/household/year="" in="" systems="" serving="" 15,000="" people="" to="" $3-="" $24/household/year="" in="" systems="" serving="" 1,550,000.="" household="" costs="" are="" a="" useful="" guide="" for="" examining="" cost-benefit="" tradeoffs,="" because="" they="" are="" easier="" to="" understand="" in="" assessing="" the="" public's="" willingness="" to="" pay="" for="" a="" more="" stringent="" rule.="" epa="" does="" not="" believe="" that="" the="" household="" costs="" predicted="" by="" this="" analysis="" represents="" an="" unreasonable="" premium="" for="" the="" systems="" affected="" by="" the="" interim="" eswtr,="" considering="" the="" nature="" of="" microbial="" risk.="" there="" are="" at="" least="" three="" approaches="" for="" examining="" the="" tradeoff="" between="" costs="" and="" benefits.="" one="" approach="" is="" to="" determine="" the="" cost="" of="" the="" eswtr="" alone.="" in="" a="" second="" approach,="" epa="" could="" use="" the="" combined="" cost="" of="" the="" swtr="" and="" eswtr,="" since="" customers="" of="" many="" water="" systems="" are="" already="" paying,="" or="" will="" soon="" be="" paying,="" an="" extra="" premium="" for="" microbial="" protection="" as="" a="" result="" of="" the="" original="" swtr.="" if="" this="" second="" approach="" is="" used="" (the="" most="" expensive="" estimate="" of="" eswtr="" cost),="" and="" if="" the="" cost="" of="" the="" original="" swtr="" is="" adjusted="" for="" inflation="" and="" factored="" into="" the="" above="" analysis,="" the="" overall="" ratio="" of="" benefits="" to="" costs="" would="" still="" be="" about="" a="" break-even="" proposition.="" household="" costs="" would="" be="" significantly="" higher="" for="" previously="" unfiltered="" systems="" and="" modestly="" higher="" for="" previously="" filtered="" systems.="" in="" the="" third="" approach,="" epa="" could="" assume="" that="" a="" large="" share="" of="" the="" cost="" of="" an="" eswtr="" should="" be="" borne="" by="" the="" dbp="" rule,="" since="" the="" treatment="" changes="" needed="" to="" meet="" more="" stringent="" dbp="" regulations="" may="" increase="" the="" pathogen="" risk="" that="" the="" eswtr="" must="" address.="" the="" accounting="" difficulty="" of="" sorting="" between="" microbial="" and="" dbp="" costs="" will="" become="" even="" more="" complicated="" later="" in="" developing="" the="" long-="" term="" eswtr,="" which="" will="" cover="" small="" systems.="" household="" costs="" for="" providing="" additional="" disinfectant="" contact="" time="" in="" small="" systems="" are="" significantly="" greater="" than="" those="" for="" the="" larger="" systems.="" however,="" it="" is="" not="" clear="" that="" small="" systems="" will="" choose="" to="" meet="" the="" long-term="" eswtr="" by="" increasing="" the="" contact="" time.="" such="" options="" as="" small="" scale="" membrane="" treatment="" systems="" may="" provide="" a="" more="" economical="" means="" of="" meeting="" both="" microbial="" and="" dbp="" treatment="" requirements="" simultaneously.="" in="" that="" case,="" the="" microbial="" and="" dbp-related="" control="" costs="" would="" be="" truly="" indistinguishable="" from="" each="" other.="" a="" similar="" analysis="" to="" the="" one="" described="" above="" for="" giardia="" is="" not="" yet="" feasible="" for="" cryptosporidium="" because="" of="" much="" greater="" data="" deficiencies.="" the="" analysis="" of="" national="" benefits="" for="" the="" different="" eswtr="" options="" must="" remain="" highly="" speculative,="" even="" for="" giardia,="" until="" more="" data="" become="" available.="" epa="" intends="" to="" develop="" a="" more="" complete="" cost="" and="" benefit="" analysis="" for="" the="" different="" eswtr="" options="" based="" on="" data="" generated="" under="" the="" icr="" and="" complementary="" research.="" this="" analysis="" would="" examine="" the="" costs="" of="" the="" various="" treatment="" options="" indicated="" in="" section="" iiie="" above,="" using="" various="" statistical="" approaches="" to="" calculate="" pathogen="" densities="" (e.g.,="" mean="" value="" versus="" 90th="" percentile="" value),="" acceptable="" risk="" levels,="" pathogen="" infectivities,="" and="" various="" assumptions="" about="" the="" analytical="" methods="" (e.g.,="" cyst/oocyst="" viability,="" percent="" recovery)="" and="" include="" a="" broader="" discussion="" of="" the="" benefits.="" epa="" intends="" to="" present="" such="" analysis="" in="" a="" notice="" of="" availability="" in="" the="" federal="" register="" by="" november="" 1995.="" this="" notice="" will="" indicate="" the="" basis="" for="" epa's="" preferred="" eswtr="" option(s)="" and="" solicit="" comment="" on="" the="" appropriateness="" for="" promulgating="" this="" option(s)="" as="" part="" of="" the="" interim="" eswtr.="" epa="" solicits="" comment="" on="" approaches="" that="" can="" be="" used="" for="" this="" analysis.="" vii.="" other="" statutory="" requirements="" a.="" executive="" order="" 12866="" 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="" entitlement,="" 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="" will="" have="" an="" annual="" effect="" on="" the="" economy="" of="" $100="" million="" or="" more.="" as="" such,="" this="" action="" was="" submitted="" to="" omb="" for="" review.="" changes="" made="" in="" response="" to="" omb="" suggestions="" or="" recommendations="" will="" be="" documented="" in="" the="" public="" record.="" b.="" regulatory="" flexibility="" act="" the="" regulatory="" flexibility="" act,="" 5="" u.s.c.="" 602="" et="" seq.,="" requires="" epa="" to="" explicitly="" consider="" the="" effect="" of="" proposed="" regulation="" on="" small="" entities.="" by="" policy,="" epa="" has="" decided="" to="" consider="" regulatory="" alternatives="" if="" there="" is="" any="" economic="" impact="" on="" any="" number="" of="" small="" entities.="" the="" small="" business="" administration="" defines="" a="" ``small="" water="" utility''="" as="" one="" which="" serves="" fewer="" than="" 3,300="" people.="" the="" proposed="" rule="" is="" consistent="" with="" the="" objectives="" of="" the="" regulatory="" flexibility="" act="" because="" it="" will="" not="" have="" any="" economic="" impact="" on="" any="" small="" entities.="" except="" for="" the="" sanitary="" survey="" requirement,="" which="" epa="" believes="" will="" be="" conducted="" by="" states,="" the="" rule="" would="" only="" apply="" to="" systems="" serving="" at="" least="" 10,000="" people.="" therefore,="" the="" agency="" believes="" that="" this="" notice="" would="" have="" no="" adverse="" effect="" on="" any="" number="" of="" small="" entities.="" c.="" paperwork="" reduction="" act="" the="" information="" collection="" requirements="" in="" this="" proposed="" rule="" have="" been="" submitted="" for="" approval="" to="" the="" office="" of="" management="" and="" budget="" (omb)="" under="" the="" paperwork="" reduction="" act,="" 44="" u.s.c.="" 3501="" et="" seq.="" an="" information="" collection="" request="" document="" has="" been="" prepared="" by="" epa="" (icr="" no.="" 270.32)="" and="" a="" copy="" may="" be="" obtained="" from="" sandy="" farmer,="" information="" policy="" branch="" (mc:2136),="" epa,="" 401="" m="" street,="" sw,="" washington,="" dc="" 20460,="" or="" by="" calling="" (202)="" 260-2740.="" the="" reporting="" and="" recordkeeping="" burden="" for="" this="" proposed="" collection="" of="" information="" will="" be="" phased="" in="" starting="" in="" 1997.="" the="" specific="" burden="" anticipated="" for="" each="" category="" of="" respondent,="" by="" year,="" is="" shown="" below:="" 1997="" public="" water="" systems--monitoring="" and="" reporting="" hours="" per="" respondent:="" 0="" total="" hours:="" 0="" public="" water="" systems--recordkeeping="" hours="" per="" respondent:="" 0="" total="" hours:="" 0="" state="" program="" costs--reporting="" hours="" per="" respondent:="" 1,599="" total="" hours:="" 89,518="" state="" program="" costs--recordkeeping="" hours="" per="" respondent:="" 16="" total="" hours:="" 904="" 1998="" public="" water="" systems--monitoring="" and="" reporting="" hours="" per="" respondent:="" 0="" total="" hours:="" 0="" public="" water="" systems--recordkeeping="" hours="" per="" respondent:="" 0="" total="" hours:="" 0="" state="" program="" costs--reporting="" hours="" per="" respondent:="" 1,149="" total="" hours:="" 64,337="" state="" program="" costs--recordkeeping="" hours="" per="" respondent:="" 12="" total="" hours:="" 650="" 1999="" public="" water="" systems--monitoring="" and="" reporting="" hours="" per="" respondent:="" 0="" total="" hours:="" 0="" public="" water="" systems--recordkeeping="" hours="" per="" respondent:="" 0="" total="" hours:="" 0="" state="" program="" costs--reporting="" hours="" per="" respondent:="" 699="" total="" hours:="" 39,157="" state="" program="" costs--recordkeeping="" hours="" per="" respondent:="" 7="" total="" hours:="" 396="" send="" comments="" regarding="" the="" burden="" estimate="" or="" any="" other="" aspect="" of="" this="" collection="" of="" information,="" including="" suggestions="" for="" reducing="" this="" burden,="" to="" chief,="" information="" policy="" branch="" (mc:2136),="" epa,="" 401="" m="" street,="" sw,="" washington,="" dc="" 20460;="" and="" to="" the="" office="" of="" information="" and="" regulatory="" affairs,="" opm,="" washington,="" dc="" 20503,="" marked="" ``attention:="" desk="" officer="" for="" epa.''="" the="" final="" rule="" will="" respond="" to="" any="" omb="" or="" public="" comments="" on="" the="" information="" collection="" requirements="" contained="" in="" this="" proposal.="" d.="" science="" advisory="" board,="" national="" drinking="" water="" advisory="" council,="" and="" secretary="" of="" health="" and="" human="" services="" in="" accordance="" with="" section="" 1412="" (d)="" and="" (e)="" of="" the="" sdwa,="" epa="" consulted="" with="" the="" science="" advisory="" board,="" national="" drinking="" water="" advisory="" council,="" and="" secretary="" of="" health="" and="" human="" services="" and="" requested="" their="" comments="" in="" developing="" this="" rule.="" e.="" consultation="" with="" state,="" local,="" and="" tribal="" governments="" two="" executive="" orders="" (e.o.="" 12875,="" enhancing="" intergovernmental="" partnerships,="" and="" e.o.="" 12866,="" regulatory="" planning="" and="" review)="" explicitly="" require="" federal="" agencies="" to="" consult="" with="" state,="" local,="" and="" tribal="" entities="" in="" the="" development="" of="" rules="" and="" policies="" that="" will="" affect="" them,="" and="" to="" document="" what="" they="" did,="" the="" issues="" that="" were="" raised,="" and="" how="" the="" issues="" were="" addressed.="" as="" described="" in="" section="" i="" of="" today's="" rule,="" sdwa="" section="" 1412="" requires="" epa="" to="" promulgate="" npdwrs,="" to="" review="" each="" npdwr="" every="" three="" years,="" and="" to="" revise="" it="" as="" appropriate.="" in="" 1989,="" epa="" issued="" the="" swtr,="" in="" accordance="" with="" sdwa="" section="" 1412(b)(7)(c).="" that="" rule="" went="" into="" effect="" in="" 1991.="" that="" rule="" has="" since="" been="" reviewed="" and="" is="" being="" reproposed="" today.="" this="" proposal,="" which="" pertains="" only="" to="" systems="" serving="" more="" than="" 10,000="" persons,="" contains="" several="" options="" for="" final="" promulgation.="" depending="" on="" the="" option="" selected,="" pwss="" with="" poorer="" quality="" source="" waters="" may="" need="" to="" remove="" microbiological="" contaminants="" above="" levels="" currently="" required="" under="" the="" swtr.="" pwss="" may="" also="" be="" required="" to="" treat="" for="" cryptosporidium.="" there="" are="" currently="" insufficient="" data="" to="" develop="" an="" annual="" cost="" estimate="" of="" compliance="" with="" this="" rule.="" in="" 1992,="" epa="" considered="" entering="" into="" a="" negotiated="" rulemaking="" on="" a="" related="" disinfectant/disinfection="" by-products="" rule="" primarily="" because="" no="" clear="" path="" for="" addressing="" all="" the="" major="" issues="" associated="" with="" the="" d/="" dbp="" rule="" was="" apparent.="" epa="" hired="" a="" facilitator="" to="" explore="" this="" option="" with="" external="" stakeholders="" and,="" in="" november="" 1992,="" decided="" to="" proceed="" with="" the="" negotiation.="" the="" 18="" negotiators,="" including="" epa,="" met="" from="" november="" 1992="" until="" june="" 1993="" at="" which="" time="" agreement="" was="" reached="" on="" the="" content="" of="" the="" d/dbp="" proposed="" rule.="" that="" rule="" is="" proposed="" elsewhere="" in="" today's="" federal="" register.="" during="" the="" negotiations,="" the="" negotiators="" identified="" the="" possible="" need="" for="" a="" companion="" rule="" on="" surface="" water="" treatment.="" the="" purpose="" of="" the="" companion="" rule="" was="" to="" guard="" against="" the="" possibility="" of="" increasing="" microbial="" risk="" while="" controlling="" for="" disinfectant/disinfection="" byproduct="" risk.="" the="" contents="" of="" today's="" proposed="" regulatory="" and="" preamble="" language="" for="" enhanced="" surface="" water="" treatment="" have="" been="" agreed="" to="" by="" the="" 17="" negotiators="" who="" remained="" at="" the="" table="" through="" june="" 1993.="" a="" summary="" of="" those="" negotiations="" is="" contained="" in="" section="" ii.="" the="" negotiators="" included="" persons="" representing="" state="" and="" local="" governments.="" at="" the="" table="" were:="" (1)="" association="" of="" state="" drinking="" water="" administrators,="" a="" group="" representing="" state="" government="" officials="" responsible="" for="" implementing="" the="" regulations,="" (2)="" association="" of="" state="" and="" territorial="" health="" officials,="" a="" group="" representing="" statewide="" public="" health="" interests="" and="" the="" need="" to="" balance="" spending="" on="" a="" variety="" of="" health="" priorities,="" (3)="" national="" association="" of="" regulated="" utilities="" commissioners,="" a="" group="" representing="" funding="" concerns="" at="" the="" state="" level,="" (4)="" national="" association="" of="" county="" health="" officials,="" a="" group="" representing="" local="" government="" general="" public="" health="" interests,="" (5)="" national="" league="" of="" cities,="" a="" group="" representing="" local="" elected="" and="" appointed="" officials="" responsible="" for="" balancing="" spending="" needs="" across="" all="" government="" services,="" (6)="" national="" association="" of="" state="" utility="" consumer="" advocates,="" a="" group="" representing="" consumer="" interests="" at="" the="" state="" level,="" and="" (7)="" national="" consumer="" law="" center,="" a="" group="" representing="" consumer="" interests="" at="" the="" local="" level.="" in="" addition,="" several="" associations="" representing="" public="" municipal="" and="" investor-owned="" water="" systems="" also="" served="" on="" the="" committee.="" as="" part="" of="" the="" negotiation="" process,="" each="" of="" these="" representatives="" was="" responsible="" for="" obtaining="" endorsement="" from="" their="" respective="" organization="" on="" the="" positions="" they="" took="" at="" the="" negotiations="" and="" on="" the="" final="" signed="" agreement.="" during="" the="" negotiations,="" the="" group="" heard="" from="" many="" other="" parties="" who="" attended="" the="" public="" negotiations="" and="" were="" invited="" to="" express="" their="" views.="" as="" is="" true="" with="" any="" negotiation,="" all="" sides="" presented="" initial="" positions="" which="" were="" ultimately="" modified="" to="" obtain="" consensus="" from="" all="" sides.="" however,="" all="" parties="" mentioned="" above="" signed="" the="" final="" agreement="" on="" behalf="" of="" their="" associations.="" this="" agreement="" reflected="" basic="" consensus="" that="" the="" possible="" cost="" of="" the="" rule="" would="" be="" offset="" by="" its="" public="" health="" benefits="" and="" its="" promotion="" of="" responsible="" drinking="" water="" treatment="" practices.="" the="" only="" original="" negotiator="" who="" did="" not="" sign="" the="" agreement="" left="" the="" negotiations="" in="" march="" 1993.="" that="" negotiator="" represented="" the="" national="" rural="" water="" association="" (nrwa),="" a="" group="" representing="" primarily="" small="" public="" and="" private="" water="" systems.="" at="" the="" time="" that="" group="" left="" the="" negotiations,="" they="" were="" objecting="" to="" the="" cost="" of="" the="" d/dbp="" rule,="" which="" applies="" to="" all="" system="" sizes.="" except="" for="" a="" sanitary="" survey="" requirement="" that="" epa="" believes="" will="" be="" conducted="" by="" states,="" the="" interim="" eswtr="" would="" only="" apply="" to="" systems="" serving="" greater="" than="" 10,000="" persons="" and="" thus="" does="" not="" affect="" nrwa="" members.="" earlier="" in="" the="" negotiations,="" nrwa="" accepted="" the="" position="" that="" any="" control="" of="" disinfectants="" and="" disinfection="" by-products="" should="" not="" come="" at="" the="" expense="" of="" decreased="" protection="" from="" microbial="" contamination.="" the="" nrwa="" position="" that="" small="" systems="" should="" meet="" a="" less="" stringent="" trihalomethane="" standard="" than="" larger="" systems="" was="" rejected="" by="" the="" remaining="" negotiators,="" several="" of="" whom="" also="" represent="" small="" water="" systems.="" the="" contents="" of="" today's="" proposed="" rule="" has="" been="" available="" to="" the="" public="" for="" several="" months="" as="" part="" of="" the="" regulatory="" negotiation="" signature="" process.="" epa="" has="" briefed="" numerous="" groups,="" including="" government="" organizations,="" on="" its="" contents.="" the="" agency="" has="" received="" several="" letters="" from="" public="" water="" systems="" objecting="" to="" the="" cost="" of="" the="" proposed="" rule="" and="" questioning="" its="" potential="" health="" benefit.="" these="" letters="" are="" contained="" in="" the="" public="" docket="" supporting="" today's="" rule.="" the="" agency="" recognizes="" that="" many="" persons="" are="" concerned="" whether="" the="" proposed="" rule="" is="" warranted.="" the="" technical="" issues="" are="" complex.="" the="" process="" needed="" to="" develop="" a="" common="" level="" of="" understanding="" among="" the="" negotiators="" as="" to="" what="" was="" known="" and="" unknown="" and="" what="" are="" reasonable="" estimates="" of="" potential="" costs="" and="" benefits="" was="" time-consuming.="" it="" is="" unreasonable="" to="" expect="" persons="" not="" at="" the="" negotiating="" table="" to="" have="" that="" same="" level="" of="" understanding="" and="" to="" all="" share="" the="" same="" view.="" however,="" the="" discussions="" throughout="" the="" negotiated="" rulemaking="" process="" were="" informed="" by="" a="" broad="" spectrum="" of="" opinions.="" the="" agency="" believes="" this="" consensus="" proposal="" is="" not="" only="" the="" preferred="" approach="" but="" one="" which="" will="" generate="" informed="" debate="" and="" comment.="" viii.="" request="" for="" public="" comment="" epa="" solicited="" public="" comments="" on="" specific="" issues="" earlier="" in="" the="" preamble="" and="" welcomes="" comments="" on="" any="" other="" issue="" the="" public="" may="" wish="" to="" address.="" for="" ease="" in="" referring="" to="" requests="" for="" comments="" we="" are="" listing="" them="" below.="" in="" addition,="" at="" the="" end="" of="" this="" section,="" the="" agency="" is="" requesting="" comment="" on="" other="" issues="" not="" addressed="" earlier="" in="" the="" preamble.=""> (III.C) Rationale for setting MCLG of zero and a treatment 
    technique for Cryptosporidium
         (III.D.1) Ground water under the direct influence of 
    surface water
    
    --Including Cryptosporidium in rule language in definition of ground 
    water under the direct influence of surface water
    --Revising guidance defining ground water under the influence of 
    surface water
    --Most appropriate procedure for determining credits for removal/
    inactivation and treatment requirements for systems using ground waters 
    under the direct influence of surface water
    
         (III.D.3) Sanitary surveys
    
    --Prerequisites for individuals performing sanitary survey (academic 
    degree, etc.)
    --Revisions needed in SWTR Guidance Manual for conducting sanitary 
    survey for filtered systems and for evaluating vulnerability to 
    Cryptosporidium
    --Frequency of sanitary surveys (three vs. five years)
    
         (III.D.4) Possible supplemental requirements
    
    --Whether to publish national rule to require systems to cover finished 
    water reservoirs and storage tanks, or whether this should be left to 
    State discretion. What would the cost be for such a rule, and what 
    waiver provisions would be appropriate.
    --Whether EPA should require States and/or systems to have a cross- 
    connection control program; what specific criteria, if any, should be 
    included therein; how often such a program should be evaluated; under 
    what conditions a waiver could be granted; and whether only those 
    connections identified as a cross-connection by the public water system 
    or the State should be subject to a cross-connection program.
    --Identification of measures other than cross-connection control 
    program to prevent the contamination of drinking water already in the 
    distribution system (e.g., minimum pressure requirements in the 
    distribution system).
    --Whether to require systems to notify the State for persistent 
    turbidity levels above the performance standard (but not in violation 
    of this standard)
    
         (III.E) Alternative Treatment Requirements
        1. Options for defining pathogen densities
    
    --Appropriateness of requiring systems whose population served grows to 
    over 10,000 to perform ICR monitoring.
    --Appropriateness of the four approaches for calculating pathogen 
    densities, and whether approach selected should be based on number of 
    pathogen samples collected
    
        2. Treatment alternative for controlling pathogens
    
    --Appropriateness and magnitude of specific acceptable risk levels for 
    microbes
    --Which treatment approach(es) is most appropriate
    --Identification of approaches for achieving levels of pathogen removal 
    greater than 2.5 logs by physical means
    --Utility of extrapolating CT values in SWTR Guidance Manual to predict 
    the effect on pathogens of higher levels of disinfection
    --Appropriateness of two treatment alternatives, with possible 
    variations, for removal of Giardia 
    --Appropriateness of indicated treatment alternatives for 
    Cryptosporidium 
    --Feasibility of removing more than two logs of Cryptosporidium (with 
    and without disinfection being considered). -
    Appropriateness of not
    --Changing treatment specifications in SWTR
    
         (VI) Economic Analysis
    
    --What approaches are reasonable for estimating the national treatment 
    costs of requiring systems to remove a level of Cryptosporidium that 
    would depend on Cryptosporidium densities in the source water
    --Are the system level costs in Table VI-2 for increasing the 
    disinfectant contact time reasonable and accurate
    --The number of systems that might use control measures other than 
    increasing contact basin time requirements and whether the use of such 
    technologies would lead to substantially different cost estimates
    --Assumption in estimating economic impact that treatment changes to 
    control Cryptosporidium will also control Giardia 
    --Soundness of assumptions made in disinfection byproducts risk 
    assessment model (DBPRAM) used to estimate potential risks from Giardia 
    that might result from systems complying with different DBP standards 
    both with the existing SWTR and an ESWTR, and how these assumptions 
    could be improved
    
    Other Issues
    
         How should EPA decide, in developing a forthcoming Notice 
    of Availability, what treatment approach(es) is most suitable for 
    additional public comment?
         What criteria, if any, should the ESWTR include to ensure 
    that systems optimize treatment plant performance?
         Should any turbidity performance criteria in the SWTR be 
    modified? For example, should the ESWTR require systems to base 
    compliance with the turbidity standards on monitoring the turbidity at 
    the effluent of each filter separately, in lieu of (or in addition to) 
    the confluence of all filters? Should any performance standard value be 
    changed?
         To what extent should the ESWTR address the issue of 
    recycling filter backwash, given its potential for increasing the 
    densities of Giardia and Cryptosporidium on the filter?
         Should the ESWTR define minimum certification criteria for 
    surface water treatment plant operators? Currently, the SWTR 
    (Sec. 141.70) requires such systems to be operated by ``qualified 
    personnel who meet the requirements specified by the State.''
         Should the ESWTR include a performance standard(s) for 
    particle removal?
         Under what conditions could systems be allowed different 
    log removal credits than is currently recommended in the SWTR Guidance 
    Manual?
    
    IX. Instructions to Commenters
    
        To ensure that EPA can read, understand and therefore properly 
    respond to comments, the Agency would prefer that commenters type or 
    print comments in ink, and cite, where possible, the paragraph(s) in 
    this proposed regulation (e.g. 141.76(b)) to which each comment refers. 
    Commenters should use a separate paragraph for each method or issue 
    discussed.
    
    X. References
    
    Addiss, DG, and EJ Lengerich (1994). Hypokalemic myopathy induced by 
    Giardia lamblia. N. Engl. J. Med. 330(1):66.
    AWWA. American Water Works Association (1992). Jackson County Oregon 
    cryptosporidiosis outbreaks: January-June 1992. Summary, Expert 
    Meeting, August 3, 4, 1992.
    AWWA. American Water Works Association (1993). Officers & Committee 
    Directory. AWWA, Denver.
    Bailey SW, and EC Lippy (1978). Should all finished water reservoirs 
    be covered. Public Works for April 1978. P. 66-70.
    Bennett JV, SD Holmberg, MF Rogers and SL Solomon (1987). Infectious 
    and parasitic diseases. Am J Prev Med 3: 102-114. In: RW Amler and 
    HB Dull (eds), Closing the gap: the burden of unnecessary illness. 
    Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    Berger PS, S Regli and L Almodovar (1992). Cryptosporidium control 
    in drinking water. Am Water Works Assoc Proceedings, 1992 Annual 
    Conf, Mgmt and Regs, pp 845-864. American Water Works Association, 
    Denver.
    Casemore DP and FB Jackson (1984). Hypothesis: cryptosporidiosis in 
    human beings is not primarily a zoonosis. J Infect 9: 153-156.
    Casemore DP (1990). Epidemiological aspects of human 
    cryptosporidiosis. Epid Infec 104: 1-28.
    CDC. Centers for Disease Control (1982). Cryptosporidiosis: 
    assessment of chemotherapy of males with acquired immune deficiency 
    syndrome (AIDS). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 31: 589-592.
    Clancy JL (1993). Interpretation of microscopic particulate analysis 
    data--a water quality approach. Water Quality Technology Conference 
    Proceedings, 1992, II: 1831-1844. American Water Works Association, 
    Denver.
    Craun G (1991). Causes of waterborne outbreaks in the United States. 
    Wat Sci Technol 24:17-20.
    Craun GF (1993). Conference conclusions. In: (GF Craun, ed.) Safety 
    of Water Disinfection: Balancing Chemical and Microbial Risks. 
    International Life Sciences Inst. Press, Washington.
    Craun G (1994). Memorandum from G. Craun to U.S. Environmental 
    Protection Agency (P. Berger), dated 1/19/94. Waterborne outbreak 
    data 1981-90, community water systems.
    Cromwell JE, Zhang X, Letkiewicz FJ, et al. Analysis of potential 
    tradeoffs in regulation of disinfection by-products. Office of Water 
    Resource Center. Washington D.C. EPA-811-R-92-008. 1992.
    Current WL, NC Reese, JV Ernst, WS Bailey, MB Heyman and WM 
    Weinstein (1983). Human cryptosporidiosis in immunocompetent and 
    immunodeficient persons. New Eng J Med 308(21): 1252-1257.
    D'Antonio RG, RE Winn, JP Taylor, et al. (1985). A waterborne 
    outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in normal hosts. Ann. Intern. Med. 
    103:886-888.
    De Mol P, S Mukashema, J Bogaerts, W Hemelhof and J-P Butzler 
    (1984). Cryptosporidium related to measles diarrhoea in Rwanda. 
    Lancet 2(8393): 42-43.
    EPA. Environmental Protection Agency (1983). Assessment of 
    Microbiology and Turbidity Standards for Drinking Water. EPA 570-9-
    83-001. Washington, DC.
    EPA. Environmental Protection Agency (1989a). Regulatory Impact 
    Analysis: Benefits and Costs of Final Surface Water Treatment Rule, 
    prepared by Wade Miller Associates, Inc., February 17, 1989, 
    Washington, DC.
    EPA. Environmental Protection Agency (1989b). Cross-Connection 
    Control Manual. EPA 570/9-89-007. Washington, DC.
    EPA. Environmental Protection Agency (1991a). Guidance Manual for 
    Compliance With the Filtration and Disinfection Requirements for 
    Public Water Systems Using Surface Water Sources. Washington, DC.
    EPA. Environmental Protection Agency (1991b). Manual of Small Public 
    Water Supply Systems. EPA 570/9-91-003. Washington, DC.
    EPA. Environmental Protection Agency (1991c). Manual of Individual 
    and Non-Public Water Supply Systems. EPA 570/9-91-004. Washington, 
    DC.
    EPA. Environmental Protection Agency (1992). Consensus method for 
    determining groundwaters under the direct influence of surface water 
    using microscopic particulate analysis (MPA). EPA 910/9-92-029.
    EPA. Environmental Protection Agency (1993). Drinking Water Criteria 
    Document for Cryptosporidium (Draft). Office of Science and 
    Technology (Office of Water), EPA, Washington, DC.
    EPA. Environmental Protection Agency (1994). Regulatory Impact 
    Analysis of Proposed Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 
    (Draft). Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
    Ernest J, B Blagburn, D Lindsay and W Current (1986). Infection 
    dynamics of Cryptosporidium parvum (Apicomplexa: Cryptosporidiidae) 
    in neonatal mice (Mus musculus). J Parasitology 72(5):796-798.
    Fayer R, and BLP Ungar (1986). Cryptosporidium spp. and 
    cryptosporidiosis. Microbiol. Rev. 50:458-483.
    Gerba, C, and J. Rose. (1990). Viruses in source and drinking water. 
    Chap.18, pp 380-396. In: G. McFeters (ed), Drinking Water 
    Microbiology. Springer-Verlag, New York.
    Glass RI, JF Lew, RE Gangarosa, CW LeBaron and M-S Ho (1991). 
    Estimates of morbidity and mortality rates for diarrheal diseases in 
    American children. J Pediatrics 118: 27-33.
    Grubbs WD, Macler B. Regli S. (1992). Modelling Giardia occurrence 
    and risk. EPA-811-B-92-005. Office of Water Resource Center. 
    Washington D.C.
    Haas CN, JB Rose, C Gerba, S Regli (1993). Risk assessment of virus 
    in drinking water. Risk Analysis 13: 545-552.
    Harrington, W.A., Krupnick, A.J., and Spofford, W.O.,Jr.. The 
    Benefits of Preventing an Outbreak of Giardiasis Due to Drinking 
    Water Contamination. Resources for the Future, 1616P Street, NW., 
    Washington, DC. September, 1985.
    Hayes EB, TD Matte, TR O'Brien, TW McKinley, GS Logsdon, JB Rose, 
    BLP Ungar, DM Word, PF Pinsky, ML Cummings, MA Wilson, EG Long, ES 
    Hurwitz and DD Juranek (1989). Large community outbreak of 
    cryptosporidiosis due to contamination of a filtered public water 
    supply. New Eng J Med 320: 1372-1376.
    Herwaldt BL, GF Craun, SL Stokes and DD Juranek (1991). Waterborne 
    disease outbreaks, 1989-1990. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries, 
    Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: 40(SS-3): 1-21. Hurst C 
    (1991). Presence of enteric viruses in freshwater and their removal 
    by conventional drinking water treatment process. Bull World Health 
    Org. 69 (1): 113-119.
    Keswick, BH, et al (1985). Inactivation of Norwalk virus in drinking 
    water by chlorine. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 50: 261-264.
    Korich DG, JR Mead, MS Madore, NA Sinclair and CR Sterling (1990). 
    Effects of ozone, chlorine dioxide and monochloramine on 
    Cryptosporidium parvum oocyst viability. Appl Environ Microbiol 56: 
    1423-1428.
    Korich D, M Yozwiak, M Marshall, M Arrowood, N Sinclair, and C 
    Sterling (1992). Cryptosporidium viability: assessment and 
    correlation with infectivity. Water Quality Technology Conference 
    Proceedings, 1991, I: 65-74. American Water Works Assoc, Denver.
    LeChevallier MW, DN Norton and RG Lee (1991a). Occurrence of Giardia 
    and Cryptosporidium spp. in surface water supplies. Appl Environ 
    Microbiol 57: 2610-2616.
    LeChevallier MW, DN Norton and RG Lee (1991b). Giardia and 
    Cryptosporidium spp. in filtered drinking water supplies. Appl 
    Environ Microbiol 57:2617-2621.
    Levine WC and GF Craun (1990). Waterborne disease outbreaks, 1986-
    1988. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly 
    Report 39(SS-1): 1-13.
    Lew JF, RI Glass, RE Gangarosa, IP Cohen, C Bern and CL Moe (1991). 
    Diarrheal deaths in the United States, 1979 through 1987. A special 
    problem for the elderly. J Am Med Assoc 265: 3280-3284.
    Lopez et al. (1980). Waterborne giardiasis: a communitywide outbreak 
    of disease and a high rate of asymptomatic infection. Am J Epid 112: 
    495-507.
    Macler BA and S Regli (1993). Use of microbial risk assessment in 
    setting US drinking water standards. Int J Food Microbiol 18: 245-
    256.
    Miller RA, MA Bronsdon and WR Morton (1990). Experimental 
    cryptosporidiosis in a primate model. J Infect Dis 161: 312-315.
    Moore AC, BL Herwaldt, GF Craun, RL Calderon, AK Highsmith, and DD 
    Juranek (1993). Surveillance for waterborne disease outbreaks--
    United States, 1991-1992. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: 
    42(SS-5): 1-22.
    Payment, 1981. Isolation of viruses from drinking water at the 
    Point-Viau water treatment plant. Can. J. Microbiol. 27:417.
    Payment P, M Trudel, et al., (1985). Elimination of viruses and 
    indicator bacteria at each step of treatment during preparation of 
    drinking water at seven water treatment plants. Appl. Environ. 
    Microbiol. 49:1418-1428.
    Payment P, L Richardson, J Siemiatychi, R Dewar, M Edwardes and E 
    Franco (1991). A randomized trial to evaluate the risk of 
    gastrointestinal disease due to consumption of drinking water 
    meeting current microbiological standards. Am J Publ Health 81: 703-
    708.
    Regli S, JB Rose, CN Haas and CP Gerba (1991). Modeling the risk 
    from Giardia and viruses in drinking water. J Am Water Works Assoc 
    83 (11): 76-84.
    Regli S, JE Cromwell, X Zhang, AB Gelderloos, WD Grubbs, F 
    Letkiewicz and BA Macler (1993). Framework for decision making: EPA 
    perspective. In: (GF Craun, ed.) Safety of water disinfection: 
    Balancing chemical and microbial risk. pp 487-538. International 
    Life Sciences Institute Press, Washington, DC.
    Rendtorff RC (1954). The experimental transmission of human 
    intestinal protozoan parasites. II. Giardia lamblia cysts given in 
    capsules. Am J Hyg 59: 209-220.
    Rose JB, CN Haas and S Regli (1991). Risk assessment and control of 
    waterborne giardiasis. Am J Publ Health 81: 709-713.
    Smith HV, RWA Girdwood, WJ Patterson, et al. (1988). Waterborne 
    outbreak of cryptosporidiosis. Lancet 2: 1484.
    Sobsey MD, F Takashi, and RM Hall (1991). Inactivation of cell-
    associated and dispersed Hepatitis A virus in water. J Am Water 
    Works Assoc 83 (11): 64-67.
    Williams, F (1985). Membrane-associated viral complexes observed in 
    stools and cell culture. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 50:523-526.
    Wittenberg DF, NM Miller and J van den Ende (1989). Spiramycin is 
    not effective in treating Cryptosporidium diarrhea in infants: 
    results of a double-blind randomized trial. J Infect Dis 159(1): 
    131-132.
    Wolfe, MS (1990). Clinical symptoms and diagnosis by traditional 
    methods. Pp. 175-185, In: Giardiasis (EA Meyer, ed.), Elsevier, New 
    York.
    
    List of Subjects
    
    40 CFR Part 141
    
        Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
    requirements, Water supply.
    
    40 CFR Part 142
    
        Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping 
    requirements, Water supply
    
        Dated: June 7, 1994.
    Carol M. Browner,
    Administrator.
    
        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Title 40 of the Code of 
    Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
    
    PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
    
        1. 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.
    
        2. Section 141.2 is amended by revising the definition of ``Ground 
    water under the direct influence of surface water'' to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 141.2  Definitions.
    
    * * * * *
        Ground water under the direct influence of surface water means any 
    water beneath the surface of the ground with:
        (1) Significant occurrence of insects or other macroorganisms, 
    algae, or large-diameter pathogens such as Giardia lamblia or 
    Cryptosporidium, or
        (2) Significant and relatively rapid shifts in water 
    characteristics such as turbidity, temperature, conductivity, or pH 
    which closely correlate to climatological or surface water conditions. 
    Direct influence must be determined for individual sources in 
    accordance with criteria established by the State. The State 
    determination of direct influence may be based on site- specific 
    measurements of water quality and/or documentation of well construction 
    characteristics and geology with field evaluation.
    * * * * *
        3. In Sec. 141.52, the Table is amended by adding a new entry, in 
    numerical order, to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 141.52  Maximum contaminant level goals for microbiological 
    contaminants.
    
    * * * * * 
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Contaminant                              MCLG 
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                    * * * * *                               
    (5) Cryptosporidium.............................................  zero  
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        4. Section 141.71 is amended by revising the first three sentences 
    of paragraph (b)(2) introductory text to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 141.71  Criteria for avoiding filtration.
    
    * * * * *
        (b) * * *
        (2) The public water system must maintain a watershed control 
    program which minimizes the potential for contamination by Giardia 
    lamblia cysts, Cryptosporidium oocysts, and viruses in the source 
    water. The State must determine whether the watershed control program 
    is adequate to meet this goal. The adequacy of a program to limit 
    potential contamination by Giardia lamblia cysts, Cryptosporidium 
    oocysts, and viruses must be based on: * * *
        5. Section 141.73 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 141.73  Filtration.
    
    * * * * *
        (d) Other filtration technologies. A public water system may use a 
    filtration technology not listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 
    section if it demonstrates to the State, using pilot plant studies or 
    other means, that the alternative filtration technology, in combination 
    with disinfection treatment that meets the requirements of 
    Sec. 141.72(b), consistently achieves 99.9 percent removal and/or 
    inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts and 99.99 percent removal and/or 
    inactivation of viruses and 99 percent removal of Cryptosporidium 
    oocysts between the source water and the first customer. For a system 
    that makes this demonstration the requirements of paragraph (b) of this 
    section apply.
        6. Section 141.74 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d) to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 141.74  Analytical and monitoring requirements.
    
    * * * * *
        (d) Sanitary surveys for all systems. (1) A public water system 
    that uses a surface water source or a ground water source under the 
    influence of surface water shall be subject to an initial sanitary 
    survey by [insert date 5 years after publication of the final rule] and 
    a subsequent sanitary survey every five years [ALTERNATIVE: every three 
    years] thereafter.
        (2) The sanitary survey shall be performed by either the State, or 
    an agent approved by the State. An agent approved by the State shall be 
    paid by the system. In exceptional circumstances, the State may approve 
    the public water system to conduct its own sanitary survey. In this 
    case, the public water system shall certify that the system conducted 
    the sanitary survey is in accordance with Sec. 141.2 and that the 
    sanitary survey report is true and accurate.
        (3) If the State or an agent approved by the State is not available 
    to conduct the sanitary survey within the time frame specified in this 
    section, the system must conduct the sanitary survey. If an agent 
    approved by the State or the system itself conducts the sanitary 
    survey, the system must submit the sanitary survey report to the State 
    within 90 days of completing the survey and before the end of the five 
    year period.
    
    Alternative A
    
        7. Section 141.70 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 141.70  General requirements.
    
        (a) * * *
        (1)(i) At least 99.9 percent (3-log) removal and/or inactivation of 
    Giardia lamblia cysts for systems serving fewer than 10,000 people. A 
    system serving 10,000 people or more must achieve a Giardia removal/
    inactivation level by [insert date 18 months after publication of the 
    final rule in the Federal Register that depends on the concentration of 
    Giardia in the source water(s), as follows:
        (A) If the source water(s) contains less than 1 cyst/100 liters, 
    the system must achieve at least 99.9 percent (3-log) reduction;
        (B) If the source water(s) contains 1 to 9 cysts/100 liters, the 
    system must achieve at least 99.99 percent (4-log) reduction [OPTION: 
    99.9 percent (3-log) reduction];
        (C) If the source water(s) contains 10 to 99 cysts/100 liters, the 
    system must achieve at least 99.999 percent (5-log) reduction [OPTION: 
    99.99 percent (4-log) reduction];
        (D) If the source water(s) contains more than 99 cysts/ 100 liters, 
    the system must achieve at least 99.9999 percent (6-log) reduction 
    [OPTION: 99.999 percent (5-log) reduction].
        (ii) Systems must achieve the required Giardia removal/inactivation 
    level, as specified above, between the source water and the first 
    customer. To calculate the Giardia density in source water from 
    monitoring data obtained during the sampling period specified by 
    Sec. 141.140 of this part, use the:
        Option 1: Arithmetic mean of measured values.
        Option 2: Geometric mean of measured values.
        Option 3: 90th percentile value of measured values.
        Option 4: Highest measured value.
    * * * * *
    
    Alternative B
    
        8. Section 141.70 is amended by adding new paragraph (a)(3) to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 141.70  General requirements.
    
        (a) * * *
        (3) Beginning 18 months after promulgation of this rule, a system 
    serving 10,000 people or more must achieve a Cryptosporidium removal/
    inactivation level between the source water and first customer that 
    depends on the concentration of Cryptosporidium in the source water(s), 
    as follows:
        (i) If the source water(s) contains less than 1 oocyst/100 liters, 
    the system must achieve at least 99.9 percent (3-log) reduction 
    [OPTION: 99 percent (2-log) reduction];
        (ii) If the source water(s) contains 1 to 9 oocysts/100 liters, the 
    system must achieve at least 99.99 percent (4-log) reduction [OPTION 1: 
    99.9 percent (3-log) reduction; OPTION 2: 99 percent (2-log) 
    reduction];
        (iii) If the source water(s) contains 10 to 99 oocysts/100 liters, 
    the system must achieve at least 99.999 percent (5-log) reduction 
    [OPTION 1: 99.99 percent (4-log) reduction; OPTION 2: 99.9 percent (3-
    log) reduction];
        (iv) If the source water(s) contains more than 99 oocysts/ 100 
    liters, the system must achieve at least 99.9999 percent (6-log) 
    reduction [OPTION 1: 99.999 percent (5-log) reduction; OPTION 2: 99.99 
    percent (4-log) reduction];
        Systems must achieve the required Cryptosporidium removal/
    inactivation level, as specified above, between the source water and 
    the first customer. To calculate the Cryptosporidium density in source 
    water from monitoring data obtained during the sampling period 
    specified by section 141.140 of this part, use the:
        Option 1: Arithmetic mean of measured values.
        Option 2: Geometric mean of measured values.
        Option 3: 90th percentile value of measured values.
        Option 4: Highest measured value.
    * * * * *
    
    Alternative C
    
        9. Section 141.73 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e) to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 141.73  Filtration.
    
    * * * * *
        (e) Public water systems that filter their source water must 
    achieve at least 99 percent (2-log) removal of Cryptosporidium between 
    the source water and the first customer.
    
    Alternative D
    
        10. Section 141.72 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 141.72  Disinfection.
    
    * * * * *
        (c) Public water systems that serve 10,000 people or more and use 
    either surface water or ground water under the direct influence of 
    surface water must achieve, by disinfection alone, at least a 0.5-log 
    inactivation of Giardia [ALTERNATIVE 1: 4-log inactivation of viruses].
    
    Alternative E
    
        11. No change in existing SWTR regarding level of removal/
    inactivation requirements.
    
    PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 
    IMPLEMENTATION
    
        1. 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.
    
        2. Section 142.16 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 142.16  Special primacy requirements.
    
    * * * * *
        (g) An application for approval of a State program revision that 
    adopts the requirement specified below must contain the following:
        (1) The State must designate the method it will use to judge the 
    adequacy of watershed protection programs in minimizing the potential 
    for contamination by Giardia lamblia cysts, Cryptosporidium oocysts, 
    and viruses in the source water.
        (2) The State must describe its criteria for the conduct of 
    sanitary surveys and the method it will use to judge the adequacy of 
    each sanitary survey. If the State elects to allow non-State personnel 
    to conduct the surveys, the State must specify the criteria to be used 
    to approve the non-State personnel. If the State intends to allow 
    public water systems to conduct sanitary surveys, the State must 
    specify procedures it will use for oversight and review of the surveys.
    
    Alternative A
    
        3. The following special primacy requirements are associated with 
    Alternative A from item 7, above.
        (3) Section 141.70(a)(1). The State must demonstrate that it has in 
    place enforceable design and operating criteria for achieving the 
    levels of Giardia lamblia removal/inactivation required. Alternatively, 
    the State may institute a procedure for establishing design and 
    operating conditions on a system-by-system basis (e.g., a permit 
    system).
    
    Alternative B
    
        4. The following special primacy requirements are associated with 
    Alternative B from item 8, above.
        (3) Section 141.70(a)(3). The State must demonstrate that it has in 
    place enforceable design and operating criteria for achieving the 
    levels of Cryptosporidium removal/inactivation required. Alternatively, 
    the State may institute a procedure for establishing design and 
    operating conditions on a system-by-system basis (e.g., a permit 
    system).
    
    Alternative C
    
        5. The following special primacy requirements are associated with 
    Alternative C from item 9, above.
        (3) Section 141.73(e). The State must demonstrate that it has in 
    place enforceable design and operating criteria for achieving 2-log 
    removal of Cryptosporidium between the source water and the first 
    customer. Alternatively, the State may institute a procedure for 
    establishing design and operating conditions on a system-by-system 
    basis. (e.g., a permit system)
    
    Alternative D
    
        6. The following special primacy requirements are associated with 
    Alternative D from item 10, above.
        (4) Section 141.72(c). The State must demonstrate that it has in 
    place enforceable design and operating criteria for achieving the level 
    of Giardia (virus) inactivation required. Alternatively, the State may 
    institute a procedure for establishing design and operating conditions 
    on a system-by-system basis (e.g., a permit system).
    [FR Doc. 94-17650 Filed 7-28-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
07/29/1994
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Proposed rule.
Document Number:
94-17650
Dates:
Comments should be postmarked or delivered by hand on or before May 30, 1996. Comments received after this date may not be considered.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: July 29, 1994
CFR: (10)
40 CFR 141.72(b)
40 CFR 141.2
40 CFR 141.52
40 CFR 141.70
40 CFR 141.71
More ...