Stage 2 Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts Federal Advisory Committee Agreement in Principle

[Federal Register: December 29, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 251)]
[Notices]
[Page 83015-83024]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29de00-77]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6924-9]

Stage 2 Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts Federal Advisory
Committee Agreement in Principle

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of agreement in principle.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The purpose of today's notice is to make available to the
public recommendations to the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency contained in the Stage 2 Microbial and Disinfection
Byproducts (M-DBP) Federal Advisory Committee Agreement in Principle
(Agreement) that was signed in September 2000. The Stage 2 M-DBP rules
are a set of interrelated drinking water regulations which address
risks from microbial pathogens and disinfection byproducts (DBPs). The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) convened the Stage 2 M-DBP
Federal Advisory Committee (Committee) to collect, share, and analyze
information that has become available since promulgation of the Stage 1
M-DBP rules in December 1998. The purpose of the Committee was to
evaluate whether and to what degree USEPA should establish revised or
additional DBP and microbial standards to protect public health. The
Committee consisted of organizational members representing USEPA,
public interest groups, State and local public health and regulatory
agencies, local elected officials, Indian tribes, drinking water
suppliers, and chemical and equipment manufacturers. Recommendations
from the Committee are contained in the Agreement in Principle which is
provided below. This Agreement is the result of a tremendous
collaborative effort and USEPA would like to express its appreciation
to all members of the Committee, as well as to members of the Technical
Workgroup (TWG) which supported the Committee.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact the
Safe Drinking Water Hotline, Telephone (800) 426-4791. The Safe
Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding federal
holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. For technical
inquiries contact Dan Schmelling or Jennifer McLain, Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water (MC 4607), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
(202) 260-1439 (Schmelling) or (202) 260-0431 (McLain).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction and Background

The Stage 2 M-DBP rules represent the final stage in a two phase M-
DBP rulemaking strategy agreed upon by USEPA and stakeholders during a
regulatory negotiation process in 1992-93, and later affirmed by
Congress as part of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA). They comprise the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule (LT2ESWTR) and the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (DBPR). The LT2ESWTR focuses on risk from microbial
pathogens, specifically Cryptosporidium, and the Stage 2 DBPR addresses
risk from DBPs. These rules are being developed simultaneously in order
to address complex risk trade-offs between the control of pathogens and
limiting exposure to DBPs. Statutory deadlines require USEPA to
promulgate the Stage 2 DBPR by May 2002. Consistent with statutory
objectives for risk balancing, EPA will finalize the LT2ESWTR
concurrent with the Stage 2 DBPR to ensure parallel protection from
microbial and DBP risks.
Committee recommendations for the Stage 2 M-DBP rules would build
upon the public health protection provided by the Stage 1 M-DBP rules,
which include the Stage 1 DBPR, Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (IESWTR), and Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR). The Stage 1 DBPR and IESWTR were issued in
December, 1998, and promulgation of the LT1ESWTR is anticipated for
late 2000 or early 2001. The Stage 1 M-DBP rules are based on
stakeholder agreements reached during the 1992-93 negotiated
rulemaking, as well as the agreement of a subsequent Federal Advisory
Committee which met from March to July 1997.
Prior to convening the Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee, USEPA held
three preparatory stakeholder meetings on pathogen and DBP health
effects, occurrence, and treatment. The Committee then held fourteen
formal negotiation meetings between March 1999 and September 2000 to
discuss issues related to the Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR. The objective
of the Committee at the outset was to reach a consensus regarding
provisions for the two rules. Technical support for these discussions
was provided by the TWG, which was established by the Committee at its
first meeting. The Committee's activities resulted in the collection,
development, evaluation, and presentation of substantial new
information related to key elements for both rules. This information
included new data on pathogenicity, occurrence, and treatment of
microbial contaminants, specifically including Cryptosporidium, as well
as new data on DBP health risks, exposure, and control.
A significant source of new data was the Information Collection
Rule (ICR), which EPA promulgated in 1996 pursuant to SDWA
requirements. The ICR required approximately 300 large public water
systems to conduct 18 months of sampling for water quality and
treatment parameters related to DBP formation and the occurrence of
microbial pathogens. Data on DBP formation in small systems was
obtained through a survey of approximately 120 treatment plants in
systems serving fewer than 10,000 people. Seven states also provided
small system DBP data. Subsequent to the ICR, EPA obtained additional
data on pathogen occurrence through the ICR Supplemental Surveys
(ICRSS). These surveys involved 127 water treatment plants, including
40 small systems, and comprised one year of bi-monthly sampling for
Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and other water quality parameters (small
systems did not measure protozoa).
USEPA and the TWG developed a series of eight databases to
facilitate analysis of ICR data. The ICR databases were integrated with
a Surface Water Analytical Tool model to predict the impact of
potential new standards for DBPs and/or pathogens on shifts in
treatment technologies among water systems and resulting DBP exposure
profiles. Based on data supplied by equipment vendors, the TWG produced
unit cost estimates for a number of potential regulatory compliance
technologies. These technology unit costs were used in conjunction with
SWAT projections of technology shifts

[[Page 83016]]

to make national cost estimates for regulatory options.
USEPA, in consultation with nationally recognized experts in the
field of statistics, evaluated ICR and ICRSS data to generate estimates
of the national occurrence distribution of Cryptosporidium. Occurrence
distributions were coupled with data on the infectivity of different
strains of Cryptosporidium and assumptions for the removal efficiency
of treatment plants to make projections of the possible risk associated
with Cryptosporidium in drinking water. In considering risks associated
with DBPs, the Committee reviewed available toxicological and
epidemiological data from a number of studies on reproductive and
developmental health effects (e.g., early term miscarriages), as well
as cancer.
Despite the evaluation of a large amount of data, the Committee
recognized that uncertainty remains in a number of areas regarding the
precise nature and magnitude of risk associated with DBPs and pathogens
in drinking water. In light of this uncertainty, the Committee
recommended a series of balanced steps to address the areas of greatest
health concern, taking into careful consideration the costs and
potential impacts on public water systems.
In regard to DBPs, the Committee recommended a two phase approach
to provide further control of concentration peaks in the distribution
system. In Phase 1, systems would continue to meet maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) established by the Stage 1 DBPR for total trihalomethanes
(TTHM) and five haloacetic acids (HAA5) of 0.080 and 0.060 mg/L,
respectively, with compliance based on a running annual average (RAA).
In addition, Phase 1 would add new MCLs of 0.120 and 0.100 mg/L for
TTHM and HAA5, respectively, with compliance based on a locational
running annual average (LRAA). Under an LRAA standard, the annual
average at each monitoring point must not exceed the MCL. This compares
with the RAA established by the Stage 1 DBPR in which compliance is
determined by averaging across all monitoring points. All Phase 1
monitoring would be conducted at Stage 1 DBPR sites. Phase 2 would
consist of maintaining MCLs of 0.080 mg/L for TTHM and 0.060 mg/L for
HAA5 but compliance with these levels would be based on the LRAA. Under
Phase 2, monitoring would be conducted at new sites determined from an
initial distribution system evaluation designed to select site-specific
optimal sample points for capturing DBP peaks.
The two phase approach recommended by the Committee for the Stage 2
DBPR would provide an initial level of protection from DBP peaks under
Phase 1. Systems would then make decisions regarding the potentially
more significant treatment changes necessary to comply with Phase 2
during the same time period as they evaluate options to comply with the
LT2ESWTR. This approach is consistent with the Committee's support for
simultaneous compliance for the Stage 2 M-DBP rules and the statutory
objectives for balancing microbial and DBP risks.
In regard to microbial pathogens, the Committee recognized that
systems with poor quality source waters may need to provide additional
protection against Cryptosporidium. The Committee recommended a
`Microbial Framework' approach which involves assignment of systems
into different categories (or bins) based on the results of source
water Cryptosporidium monitoring. Additional treatment requirements
depend on the bin to which the system is assigned. Systems would chose
technologies to comply with additional treatment requirements from a
`toolbox' of options. The Committee also made recommendations for
unfiltered systems and uncovered finished water reservoirs.
The Agreement in Principle is the full statement of the points on
which the Committee reached consensus. The Agreement is divided into
Parts A & B. The recommendations in each part stand alone and are
independent of one another. The entire Committee reached consensus on
Part A, which contains provisions that apply directly to the Stage 2
DBPR and LT2ESWTR. The full Committee with the exception of the
National Rural Water Association agreed to Part B, which has
recommendations for future activity by USEPA in the areas of
distribution systems and microbial water quality criteria. Following
the Agreement in today's notice is a list of the twenty one
organizational members of the Committee and their alternates.
The recommendations contained in the Stage 2 M-DBP Agreement in
Principle reflect the Committee's emphasis on targeted, risk based
rulemaking. They incorporate substantial initial monitoring to identify
systems with the highest potential risk. Additional treatment steps are
required only where systems exceed specified locational average DBP
concentrations or source water Cryptosporidium occurrence levels. In
addition, the recommendations address risks from Cryptosporidium in
unfiltered systems, as well as longstanding concerns over risks from
uncovered finished water reservoirs. They also facilitate the use of
nontraditional and potentially low cost treatment technologies like UV
disinfection.
These recommendations represent an important and balanced step
forward in controlling public health risks associated with drinking
water. The ability of Committee representatives with different
interests, areas of expertise, and perspectives to find common ground
and reach agreement reflects an exceptional commitment to public health
protection and to the regulatory negotiation process. In the future,
results from new research will provide further insights into drinking
water risks associated with reproductive and developmental toxicity of
DBPs, the occurrence and pathogenicity of microorganisms, and other
related topics. As new information evolves, USEPA will continue to work
with stakeholders in evaluating the adequacy of existing drinking water
standards and the need for revised or additional measures to protect
public health.
USEPA has agreed to develop a proposed rulemaking for the Stage 2
DBPR and LT2ESWTR in 2001 that will reflect recommendations contained
in the Agreement in Principle. As part of the proposed rulemaking,
USEPA will solicit comments on the Agreement. Today's notice, however,
is intended only to inform the public of the availability of the
Agreement and USEPA does not request comment on this notice.

Dated: December 19, 2000.
J. Charles Fox,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.

1.0 Introduction

Pursuant to requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing interrelated
regulations to control microbial pathogens and disinfectants/
disinfection byproducts (D/DBPs) in drinking water. These rules are
collectively known as the microbial/disinfection byproducts (M-DBP)
rules.
The regulations are intended to address complex risk trade-offs
between the two different types of contaminants. In keeping with a
phased M-DBP strategy agreed to by stakeholders during the 1992-93
negotiated rulemaking on these matters and affirmed by Congress as part
of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA issued the
final Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR) and
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Rule (IESWTR) in December 1998. These
two rules built

[[Page 83017]]

upon stakeholder agreements reached in 1993 but also reflected the more
recent 1997 Agreement in Principle signed by stakeholders who
participated in an intensive Stage 1 M-DBP Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA) negotiation process from March to July 1997.
As part of the 1996 amendments to the SDWA, Congress established
deadlines for the M-DBP rules, beginning with a November 1998 deadline
for promulgation of both the IESWTR and the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule. Related
statutory deadlines for the Stage 2 M-DBP process require that EPA
promulgate a Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
(DBPR) by May 2002. The Agency plans to promulgate the Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) by May 2002, as well.
The central challenge of the Stage 2 M-DBP rule development process has
been to assess information and research not fully considered in the
Stage 1 process or only available since 1998 and evaluate whether and
to what degree EPA should establish revised or additional DBP and
microbial standards to protect public health.
As agreed to during Stage 1, EPA has convened a Stage 2 M-DBP
Advisory Committee made up of organizational members (parties) named by
EPA (see Attachment A). The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to
develop recommendations for the Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR to be
proposed in 2001. This Committee met from March 1999 through September
2000, with the initial objective to reach consensus. This document is
the Committee's statement on the points of agreement reached. This
document is separated into Part A and Part B. The recommendations in
each part stand alone and are independent of one another.

2.0 Agreement in Principle

The Stage 2 M-DBP Federal Advisory Committee (Stage 2 FACA)
considered both the strengths and limitations of new M-DBP information
as well as the related technical and policy issues involved in
developing a Stage 2 DBPR and a LT2ESWTR under the Safe Drinking Water
Act and recommends that the Environmental Protection Agency base the
applicable sections of its anticipated Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR
proposals on the elements of agreement described below.
This agreement in principle Part A and B represents the consensus
of the parties on the best conceptual principles that the Committee was
able to generate within the allocated time and resources available.

The __________, a party to the negotiations, agrees that:
2.1 The person signing Part A or Part B of this agreement is
authorized to commit this party to the terms of Part A or Part B, as
the case may be.
2.2 EPA agrees to develop a Proposed Rulemaking in 2001 in
accordance with applicable statutes and procedural requirements that
will reflect recommendations contained in this Agreement in Principle,
and will obtain comments from Stage 2 FACA parties and the public.
2.3 Each party and individual signatory that submits comments on
the Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR proposals agrees to support those
components of the proposals that reflect the recommendations contained
in this Agreement in Principle. Each party and individual signatory
reserves the right to comment, as individuals or on behalf of the
organization he or she represents, on any other aspect of the
proposals.
2.4 If new information becomes available that significantly affects
the basis for provisions in this Agreement in Principle, EPA agrees to
publish this information in a NODA and will consider whether it is
necessary to reconvene the FACA.
2.5 EPA will work jointly with stakeholders while developing
guidance documents in order to ensure that technical issues are
adequately addressed prior to the final rule. EPA agrees to publish
revised guidance documents that reflect consideration of comments on
earlier drafts.
2.6 Concurrent with publication of the proposed rules, EPA will
publish a draft guidance document that includes ozone and chlorine
dioxide CT tables for the inactivation of Cryptosporidium (UV tables
are addressed in 5.0). EPA will request comment in the proposed
LT2ESWTR on whether any of the CT tables or other criteria in the
guidance document should be incorporated into the final LT2ESWTR.
2.7 EPA will consider all relevant comments submitted concerning
the Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR Notice(s) of Proposed Rulemaking and in
response to such comments will make such modifications to the proposed
rule(s) and preamble(s) as EPA determines are appropriate when issuing
a final rule.
2.8 Recognizing that under the Appointments Clause of the
Constitution governmental authority may be exercised only by officers
of the United States and recognizing that it is EPA's responsibility to
issue final rules, EPA intends to issue final rules that are based on
the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act, pertinent facts, and
comments received from the public.
2.9 Each party agrees not to take any action to inhibit the
adoption of final rule(s) to the extent it and corresponding
preamble(s) have the same substance and effect as the elements of the
Agreement in Principle Part A or Part B or both parts as evidenced by
the signature following each part.
2.10 EPA will hold a stakeholder meeting during the comment period
to update stakeholders on new information germane to the Stage 2 DBPR
and LT2ESWTR.

2.11 Implementation Schedule

2.11.a Compliance schedules for the LT2ESWTR will be tied to the
availability of sufficient analytical capacity at approved laboratories
for all large and medium affected systems to initiate Cryptosporidium
and E. coli monitoring, and the availability of software for
transferring, storing, and evaluating the results of all microbial
analyses.
(1) If the availability of adequate laboratory capacity or data
management software for microbial monitoring under LT2ESWTR for large
or medium systems is delayed then monitoring, implementation, and
compliance schedules for both the LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR described
under 2.11.c will be delayed by an equivalent time period.
2.11.b The principle of simultaneous compliance reflected in the
Stage 1 M-DBP rules will be continued in the Stage 2 M-DBP rules.
(1) The principle of simultaneous compliance means that systems
will address the Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR requirements concurrently in
order to protect public health and optimize technology choice
decisions.
2.11.c Implementation Schedule
(1) Once the Stage 2 M-DBP rules have been promulgated, systems
will conduct Cryptosporidium (Section 4.1) and IDSE (Section 3.1.a)
monitoring and submit the results to their States/Primacy Agency. Large
and medium systems must submit a report with the results of the Initial
Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) (including any monitoring) and
the results of the Cryptosporidium monitoring two years and two and a
half years after rule promulgation, respectively. Small systems must
submit a report recommending new DBP compliance monitoring locations
and supporting data with the results of their IDSE,

[[Page 83018]]

including any monitoring, and Cryptosporidium monitoring 4 years and 5
years after rule promulgation, respectively.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Systems which monitor for an indicator organism (e.g., E.
coli) and do not monitor for Cryptosporidium must submit the results
of the indicator monitoring three and one-half years after rule
promulgation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Systems will comply with the Stage 2 DBPR MCL for TTHMs/HAA5 in
two phases:
(a) Phase 1: 3 years after rule promulgation (with an additional 2
year extension available for systems requiring capital improvements),
all systems must comply with a 120/100 locational running annual
average (LRAA) based on Stage 1 monitoring sites and also continue to
comply with the Stage 1 80/60 running annual average.
(b) Phase 2: Systems must comply with 80/60 LRAA based on new
sampling sites identified under the IDSE. This will begin 6 years after
rule promulgation (with an additional 2 year extension available for
systems requiring capital improvements) for large and medium systems.
For small systems required to do Cryptosporidium monitoring, compliance
with the 80/60 LRAA will begin 8.5 years after rule promulgation (with
an additional 2 year extension available for systems requiring capital
improvements). For all other small systems, compliance with the 80/60
LRAA will begin 7.5 years after rule promulgation (with an additional 2
year extension available for systems requiring capital improvements).

Part A

3.0 Disinfection Byproducts

The requirements in the Stage 2 DBPR will apply to all community
water systems and non-transient non-community water systems that add a
disinfectant other than UV or deliver water that has been disinfected.
The Stage 2 DBPR is designed to reduce DBP occurrence peaks in the
distribution system based on changes to compliance monitoring
provisions. Compliance monitoring will be preceded by an initial
distribution system monitoring (IDSE)/study to select site-specific
optimal sample points for capturing peaks. The FACA recognizes that
TTHM and HAA5 concentrations vary over time and space and therefore
agrees that compliance monitoring locations should reflect this
variability.

3.1 TTHM/HAA5

Compliance with each MCL will be determined based on a Locational
Running Annual Average (a running annual average must be calculated at
each sample location). Systems will comply with the Stage 2 DBPR MCL in
two phases:
Phase 1: 3 years after rule promulgation (with an additional 2 year
extension available for systems requiring capital improvements), all
systems must comply with a 120/100 locational running annual average
(LRAA) based on Stage 1 monitoring sites and also continue to comply
with the Stage 1 80/60 running annual average.
Phase 2: 6 years after rule promulgation (with an additional 2 year
extension available for systems requiring capital improvements) large
and medium systems must comply with an 80/60 LRAA based on new sampling
sites identified under the IDSE. For small systems required to do
Cryptosporidium monitoring, compliance with the 80/60 LRAA will begin
8.5 years after rule promulgation (with an additional 2 year extension
available for systems requiring capital improvements). For all other
small systems, compliance with the 80/60 LRAA will begin 7.5 years
after rule promulgation (with an additional 2 year extension available
for systems requiring capital improvements).
3.1.a Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE)
IDSEs are studies conducted by Community Water Systems and are
intended to select new compliance monitoring sites that more accurately
reflect sites representing high TTHM and HAA5 levels. The studies will
be based either on system specific monitoring or other system specific
data that provides equivalent or better information on site selection.
Systems will recommend new or revised monitoring sites to their State/
Primacy Agency based on their IDSE study. IDSE results will not be used
for compliance purposes.
Systems conducting IDSE monitoring shall monitor for one year under
a schedule determined by source water type (e.g., surface water vs.
ground water) and system size as discussed in 1-3 below. As a part of
the monitoring schedule, all systems conducting IDSE monitoring must
monitor during the peak historical month for DBP levels or water
temperature. All IDSE samples will be paired (i.e., TTHM and HAA5
sample at each site).
(1) Surface Water Systems 10,000:
Systems must monitor bimonthly on a regular schedule of
approximately every 60 days \2\ for one year at 8 distribution system
sites per plant (at sites that are in addition to the Stage 1 DBPR
compliance monitoring sites).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ The objective of this monitoring provision and similar
monitoring provisions herein after is to prevent systems from
avoiding monitoring during peak occurrence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The location of the 8 sites will be determined by residual
disinfectant type as follows:
(a) For plants with chloramine distribution systems: 2 near
distribution system entry point, 2 at average residence time, and 4 at
points representative of highest THM and HAA5 concentrations;
(b) For plants with chlorine distribution systems: 1 near
distribution system entry point, 2 at average residence time, and 5 at
points representative of highest THM and HAA5 concentrations.
(2) Surface Water Systems 10,000:
(a) 500-9,999: Systems must monitor quarterly on a regular schedule
of approximately every 90 days for one year at 2 distribution system
sites per plant (at sites that are in addition to the Stage 1 DBPR
compliance monitoring sites).
(b) Under 500: System must monitor semi-annually on a regular
schedule of approximately every 180 days for one year at 2 distribution
system sites per plant (at sites that are in addition to the Stage 1
DBPR compliance monitoring sites).
(i) This monitoring requirement for systems under 500 may be waived
if the State/Primacy Agency determines that the monitoring site
approved for Stage 1 DBPR compliance is sufficient to represent both
the highest HAA5 and the highest TTHM concentrations. The State/Primacy
Agency must submit criteria for this determination to EPA as part of
their Primacy application.
(3) Ground Water Systems:
Multiple wells drawing water from a single aquifer may, with State/
Primacy Agency approval, be considered one treatment plant.
(a) 10,000: Systems must monitor quarterly on a regular
schedule of approximately every 90 days for one year at 2 distribution
system sites per plant (at sites that are in addition to the Stage 1
DBPR compliance monitoring sites)
(b) 10,000: Systems must monitor semi-annually on a regular
schedule of approximately every 180 days for one year at 2 distribution
system sites per plant (at sites in addition to the Stage 1 DBPR
compliance monitoring sites)

[[Page 83019]]

(i) This monitoring requirement for systems under 500 may be waived
if the State/Primacy Agency determines that the monitoring site
approved for Stage 1 DBPR compliance is sufficient to represent both
the highest HAA5 and the highest TTHM concentrations. The State/Primacy
Agency must submit criteria for this determination to EPA as part of
their Primacy application.
(4) System Specific Studies--In lieu of the IDSE monitoring,
systems may perform an IDSE study based on other system specific
monitoring or system specific data which will provide comparable or
superior selection of new monitoring sites that target high DBP levels.
EPA agrees to work with stakeholders to develop guidance on criteria
for system specific studies.
(5) Systems that certify to their State/Primacy Agency that all
samples taken in the last 2 years were below 40/30 are not required to
conduct the IDSE.
3.1.b. Long Term Compliance Monitoring (Phase 2)
Principles of the reduced compliance monitoring strategy reflected
in the Stage 1 DBPR shall be continued in the Stage 2 DBPR. These
principles are designed for systems with very low DBP levels.
Systems will collect paired samples (TTHM and HAA5) at each
compliance monitoring sample site with the possible exception of some
systems serving 500 people.
(1) Surface Water Systems 10,000:
Systems must monitor quarterly on a regular schedule of
approximately every 90 days \3\ at 4 distribution system sites per
plant. At least 1 quarterly sample must be taken during the peak
historical month for DBP levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The objective of this monitoring provision and similar
monitoring provisions herein after is to prevent systems from
avoiding monitoring during peak occurrence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The location of the 4 sites in the distribution system will be
determined as follows:

--One representative average from among current Stage 1 locations.
--One representative highest HAA5 identified under IDSE.
--Two at highest TTHM identified during IDSE.

(2) Surface Water Systems 10,000.
(a) 500-9,999: Systems must monitor quarterly on a regular schedule
of approximately every 90 days at the highest TTHM and the highest HAA5
points in the distribution system as identified under the IDSE. The
State/Primacy Agency may determine, based on the results of the IDSE,
that the site representative of the highest TTHM is at the same
location as the site representative of the highest HAA5 and thus may
determine that the system only has to monitor at a single site.
(b) Under 500: Systems must monitor annually at the site
representing the highest TTHM and the highest HAA5 points in the
distribution system as identified under the IDSE. If the State/Primacy
Agency determines, based on the results of the IDSE, that this site is
not representative of both the highest TTHM and HAA5 concentrations,
the system should collect unpaired samples at two sites in the
distribution system (i.e., TTHM only at one site and HAA5 only at
another site).
(i) If the State/Primacy Agency has waived the requirement to
conduct the IDSE, systems under 500 will conduct annual sampling at the
point of maximum residence time in the distribution system during the
month of warmest water temperature.
(ii) Systems under 500 have the option of moving to quarterly
compliance sampling consistent with the Stage 1 sampling strategy.
(3) Groundwater Systems:
(a) 10,000: Systems must monitor quarterly on a regular
schedule of approximately every 90 days at the highest TTHM and the
highest HAA5 points in the distribution system as identified under the
IDSE. The State/Primacy Agency may determine, based on the results of
the IDSE, that the site representative of the highest TTHM is at the
same location as the site representative of the highest HAA5 and thus
may determine that the system only has to monitor at a single site.
(b) 500-9,999: Systems must monitor annually at the highest TTHM
and the highest HAA5 points in the distribution system as identified
under the IDSE. The State/Primacy Agency may determine, based on the
results of the IDSE, that the site representative of the highest TTHM
is at the same location as the site representative of the highest HAA5
and thus may determine that the system only has to monitor at a single
site.
(i) Ground water systems under 10,000 have the option of moving to
quarterly compliance sampling consistent with Stage 1 sampling
strategy.
(c) Under 500: Systems must monitor annually at the site
representing the highest TTHM and the highest HAA5 points in the
distribution system as identified under the IDSE. If the State/Primacy
Agency determines, based on the results of the IDSE, that this site is
not representative of both the highest TTHM and HAA5 concentrations,
the system should collect unpaired samples at two sites in the
distribution system (i.e., TTHM only at one site and HAA5 only at
another site).
(i) If the State/Primacy Agency waives the requirement for systems
under 500 to conduct the IDSE, they will conduct annual sampling at the
point of maximum residence time in the distribution system during the
month of warmest water temperature.
(ii) Ground water systems under 500 have the option of moving to
quarterly compliance sampling consistent with Stage 1 sampling
strategy.
3.1.c Wholesale and Consecutive Systems
The FACA has considered the issues of consecutive systems and
recommends that EPA propose that all wholesale and consecutive systems
must comply with provisions of the Stage 2 DBPR on the same schedule
required of the wholesale or consecutive system serving the largest
population in the combined distribution system.
Principles:
Consumers in consecutive systems should be just as well
protected as customers of all systems, and
Monitoring provisions should be tailored to meet the first
principle.
The FACA recognizes that there may be issues that have not been
fully explored or completely analyzed and therefore recommends that EPA
solicit comments.
3.1.d Peaks
Recognizing that significant excursions of DBP levels will
sometimes occur, even when systems are in full compliance with the
enforceable MCL, public water systems that have significant excursions
during peak periods are to refer to EPA guidance on how to conduct peak
excursion evaluations, and how to reduce such peaks. Such excursions
will be reviewed as a part of the sanitary survey process. EPA guidance
on DBP level excursions will be issued prior to promulgation of the
final rule and will be developed in consultation with stakeholders.

3.2. Bromate MCL

The Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee has considered the present
potential that reducing the bromate MCL to 0.005 mg/L would both
increase the concentration of other DBPs in the drinking water and
interfere with the efficacy of microbial pathogen inactivation.
Therefore, the Committee recommends for purposes of Stage 2 that the
bromate MCL remain at 0.010 mg/L. This recommendation is based upon
current alternative technology utilization and upon current

[[Page 83020]]

understanding of bromate formation as a result of bromide
concentrations. EPA commits to review the bromate MCL as part of the 6
year review and determine whether the MCL should remain at 0.010 mg/L
or be reduced to 0.005 mg/L or a lower concentration. As a part of that
review, EPA will consider the increased utilization of alternative
technologies and whether the risk/risk concerns reflected in today's
recommendation remain valid. The FACA agrees that it is important to
continue research on bromate detection, formation, treatment, and
health effects.

4.0 LT2ESWTR

The requirements of the LT2ESWTR will apply to all public water
systems that use surface water or ground water under the direct
influence of surface water.
The FACA recognizes that systems may need to provide additional
protection against Cryptosporidium, and that such decisions should be
made on a system specific basis. The LT2ESWTR incorporates system
specific treatment requirements based on a `Microbial Framework'
approach. This approach generally involves assignment of systems into
different categories (or bins) based on the results of source water
Cryptosporidium monitoring. Additional treatment requirements depend on
the bin to which the system is assigned. Systems will choose
technologies to comply with additional treatment requirements from a
`toolbox' of options.

4.1 Monitoring and Treatment Requirements for Filtered Systems

4.1.a Monitoring for Bin Classification
(1) Systems 10,000:
For purposes of bin classification, source water Cryptosporidium
monitoring shall be conducted using EPA Method 1622/23 and no less than
10L samples. EPA will provide guidance for those cases where it is not
possible to process a 10L sample.
(a) Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and turbidity source water sampling
shall be carried out on a predetermined schedule for 24 months with two
choices:
(i) Bin classification based on highest 12 month running annual
average if monthly samples, OR
(ii) Optional bin classification based on 2 year mean if facility
conducts twice per month monitoring for 24 months (i.e. 48 samples).
Systems may carry out additional sampling but it must be evenly
distributed over the 2 year monitoring period.
(b) Systems with at least 2 years of historical Cryptosporidium
data that is equivalent in sample number, frequency, and data quality
(e.g. volume analyzed, percent recovery) to data that would be
collected under the LT2ESWTR with EPA Method 1622/23 may use those data
to determine bin classification in lieu of further monitoring. Systems
which are able to use historical data in lieu of conducting new
monitoring must submit such Cryptosporidium data to the State/Primacy
Agency for consideration in selecting bin placement.
(c) Systems that provide 2.5 logs of treatment for Cryptosporidium
(equivalent to Bin 4, including inactivation) in addition to
conventional treatment are exempt from monitoring for purposes of
selecting bin placement. Conventional treatment is defined as
coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation and granular media filtration.
(d) EPA agrees to work with stakeholders to develop a guidance
manual with appropriate QA/QC procedures for Cryptosporidium sampling
(2) Systems 10,000:
(a) Based on the large system monitoring under 4.1.a, EPA will work
with stakeholders to evaluate alternative indicators and system
characterization scenarios for predicting Cryptosporidium occurrence in
small systems. This evaluation will include new information on
surrogates, including E. coli, and will assess whether E. coli
concentrations of 10 and 50 per 100ml are appropriate values to trigger
Cryptosporidium monitoring in lakes/reservoirs and flowing streams,
respectively.
(b) In the absence of an alternative indicator specified by the
State/Primacy Agency, based on EPA guidance, source water E. coli
levels trigger Cryptosporidium monitoring as described below:
(i) Systems must begin one year of biweekly E. coli source water
monitoring 2 years after large systems initiate Cryptosporidium
monitoring.
(ii) Systems must conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring if E. coli
concentrations exceed the following levels:

--annual mean > 10/100 ml for lakes and reservoirs.
--annual mean > 50/100 ml for flowing streams.

(c) Systems that provide 2.5 logs of treatment for Cryptosporidium
(equivalent to Bin 4, including inactivation) in addition to
conventional treatment are exempt from monitoring for purposes of
selecting bin placement.
(d) The FACA recommends that E. coli monitoring for small systems
will begin two and one half years after rule promulgation and also that
Cryptosporidium monitoring be comprised of 24 samples over 1 year. The
FACA also recommends that EPA solicit comment on any additional
approaches to expedite small system compliance.
(e) EPA will work with stakeholders to explore the feasibility of
developing alternative, lower frequency, Cryptosporidium monitoring
criteria for providing a conservative mean estimate.
4.1.b Action Bins (for conventional treatment plants)
(1) The bins have been structured considering the total
Cryptosporidium oocyst count, uncorrected for recovery, as measured
using EPA Method 1623 and 10 L samples.
(2) Systems have 3 years following initial bin classification to
meet the treatment requirements associated with the bin (see Bin
Requirements Table below). The State/Primacy Agency may grant systems
an additional 2 year extension to comply when capital investments are
necessary.
(3) Systems currently using ozone, chlorine dioxide, UV, or
membranes in addition to conventional treatment may receive credit for
those technologies towards bin requirements.
(4) Bin requirements table is shown below:

Bin Requirements Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Additional treatment requirements for
Bin No. Cryptosporidium systems with conventional treatment that
concentration are in full compliance with IESWTR \4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...... Cryptosporidium 0.075/ No action.
L.
2...... 0.075/L Cryptosporidium technology or combination of
1.0/L. technologies from toolbox as long as
total credit is at least 1-log).

[[Page 83021]]

3...... 1.0/L Cryptosporidium at least 1-log of the required 2-log
3.0/L. treatment using ozone, chlorine
dioxide, UV, membranes, bag/cartridge
filters, or in-bank filtration).
4...... Cryptosporidium 3.0/L. at least 1-log of the required 2.5-log
treatment using ozone, chlorine
dioxide, UV, membranes, bag/cartridge
filters, or in-bank filtration).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\FACA has not addressed direct filtration systems. EPA will address
direct filtration systems in connection with bins 2-4 in the proposed
LT2ESWTR and request comment.

(5) The additional treatment requirements in the bin requirement
table are based, in part, on the assumption that conventional treatment
plants in compliance with the IESWTR achieve an average of 3 logs
removal of Cryptosporidium. The total Cryptosporidium removal
requirements for the action bins with 1 log, 2 log, and 2.5 log
additional treatment correspond to total Cryptosporidium removals of 4,
5, and 5.5 log respectively.
(6) FACA recommends that EPA request public comment on whether
current guidance regarding Giardia treatment requirements for meeting
the Surface Water Treatment Rule need to be revised (to be consistent
with multiple barrier concept in the current guidance and the FACA
recommendations herein).
4.1.c Toolbox
(1) Meeting the log treatment requirements identified for each
``Action Bin'' may necessitate one or more actions from an array of
management strategies which include watershed control, reducing
influent Cryptosporidium concentrations, improved system performance,
and additional treatment barriers.
(2) Based on available information, the FACA recommends that
LT2ESWTR employ a ``toolbox'' approach, and that the following tools
when properly designed and implemented receive the following log credit
(or range of credit). As recognized previously in this Agreement, EPA
must employ the best information available in developing the final rule
and will request comment on the proposed log credits assigned in the
following table.
(3) EPA will provide guidance for determining if toolbox options
are properly designed and implemented.
(4) Table with microbial toolbox components and associated
potential log credit is shown below:

Microbial Toolbox Components
[To be used in addition to existing treatment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential log credit
Treatment approach -------------------------------------------------------
0.5 1.0 2.0 >2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed Control:
Watershed Control Program (1)....................... X
Reduction in oocyst concentration (3)............... As measured
Reduction in viable oocyst concentration (3)........ As measured
Alternative Source:
Intake relocation (3)............................... As measured
Change to alternative source of supply (3).......... As measured
Management of intake to reduce capture of oocysts in
source water (3)................................... As measured
Managing timing of withdrawal (3)................... As measured
Managing level of withdrawal in water column (3).... As measured
Pretreatment:
Off-stream raw water storage w/detention of X days X
(1)................................................
Off-stream raw water storage w/detention of Y weeks X
(1)................................................
Pre-settling basin w/coagulant...................... X
Lime softening (1)..................................
In-bank filtration (1).............................. X
Improved Treatment:
Lower finished water turbidity (0.15 NTU 95%tile X
CFE)...............................................
Slow sand filters (1)............................... X
Roughing filters (1)................................ X
Membranes (MF, UF, NF, RO) (1)...................... X
Bag filters (1)..................................... X
Cartridge filters (1)............................... X
Improved Disinfection:
Chlorine dioxide (2)................................ X X
Ozone (2)........................................... X X X
UV (2).............................................. X
Peer Review/Other Demonstration/Validation or System
Performance:
Peer review program (e.g., Partnership Phase IV).... X

[[Page 83022]]

Performance studies demonstrating reliable specific
log removals for technologies not listed above.
This provision does not supercede other
inactivation requirements.......................... As demonstrated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key to table symbols: (X) indicates potential log credit based on proper design and implementation in
accordance with EPA guidance. () indicates estimation of potential log credit based on site specific
or technology specific demonstration of performance.
Table footnotes: (1) Criteria to be specified in guidance to determine allowed credit, (2) Inactivation
dependent on dose and source water characteristics, (3) Additional monitoring for Cryptosporidium after this
action would determine new bin classification and whether additional treatment is required.

4.1.d Reassessment and Future Monitoring
(1) Systems that provide a total of 2.5 logs of treatment
(equivalent to Bin 4 including inactivation) for Cryptosporidium in
addition to conventional treatment are exempt from reassessment and
future monitoring.
(2) Four years after initial bin characterization, EPA will
initiate a stakeholder process to review available methods and the bin
characterization structures. EPA will conduct a stakeholder process to
determine the appropriate analytical method, monitoring frequency,
monitoring location, etc., for this second round of national assessment
monitoring.
(3) Six years after completion of the initial bin characterization,
systems will conduct a second round of monitoring, equivalent or
superior to the initial round from a statistical perspective, as part
of a national reassessment . In the absence of an improved
Cryptosporidium method (specified by the State/Primacy Agency, based on
EPA guidance or rule and appropriate adjustment factors) site-specific
reassessment monitoring will utilize method 1623 and site specific re-
binning will occur under the current bin structure and time interval.
If a new monitoring method is used, or the assumptions underlying the
current bin structure change, the resulting data will be used for a
site specific risk characterization in accordance with a revised bin
structure (may require a revised rule) reflecting the changes in the
underlying method.
(4) As part of the three-year sanitary survey process, the Primacy
Agency will assess any significant changes in the watershed and source
water. The Primacy Agency will determine with the systems what follow-
up action is appropriate. Actions that may be deemed appropriate
include those outlined in the toolbox in this agreement.

4.2 Unfiltered Systems

4.2.a Unfiltered systems must:
(1) Continue to meet filtration avoidance criteria, and
(2) Provide 4 log virus inactivation, and
(3) Provide 3 log Giardia lamblia inactivation, and
(4) Provide 2 log Cryptosporidium inactivation.
4.2.b Overall inactivation requirements must be met using a minimum
of 2 disinfectants.
4.2.c Ongoing monitoring and any eventual reassignment to risk bins
for unfiltered systems will be consistent with requirements for other
systems of their size, with the provision that unfiltered systems must
demonstrate that their Cryptosporidium occurrence level continues to be
less than or equal to 1 in 100 liters (or equivalent, using advanced
methods) or provide 3 logs of Cryptosporidium inactivation.

4.3 Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 4.3.a Systems with uncovered
finished water reservoirs must:

(1) Cover the uncovered finish water reservoir, or
(2) Treat reservoir discharge to the distribution system to achieve
a 4 log virus inactivation, unless
(3) State/Primacy Agency determines that existing risk mitigation
is adequate.
(a) Systems must develop and implement risk mitigation plans.
(i) Risk mitigation plans must address physical access, surface
water run-off, animal and bird waste, and on-going water quality
assessment.
(ii) Risk mitigation plans must account for cultural uses by
tribes.

5.0 Ultraviolet Light

5.1 Based on available information, EPA believes that ultraviolet
(UV) disinfection is available and feasible. However, information is
needed in order to clarify how UV disinfection will be used as a tool
for compliance with the proposed LT2ESWTR. Issues of particular
importance include engineering issues like: Hydraulic control,
reliability, redundancy, monitoring, placement of sensors, lamp
cleaning and replacement, and lamp breakage, as well as confirmation of
the information underlying EPA's assessment that UV is available and
feasible.
5.2 Concurrent with publication of the proposed rules, EPA will
publish the following:
5.2.a Tables specifying UV doses (product of irradiance (I) and
exposure time (T)) needed to achieve up to 3 logs inactivation of
Giardia lamblia, up to 3 logs inactivation of Cryptosporidium, and up
to 4 logs inactivation of viruses.
5.2.b Minimum standards to determine if UV systems are acceptable
for compliance with drinking water disinfection requirements. These
standards will address the following:
(1) A UV Validation Protocol to be established for drinking water
applications of UV technology.\5\ Protocol to be premised on post-
filter application of UV. Protocol will include the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The FACA recommends that EPA analyze the Deutscher Verein
des Gas und Wasserfaches (DVGW) Technical Guidelines W 294 in
developing the validation protocol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Water quality criteria and site specific performance
demonstration requirements for alternative placement of UV treatment in
WTP.
(b) Demonstration of adherence with the UV dose tables for
inactivation per the identified protocols.
(c) Testing of UV reactors to validate performance under worst case
conditions (These independent testing protocols would necessarily
encompass a range of worst case conditions appropriate to the range of
WTPs that must comply with the LT2ESWTR).
(d) Minimum UV sensor performance characteristics (e.g. accuracy,
stability, sensitivity).
(2) Description of on-site monitoring required to ensure ongoing
compliance with required dose, including necessary testing and
calibration of UV sensors.

[[Page 83023]]

5.2.c UV Guidance Manual, the purpose of which is primarily to
facilitate design and planning of UV installations by familiarizing
State/Primacy Agencies and utilities with important design and
operational issues, including:
(1) Redundancy, reliability and hydraulic constraints in UV system
design including design limitations with respect to plant/pipe size
(2) Design considerations to account for water quality (e.g. UV
absorbance, turbidity), lamp fouling and aging
(3) Appropriate operations and maintenance protocols to ensure
performance of UV lamp (e.g., sleeve cleaning systems).
(4) Recommendations for water systems when soliciting UV
disinfection systems to ensure conformance to criteria described under
5.2.b.
(5) Instructions on routine equipment and water quality monitoring
practices used to assure reliable UV performance over time.
5.3 The availability of UV disinfection is a fundamental premise of
this Agreement in Principle. The FACA recommends that EPA incorporate
into the final LT2ESWTR provisions in 5.2 that will facilitate the
approval of UV technology by Primacy Agencies. EPA agrees in the
proposed LT2ESWTR to request comment on which criteria should be
incorporated into the final LT2ESWTR.
5.4 EPA agrees to publish revised IT tables and revised guidance
manuals as part of the final LT2ESWTR that reflect comments on earlier
drafts.
5.5 EPA agrees to conduct a stakeholder meeting during the comment
period for the proposed LT2ESWTR to update stakeholders on a range of
issues including the status of UV and any outstanding guidance manual
issues.
5.6 If EPA identifies substantial new information related to the
availability or feasibility of UV, EPA agrees to publish this
information in a NODA. If EPA determines that this information
significantly impacts the basis for provisions in this agreement, EPA
agrees to reconvene the FACA to address feasibility and availability of
UV.

6.0 Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (HRRCA)

EPA agrees to include in the Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR proposals an
estimate of public health effects, and a health risk reduction and cost
analysis (HRRCA). EPA agrees to use costing analysis that was developed
to support the FACA process as part of its HRRCA analysis and where
there is a significant difference in costing information EPA will use
HRCCA to explain the difference. EPA also agrees to request comments
from the Science Advisory Board prior to proposal.
STAGE 2--M-DBP AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE
PART A, Section 1.0-6.0 agreed to by:

Name, Organization

Date

All members of the Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee signed Part A.

Part B

7.0 Distribution Systems

7.1 The FACA recognizes that finished water storage and
distribution systems may have an impact on water quality and may pose
risks to public health.
7.2 The FACA recognizes that cross connections and backflow in
distribution systems represent a significant public health risk 7.3 The
FACA recognizes that water quality problems can be related to
infrastructure problems and that aging of distribution systems may
increase risks of infrastructure problems.
7.4 The FACA recognizes that distribution systems are highly
complex and that there is a significant need for additional information
and analysis on the nature and magnitude of risk associated with them.
7.5 Therefore, the FACA recommends that beginning in January 2001,
as part of the 6-year review of the Total Coliform Rule, EPA should
evaluate available data and research on aspects of distribution systems
that may create risks to public health and, working with stakeholders,
initiate a process for addressing cross connection control and backflow
prevention requirements and consider additional distribution system
requirements related to significant health risks.

8.0 Microbial Water Quality Criteria

The FACA recommends the development of national water quality
criteria funded by EPA under the Clean Water Act for microbial
pathogens for stream segments designated by states/tribes for drinking
water use. The FACA recognizes that both nonpoint sources and point
sources may be a significant contributor to microbial contamination of
drinking water and both must be responsible for reducing their
individual contributions to microbial contamination to achieve water
quality standards.
STAGE 2 M--DBP AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE
PART B, Section 1.0-8.0 agreed to by:

Name, Organization----------------------------------------------------

Date------------------------------------------------------------------

All members of the Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee except for the
National Rural Water Association signed Part B.

Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee Members and Alternates

International Ozone Association
Michael Dimitriou, IDI Aqua Source
Rip Rice, Rice International Consulting Enterprises (Alternate)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cynthia Dougherty, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water,
Office of Water
All Indian Pueblo Council, Pueblo Office of Environmental Protection
Dave Esparza, All Indian Pueblo Council
Everett Chavez, All Indian Pueblo Council (Alternate)
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Cathey Falvo, New York Medical College
Caroline Poppell, Physicians for Social Responsibility (Alternate)
Chlorine Chemistry Council
Peggy Geimer, MD, Arch Chemicals, Inc.
Keith Christman, Chlorine Chemistry Council (Alternate)
National Association of People with AIDS
Jeffrey K. Griffiths, Tufts University Schools of Medicine &
Veterinary Medicine
Terje Anderson, National Association of People with AIDS
(Alternate)
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
Richard Haberman, California Department of Health Services
Vanessa Leiby, Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
(Alternate)
Environmental Council of the States
Barker G. Hamill, Bureau of Safe Drinking Water
Eva Nieminski, Utah Department of Environmental Quality (Alternate)
National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates
Christine Hoover, Office of Consumer Advocate, PA
Brian Gallagher, National Association of State Utility Consumer
Advocates (Alternate)
Unfiltered Systems
Rosemary Menard, Water Resources Management Group, Portland Water
Bureau
Steve Leonard, San Francisco PUC (Alternate)

[[Page 83024]]

National Association of Water Companies
Richard Moser, American Water Works Service Company
Peter Cook, National Association of Water Companies (Alternate)
Natural Resources Defense Council
Erik Olson, Natural Resources Defense Council
Adrianna Quintero, Natural Resources Defense Council (Alternate)
Conservation Law Foundation
David Ozonoff, School of Public Health, Boston University
American Water Works Association
David Paris, Manchester Water Works
John Sullivan, American Water Works Association (Alternate)
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
Brian Ramaley, Newport News Waterworks
Diane Van De Hei, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
(Alternate)
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association
Charles Reading, Jr., ITT/SafeWater Solutions
Gary Van Stone, Calgon Carbon Corporation (Alternate)
National Rural Water Association
Rodney Tart, Harnett County Public Utility, NC
Randy Van Dyke, National Rural Water Association (Alternate)
National League of Cities
Bruce Tobey, Mayor of Gloucester, Massachusetts
Carol Kocheisen, National League of Cities (Alternate)
National Environmental Health Association
National Association of County and City Health Officials
Chris Wiant, TriCounty Health Department
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
John Williams, Florida Public Service Commission
Clean Water Action
Marguerite Young, Clean Water Action
Lynn Thorp, Clean Water Action (Alternate)

[FR Doc. 00-33306 Filed 12-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Stage 2 Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts Federal Advisory Committee Agreement in Principle

Local Navigation