Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

69134

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 231 / Monday, December 6, 2021 / Proposed Rules
assessment requires consideration of a broader range of factors, including agricultural water practices, crop characteristics, and other relevant factors.
For each agricultural water system used for pre-harvest agricultural water for non-sprout covered produce, a covered farm would consider:

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

4. Location and Nature of Each Water Source Proposed 112.43a1 would require covered farms to evaluate the location and nature of each agricultural water source used during growing activities for non-sprout covered produce. The covered farm would need to identify whether the water source was ground water or surface water as a starting point for its agricultural water assessment.
The QAR Ref. 11 concluded that the microbial quality of source water is one of the key determinants in assessing the relative likelihood of contamination attributable to agricultural water. For example, groundwater obtained from deep underground aquifers, with properly designed, located, and constructed wells, generally yields higher quality water with little variability due to the natural filtering capacity of soils, the depth pathogens would have to travel to compromise the source, and because it is not expected to be subject to environmental factors such as runoff Refs. 11 and 32.
By contrast, surface waters, which are exposed to the environment, pose a higher potential for contamination due to runoff and greater variability in quality because of the potential for external inputs Ref. 11. Runoff has the potential to carry pathogens and is known to mobilize pathogens from sediment reservoirs to the water column Refs. 3336. Runoff also carries pathogens to the surface water system from sources such as failing septic systems and deposited animal feces Refs. 36 and 37.
5. Type of Water Distribution System Under proposed 112.42a1, a covered farm also would identify the type of water distribution systems used to convey pre-harvest agricultural water for non-sprout covered produce.
As the QAR Ref. 11 notes, pathogens can potentially enter a water system anywhere along the path from source to distribution and use, potentially introducing hazards onto produce.
Some water used for growing activities is conveyed through open systems of canals and laterals that can be subject to the introduction of hazards such as via runoff, animal intrusion, direct discharge, or seepage. For example, in
VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:13 Dec 03, 2021

Jkt 256001

the investigation of the Spring 2018 E.
coli O157:H7 outbreak, investigators conducted a ground water assessment of the area near the 3.5-mile section of irrigation canal where the outbreak strain was detected in three samples.
Refs. 12 and 13. Investigators noted that one of those positive samples was collected immediately downstream from a shallow ground water discharge into the irrigation canal. Investigators also found an area where ground water may have been seeping directly into unlined sections of the canal within the 3.5-mile stretch where the outbreak strain was detected.
Other water is distributed through closed distribution systems, such as through piping that conveys water from the source to the field. If intact, properly constructed, and properly functioning, piped systems can help protect the water from the potential introduction of hazards during conveyance.
However, hazards may be introduced into closed piping systems, such as where interconnected with other systems without adequate backflow protection. For example, an environmental investigation of a 2006 E.
coli O157:H7 linked to iceberg lettuce led investigators to a farm with an irrigation system that blended irrigation water from the local water district and dairy wastewater, and routed the blended water to fields Ref. 21.
Investigators reported that the irrigation and dairy effluent conveyance systems appeared to be combined into a complex piping network, which raised concerns about the potential of microbial crosscontamination between the growing fields of lettuce and nearby dairies. Six samples water, soil, and environmental swabs matching the outbreak strain by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis came from areas where the blended water was routed. Investigators concluded:
Because this system has been found to have inadequate backflow prevention devices, it presented a possible route of conveyance of contaminated water to fields adjacent to suspect lettuce growing fields associated with this outbreak. Ref. 38.
Covered farms with open and closed components in their agricultural water distribution systems would consider the individual properties and characteristics of each component when conducting a pre-harvest agricultural water assessment under proposed 112.43a1.
6. Degree of Protection of Each Agricultural Water System In evaluating each agricultural water system used for pre-harvest water for non-sprout covered produce under
PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

proposed 112.43a1, a covered farm would consider the likelihood that various external conditions including those described in paragraphs 7, 11, and 12 below could introduce known or reasonably foreseeable hazards to preharvest agricultural water, such as from:
Other users of the agricultural water system;
Animal impacts, including grazing animals, working animals, and animal intrusion on the covered farm; and Adjacent and nearby land uses involving animal activity, application of BSAAOs, or presence of untreated or improperly treated human waste.
Under proposed 112.43a1, a covered farm would evaluate whether there are measures in place to contain possible sources of contamination such as discharges or runoff away from the agricultural water system, including any measures implemented by the farm itself or by another entity proposed 112.43a1. For example, the QAR
Ref. 11 indicates that farms may be able to minimize the influence of discharge or runoff into on-farm surface water held in impoundments, catches, and ponds, such as through walls or earthen berms. Other farms may have little to no control over upstream runoff into a larger, shared body of water, such as a river. While flowing waters generally may be exposed to the same types of factors as on-farm ponds, reservoirs, and water containment structures, their composition and chemistry can be expected to be largely influenced by their course through land used for purposes that may lead to their contamination and, potentially, to the contamination of produce exposed to those waters.
7. Degree of Protection From Contamination by Other Users In assessing the degree of protection of the agricultural water systems under proposed 112.43a1, a covered farm would consider the potential for known or reasonably foreseeable hazards to be introduced by other users of any preharvest agricultural water source or distribution system used for non-sprout covered produce. For example, a covered farm that draws water for crop protection sprays from a pond that is also used for recreational swimming would need to consider whether that use of the source for recreational swimming would be reasonably likely to introduce known or reasonably foreseeable hazards into the agricultural water system, such as through introduction of human waste.
Under proposed 112.43a1, covered farms that reuse or recycle water as a source for pre-harvest
E:FRFM06DEP2.SGM

06DEP2