[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 251 (Friday, December 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83015-83024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-33306]


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

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