15518833, 2001, 8, Downloaded from https://awwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1551-8833.2001.tb09258.x by Univ Nacional de Cordoba UNC, Wiley Online Library on [04/01/2023].

See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
reg
watch
BY MARK A. SCHARFENAKER

USEPA Adopts Streamlined Filter Backwash Recycling Rule

TOUTING THE OBJECTIVE OF REDUCING THE WATERBORNE DISEASE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH FILTER PLANT RECYCLE PRACTICES IN
“THE LEAST BURDENSOME, MOST EFFECTIVE, AND SIMPLEST MEANS POSSIBLE,” THE US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(USEPA) ON JUNE 8 FINALIZED A STREAMLINED FILTER BACKWASH RECYCLING RULE (FBRR).

he rule requires that all systems the FBRR is intended to ensure that recycle

T using conventional or direct filtra-

tion and practice recycle submit cer-
tain information to states by Dec. 8,
2003, and to comply with a treatment tech-
nique by June 8, 2006.
The FBRR is the first new Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) rule adopted by the
Bush administration and marks the first
federal initiative to regulate recycle flows.
It is also the first USEPA rule to strengthen
control of microbial contaminants since
the companion Interim Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and
Scharfenaker
Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection By-prod-
ucts Rule (D/DBPR) were finalized in
December 1998.
Noting that the FBRR’s final regulatory
language is less than two pages in length,
AWWA Regulatory Affairs Director Alan
Roberson called the final rule “a great
example of how USEPA can develop a
short and sweet regulation. The agency
deserves a pat on the back for making sig-
nificant revisions from the more complex
proposal based on the comments received
on the proposal.”
Ordered by the 1996 SDWA amend-
ments, the FBRR was proposed simultane-
ously on Apr. 10, 2000, with the Long-term
1 ESWTR (LT1ESWTR), which will
extend IESWTR requirements to systems
serving fewer than 10,000 people when it is
promulgated later this summer. Specifically,
practices do not compromise the IESWTR’s
demand for 2-log (99%) removal of Cryp-
tosporidium oocysts.
Also in the works are the final Ground
Water Rule, which will establish criteria for
systems using groundwater sources to
assess whether they need to add disinfec-
tion, and the proposed Long-term 2
ESWTR and Stage 2 D/DBPR, the first
upgrades to the 1998 IESWTR and Stage 1
D/DBPR. Collectively, this bundle of so-
called microbial/DBP rulemakings amounts
to USEPA’s frontal attack on chlorine-resist-
ant crypto, which first manifested its mortal
waterborne threat in Milwaukee, Wis., in
1993.
FBRR ESSENTIALS
In contrast to the proposed FBRR, which
established separate reporting requirements
for direct filtration plants and for conven-
tional filter plants with fewer than 20 filters
that don’t treat recycle streams or control
hydraulic surges of such flows, the final
FBRR establishes a single but streamlined
reporting and recordkeeping framework
that applies equally to all conventional and
direct filtration systems that treat surface
water or groundwater under the direct
influence of surface water.
In keeping with the proposal, however, the
final FBRR still covers recycle streams from
any of three process flows: (1) backwash

24 AUGUST 2001 | JOURNAL AWWA ©2001 American Water Works Association

 15518833, 2001, 8, Downloaded from https://awwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1551-8833.2001.tb09258.x by Univ Nacional de Cordoba UNC, Wiley Online Library on [04/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
regwatch

from filters, (2) supernatant from sludge thicken- case of conventional systems would have
ing, and (3) liquids from sludge dewatering. required states to make system-specific determi-
The final rule also varies from the proposal by nations regarding recycle practices based on the
establishing a treatment technique that requires results of (1) a month’s worth of recycle flow
recycle flows to pass through all filtration monitoring by those systems using a state-
processes rather than be returned specifically to a approved monitoring plan and (2) a self-assess-
point before where primary coagulants are ment report from such systems that included
added. USEPA notes that this revised approach in additional information on recycle practices. The
proposal would have had direct filtration plants
submit a similar self-assessment report for state
review.
On the basis of extensive stakeholder involve-
ment in the rulemaking process and dozens of

PHOTO: JOHN MCCUTCHAN/GREELEY–BELLVUE WATER TREATMENT PLANT

public comments on the proposed rule, the
agency concluded that in both cases, the imple-
mentation burden was not justified given the
wide variability across the country in recycle
practices and the better health protection pro-
vided by a single and simpler approach that
applies to all systems that recycle.

SIMPLIFIED REPORTING/RECORDKEEPING
REQUIREMENTS
Under the final FBRR, all conventional and
direct filtration systems must, by Dec. 8, 2003,
notify their respective state primacy agency in
The final Filter Backwash Recycling Rule covers recycle streams from any of three process flows
including backwash from filters.
writing whether they recycle any of the three tar-
geted flows and provide
• a plant schematic showing the origin of all
recycle flows, how they are conveyed, and at
effect will allow recycle flows to be returned at what point they are returned to the treatment
the point of coagulant addition. Most systems process; and
that recycle return recycle flows before the rapid • descriptions of typical recycle flows in gal-
mix/coagulant stage of the treatment train. lons per minute, the highest observed flows in
The change means that only about 400 water the last year, design flow for the plant, and state-
systems are expected to have to make capital approved operating capacity (if such approval
improvements to alter their recycle-return loca- has been given).
tion. In recognition of this likelihood, the final In establishing the 2003 reporting deadline,
FBRR gives such systems the extra two years—to USEPA acknowledged public comments that the
June 8, 2006—to comply as provided by the date is six months shy of the minimum three-
SDWA in such cases. All systems not requiring year compliance deadline provided by the
capital improvements, however, must comply SDWA. The agency said that the requirement
with the treatment technique within three years amounts to “only minimal reporting,” noting
of promulgation, or June 8, 2004. that the deadline for systems not needing to
Also under the final FBRR, as with the propos- make capital improvements to comply with the
al, systems that want to return recycle flows to treatment technique is three years from the date
an alternate location can apply to the state for of promulgation.
approval to do so. The rule also requires all conventional and
In opting for a single reporting/recordkeeping direct filtration systems to undertake a one-time
framework for both conventional and direct fil- collection of certain additional recycle informa-
tration plants, USEPA abandoned its more com- tion and maintain it for possible future review by
plex proposed reporting approach, which in the state authorities as part of a sanitary survey,

26 AUGUST 2001 | JOURNAL AWWA ©2001 American Water Works Association


regwatch
comprehensive performance evaluation (CPE), or
other inspections.
Specifically, systems must collect and retain the
following information:
• a copy of the recycle notification and infor-
mation submitted to the state by Dec. 8, 2003;
• a list of all recycle flows and their return
frequency;
• the average and maximum filter backwash
flow rate through the filters and the average and
maximum duration of the filter backwash
process, in minutes;
• the typical filter run length and a written
summary of how run length is determined;
• the type of treatment provided for recycle
flows; and
• the physical dimensions of the recycle equal-
ization and/or treatment units, typical and maxi-
mum hydraulic loading rates, type of treatment
chemicals used and average dose and frequency
of use of such chemicals, and frequency at which
solids are removed, if applicable.
To ensure that states can implement the FBRR,
the rule requires them to have the appropriate
rules and authority in place to use sanitary sur-
veys, CPEs, or other activities to evaluate the
recycle data maintained by systems and to order
any necessary modifications. The FBRR establish-
es a special requirement for states to submit such
proof as part of their application for FBRR pri-
macy. Otherwise, the final rule, unlike the pro-
posed rule, imposes no specific requirements for
states to collect, report, or retain information.
PUBLIC NOTICE
The FBRR also amends the public notification
rule to make violation of the treatment technique
a tier 2 violation and violation of the FBRR’s
state reporting and information collection
requirements a tier 3 violation.
Although it makes no changes to Consumer
Confidence Report (CCR) regulations, USEPA
notes that CCRs must report violations of treat-
ment techniques.
COSTS AND BENEFITS
USEPA estimates that the FBRR’s total annual-
ized (over 20 years) compliance cost is $5.84 mil-
lion based on a 3% discount rate or $7.2 million
if based on a 7% rate, with virtually all of the
costs being incurred by water systems. The
agency further estimates that an estimated 371
28 AUGUST 2001 | JOURNAL AWWA ©2001 American Water Works Association
15518833, 2001, 8, Downloaded from https://awwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1551-8833.2001.tb09258.x by Univ Nacional de Cordoba UNC, Wiley Online Library on [04/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
systems will wind up spending $45.2 million in
capital and operation and maintenance costs for
modifying their recycle locations to comply with
the treatment technique, which amounts to the
bulk of the annualized cost.
The numbers translate into an estimated hike in
household costs of less than $1.70 per year for
99% of more than 31.4 million households
affected by the FBRR. USEPA
estimates that the annual cost
to the remaining 1% of affect-
ed households could carry a
much higher price tag. Rough-
INTERNET
ly 321 of 34.1 million affected
households could end up pay-
RESOURCES
ing as much as $100 per year. Filter Backwash Recycling Rule
Regarding benefits of the
documents
FBRR, USEPA cites the quali-
tative benefit of reducing the <www.epa.gov/safewater/
risk of waterborne disease by filterbackwash.html>
enhancing removal of chlorine-
resistant pathogens such as Related US Environmental Protec-
Cryptosporidium while assert- tion Agency (USEPA) regulations
ing that a quantitative analysis
on microbial contaminants and
is precluded by the lack of rele-
vant oocyst-removal data. disinfection by-products
Overall, USEPA found that <www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/
the benefits of the FBRR justify mdbp.html>
its cost on a qualitative basis,
concluding that it “strongly USEPA tables of Public Notice and
believes that returning Cryp-
Consumer Confidence Report
tosporidium to the treatment
process in recycle flows, if per- requirements
formed improperly, can create <www.epa.gov/safewater/
additional public health risk” tables.html>
and the final rule will “help
prevent Cryptosporidium AWWA Online Training Institute
oocysts and other contami-
<awwa.advanceonline.com>
nants from entering finished
drinking water supplies and
causing endemic illness or cost-
ly waterborne disease outbreaks.”
USEPA, meanwhile, is soon expected to
release its final Health Risk Reduction and Cost
Analysis for the FBRR on the Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water website at
<www.epa.gov/safewater>.
IMPLEMENTATION ASSISTANCE
USEPA is expected to release initial “quick
start” implementation guidance for states and
utilities this summer, followed in early 2002 by a

regwatch
comprehensive technical guidance document
that is being prepared in partnership with
AWWA and other stakeholders.
The technical guidance, a draft of which will
be reviewed by stakeholders, will describe best
management practices for handling recycle flows
and focus on helping utilities analyze their recy-
cling practices and states assess the impact of
any potential treatment changes.
AWWA will also be developing training for
this regulation, likely through AWWA’s Online
Institute, as part of its regulatory training plan
for upcoming final drinking water regulations.
Overall, Roberson said the focus of the FBRR
“is on the interaction between the utility and the
state. States, using their knowledge of each treat-
ment plant, will have the flexibility to decide
exactly what actions, if any, need to be taken
based on the data collected by the utility.”
He advised all utilities that practice recycle “to
get a jump on this regulation by collecting the
30 AUGUST 2001 | JOURNAL AWWA ©2001 American Water Works Association
15518833, 2001, 8, Downloaded from https://awwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1551-8833.2001.tb09258.x by Univ Nacional de Cordoba UNC, Wiley Online Library on [04/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
information required for the submission to the
state and the additional information to be kept
on record for state review.”
—Mark A. Scharfenaker is editor of
WATERWEEK and project manager of the
Safe Drinking Water Advisor.
He can be reached at <mscharfe@awwa.org>.
Articles in this section of the JOURNAL are
dedicated to providing current information
about legislative and regulatory develop-
ments. They address needs and concerns of
water utilities from a practical standpoint;
they are not intended to reflect official posi-
tions or policies of AWWA.