PROPOSED RULEMAKING
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY BOARD
[25 PA. CODE CH. 109]
Safe Drinking Water; Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR)
[33 Pa.B. 1234] The Environmental Quality Board (Board) proposes to amend Chapter 109 (relating to safe drinking water). The proposed rulemaking in general pertains to public water systems using surface water or groundwater under direct influence of surface water (GUDI); utilizing direct or conventional filtration processes; and recycling backwash water, sludge thickener supernatant or liquid from dewatering processes.
This proposed rulemaking is intended to further protect public health by requiring public water systems (PWS), where needed, to institute changes to the return of recycle flows to a plant's treatment process that may otherwise compromise microbial control. The FBRR requires that recycled filter backwash water, sludge thickener supernatant and liquids from dewatering processes must be returned to a location so that all processes of a system's conventional or direct filtration including coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation (conventional filtration only) and filtration are employed. Systems may apply to the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) for approval to recycle at an alternate location.
The proposal was adopted by the Board at its meeting of December 17, 2002.
A. Effective Date
These proposed amendments will go into effect upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin as final-form rulemaking.
B. Contact Persons
For further information, contact Jeffrey A. Gordon, Chief, Division of Drinking Water Management, P. O. Box 8467, Rachel Carson State Office Building, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8467, (717) 772-4018; or Marylou Barton, Assistant Counsel, Bureau of Regulatory Counsel, P. O. Box 8464, Rachel Carson State Office Building, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8464, (717) 787-7060. Information regarding submitting comments on this proposal appears in Section H of this preamble. Persons with a disability may use the AT&T Relay Service by calling (800) 654-5984 (TDD users) or (800) 654-5988 (voice users). This proposal is available electronically through the Department's website (http://www.dep.state.pa.us).
C. Statutory Authority
This proposed rulemaking is being made under the authority of section 4 of the Pennsylvania Safe Drinking Water Act (act) (35 P. S. § 721.4), which grants the Board the authority to adopt rules and regulations governing the provision of drinking water to the public and sections 1917-A and 1920-A of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P. S. §§ 510-7 and 510-20).
D. Background and Purpose
The Department promulgated the Filtration Rule in March 1989 to address the rising number of waterborne disease outbreaks in this Commonwealth. The rule required public water systems with surface water sources to filter and disinfect the water before use by the public, cover finished water reservoirs, perform treatment performance and water quality compliance monitoring and provide public notification of violations. The rule also established design and performance standards for the filtration and disinfection treatment techniques intended to protect against the adverse health effects of exposure to Giardia lamblia, viruses and legionella, as well as many other pathogenic organisms.
The Department also promulgated the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) on July 21, 2001. This rule is intended to improve the control of microbial pathogens, specifically including the protozoan Cryptosporidium parvum, in drinking water. The IESWTR applies to PWSs serving 10,000 or more people and which use surface water GUDI. Key provisions include 99% Cryptosporidium removal requirements for systems that filter; strengthened combined and individual filter effluent turbidity performance standards; disinfection benchmark provisions to assure continued levels of microbial protection while facilities take the necessary steps to comply with new disinfection byproduct standards; inclusion of Cryptosporidium in the definition of GUDI; and sanitary surveys for all surface water systems, regardless of size.
Water treatment plants generate various waste streams during the water production process as well as during subsequent waste handling procedures. Waste streams can be a large volume, such as spent filter backwash water, which can make up more than 3% of plant production, or very small, like streams of filtrate from a filter press, which may represent less than 0.1% of plant production. The waste streams can be handled in a variety of ways. Some treatment plants recycle the wastewater to the beginning of the treatment cycle, where the water will be treated again. Other plants waste it by sending it into the local wastewater treatment plant. Still other plants obtain a discharge permit and release the water to a river or stream after some additional treatment. Increasingly stringent discharge requirements, expensive chemicals and conservation efforts have forced many plants to consider or implement recycling. Recycling of water treatment plant waste streams is an acceptable practice of good water conservation management. This proposed rulemaking does not mandate recycling nor does it intend to discourage the recycling of waste streams.
When a facility recycles filter backwash water, it reintroduces contaminants into the treatment processes. Poor recycle practices can degrade influent water quality and impair treatment process performance. The 1996 amendments to the Federal act required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate a regulation governing the recycling of filter backwash water. The EPA promulgated the Federal FBRR on June 8, 2001. The Federal FBRR addresses filter backwash water and two additional recycle streams of concern, sludge thickener supernatant and liquids from dewatering processes. The EPA believes that establishing a regulation will improve performance at filtration plants by reducing the opportunity for recycle practices to adversely affect plant performance in a way that would allow microbes such as Cryptosporidium to pass through into finished water. While the Commonwealth's Filtration Rule and the IESWTR contained treatment technique requirements designed to address microbial pathogens such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium, neither the Commonwealth's Filtration Rule nor the IESWTR addressed filter backwash recycling practices. About 120 surface water treatment plants using conventional or direct filtration practice some form of waste stream recycling in this Commonwealth.
The Department is proposing to incorporate the provisions of the Federal FBRR into the Commonwealth Safe Drinking Water Regulations to retain primacy for enforcement responsibility of safe drinking water. The proposed rulemaking will provide additional protection against disease-causing organisms (pathogens) in drinking water. This action would address risks associated with certain recycle practices in the least burdensome, most effective and simplest means possible. The proposed amendments will allow recycle practices to be conducted in a manner that does not upset the chemical treatment and coagulation process vital to the performance and contaminant removal capability of a filtration plant. The proposed amendments will also assure that Cryptosporidium oocysts in recycled water, as well as source water, receive the full benefit of well-operated treatment processes to achieve at least 99% Cryptosporidium removal.
The proposal will improve public health by increasing the level of protection from exposure to Cryptosporidium and other pathogens in drinking water supplies through improvements in recycling processes at water treatment plants. This will decrease the likelihood of endemic illness from Cryptosporidium by several thousand cases annually, thus reducing health care costs. Implementation of these provisions is expected to reduce the potential for oocysts getting into the finished water and causing cases of Cryptosporidiosis. Exposure to other pathogenic protozoa, such as Giardia, or other emerging microbial pathogens is likely to be reduced by this proposed rulemaking as well.
In terms of occurrence, Cryptosporidium is common in the environment. Most surface water sources contain, or are vulnerable to, Cryptosporidium oocyst contamination at one time or another. Since some people are carriers, oocysts may enter the water through treated and untreated sewage outfall. Other sources of Cryptosporidium contamination are those animals that live in or near the water who are likely to deposit oocysts directly into the drinking water supplies. Livestock are notorious carriers of Cryptosporidium. Runoff from watersheds allows transport of this pathogen into water bodies used as sources for drinking water treatment plants. Complicating this matter is Cryptosporidium's resistance to standard disinfection practices.
In humans, Cryptosporidium may cause a severe infection that can last several weeks. It may cause the death of individuals who have a weaker immune system due to age, cancer treatment, AIDS and antirejection organ replacement drugs. In 1993, Cryptosporidium caused over 400,000 people in Milwaukee to experience serious intestinal illness. More than 4,000 were hospitalized and at least 50 deaths were attributed to the Cryptosporidium outbreak. There have also been Cryptosporidiosis outbreaks in Nevada, Oregon and Georgia over the past several years.
The draft proposed rulemaking was submitted for comments to the Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) on September 11, 2002. The WRAC approved the regulations with the condition that the Department consider the WRAC comments. The draft proposed rule was submitted for comments to the Technical Assistance Center (TAC) Advisory Board on August 13, 2002. TAC provided comments at the meeting, which have been addressed.
Advisory Committee Recommendations
1. TAC wanted to know the breakdown of the 120 affected PWSs.
The Department conducted a survey of PWSs in this Commonwealth using conventional filtration or direct filtration to determine recycling practices in this Commonwealth. A survey of 243 filtration systems shows that about 120 of the systems practice some form of recycling. The estimated breakdown of this group is as follows:
* Less than 3,300 = 43 systems
* 3,300 to 10,000 = 29 systems
* Greater than 10,000 = 48 systems.
2. TAC wanted to know the average cost of repairs for systems making capital improvements.
According to the EPA's National estimates as published in the Preamble of the FBRR (Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 111), 371 systems Nationwide will have a total annualized cost of $5.8 million for capital improvements to recycle return location. According to the recycle survey conducted by the Department for this Commonwealth's filtration systems, it is estimated that about 30 systems will need capital improvements to recycle return location.
The ratio of Commonwealth to Nationwide is 30/371 systems = 0.08.
The Federal estimate is multiplied by the ratio to get the Commonwealth's estimate, such as:
Estimated annualized Nationwide cost for capital improvements to recycle location = $5.8 million
Estimated annualized cost for capital improvements to recycle location to Commonwealth systems = $5.8 × 0.08 = $464,000
3. TAC wanted to know if the December 8, 2003, implementation date is correct.
The January 4, 2003, date in § 109.701(h) was a typographical error. The correct date should be December 8, 2003.
PWSs using conventional filtration or direct filtration treatment and that recycle spent filter backwash water, thickener supernatant or liquids from dewatering processes, shall notify the Department in writing by December 8, 2003.
4. WRAC wanted definitions for ''recycle'' and ''capital improvement'' included in the regulation.
The definitions have been added to the proposed rulemaking. A definition for ''recycle flows'' was also added.
5. WRAC wanted the Department to include in the preamble that recycling is a good practice. They noted that the practice of recycling is good management conservation and should not be discouraged.
A statement has been added to the third paragraph of this section.
6. WRAC wanted the Department to send the proposed rulemaking to ''stakeholder groups'' in this Commonwealth for review.
The EPA involved a National stakeholder group during development of the FBRR. The proposed rulemaking is not more stringent than the Federal rule. The stakeholder groups have the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed rulemaking. Therefore, there is no need to have a separate Commonwealth stakeholder group review the proposed rulemaking.
7. WRAC wanted the Department to exempt systems that provide membrane filtration of the filter backwash wastes, and the like, and use the filtrate as finished water (that is, send filtrate to the chlorine contact tank, rather than to the head of the plant, from the provisions of the backwash recycling rule.)
The Federal FBRR requires regulated recycle streams to be returned through all the processes of a system's existing conventional or direct filtration plant or at an alternate recycle location approved by the state. Compared to the source water, the waste streams have significantly higher levels of contaminants including Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia cysts. Separate treatment of the wastewater reduces the number of microbial and pathogenic organisms prior to recycle and, therefore, significantly reduces the risk associated with passing these organisms through the conventional or direct filtration plant in the event of a hydraulic surge, for example. Even with failure of the wastewater treatment, the barriers provided by conventional and direct filtration will help to reduce the risk of passing cysts and oocysts. If the treated recycle water was discharged or recycled directly to the finished water, any failure of the membrane filtration treatment would allow the discharge of significant amounts of cysts and oocysts which would result in a significant health risk to the consumer. Therefore, the Department does not consider the finished water as an acceptable alternative recycle return location.
The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 300g-2(a)) requires that primary enforcement responsibility states, such as the Commonwealth, adopt EPA regulations no later than 2 years after EPA promulgation. The EPA may approve an extension of up to 2 years for states that: 1) lack legislative or regulatory authority to enforce the new requirements; 2) lack program capability to implement the new regulations; or 3) are adopting two or more regulations at the same time.
The final Federal FBRR was published at 63 FR 31086 (June 8, 2001). The Department is submitting a primacy extension request to the EPA to adopt regulations implementing the FBRR by June 8, 2004. It is expected that the EPA will grant the extension because the State is adopting two or more EPA regulations at the same time. If the EPA grants the June 8, 2004, extension, then failure to adopt the FBRR by this extension date may result in the Commonwealth losing its primary enforcement responsibility.
E. Summary of Regulatory Requirements
The proposed amendments reflect the new Federal requirements. The amendments are being proposed because there is no language currently in Chapter 109 that addresses the new Federal requirements.
The Safe Drinking Water Program plans to involve and inform the public of the proposed amendments through publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. The Department will also post notice and information about the proposed amendments on the Department's website at www.dep.state.pa.us. In addition, safe drinking water program staff is prepared to attend public meetings if invited to do so.
Major components of the proposed amendments include the following provisions:
§ 109.202(h) (relating to State MCLs, MRDLs and treatment technique requirements)
This subsection requires all PWSs affected by this proposed rulemaking to return affected recycle flows through the processes of the system's existing conventional or direct filtration system as defined in § 109.1 (relating to defintions) or at an alternate location approved by the Department by June 8, 2004. If capital improvements are required to modify the recycle location to meet this requirement, all capital improvements shall be completed by June 8, 2006.
§ 109.701(h)(i) (relating to reporting and recordkeeping)
This subsection requires all PWSs affected by this proposed rulemaking to notify the Department in writing by December 8, 2003, if the system recycles spent filter backwash water, thickener supernatant or liquids from dewatering processes.
Submitted information shall include a plant schematic showing the origin of all flows, which are recycled (including, but not limited to, spent filter backwash water, thickener supernatant and liquids from dewatering processes), the hydraulic conveyance used to transport them and the location where they are reintroduced into the treatment plant.
The PWSs shall also submit to the Department the typical recycle flow in gallons per minute (gpm), the highest observed plant flow experienced in the previous year (gpm), design flow for the treatment plant (gpm) and Department approved operating capacity for the plant where the Department has made the determinations.
§ 109.701(h)(2)
This paragraph requires affected PWSs to collect and retain on file by June 8, 2004, the following recycle flow information for Department review and evaluation: copy of the recycle notification and information submitted to the Department; list of all recycle flows and the frequency with which they are returned; average and maximum backwash flow rate through the filters; and average and maximum duration of the filter backwash process in minutes.
Also, to be retained for Department review are typical filter run length and a written summary of how filter run length is determined; the type of treatment provided for the recycle flow; data on the physical dimensions of the equalization or treatment units, or both, typical and maximum hydraulic loading rates, type of treatment chemicals used and average dose and frequency of use, and frequency at which solids are removed, if applicable.
F. Benefits, Costs and Compliance
Benefits
The proposed amendments will benefit customers of PWSs, which utilize direct or conventional filtration, use surface water or GUDI sources, and practice recycling. Currently, there are about 120 systems in this Commonwealth serving water to about 5,178,300 people that meet these criteria.
The economic benefits of the FBRR derive from the increased level of protection to public health. The primary benefits of the proposed rulemaking come from reductions in the risk of illness from microbial pathogens in drinking water. In particular, FBRR focuses on reducing the risk associated with disinfection resistant pathogens, such as Cryptosporidium.
Available literature research demonstrates that increased hydraulic loading or disruptive hydraulic currents such as may be experienced when plants exceed operating capacity or when recycle is returned directly into the sedimentation basin can disrupt filter and sedimentation performance. The goal of the proposed amendments is to improve public health by increasing the level of protection from exposure to Cryptosporidium and other pathogens (that is, Giardia or other waterborne bacterial or viral pathogens) in drinking water supplies through improvements in the recycling process at water systems. Implementation of these provisions is expected to reduce the potential for oocysts getting into the finished water and causing cases of Cryptosporidiosis. Exposure to other pathogenic protozoa, such as Giardia, or other emerging microbial pathogens is likely to be reduced by this proposed rulemaking as well.
In addition to preventing illnesses, the proposed rulemaking is expected to have other nonhealth related benefits. These benefits result from avoiding nonhealth related costs associated with waterborne disease outbreaks. During an outbreak, local governments and water systems shall issue warnings and alerts and may need to provide an alternative source of water. Systems also face negative publicity and possible legal costs. The monetary costs associated with an outbreak can be difficult to quantify and will vary with a host of criteria. However, one study of a Giardia outbreak in Luzerne County estimated these nonhealth related costs to be quite significant. This study estimated losses to individuals due to actions taken to avoid the contaminated water at between $19 million and $49 million, in 1984 dollars ($31 million--$81 million in 2000 dollars). Losses due to averting actions for restaurants and bars totaled $1 million and $0.6 million for schools and other businesses, in 1984 dollars. The burden for government agencies was $230,000 and the outbreak cost the water utility an estimated $1.8 million, again in 1984 dollars.
Compliance Costs
Increased costs will be borne by the regulated community for systems making capital improvements to modify recycle location. Additional training, permitting, surveillance and compliance assistance costs will also be borne by the Department.
The consumers of water supplied by about 120 affected PWSs using surface water or GUDI; utilizing direct or conventional filtration processes; and recycling backwash water, sludge thickener supernatant or liquid from dewatering processes may experience higher water use rates associated with costs for capital improvements to modify recycle locations. The actual increase in water use rates will depend on a number of factors, including population served and type of improvements done.
Compliance Assistance Plan
The Safe Drinking Water Program utilizes the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority Program to offer financial assistance to eligible public water systems. This assistance is in the form of a low-interest loan, with some augmenting grant funds for hardship cases. Eligibility is based upon factors such as public health impact, compliance necessity and project/operational affordability.
Paperwork Requirements
The Department's current data forms will facilitate any additional monitoring and reporting or paperwork.
F. Sunset Review
These regulations will be reviewed in accordance with the sunset review schedule published by the Department to determine whether the regulations effectively fulfil the goals for which they were intended.
G. Regulatory Review
Under section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5(a)), the Department submitted a copy of the proposed rulemaking on February 21, 2003, to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Chairpersons of the Senate and House Environmental Resources and Energy Committees. In addition to submitting the proposed amendments, the Department has provided IRRC and the Committees with a copy of a detailed regulatory analysis form prepared by the Department. A copy of this material is available to the public upon request.
Under section 5(g) of the Regulatory Review Act, IRRC may convey any comments, recommendations or objections to the proposed rulemaking within 30 days of the close of the public comment period. The comments, recommendations or objections shall specify the regulatory review criteria that have not been met. The Regulatory Review Act specifies detailed procedures for review of these issues by the Department, the General Assembly and the Governor prior to final-form publication of the regulations.
H. Public Comments
Written Comments--Interested persons are invited to submit comments, suggestions or objections regarding the proposed rulemaking to the Environmental Quality Board, P. O. Box 8477, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8477 (express mail: Rachel Carson State Office Building, 15th Floor, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101-2301). Comments submitted by facsimile will not be accepted. The Board must receive comments, suggestions or objections by April 7, 2003. Interested persons may also submit a summary of their comments to the Board. The summary may not exceed one page in length and must also be received by April 7, 2003. The one-page summary will be provided to each member of the Board in the agenda packet distributed prior to the meeting at which the final-form rulemaking will be considered.
Electronic Comments--Comments may be submitted electronically to the Board at RegComments@state.pa.us and must also be received by the Board by March 31, 2003. A subject heading of the proposal and a return name and address must be included in each transmission. If the sender does not receive an acknowledgement of electronic comments within 2 working days, the comments should be retransmitted to ensure receipt.
KATHLEEN A. MCGINTY,
Acting ChairpersonFiscal Note: 7-382. (1) General Fund;
Environ-
mentalEnviron-
mentalProtection Program Opera-
tionsManage-
ment(2) Implementing Year 2002-03 is $ 4,592 $ 1,008 (3) 1st Succeeding Year 2003-04 is $ 4,592 $ 1,008 2nd Succeeding Year 2004-05 is $ 4,592 $ 1,008 3rd Succeeding Year 2005-06 is $ 4,592 $ 1,008 4th Succeeding Year 2006-07 is $ 4,592 $ 1,008 5th Succeeding Year 2007-08 is $ 4,592 $ 1,008
Environmental Environmental Protection Program Operations Management (4) 2001-02 Program-- $75,074,000 $43,354,000 2000-01 Program-- $76,018,000 $41,471,000 1999-00 Program-- $71,402,000 $40,200,000 (8) recommends adoption.
Annex A
TITLE 25. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
PART I. DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Subpart C. PROTECTION OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
ARTICLE II. WATER RESOURCES
CHAPTER 109. SAFE DRINKING WATER
Subchapter A. GENERAL PROVISIONS § 109.1. Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this chapter, have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
* * * * * Liquid from dewatering processes--A stream containing liquids generated from a unit used to concentrate solids for disposal.
* * * * * Recycle--The act of returning recycle streams to a conventional or direct filtration plant's treatment process.
Recycle flows--
(i) Any water, solid or semisolid generated by a conventional or direct filtration plant's treatment process and residual treatment processes that is returned to the plant's treatment process.
(ii) The term is also referred to as recycle streams.
* * * * * Spent filter backwash water--A stream containing particles dislodged from filter media when the filter is backwashed to clean the filter.
* * * * * Thickener supernatant--A stream containing the decant from a clarifier, sedimentation basin, or other unit used to treat water, solids or semisolids from the primary treatment process.
* * * * *
Subchapter B. MCLs, MRDLs OR TREATMENT TECHNIQUE REQUIREMENTS § 109.202. State MCLs, MRDLs and treatment technique requirements.
* * * * * (h) Recycling of waste stream.
(1) If no capital improvements are required, a public water supply system that uses a surface water source or GUDI and provides conventional filtration or direct filtration treatment and recycles spent filter backwash water, thickener supernatant, or liquids from dewatering processes shall return these flows through the processes of the system's existing conventional or direct filtration system as defined in § 109. 1 (relating to definitions) or at an alternate location approved by the Department by June 8, 2004.
(2) If capital improvements are required to modify the recycle location to meet the requirement, in paragraph the capital improvements shall be completed by June 8, 2006.
(3) Capital improvement means a nonrecurring, significant modification or expenditure for nonroutine, long-term physical improvements to any part of a public water system to include, but not be limited to, construction activities, renovation activities, demolition activities, source development, treatment process modifications, storage modifications, distribution system modifications, waste-processing modifications and the associated design costs.
Subchapter G. SYSTEM MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES § 109.701. Reporting and recordkeeping.
* * * * * (h) Reporting and record maintenance requirements for systems recycling their waste streams.
(1) Public water systems using surface water or GUDI sources and providing conventional filtration or direct filtration treatment and that recycle spent filter backwash water, thickener supernatant, or liquids from dewatering processes shall notify the Department in writing by December 8, 2003. This notification shall include the following information:
(i) A plant schematic showing the origin of all flows that are recycled (including, but not limited to, spent filter backwash water, thickener supernatant and liquids from dewatering processes), the hydraulic conveyance used to transport them and the location where they are reintroduced back into the treatment plant.
(ii) Typical recycle flow in gallons per minute (gpm), the highest observed plant flow experience in the previous year (gpm), design flow for the treatment plant (gpm) and Department-approved operating capacity for the plant.
(2) Record maintenance. Beginning June 8, 2004, public water systems using surface water or GUDI sources and providing conventional filtration or direct filtration and recycle spent filter backwash water, thickener supernatant or liquids from dewatering processes shall collect and retain on file recycle flow information specified in this paragraph. This information is for the previous year of recycling and shall be available to the Department for review and evaluation at the Department's request:
(i) A copy of the recycle notification and information submitted to the Department under subsection (h).
(ii) A list of all recycle flows and the frequency with which they are returned.
(iii) Average and maximum backwash flow rate through the filters and the average and maximum duration of the filter backwash process in minutes.
(iv) Typical filter run length and a written summary of how filter run length is determined.
(v) The type of treatment provided for the recycle flow.
(vi) Data on the physical dimensions of the equalization or treatment units, or both, typical and maximum hydraulic loading rates, type of treatment chemicals used and average dose and frequency of use, and frequency at which solids are removed, if applicable.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 03-395. Filed for public inspection March 7, 2003, 9:00 a.m.]
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
