Navigation

[47 Pa.B. 4986]
[Saturday, August 26, 2017]

[Continued from previous Web Page]

§ 109.1202. Monitoring requirements.

 Subsection (l) is proposed to be amended to clarify the heading.

 The heading of subsection (n) is proposed to be amended to clarify that is applies to source water sample locations for plants with bank filtration. This proposed amendment is consistent with the headings of subsections (k) and (m).

 The heading of subsection (o) is proposed to be amended to clarify that it applies to source water sample locations for plants with multiple sources. This proposed amendment is consistent with the headings of subsections (k) and (m).

§ 109.1203. Bin classification and treatment technique requirements

 Subsection (f)(2) is proposed to be amended to clarify a citation regarding requirements for microbial toolbox components.

 Subsection (g) is proposed to be amended to clarify a citation regarding requirements for microbial toolbox components.

§ 109.1204. Requirements for microbial toolbox components

 Subsection (h) is proposed to be amended to clarify a citation regarding general monitoring requirements.

§ 109.1206. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

 Subsection (e)(1) is proposed to be amended to clarify a citation to account for the addition of a subparagraph.

 Proposed subsection (e)(1)(viii) requires a system to report the concentration of oocysts per liter when reporting the results of each Cryptosporidium analysis.

 Existing subsection (e)(1)(viii)—(x) is proposed to be renumbered to account for proposed subsection (e)(1)(viii).

§ 109.1302. Treatment technique requirements

 The heading of subsection (c) is proposed to be amended to improve readability.

 Subsection (c)(1) is proposed to be amended to delete significant deficiency language that is proposed to be incorporated in § 109.716.

 Subsection (c)(2)(iii) is proposed to be deleted to remove a provision providing that a groundwater system with an E. coli-positive groundwater source sample will receive direction from the Department that it needs correction. This clarifies that all E. coli-positive source water samples require corrective action under § 109.716.

 Subsection (c)(1) is proposed to be amended to delete significant deficiency language.

 Subsection (c)(3) is proposed to be moved to § 109.716 with minor amendments. Proposed amendments to this paragraph include a cross-reference directing the PWS to § 109.716.

 Subsection (c)(4) is proposed to be deleted.

§ 109.1303. Triggered monitoring requirements for ground-water sources

 The corrective action provisions in subsection (h)(1) and (2) are proposed to be deleted. Paragraph (3) is proposed to be deleted and the Tier 1 notification provision is proposed to be added to subsection (h).

§ 109.1305. Compliance monitoring

 Subsection (a)(1)(iii) is proposed to be amended to clarify grab sample and manual recording and reporting requirements in the case of a failure of continuous monitoring equipment. The proposed amendments are consistent with proposed amendments to § 109.301.

 Subsection (a)(2)(i) is proposed to be amended to clarify that a groundwater system shall record the results of the follow up samples which are required under paragraph (2).

§ 109.1306. Information describing 4-log treatment and compliance monitoring

 Subsection (b)(3) is proposed to be amended to correct the name of the Department's Drinking Water Bureau.

§ 109.1307. System management responsibilities

 Subsection (a)(1)(ii) is proposed to be amended to further clarify the time period which constitutes a breakdown in treatment.

§ 109.1401. General

 This proposed section contains the general requirements for fees being collected under the SDWA.

§ 109.1402. Annual fees

 Proposed subsection (a) requires PWSs to pay an annual fee to support the cost of Department services provided under the SDWA. As described in Part II of this preamble, the Department has had a reduction in Safe Drinking Water Program staff of 25% since 2009. These proposed annual fees, as well as the proposed increases in permit fees in § 109.1404 (relating to community and noncommunity water system permitting fees), are expected to generate the $7.5 million necessary to restore staffing levels and to provide services required under the SDWA to the 8,521 PWSs in this Commonwealth and the 10.7 million customers they serve.

 The following table summarizes the proposed annual fees for CWSs, which are based on population and range from $250 to $40,000. The per-person costs range from $0.35 to $10 per person per year.


Proposed CWS Annual Fees (Based on Population)
Population Served Annual Fee Cost/Person/Year
25—100    $250 $2.50—$10.00
101—500    $500 $1.00—$4.95
501—1,000  $1,000 $1.00—$2.00
1,001—2,000  $2,000 $1.00—$2.00
2,001—3,300  $4,000 $1.21—$2.00
3,301—5,000  $6,500 $1.30—$1.97
5,001—10,000 $10,000 $1.00—$2.00
10,001—25,000 $20,000 $0.80—$2.00
25,001—50,000 $25,000 $0.50—$1.00
50,001—75,000 $30,000 $0.40—$0.60
75,001—100,000 $35,000 $0.35—$0.47
100,001 or more $40,000 ≤ $0.40

 The Department analyzed the cost of providing services to administer the SDWA and its regulations. The cost of some services can be reasonably estimated, while the cost of other services depends on the specific circumstances and will vary widely. The following table summarizes the Department's costs of providing those services that can be reasonably estimated for CWSs serving various populations. The hourly rate was provided by the Department's fiscal office and includes salary, benefits and in-direct costs (supplies, and the like).

Cost of Services that can be Estimated
Activity Hours/Activity/Year for CWSs Serving the Following Population
<750 750—5,000 5,000—50,000 >50,000
Conduct sanitary surveys 7.5 10 25 37.5
Conduct other inspections 2.5 3.3 5 10
Determine compliance 12 12 15 15
Maintain PADWIS/eFACTS 7.5 7.5 10 10
Review plans/reports 7.5 10 15 15
Provide technical assistance/training 7.5 7.5 10 10
        Total Hours 44.5 50.3 80 97.5
       at $49/Hour = $2,180 $2,465 $3,920 $4,778

 Examples of other services and costs that involve variable circumstances and preclude a single estimate for the services include the following:

Sanitary surveys that take longer to conduct due to the complexity or size of the water system. Examples of actual hours expended and costs to complete more complicated sanitary surveys at large water systems (that is, those serving populations > 50,000) are as follows:

 System A (population = 57,000): 40.5 hours at a cost of $1,984

 System B (population = 66,500): 40 hours at a cost of $1,960

 System C (population = 87,000): 49 hours at a cost of $2,401

 System D (population = 105,000): 60 hours at a cost of $2,940

 System E (population = 120,000): 60 hours at a cost of $2,940

 System F (population = 747,500): 103 hours at a cost of $5,047

 System G (population = 1.6 million): 124 hours at a cost of $6,076

Additional follow-up actions taken by the Department in response to a violation. When a drinking water standard is exceeded, Department staff are responsible for: consulting with and providing direction to the water system; ensuring that public notice is complete, timely and repeated as needed; tracking, reviewing and approving follow-up and corrective actions (such as collecting confirmation or additional samples, repairing/replacing/installing water treatment or taking contaminated sources offline); and determining when the system has returned to compliance.

 For example, in 2016, monitoring results for a large water system in this Commonwealth indicated the 90th percentile lead value exceeded the action level established in the Lead and Copper Rule. This triggered lead service line replacement actions. Department staff spent at least 116 1/2 hours working to address this important issue. Services provided by the Department to achieve compliance included meetings, file reviews, drafting compliance documents, follow up action reviews and letters. The approximate cost for these services is $5,708.

Additional follow-up, corrective and emergency actions taken by the Department in response to a water supply emergency. Water supply emergencies occur each year and require substantial resources from the Department. The following are examples of emergencies and associated costs for services provided by the Department.

 In spring 2011, unexpected damage to a very large water main resulted in a major leak, loss of significant water quantity and pressure. The result was closure of multiple businesses and government agencies in a large city for 3 days due to lack of potable water supply. This emergency spanned approximately 5 consecutive days with approximately 66,500 customers impacted. The Department provided a variety of onsite support services at the site of the break and at the drinking water filtration plant. Department cost for services provided during this event equates to approximately 160 hours of staff time and a cost of $7,840.

 In summer 2012, significant construction delays in completing critical renovations and upgrades to a water filter plant threatened the ability to provide an adequate quantity of drinking water to approximately 210,000 customers. Department staff provided a variety of specialized engineering and operational support services over the course of several weeks. Total cost estimate of Department services provided during this event includes 600 hours of staff time costing approximately $29,400.

 In summer 2015, runoff from a large fire at an industrial facility severely contaminated the intakes for two PWSs thereby rendering their normal source of surface water untreatable for almost 3 months. Together, the 2 public water suppliers impacted provided drinking water to approximately 43,000 customers. Several Department staff were involved in providing a wide variety of emergency support services, over the course of several months, to the water suppliers affected. Department cost estimates for this event include 515 staff hours ($25,235) and emergency sampling costs ($17,818). The total cost of Department services provided was approximately $43,053.

 In winter 2016, an equipment failure resulted in flooding at a surface water filtration plant which provides water to approximately 20,000 customers. This immobilized treatment and pumping capabilities for 6 consecutive days. The filter plant did not resume normal operations for approximately 2 weeks. Without combined efforts by the water system, the Department and neighboring water systems, 20,000 customers could have endured consecutive days without an adequate supply of water. Department services included coordination with neighboring water systems to identify alternate sources of water, emergency permit considerations, site assessments, engineering and operational support. Additionally, the Department loaned the PWS critical water quality monitoring equipment (valued at approximately $24,000) for approximately 10 weeks to help verify that safe water was consistently provided. The total cost estimate of Department services provided during this event also includes 300 hours of staff time, which cost approximately $14,700.

Cost of samples collected by the Department during inspections and FPPEs, in response to complaint investigations, and to assess water quality and protect public health during water supply emergencies. These sampling costs range from $30 for inorganic analyses to $400 for pesticides to $1,200 for analysis of Cryptosporidium and Giardia to $2,968 for a complete emergency sampling suite. Total Department lab costs average approximately $680,000 per year.

Costs associated with additional training when new regulations are promulgated. One example is the numerous training sessions that were developed and delivered in 2015-2016 to roll-out implementation of the RTCR adopted to conform to Federal requirements. This training included 8 different training courses, workshops and webinars that were presented 160 times across this Commonwealth for a total of 482 hours of training. The cost to deliver 482 hours of training was $23,618.

Costs associated with specific follow-up actions established in new regulations. The Federal RTCR became effective on April 1, 2016, and the Department and the EPA shared enforcement of the Federal rule until the Commonwealth's regulations were adopted at 46 Pa.B. 6005 (September 24, 2016). As part of the Department's enforcement responsibilities during this interim period, staff conducted Level 2 assessments at PWSs. A Level 2 assessment is triggered when a public water supply has an E. coli MCL violation or when two total coliform triggers occur during a 12-month period. During this interim period, Department staff completed 94 Level 2 Assessments at more than 85 regulated PWSs. These assessments identified over 400 defects that have been or are being corrected, thereby improving public health protection. Estimated costs for services provided by the Department were approximately $3,000 per assessment for a total cost of $282,000.

 The additional costs described in the previous four paragraphs, as noted by italicized headings, are more evident in medium and large water systems due to their size, age, complexity and number of customers at risk. Because these additional costs are variable (that is, the costs are not incurred every year for every water system), it is not possible to establish an average cost for these services. However, these additional costs were considered when determining the annual fees for the medium and large water systems.

 The proposed annual fees could have been based solely on the costs for the services that could be estimated. However, that approach would have resulted in a disproportionate impact on the smallest CWSs and would have failed to account for the additional costs incurred by the Department to provide services that cannot be readily estimated, such as those previously described, which result in substantially higher costs for medium and large water systems. Thus, the proposed annual fees were developed, to the extent possible, to bear a reasonable relationship to the actual costs of the services provided while achieving a reasonable cost to the 10.7 million customers served. The following table shows the per person costs associated with the proposed annual fees as compared to the per person costs associated with annual fees based solely on the cost of services that can be estimated.


Annual Fees vs. Cost Per Person Per Year
Population Served Proposed
Annual Fee
Cost Per Person
Per Year
Estimated Cost of
Services
Cost Per Person
Per Year
25—100    $250 $2.50—$10.00 $2,180 $21.80—$87.20
101—500    $500 $1.00—$4.95 $2,180 $4.36—$21.58
501—1,000  $1,000 $1.00—$2.00 $2,180 $2.18—$4.35
1,001—2,000  $2,000 $1.00—$2.00 $2,465 $1.23—$2.46
2,001—3,300  $4,000 $1.21—$2.00 $2,465 $0.74—$1.23
3,301—5,000  $6,500 $1.30—$1.97 $2,465 $0.49—$0.75
5,001—10,000 $10,000 $1.00—$2.00 $3,930 $0.39—$0.78
10,001—25,000 $20,000 $0.80—$2.00 $3,920 $0.16—$0.39
25,001—50,000 $25,000 $0.50—$1.00 $3,920 $0.08—$0.16
50,001—75,000 $30,000 $0.40—$0.60 $3,920 $0.05—$0.08
75,001—100,000 $35,000 $0.35—$0.47 $4,778 $0.05—$0.06
100,001 or more $40,000 $0.40 or less $4,778 $0.05 or less

 The Board is seeking comment on the proposed annual fees and the approach previously discussed used to develop them.

Other alternatives considered

 Another approach that was considered, based on how some other states have established annual fees, is establishing the fee based on the number of service connections associated with the CWS. Two options were considered:

Option No. 1: annual fees based on flat rate per number of connections. The Department does not currently have accurate data on the number of service connections in PWSs in this Commonwealth. This is not a required field in the Federal and Commonwealth databases. To estimate the number of service connections, the population served by the CWS was divided by 2.7 persons per household. The estimated number of connections associated with CWSs in this Commonwealth range from 9 to almost 600,000, with total connections estimated to exceed 4.4 million. To base an annual fee on the number of connections, the $7.5 million needed was divided by the estimated number of total connections to derive a per connection fee of $1.70. This per connection fee would equate to an estimated per person cost of $0.63. When the per connection fee is multiplied by the estimated number of CWS connections, the total annual fee paid by CWSs would range from $15.30 to over $1 million. While this approach may achieve approximately the same cost per person, the annual fees would not bear a reasonable relationship to the actual cost of providing services to the CWSs. Therefore, this alternative approach to developing the proposed annual fee was not recommended.

Option No. 1: Annual Fees Based on Flat Rate/Connection vs. Cost of Providing Services
Population Served Number of Service
Connections
Annual Fee Minimum Cost of
Services
Percentage of Cost of
Minimum Services
25     9 $15.30 $2,180    <1%
125    46 $78.20 $2,180     4%
750   278 $472.60 $2,180    22%
3,300 1,222 $2,077.40 $2,465    84%
10,000 3,704 $6,296.80 $3,920   160%
50,000 18,518 $31,480.60 $3,920   803%
100,000 37,037 $62,962.90 $4,778  1,318%
120,000 45,052 $76,588.40 $4,778  1,603%
160,000 59,259 $100,740.30 $4,778  2,108%
250,000 92,592 $157,406.40 $4,778  3,294%
660,000 244,444 $415,554.80 $4,778  8,697%
820,000 303,704 $516,296.80 $4,778 10,806%
1,600,000 592,593 $1,007,408.10 $4,778 21,084%

Option No. 2: annual fees based on sliding rate with minimum fee. A second per connection option considered was to use a sliding scale fee per connection. As illustrated in the following table, the annual fees generated using a sliding scale would not bear a reasonable relationship to the actual costs of the services provided. Therefore, this alternative approach to developing the proposed annual fees was not recommended.

Option No. 2: Annual Fees Based on Sliding Scale/Connection vs. Cost of Providing Services
Population
Served
Number of Service
Connections
Sliding Scale
Fee Per
Connection
Annual Fee Minimum Cost
of Services
Percentage of Cost of Minimum Services
25      9 Flat fee     $250.00 $2,180    11%
125     46 Flat fee     $250.00 $2,180    11%
750    278 $3.20     $889.60 $2,465    36%
3,300   1,222 $3.20   $3,910.40 $2,465   150%
10,000   3,704 $3.00  $11,112.00 $2,465   450%
50,000  18,518 $1.70  $31,480.60 $3,920   803%
100,000  37,037 $1.50  $55,555.50 $4,778  1,163%
120,000  45,052 $1.50  $67,578.00 $4,778  1,414%
160,000  59,259 $1.50  $88,888.50 $4,778  1,860%
250,000  92,592 $1.50 $138,888.00 $4,778  2,907%
660,000 244,444 $1.00 $244,444.00 $4,778  5,116%
820,000 303,704 $1.00 $303,704.00 $4,778  6,356%
1,600,000 592,593 $1.00 $592,593.00 $4,778 12,402%

 The TAC asserted that the public water supply community needs adequate time to review and evaluate the proposed fees. The TAC recommended that, prior to seeking fees from the regulated water suppliers, the Department should first request adequate funding from the General Assembly to maintain the Safe Drinking Water Program and its core functions, including upgraded information technology systems. Further, the TAC recommended that the Department should streamline operating costs and improve efficiencies before seeking fees. The TAC asserted that improving information technology systems would greatly improve the efficiency of the Department. Further, the TAC stated that the General Fund should subsidize the small systems, not the ratepayers of the medium and large systems.

 The Department requested and will continue to request additional funding from the General Fund during the annual budget process to support the Safe Drinking Water Program. The decrease in funding has caused the need for the proposed annual fees. If funding becomes available, the Department will evaluate the continuing need for the proposed annual fees. As for the cost to customers of small versus medium and large CWSs, the proposed annual fees provide a reasonable relationship to the actual costs of the services provided by the Department when considering the minimum costs that can be estimated in advance and the cost of services that arise on a case-by-case basis previously discussed.

 The Department has streamlined its operations in nearly all areas, except for e-Inspections. In response to many years of staffing and resource shortfalls, the program has been reduced to only those activities that are mandated by State and Federal laws, regulations and primacy requirements. Implementation of e-Inspections would streamline data management by eliminating the manual entry of inventory updates, inspection results, and the like, into PADWIS and eFACTS. However, the Department would need additional funding to purchase mobile devices and develop and maintain e-Inspection computer programs. If e-Inspections or other efficiencies are developed in the future, the ongoing 3-year review of fees will be updated accordingly. However, future efficiencies may also be offset by new regulations and mandates. All of these circumstances will be considered every 3 years. If overall Department costs go down due to improved efficiencies, the fees will be adjusted accordingly.

 The TAC recommended that the Department also evaluate a surcharge rate factor based on gallons produced for each permitted facility to determine the annual fee for community, bottled, vended, retail and bulk hauling water systems. The TAC also claimed that bottled and vended water fees do not seem equitable in relationship to the cost of the product and asked why the fee is not based on the gallons produced. The Department does not currently have sufficient data to determine the gallons produced as this is not a required data field.

 Regarding the other annual fees in subsection (a), proposed fees for NTNCWS range from $100 to $1,000, annual fees for transient noncommunity water systems (TNCWS) range from $50 to $500, annual fees for bottled water systems are $2,500 and annual fees for vended, retail and bulk water systems are $1,000.

 These proposed fees were determined using the same criteria as previously discussed and are illustrated as follows. The total hours for services that can be estimated were as follows:

 • For NTNCWSs, the total hours ranged from 16 to 22 hours.

 • For TNCWSs, the total hours ranged from 8 to 13 hours.

 • For BVRBs, the total hours ranged from 21 to 26 hours.

Annual Fees vs. Cost Per Person Per Year
Population Served Proposed
Annual Fee
Cost Per Person
Per Year
Estimated Cost of
Services
Cost Per Person
Per Year
NTNCWSs
25—100   $100 $1.00—$4.00   $784 $7.84—$31.36
101—500   $250 $0.50—$2.48   $784 $1.57—$7.76
501—1,000   $500 $0.50—$1.00   $784 $0.78—$1.56
1,001—3,300   $750 $0.23—$0.75 $1,078 $0.33—$1.08
3,301 or more $1,000 $0.30 or less $1,078 $0.33 or less
TNCWSs
25—100    $50 $0.50—$2.00   $392 $3.92—$15.68
101—500   $100 $0.20—$0.99   $392 $0.78—$3.88
501—1,000   $200 $0.20—$0.40   $392 $0.39—$0.78
1,001 or more   $500 $0.50 or less   $392 $0.39 or less
BVRBs
Bottled $2,500 N/A $1,274 N/A
Vended $1,000 N/A $1,029 N/A
Retail $1,000 N/A $1,029 N/A
Bulk $1,000 N/A $1,029 N/A

 Subsection (b) specifies that the number of customers served shall be based on the Department's PWS inventory, PADWIS, at the time of billing for annual fees.

 Subsection (c) contains a schedule of payments for the annual fees. The Department will allow quarterly payments for fees of $10,000 or more.

§ 109.1403. Monitoring waiver fees

 Proposed subsection (a) adds the fees for waiving the monitoring requirements for volatile organic chemicals, synthetic organic chemicals and inorganic chemicals for systems with a single source of drinking water.

 Proposed subsection (b) adds the fees for renewing a waiver from monitoring requirements for systems with a single source of drinking water.

 Proposed subsection (c) adds the fees for waiving the monitoring requirements for systems with more than one source of drinking water.

§ 109.1404. Community and noncommunity water system permitting fees

 The proposed permitting fees were determined using a workload analysis. Costs were assigned based on the relative complexity of the permit review. Permit fees have not been increased since originally adopted in 1984.

 The Department used the following milestones or steps in the permit review process (with time ranges in hours) to calculate the proposed fees:

 • Administrative completeness review (1 hour)

 • Technical review (range of 1—153 hours, average of 32 hours)

 • Preparation of the construction permit (2 hours)

 • Pre-operational inspection (1—3 hours)

 • Preparation of the operation permit (1 hour)

 A figure of $64 per hour was used for technical staff time.

Proposed Permit Fees
Title Current Fee Proposed Fee
Permitting Fees (CWSs and NCWSs)
Permit/major amendment $750 $300—$10,000
Minor amendment   $0 $100—$5,000
Operations permit   $0 $50
Emergency permit   $0 $100
Change in legal status   $0 $100
Additional NCWS Fees
Application for approval   $0 $50
4-log permit   $0 $50
Feasibility Study Fees
Feasibility study   $0 $300—$10,000

 Proposed subsection (a) adds the fee schedule for applications for construction permits or major construction permit amendments under § 109.503, except for an application for BVRB facilities under § 109.1005 (relating to permit requirements).

 Proposed subsection (b) adds the fee schedule for requests for minor construction permit amendments under § 109.503, except for a change in legal status.

 Proposed subsection (c) adds the fee for changes in legal status of the permit.

 Proposed subsection (d) adds the fee for new or amended operations permits under § 109.504 (relating to public water system operating permits).

 Proposed subsection (e) adds the fee for a request for an emergency permit.

 The TAC recommended that permit fees should not be based on population. Rather, the TAC asserted that the fees should be based on the type, scope, size and complexity of the project. The TAC also commented that minor amendments should not require extensive review and should be substantially less than major amendments or new permits.

 Based on a workload analysis and a review of historical permits, the Department determined that the assessment of permit fees by population generally takes into consideration the size and complexity of the project. Projects for larger systems are generally larger and more complex than projects for smaller systems. Larger systems generally have more complicated simultaneous compliance concerns, which add to the complexity of the project. The fees for minor amendments are lower than the fees for major amendments or new permits.

§ 109.1405. Permitting fees for general permits

 This proposed section explains that fees for general permits will be established in the general permit and will not exceed $500. The fee for each general permit will be based on a workload analysis prepared prior to issuance of a draft of the general permit for public comment and will reflect the Department's estimated cost for providing services associated with the general permit, including reviewing and approving coverage or renewed coverage under the general permit and conducting inspections and providing other services to ensure compliance.

§ 109.1406. Permitting fees for bottled water and vended water systems, retail water facilities, and bulk water hauling systems

 The Department used the following milestones or steps in the permit review process (with time ranges in hours) to calculate the proposed fees:

 • Administrative completeness review (1 hour)

 • Technical review (range of 1—153 hours, average of 32 hours)

 • Preparation of the construction permit (2 hours)

 • Pre-operational inspection (1—3 hours)

 • Preparation of the operation permit (1 hour)

 A figure of $64 per hour was used for technical staff time.

Proposed Permit Fees
Title Current Fee Proposed Fee
Permitting Fees (BVRBs)
Permit/major amendment $750 $100—$10,000
Minor amendment   $0 $100—$1,000
Operations permit   $0 $50
Change in legal status   $0 $100
Out-of-State bottled water $100 $1,000
Emergency permit   $0 $100

 Proposed subsection (a) adds the fees for construction permits or major construction permit amendments under § 109.1005, except an out-of-State facility or system using finished water as its sole source of water.

 Proposed subsection (b) adds fees for a bottled water system, retail water facility or bulk water hauling system purchasing finished water as its sole source of water.

 Proposed subsection (c) adds the fees for an out-of-State bottled water system submitting proof of out-of-State approval under § 109.1005.

 Proposed subsection (d) adds the fees for minor construction permit amendments under § 109.1005, except for a change in legal status.

 Proposed subsection (e) adds the fees for a change in legal status, such as a transfer of ownership, incorporation or merger.

 Proposed subsection (f) adds the fees for a new or amended operations permit.

 Proposed subsection (g) adds the fees for an emergency permit.

§ 109.1407. Feasibility study

 This section adds the fees for feasibility study and pilot study review services from the Department. The average hours to review and approve a feasibility study or pilot study are 37 1/2 hours.

 The TAC recommended that the fees should be based on the type, scope and complexity of the project, rather than the system population. The Department notes that system population takes into account the increasing complexity of water systems as population increases.

§ 109.1408. Noncommunity water system application for approval

 This proposed section adds the fees for an application for approval for an NCWS that is released from the obligation to obtain a construction and an operation permit under § 109.505 (relating to requirements for noncommunity water systems).

§ 109.1409. Noncommunity water system 4-log permit

 This proposed section adds the fees for NCWSs demonstrating 4-log treatment of viruses under Subchapter M (relating to additional requirements for groundwater sources).

§ 109.1410. Payment of fees

 This proposed section adds requirements for paying the fees required under Subchapter N.

§ 109.1411. Disposition of funds

 Per the SDWA, this proposed section requires that all fees be paid into the State Treasury into a special restricted revenue account in the General Fund known as the Safe Drinking Water Account, which is to be administered by the Department for use in protecting the public from the hazards of unsafe drinking water.

§ 109.1412. Failure to remit fees

 As requested by the TAC, this proposed section adds provisions for the addition of 6% interest for systems that do not pay their annual fees in a timely manner.

 The interest charges are extra costs associated with the collection of overdue fees. Section 4(c) of the SDWA provides that Department fees are to ''. . . bear a reasonable relationship to the actual cost of providing a service.'' The proposed interest charges relate to extra services necessary to collect overdue fees such as reminder notice mailings, NOV mailings, phone calls and e-mails to delinquent payers. The amount of interest actually charged will depend on how long it takes for the PWS to pay the overdue amount. The longer it takes to collect the fee, more services will be required of the Department to collect the overdue fee and the interest charges associated with that service.

 This proposed section would also allow the Department to suspend technical services, such as issuing monitoring waivers, plan approvals or permits, for water systems with delinquent fees in excess of 180 days.

§ 109.1413. Evaluation of fees

 This proposed section requires the Department to provide the Board with an evaluation of the fees in this chapter and recommend regulatory changes to the Board to address any disparity between the program income generated by the fees and the Department's cost of administering the program with the objective of ensuring fees meet program costs and programs are self-sustaining.

 The TAC concurred with the 3-year cycle for evaluating fees.

F. Benefits, Costs and Compliance

Benefits

 One or more of the proposed amendments affect all 8,521 PWSs serving approximately 12.7 million Pennsylvanians. The residents of this Commonwealth will benefit from: 1) the avoidance of a full range of health effects from the consumption of contaminated drinking water such as acute and chronic illness, endemic and epidemic disease, waterborne disease outbreaks and death; 2) the continuity of a safe and adequate supply of potable water; and 3) the protection of public drinking water sources, which will result in maintaining the highest source water quality available, thereby minimizing drinking water treatment costs.

 This proposed rulemaking will protect public health by providing increased protection from microbial pathogens and chemical contaminants in PWSs and strengthen system resiliency. Safe drinking water is vital to maintaining healthy and sustainable communities. Proactively avoiding incidents such as waterborne disease outbreaks can prevent loss of life, reduce the incidents of illness and reduce health care costs. Proper investment in PWS infrastructure and operations helps ensure a continuous supply of safe drinking water, enables communities to plan and build future capacity for economic growth, and ensures their long-term sustainability for years to come.

Source water assessment, protection and permitting requirements. The benefits of the source water assessment and protection program amendments are discussed in Section D of this preamble under ''proposed amendments to source water assessment and protection program.''

 In addition to those benefits, the proposed amendments regarding new sources of supply in § 109.503 will more clearly define the existing requirements regarding the proper order of the permitting process for developing a new PWS source. These clarifications are needed to help insure that the proper level of treatment is designed and installed in a timely manner, thereby resulting in less delay for permitting a new source that may be needed to meet public health protection requirements, or provide redundancy in the event of contamination of existing sources. The proposed amendments should result in cost savings due to the avoidance of expensive permitting mistakes.

 West Virginia and Virginia, also in EPA Region III, require source water assessments for new sources. In Virginia, the goal is to have a source water assessment completed by Virginia drinking water program staff before the operations permit is issued. Under West Virginia's new statute on source water protection, an assessment is included as part of a local source water protection plan and shall be completed by the water supplier prior to operation for a surface water source.

 Regarding the development of local source water protection programs, Delaware and West Virginia have requirements for source water protection by statute. Under these proposed amendments, the development of a local source water protection program will remain voluntary in this Commonwealth.

Turbidity and filtration requirements. Proposed amendments to the monitoring, calibration, recording and reporting requirements for the measurement of turbidity are more stringent than Federal requirements. The proposed amendments benefit more than 8 million Pennsylvanians that are supplied water by PWSs using filtration technologies. The proposed amendments are based on Department inspections and the evaluation of more than 1,250 filters through the Department's FPPE program. These evaluations have documented that existing requirements are not sufficient to prevent turbidity spikes or the shedding of particles and microbial pathogens into the finished water, which puts consumers at risk of exposure to microbial pathogens. Costs related to waterborne disease outbreaks are discussed in Section D of this preamble under ''proposed amendments to surface water treatment requirements.''

 Existing § 109.301(1)(i) requires turbidity monitoring of the CFE once every 4 hours. This period of intermittent sample review allows the production of significant volumes of water that are not monitored for compliance with the maximum allowable turbidity limit. The proposed amendments for CFE turbidity monitoring will require continuous monitoring and recording of the results every 15 minutes. This will also enable operators to identify problematic water quality trends and respond more quickly with necessary process control adjustments.

 IFE monitoring ensures that filter deficiencies are identified and corrected before a CFE turbidity exceedance occurs. Existing regulations require continuous IFE turbidity monitoring at conventional and direct filtration plants. The proposed amendments for IFE monitoring include all filtration types. In recent years, the Department has documented breakdowns in treatment of individual filters at filter plants not classified as conventional or direct. The likelihood of a breakdown in treatment or physical integrity of an individual filter is a concern regardless of the specific type of filter technology utilized. Thus, an expansion of existing requirements is needed.

 Health effects associated with microbial contaminants tend to be due to short-term, single dose exposure rather than long-term exposure. Therefore, if a short duration single turbidity exceedance of the existing maximum allowable turbidity limit occurs and goes unnoticed, consumers are at risk of exposure to microbial pathogens. By requiring continuous monitoring and recording of the results at least every 15 minutes at CFE and IFE locations for all filter plants, water suppliers will be better able to identify problems before an exceedance occurs and determine compliance with the maximum allowable turbidity limit at all times.

 The proposed amendments lower IFE trigger levels to be consistent with CFE turbidity requirements. Exceeding an IFE trigger is not a violation; instead, it prompts the water supplier to investigate the cause of the problem and correct any deficiencies. If water suppliers are diligent, violations should not occur.

 An additional proposed amendment will require all surface water filtration plants to implement a filter bed evaluation program that assesses the overall integrity of each filter to identify and correct problems before a turbidity exceedance or catastrophic filter failure occurs. Filters are the final barrier for removal of acute pathogens and are therefore critical to public health protection. For many systems in this Commonwealth and across the United States, this infrastructure is aging, and the proposed amendment to require a physical inspection once per year is a necessary minimum preventative action item.

 All of the proposed filter plant performance provisions are part of a multibarrier approach to ensure treatment is adequate to provide safe and potable water to all users.

 Thirty states responded to a survey conducted by ASDWA on behalf of the Commonwealth. Twenty states require continuous turbidity monitoring and recording of CFE and 14 states require continuous IFE monitoring and recording for all filtration types.

Automatic alarms and shutdown capabilities. Filter plants are complex and dynamic. In response to many circumstances, the water plant operator shall take an immediate action to protect public health, such as when source water quality changes, chemical feed pumps malfunction, filters require backwashing or other unforeseen circumstances occur. Water plant operators are often required to perform other duties, which leave water plants unattended, and which limit operators' ability to respond immediately to treatment needs.

 Automated alarms and shutdown capabilities play an important role in modern water treatment and public health protection. Many water suppliers have already taken advantage of readily available technology to reduce personnel costs while still providing safe water to their customers. The proposed amendments ensure that all surface water filtration plants have the minimum controls in place to ensure that operators are immediately alerted to major treatment problems. The proposed amendments also ensure that unmanned filter plants are automatically shutdown when the plant is producing water that is not safe to drink, which prevents contaminated water from being provided to customers for extended periods of time. These alarms and shutdown capabilities will allow operators at attended and unattended filtration plants to promptly respond to the water quality problems and treatment needs of the plant. The automated plant shut- down is intended to prevent poor quality water from reaching customers, which will protect public health, reduce PWS costs related to corrective actions and issuing public notice, reduce costs to the community and maintain consumer confidence.

 Based on an ASDWA survey, 12 states responded that they require filter plants to be attended at all times while in operation. Of the 12 states that require attended operation, 7 states have regulations that establish standards for plant automation, alarms and shutdowns. The proposed amendments are less stringent than 12 other states since attended operation is not being required. In addition, the proposed amendments regarding plant automation, alarms and shutdown capabilities are less stringent than the 10 States Standards.

Filter-to-waste requirements. The Department's FPPE program has evaluated approximately 1,250 filters since 1999. The results of these evaluations show that filters are most likely to shed turbidity, particles and microbial organisms at the beginning of a filter run when the filter is first placed into service following filter backwash or maintenance, or both. The proposed amendments require all filter plants that have the ability to filter-to-waste to do so following filter backwash or maintenance, or both, and before placing the filter into service. Filtering to waste will reduce the likelihood of pathogens passing through filters and into the finished drinking water. The proposed amendments not require water suppliers without filter-to-waste capabilities or with undersized filter-to-waste capabilities to make a capital improvement.

 All 30 states responding to an ASDWA survey require some of their filter plants to filter-to-waste. This proposed rulemaking is not expected to negatively affect the Commonwealth because implementation is not expected to require any capital improvements.

Strengthen resiliency through auxiliary power or alternate provisions. The proposed amendments to system service and auxiliary power requirements will strengthen system resiliency and ensure that safe and potable water is continuously supplied to consumers and businesses. A continuous and adequate supply of safe drinking water is vital to maintaining healthy and sustainable communities.

 PWS sources and treatment facilities are susceptible to emergency situations resulting from natural and manmade disasters. Examples of emergencies from recent years include tropical storms, flooding, high winds, ice, snow, industrial chemical plant runoff, pipeline ruptures and transportation corridor spills. These emergencies have resulted in significant impacts to consumers and businesses due to inadequate water quantity or quality, and in water supply warnings and advisories. Examples of emergencies that have occurred in this Commonwealth and demonstrate the benefit of these proposed amendments are provided in Section D of this preamble under ''proposed amendments to system service and auxiliary power requirements.''

New annual fees and amended permit fees. To improve program performance, this proposed rulemaking is intended to supplement Commonwealth costs for administering the Safe Drinking Water Program by filling the funding gap. The proposed fees will total approximately $7.5 million annually and will account for nearly 50% of the Safe Drinking Water Program's Commonwealth funding. The fees will augment the Safe Drinking Water Program funding currently coming from the General Fund ($7.7 million).

 The proposed annual fees range from $250 to $40,000 for CWSs, $50 to $1,000 for NCWSs and $1,000 to $2,500 for BVRBs. The fees will most likely be passed on to the 10.7 million customers of these PWSs as a user fee. Per person costs are expected to range from $0.35 to $10 per year, depending on the water system size.

 Refer to Sections D and E of this preamble for more information about the benefits and costs associated with the proposed fees.

General permits. The proposed amendments establish the regulatory basis for the issuance of general permits for high volume, low risk modifications or activities to streamline the permitting process. General permits provide a cost-effective method to regulate these activities.

Requirements for NCWSs. The proposed amendments clarify that NCWSs that are not required to obtain a permit shall still obtain Department approval of the facilities prior to construction and operation.

Address gaps in monitoring, reporting and tracking back-up sources. The proposed amendments address concerns regarding gaps in the monitoring, reporting and tracking of back-up water sources and entry points. Per State and Federal regulations, all sources and entry points must be included in routine compliance monitoring to ensure water quality meets safe drinking water standards. Sources and entry points that do not provide water continuously are required to be monitored when used. However, monitoring requirements for back-up sources are not currently tracked, which means that verifiable controls are not in place to ensure that all sources and entry points meet safe drinking water standards. Some of these sources have not been used in 5 to 10 years and, therefore, the Department does not know the water quality for these sources. These concerns were most recently highlighted by the EPA's Office of Inspector General in the 2010 report ''EPA Lacks Internal Controls to Prevent Misuse of Emergency Drinking Water Facilities'' (Report No. 11-P-0001). The proposed amendments ensure that all sources and entry points are monitored at least annually. PWSs will also be required to document in a comprehensive monitoring plan how routine compliance monitoring will include all sources and entry points.

 The use of unmonitored sources and entry points could adversely impact basic water quality, including pH, alkalinity, turbidity, corrosivity and lead solubility, dissolved inorganic carbon and natural organic matter. Water suppliers may have limited information about how these sources or entry points will impact treatment efficacy and distribution system water quality. In addition, many sources may be offline due to poor water quality or MCL exceedances. The use of these back-up or emergency sources, without proper monitoring and verifiable controls, could lead to an increased risk to public health.

 Treatment facilities and other appurtenances associated with these sources may also have gone unused and may no longer be in good working order. Back-up sources and entry points with unknown water quality or that are no longer in good working order provide a false sense of security in terms of system resiliency and emergency response. While the Department understands that many facilities are not used on a 24/7 basis, the proposed amendments ensure that all permitted sources and entry points are monitored at least annually.

Compliance Costs

 The proposed general update provisions increase public health protection and system resiliency. Safe drinking water is vital to maintaining healthy and sustainable communities. Proactively avoiding incidents such as waterborne disease outbreaks can prevent loss of life, reduce the incidents of illness and reduce health care costs. For example, it is estimated that the total cost of an E. coli contamination incident in Walkerton, Ontario, was $64.5 million. Costs related to the waterborne outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in Milwaukee, WI, were $96.2 million. Waterborne disease outbreaks result in significant economic and health impacts and can have long-term impacts due to the loss of trust in PWSs.

 Proper investment in PWS infrastructure and operations helps ensure a continuous supply of safe drinking water, enables communities to plan and build future capacity for economic growth, and ensures their long-term sustainability for years to come.

 The proposed fees are necessary to improve program performance and fulfill the Department's fiscal responsibility to cover most, if not all, of its Commonwealth program costs. Program costs are directly tied to the resources needed to meet Federal and State mandates for minimum program elements and for the administration of an effective State Drinking Water Program. Failure to meet minimum program elements may result in an increased risk to public health and the loss of primacy for the Safe Drinking Water Program and associated Federal funding.

Source water protection and permitting requirements. Per the Department's records, approximately 30 new CWS sources are permitted each year. The Department estimates that an additional 8 hours of work completed by a professional geologist will be needed to comply with the new source permitting amendments. This extra time will amount to approximately $1,176 per source permitted, based on current hourly rates charged by consulting firms.

Revisions to turbidity monitoring, recording and reporting requirements. Filter plants that need to install continuous monitoring and recording devices will need to spend about $3,000 to $4,000 per monitoring site (includes turbidimeter, controller and installation), with estimated annual costs for maintenance and calibration of $500 per plant. It is estimated that 21 filter plants will need to install this equipment on individual filters and 52 filter plants will need to install this equipment at their CFE monitoring sites.

 • IFE and CFE monitoring costs. Costs have been derived from vendors of HACH turbidimeters, the most commonly used turbidimeter in this Commonwealth. If the water supplier prefers a different brand of equipment, the cost may change. Some per instrument cost savings may occur when multiple instruments are purchased. The following table, provided for illustrative purposes, shows costs related to installing and maintaining one HACH continuous monitoring and recording device:


White Light Turbidimeter (Analog) and Chart Recorder (Analog)
Items Initial Cost for First Turbidimeter and Recorder Estimated Annual Calibration and Maintenance Cost Additional Turbidimeter and Recorder
HACH 1720E and SC200 (analog signal) $2,881.00 $2,881.00
Calibration cylinder    $89.00
20 NTU StablCal × (4) calibrations $556.00
Lamp assembly replacement  $62.00
Chart recorder—duel pen $1,657.00 $1,657.00
Chart recorder paper  $60.00
Chart recorder replacement pens  $79.00
Installation $1,000.00
Total (not including tax and shipping) $5,627.00 $757.00 $4,538.00
Laser Turbidimeter (Digital) and Chart Recorder (Analog)
Items Initial Cost for First Laser Turbidimeter and Recorder Estimated Annual Calibration and Maintenance Cost Additional Turbidimeter and Recorder
HACH TU5400 laser turbidimeter (includes flow sensor RFID and system check) $6,142.00 $6,142.00
HACH SC200 (includes flow sensor input, RFID and Modbus) $2,596.00 $2,596.00
Maintenance/calibration kit (includes primary standards) $1,100.00 ($349 to replace the primary standards that are included in the kit)
Replacement desiccant cartridge $17.00
Chart recorder—duel pen $1,657.00 $1,657.00
Chart recorder paper $60.00
Chart recorder replacement pens $79.00
Installation $1,000.00
Total (not including tax and shipping) $11,395.00  $1,256.00 (1st year)
$505.00 (subsequent year)
$10,395.00

 • IFE monitoring. This Commonwealth has 353 filter plants, of which 263 are currently required to continuously monitor and record their IFE and already have instrumentation installed. The proposed amendments require the remaining 90 filter plants to comply with the IFE monitoring requirements of which 69 already have the needed instrumentation. Therefore, 21 filter plants will need to install 1 or more monitoring and recording devices. The majority of these 21 filter plants only have 2 filters. The estimated cost for a water supplier having two filters to install IFE monitoring and recording equipment is expected to be $10,165 for white light turbidimeters or $21,790 for laser turbidimeters. The annual maintenance cost for the monitoring and recording equipment on two filters is estimated to be $757 for the white light turbidimeters or $505 for laser turbidimeters. The cumulative cost for the installation of the IFE monitoring and recording equipment at all 21 filter plants is estimated to be $213,465 for white light turbidimeters or $457,590 for laser turbidimeters. The cumulative cost for maintaining the monitoring and recording equipment at all 21 filter plants is estimated to be $15,897 per year for white light turbidimeters and $10,605 per year for laser turbidi-meters.

 • CFE monitoring. The majority of filter plants in this Commonwealth already continuously monitor and record their CFE. The exact number of filtration plants without this capability is not known, but based on a review of 90 filtration plants, it is estimated to be 15% of the 353 filter plants in this Commonwealth. The estimated cost to install CFE monitoring and recording equipment is $5,627 per plant for white light turbidimeters and recorders or $11,395 per plant for laser turbidimeters and recorders. The annual maintenance cost for the monitoring and recording equipment is estimated to be $757 for the white light turbidimeters or $505 for laser turbidi-meters. The cumulative cost for an estimated 52 filter plants to install continuous monitoring and recording equipment is estimated to be $292,604 for white light or $592,540 for laser turbidimeters. The cumulative cost for maintaining the monitoring and recording equipment at all 52 filter plants is estimated to be $39,364 per year for white light turbidimeters or $26,260 per year for laser turbidimeters.

Annual filter inspection program. Significant additional costs are not expected to be associated with implementation of a filter inspection program.

Filter-to-waste requirements. No expected costs are associated with the proposed filtering to waste amendments.

Automatic alarms/shutdown capabilities. Depending on options chosen, systems may incur $8,860 to $11,980 per treatment plant with annual maintenance costs of $600. It is estimated that 317 of the 353 filter plants already meet these provisions and therefore will not incur any additional costs.

 The following information is provided as example cost estimates related to adding automated alarm and shutdown capabilities at a small surface/GUDI water filtration plant. The costs include the monitor, controller and alarm dial-out system. It is assumed that the existing filtration plant will already have the chlorine residual analyzer, turbidity analyzer and clear-well level transmitter. These instruments are required to maintain compliance with existing regulations. An estimated cost for the equipment installation is provided. However, systems could save costs if they install the equipment using in-house staff or a local contract electrician.

 The controller and monitor will include adjustable alarm set-points with time delay for a relay output which can be wired to the plant for shutdown of the filter system upon the following conditions: high or low clear well level; high or low entry point chlorine residual; and high CFE turbidity.

 The monitor and controller can be configured to send a pre-shutdown warning to allow operators the opportunity to go to the plant to try to resolve the problem before reaching the shutdown set-point. If the process value reaches the shutdown set-point, the filter plant shut-down command will occur and a shutdown alarm message will be sent to the plant operator by text message, e-mail or voice message.

 If the facility already has an alarm dialer with capacity for three additional alarm inputs, the alarm dialer can be eliminated from the package. A deduction is shown for this on each equipment option. If the system is staffed continuously, then only alarm capabilities are necessary. This can be accomplished for a lower cost, or possibly no additional cost, depending on the capability of existing filter plant supervisory control and data acquisition equipment.

Option A—Monitor/alarm system with standard dial-up phone line and alarm dialer

 1) One alarm control device with analog inputs for CFE chlorine residual, CFE turbidity and clear well level.

 2) One eight-channel alarm auto-dialer with power supply and battery backup. Requires standard dial-up telephone line connected to alarm dialer. Provides voice message alarm only.

 3) One system wiring diagram—custom wiring diagram for specific analyzer types in use at owner's site. Exact terminal numbers will be provided based on owner's equipment to allow installation by local electrical contractor.

 4) Furnish onsite calibration, programming and alarm configuration for all equipment and provide full onsite testing for all equipment including alarm testing and dial-out for plant designated phone or pager numbers, or both.

 5) Provide onsite operator training on maintenance and standardization of this equipment.

 6) Four operation and maintenance manuals with complete instruction manuals for the system.

Total system price: $8,860
Delivery: 2-3 weeks (standard delivery)
Estimated installation cost: $2,000
Deduct for use of owner furnished alarm dialer: ($1,400)

Option B—Monitor/alarm system with standard dial-up phone line and alarm dialer

 1) One alarm control device with analog inputs for CFE chlorine residual, CFE turbidity and clear well level.

 2) One eight-channel alarm auto-dialer with power supply and battery backup. Requires standard dial-up telephone line connected to alarm dialer. Provides voice message alarm only.

 3) One system wiring diagram—custom wiring diagram for specific analyzer types in use at owner's site. Exact terminal numbers will be provided based on owner's equipment to allow installation by local electrical contractor.

 4) Furnish onsite calibration, programming and alarm configuration for all equipment and provide full onsite testing for all equipment including alarm testing and dial-out for plant designated phone numbers or pager numbers, or both.

 5) Provide onsite operator training on maintenance and standardization of this equipment.

 6) Four operation and maintenance manuals with complete instruction manuals for the system.

Total system price: $9,980
Delivery: 2-3 weeks (standard delivery)
Estimated installation cost: $2,000
Deduct for use of owner furnished alarm dialer: ($2,500)

Option C—Monitor/alarm system with cellular alarm dialer

 1) One alarm control device with analog inputs for CFE chlorine residual, CFE turbidity and clear well level.

 2) One cellular alarm notification system with eight-channel alarm input with power supply and battery backup. A dial-up telephone line is not required. Provides text and e-mail alarm notification.

 3) One system wiring diagram—custom wiring diagram for specific analyzer types in use at owner's site. Exact terminal numbers will be provided based on owner's equipment to allow installation by local electrical contractor.

 4) Furnish onsite calibration, programming and alarm configuration for all equipment and provide full onsite testing for all equipment including alarm testing and dial-out for plant designated phone or pager numbers, or both.

 5) Provide onsite operator training on maintenance and standardization of this equipment.

 6) Four operation and maintenance manuals with complete instruction manuals for the system.

Total system price: $9,700
Delivery: 2-3 weeks (standard delivery)
Estimated installation cost: $2,000

 The Department estimates that 10% of the 353 filter plants in this Commonwealth will need to install a controller.

Strengthened system resiliency through auxiliary power or alternate provisions. All CWSs will be expected to review their existing emergency response plan and equipment to specifically develop a plan to provide a consistent supply of adequate quantity and quality of water during emergency situations. The Department estimates that 400 CWSs do not even have an updated emergency response plan. CWSs that do not have a functional generator or do not have existing capability to meet this requirement through the alternate provision options may need to purchase a generator. The generator should be adequately sized so that it can supply power to critical treatment components necessary to supply safe and potable water. Therefore, the cost of the generator will be proportional to the size of the system (for example, less expensive for small systems). It is difficult to predict system specific costs because of the various options to comply with the proposed amendments. Estimates for small systems are $3,000 to $4,000 for the installation of a transfer switch, generator and concrete pad. Costs for medium and large systems could range from $50,000 to $200,000 per treatment plant. Not all systems will require auxiliary power. Some systems may already meet reliability criteria through storage or interconnections. Several Mid-Atlantic states have already moved forward with mandatory requirements for auxiliary power supply, including New Jersey, New York and Connecticut.

 An estimated 30% of small systems (<3,300) or 485 systems may need to install a back-up power supply. The cumulative cost is estimated to be $1.94 million. The estimate for medium and large systems is that 20% or 65 systems may need to install a back-up power supply at a cumulative cost of $8.125 million.

 Cost savings of avoiding interruption of continuous supply of safe and potable water were evaluated using the Water Health and Economic Analysis Tool software developed by the EPA. The Department ran the model for a scenario of a water system serving 2,500 customers and experiencing a water outage for 2 days. The model outcomes regarding economic consequences are summarized as follows:

 • The value of water sales that would have occurred if there wasn't a disruption in water service is estimated to be $2,891.

 • The value of additional operating costs incurred during the event, which may include bottled/replacement water, equipment, other remediation or miscellaneous costs, is estimated at $24,775.

 • Total economic impact on the water utility due to the 2-day outage (sum of the previous losses) is estimated at $27,666.

 • Regional economic consequences for this same event are estimated at $926,486. This is the total value of economic activity lost among businesses directly affected by the water service disruption due to the contraction in business activity during the 2-day event.

 If the water utility complies with the proposed amendments, the potential cost savings for this 2-day outage, offsetting the costs to install additional auxiliary power, emergency interconnections with neighboring water systems and/or finished water storage, are previously summarized. These costs would increase with each additional day that the water outage continues.

 Additional costs savings to water systems and customers will be the prevention of dewatering of the distribution system piping and protection from damage to collapsed water lines (due to lack of ability to provide adequate quantity water to maintain positive pressure).

 An estimated 250 BWAs occur each year and 25% or 63 BWAs are caused by water supply disruptions. The total annual cost savings to the regulated water systems is estimated at $1,742,958. However, the regional economic cost savings to businesses is estimated at more than $58 million. These cost savings will off-set the costs of improving system resiliency.

Compliance Assistance Plan

 The Safe Drinking Water Program uses the Commonwealth's Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority Program to offer financial assistance to eligible PWS. 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.

 The Safe Drinking Water Program has established a network of regional office and Central Office training staff that is responsive to identifiable training needs. The target audience in need of training may be either program staff or the regulated community.

 In addition to this network of training staff, Bureau of Safe Drinking Water has staff dedicated to providing training and outreach support services to PWS operators. The Department web site also provides timely and useful information for treatment plant operators.

Paperwork Requirements

 Paperwork requirements may include:

 • Updating of a source water assessment report when a CWS's annual evaluation identifies changes to actual or probable sources of contamination.

 • Additional reporting requirements for PWSs that exceed the lower IFE triggers.

 • Reporting a failure of alarm or shutdown equipment.

 • Development and maintenance of a distribution map for NCWSs.

 • Development and maintenance of a comprehensive monitoring plan.

 • CWSs will be required to update their existing emergency response plans to include specific information on how they will meet the requirements of this proposed rulemaking. To minimize the reporting burden and for maintaining security of sensitive documents, the system- specific plans for providing a continuous supply of safe and potable water (uninterrupted system service plan) will not be required to be reported to the Department. Rather, this information will be kept onsite for Department review during inspections or emergencies, or both. An uninterrupted system service plan template will be provided to water suppliers to help facilitate development of the plans.

G. References

 The following documents are referenced throughout this preamble:

 Livernois, J. (2001), ''The Economic Costs of the Walkerton Water Crisis.''

 Dearmont, D., McCarl, B.A. and Tolman, D.A. (1998), ''Costs of Water Treatment Due to Diminished Water Quality: A Case Study in Texas,'' Water Resources Research, 34(4), 849—853.

 The Trust for Public Land (2002), ''The Cost of Not Protecting Source Waters.''

 Legislative Budget and Finance Committee (2013), ''A Cost Effective Alternative Approach to Meeting Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Targets.''

 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (EPA 816-F-09-004, May 2009).

 Corso, P.S., et al. (2003), ''Cost of Illness in the 1993 Waterborne Cryptosporidium Outbreak, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,'' Emerging Infectious Diseases, 9(4), 426—431.

 Huck, P.M., et al. (2002), ''Effects of Filter Operation on Cryptosporidium Removal,'' Journal—American Water Works Association, 94(6), 97—111.

 Emelko, M.B., Huck, P.M. and Douglas, I.P. (2003) ''Cryptosporidium and Microsphere Removal During Late In-Cycle Filtration,'' Journal—American Water Works Association, 95(5), 173—182.

 EPA Water Supply Guidance 20 (1981) (https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100NEI3.txt).

 EPA Membrane Filtration Guidance (EPA 815-R-06-009, November 2005).

 EPA, Office of Inspector General (2010), ''EPA Lacks Internal Controls to Prevent Misuse of Emergency Drinking Water Facilities'' (Report No. 11-P-0001).

H. Sunset Review

 Certain provisions in § 109.301(1) and (2) are proposed to sunset 1 year after the effective date of adoption of this proposed rulemaking. Otherwise, the Board is not establishing a sunset date for this proposed rulemaking since it is needed for the Department to carry out its statutory authority. The Department will continue to closely monitor the regulations for effectiveness and recommend updates to the Board as necessary.

I. Regulatory Review

 Under section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P.S. § 745.5(a)), on August 9, 2017, the Department submitted a copy of this proposed rulemaking and a copy of a Regulatory Analysis Form to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and to the Chairpersons of the House and Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committees. A copy of this material is available to the public upon request.

 Under section 5(g) of the Regulatory Review Act, IRRC may convey comments, recommendations or objections to the proposed rulemaking within 30 days of the close of the public comment period. The comments, recommendations or objections must specify the regulatory review criteria in section 5.2 of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P.S. § 745.5b) which have not been met. The Regulatory Review Act specifies detailed procedures for review prior to final publication of the rulemaking by the Department, the General Assembly and the Governor.

J. Public Comments

 The Board is seeking comment on several amendments included in this proposed rulemaking. Comment is requested on specific proposed amendments as described in Section E of this preamble regarding §§ 109.301(11), 109.303, 109.511, 109.708 and 109.1402.

 Interested persons are invited to submit written comments, suggestions, support or objections regarding this proposed rulemaking to the Board. Comments, suggestions, support or objections must be received by the Board by September 25, 2017.

 Comments may be submitted to the Board online, by e-mail, by mail or express mail as follows.

 Comments may be submitted to the Board by accessing eComment at http://www.ahs.dep.pa.gov/eComment.

 Comments may be submitted to the Board by e-mail at RegComments@pa.gov. A subject heading of this proposed rulemaking and a return name and address must be included in each transmission.

 If an acknowledgement of comments submitted online or by e-mail is not received by the sender within 2 working days, the comments should be retransmitted to the Board to ensure receipt. Comments submitted by facsimile will not be accepted.

 Written comments should be mailed to the Environmental Quality Board, P.O. Box 8477, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8477. Express mail should be sent to the Environmental Quality Board, Rachel Carson State Office Building, 16th Floor, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101-2301.

PATRICK McDONNELL, 
Chairperson

Fiscal Note: 7-521. No fiscal impact; (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:

*  *  *  *  *

Nontransient noncommunity water system—A noncommunity water system that regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons over 6 months per year.

PDWEP—Guidelines for Public Drinking Water Equipment Performance issued by NSF.

Person—An individual, partnership, association, company, corporation, municipality, municipal authority, political subdivision, or an agency of Federal or State government. The term includes the officers, employees and agents of a partnership, association, company, corporation, municipality, municipal authority, political subdivision, or an agency of Federal or State government.

*  *  *  *  *

Source—The place from which water for a public water system originates or is derived, including, but not limited to, a well, spring, stream, reservoir, pond, lake or interconnection.

Source water assessment—An evaluation documented in writing of the contamination potential of a drinking water source used by a public water system which includes identifying the contributing area to the water source, an inventory of potential contaminant sources and a determination of the susceptibility of the water source to contamination.

Source water protection area—A surface water intake protection area or a wellhead protection area, or both.

Source water protection program—A surface water intake protection program or a wellhead protection program, or both.

Spent filter backwash water—A stream containing particles dislodged from filter media when the filter is backwashed to clean the filter.

Substantial modification—A change in a public water system that may affect the quantity or quality of water served to the public or which may be prejudicial to the public health or safety and includes the addition of new sources; the expansion of existing facilities; changes in treatment processes; addition, removal, renovation or substitution of equipment or facilities; and interconnections.

Surface water—Water open to the atmosphere or subject to surface runoff. The term does not include finished water.

Surface water intake protection area—The surface and subsurface area surrounding a surface-water intake supplying a public water system through which contaminants are reasonably likely to move toward and reach the water source. A surface water intake protection area must consist of up to three zones:

(i) Zone A. A 1/4-mile wide area inland from the edge of a waterway or surface water body and from an area 1/4-mile downstream of the intake to a 5-hour time-of-travel upstream.

(ii) Zone B. A 2-mile wide area inland from the edge of a waterway or surface water body and extending upstream to the 25-hour time-of-travel.

(iii) Zone C. For drainage basins greater than or equal to 100 square miles, the remainder of the upstream basin. Zone B and Zone C, if present, comprise the contributing area for the water source.

Surface water intake protection program—A comprehensive program designed to protect each surface water source used by a public water system from contamination.

System

 (i) A group of facilities used to provide water for human consumption including facilities used for collection, treatment, storage and distribution. The facilities shall constitute a system if they are adjacent or geographically proximate to each other and meet at least one of the following criteria:

*  *  *  *  *

Wellhead protection area—The surface and subsurface area surrounding a water well, well field, spring or infiltration gallery supplying a public water system, through which contaminants are reasonably likely to move toward and reach the water source. A wellhead protection area [shall consist of the following] must consist of up to three zones:

 (i) Zone I. The protective zone immediately surrounding a well, spring or infiltration gallery which shall be a 100-to-400-foot radius depending on site-specific source and aquifer characteristics.

 (ii) Zone II. The zone encompassing the portion of the aquifer through which water is diverted to a well or flows to a spring or infiltration gallery. Zone II shall be a [1/2 mile] 1/2-mile radius around the source unless a more detailed delineation is approved.

 (iii) Zone III. [The zone beyond Zone II that contributes surface water and groundwater to Zones I and II.] As hydrogeologic conditions warrant, the zone beyond Zone II that provides groundwater recharge to Zones I and II. Zone II and Zone III, if present, comprise the contributing area for the water source.

Wellhead protection program—A comprehensive program designed to protect [a] each well, spring or infiltration gallery used by a public water system from contamination.

Wholesale system—A public water system that treats source water as necessary to produce finished water and then delivers some or all of that finished water to another public water system. Delivery may be through a direct connection or through the distribution system of one or more public water systems.

§ 109.5. Organization of chapter.

 (a) This subchapter and [Subchapter H] Sub- chapters H and N (relating to laboratory certification; and drinking water fees) apply to all public water systems.

*  *  *  *  *

Subchapter B. MCLs, MRDLs OR TREATMENT TECHNIQUE REQUIREMENTS

§ 109.202. State MCLs, MRDLs and treatment technique requirements.

*  *  *  *  *

 (c) Treatment technique requirements for pathogenic bacteria, viruses and protozoan cysts. A public water system shall provide adequate treatment to reliably protect users from the adverse health effects of microbiological contaminants, including pathogenic bacteria, viruses and protozoan cysts. The number and type of treatment barriers and the efficacy of treatment provided shall be commensurate with the type, degree and likelihood of contamination in the source water.

 (1) A public water supplier shall provide, as a minimum, continuous filtration and disinfection for surface water and GUDI sources. The treatment technique must provide at least 99.9% removal and inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts, and at least 99.99% removal and inactivation of enteric viruses. Beginning January 1, 2002, public water suppliers serving 10,000 or more people shall provide at least 99% removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts. Beginning January 1, 2005, public water suppliers serving fewer than 10,000 people shall provide at least 99% removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts. The Department, depending on source water quality conditions, may require additional treatment as necessary to meet the requirements of this chapter and to protect the public health.

 (i) The filtration process shall meet the following performance requirements:

 (A) Conventional or direct filtration.

*  *  *  *  *

 (IV) Beginning January 1, 2005, for public water systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons, the filtered water turbidity shall meet the following criteria:

 (-a-) Be less than or equal to 0.3 NTU in at least 95% of the measurements taken each month under § 109.301(1).

 (-b-) Be less than or equal to 1 NTU at all times, measured under § 109.301(1).

(V) Beginning ______ (Editor's Note: The blank refers to 1 year after the effective date of adoption of this proposed rulemaking.), for all public water systems, the filtered water turbidity must meet the following criteria:

(-a-) Be less than or equal to 0.30 NTU in at least 95% of the measurements taken each month under § 109.301(1).

(-b-) Be less than or equal to 1.0 NTU at all times measured under § 109.301(1).

 (B) Slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration.

 (I) The filtered water turbidity shall be less than or equal to 1.0 NTU in 95% of the measurements taken each month under § 109.301(1).

 (II) The filtered water turbidity shall be less than or equal to 2.0 NTU at all times, measured under § 109.301(1).

(C) Membrane filtration.

(I) Beginning ______ (Editor's Note: The blank refers to 1 year after the effective date of adoption of this proposed rulemaking.), for all public water systems, the filtered water turbidity must be less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95% of the measurements taken each month under § 109.301(1).

(II) Beginning ______ (Editor's Note: The blank refers to 1 year after the effective date of adoption of this proposed rulemaking.), for all public water systems, the filtered water turbidity must be less than or equal to 1.0 NTU at all times, measured under § 109.301(1).

[(C)] (D) Other filtration technologies. The same performance criteria as those given for conventional filtration and direct filtration in clause (A) shall be achieved unless the Department specifies more stringent performance criteria based upon onsite studies, including pilot plant studies, where appropriate.

 (ii) The combined total effect of disinfection processes utilized in a filtration plant shall achieve at least a 90% inactivation of Giardia cysts and a 99.9% inactivation of viruses, as determined by CTs and measurement methods established by the EPA. The residual disinfectant concentration in the water delivered to the distribution system prior to the first customer may not be less than .2 mg/L for more than 4 hours, as demonstrated by measurement taken under § 109.301(1). Failure to maintain this level that extends beyond 4 hours constitutes a breakdown in treatment. A system that experiences a breakdown in treatment shall, under § 109.701(a)(3) (relating to reporting and recordkeeping), notify the Department within 1 hour after the water system learns of the violation or the situation, and shall provide public notice in accordance with § 109.408 (relating to Tier 1 public noticecategories, timing and delivery of notice).

 (iii) For an unfiltered surface water source permitted for use prior to March 25, 1989, the public water supplier shall:

*  *  *  *  *

 (B) Provide continuous filtration and disinfection in accordance with this paragraph according to the following schedule:

 (I) By December 31, 1991, for a public water system that, prior to March 25, 1989, had a waterborne disease outbreak or Giardia contamination in its surface water source.

 (II) Within 48 months after the discovery of one of the following conditions, or by December 31, 1995, whichever is earlier, for a public water system that experiences the condition after March 25, 1989:

 (-a-) A waterborne disease outbreak.

 (-b-) Giardia contamination in its surface water source.

 (-c-) A violation of the microbiological MCL, the turbidity MCL or the monitoring or reporting requirements for the microbiological MCL.

 (-d-) A violation of the source microbiological or turbidity monitoring requirements under [§ 109.301(2)(i)(A) and (B)] § 109.301(2)(i) or the related reporting requirements.

*  *  *  *  *

§ 109.204. Disinfection profiling and benchmarking.

 (a) The disinfection profiling and benchmarking requirements, established by the EPA under the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 40 CFR 141.172, 141.530—141.536, 141.540—141.544, 141.570(c) and (d) [and], 141.708[] and 141.709 are incorporated by reference except as otherwise established by this chapter.

 (b) Public water suppliers that did not conduct TTHM and HAA5 monitoring under this section because they served fewer than 10,000 persons when the monitoring was required, but serve 10,000 or more persons before January 1, 2005, shall comply with this section. These suppliers shall also establish a disinfection benchmark [and consult with the Department for approval]. [A supplier that decides to make a significant change to its disinfection practice, as described in this section, shall consult with the Department before making such a change.]

 (c) The public water supplier shall conduct disinfection profiling in accordance with the procedures and methods in the most current edition of the Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual published by the EPA. The results of the disinfection profiling and the benchmark, including raw data and analysis, shall be retained indefinitely on the water system premises or at a convenient location near the premises. Public water suppliers serving 10,000 or more persons and required to conduct disinfection profiling shall submit the disinfection profiling data and the benchmark data to the Department by June 1, 2001, in a format acceptable to the Department. Public water suppliers serving 500 to 9,999 persons shall submit the disinfection profiling data and the benchmark to the Department by October 1, 2004. Public water suppliers serving less than 500 persons shall submit the disinfection profiling data and the benchmark to the Department by April 1, 2005, in a format acceptable to the Department.

(d) A public water supplier that obtains a permit or permit modification for filtration treatment for a surface water or GUDI source after ______ (Editor's Note: The blank refers to the effective date of adoption of this proposed rulemaking.), shall submit documentation with the permit application relative to operational parameters which will be used to maintain Giardia lamblia inactivation throughout the expected range of operating conditions.

(e) A public water supplier using surface water or GUDI sources shall consult with the Department before making a significant change to its disinfection practice or operating treatment processes in a manner that may result in an inactivation level that is lower than the level needed to meet the Giardia lamblia inactivation requirements specified in § 109.202(c)(1)(ii) (relating to State MCLs, MRDLs and treatment technique requirements). As part of the consultation, the water supplier shall submit the following information to the Department:

(1) A completed disinfection profile and disinfection benchmark for Giardia lamblia and viruses.

(2) A description of the proposed change.

(3) An analysis of how the proposed change will affect the current level of disinfection.

Subchapter C. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

§ 109.301. General monitoring requirements.

 Public water suppliers shall monitor for compliance with MCLs, MRDLs and treatment technique requirements in accordance with the requirements established by the EPA under the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, 40 CFR Part 141 (relating to National primary drinking water regulations), except as otherwise established by this chapter unless increased monitoring is required by the Department under § 109.302 (relating to special monitoring requirements). Alternative monitoring requirements may be established by the Department and may be implemented in lieu of monitoring requirements for a particular National Primary Drinking Water Regulation if the alternative monitoring requirements are in conformance with the Federal act and regulations. The monitoring requirements shall be applied as follows:

 (1) Performance monitoring for filtration and disinfection. A public water supplier providing filtration and disinfection of surface water or GUDI sources shall conduct the performance monitoring requirements established by the EPA under the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, unless increased monitoring is required by the Department under § 109.302.

 (i) Except as provided under [subparagraphs (ii) and (iii)] subparagraph (ii), a public water supplier:

 (A) Shall determine and record the turbidity level of representative samples of the system's filtered water as follows until ______ (Editor's Note: The blank refers to 1 year after the effective date of adoption of this proposed rulemaking.):

 (I) For systems that operate continuously, at least once every 4 hours that the system is in operation, except as provided in clause (B).

 (II) For systems that do not operate continuously, at start-up, at least once every 4 hours that the system is in operation, and also prior to shutting down the plant, except as provided in clause (B).

 (B) May substitute continuous turbidity monitoring and recording for grab sample monitoring and manual recording until ______ (Editor's Note: The blank refers to 1 year after the effective date of adoption of this proposed rulemaking.), if it validates the continuous measurement for accuracy on a regular basis using a procedure specified by the manufacturer. At a minimum, calibration with an EPA-approved primary standard shall be conducted at least quarterly. For systems using slow sand filtration or filtration treatment other than conventional filtration, direct filtration or diatomaceous earth filtration, the Department may reduce the sampling frequency to once per day.

(C) Shall continuously monitor the turbidity level of the combined filter effluent beginning ______ (Editor's Note: The blank refers to 1 year after the effective date of adoption of this proposed rulemaking.), using an analytical method specified in 40 CFR 141.74(a) (relating to analytical and monitoring requirements) and record the results at least every 15 minutes while the plant is operating. For systems that do not operate continuously, the turbidity level shall also be measured and recorded at start-up and immediately prior to shutting down the plant.

[(C)] (D) Shall continuously monitor and record the residual disinfectant concentration of the water being supplied to the distribution system and record both the lowest value for each day and the number of periods each day when the value is less than .2 mg/L for more than 4 hours. If a public water system's continuous monitoring or recording equipment fails, the public water supplier may, upon notification of the Department under § 109.701(a)(3) (relating to reporting and recordkeeping), substitute grab sampling or manual recording every 4 hours in lieu of continuous monitoring. Grab sampling or manual recording may not be substituted for continuous monitoring or recording for longer than 5 days after the equipment fails.

[(D)] (E) Shall measure and record the residual disinfectant concentration at representative points in the distribution system no less frequently than the frequency required for total coliform sampling for compliance with the MCL for microbiological contaminants.

[(ii) For a public water supplier serving 3,300 or fewer people, the Department may reduce the residual disinfectant concentration monitoring for the water being supplied to the distribution system to a minimum of 2 hours between samples at the grab sampling frequencies prescribed as follows if the historical performance and operation of the system indicate the system can meet the residual disinfectant concentration at all times:

System Size (People) Samples/Day
<500 1
500—1,000 2
1,001—2,500 3
2,501—3,300 4

If the Department reduces the monitoring, the supplier shall nevertheless collect and analyze another residual disinfectant measurement as soon as possible, but no longer than 4 hours from any measurement which is less than .2 mg/L.

(iii) For] (ii) Until ______ (Editor's Note: The blank refers to 1 year after the effective date of adoption of this proposed rulemaking.), for a public water supplier serving fewer than 500 people, the Department may reduce the filtered water turbidity monitoring to one grab sample per day, if the historical performance and operation of the system indicate effective turbidity removal is maintained under the range of conditions expected to occur in the system's source water.

[(iv)] (iii) A public water supplier providing conventional filtration treatment or direct filtration and serving 10,000 or more people and using surface water or GUDI sources shall, beginning January 1, 2002, conduct continuous monitoring of turbidity for each individual filter using an approved method under the EPA regulation in 40 CFR 141.74(a) [(relating to analytical and monitoring requirements)] and record the results at least every 15 minutes. Beginning January 1, 2005, public water suppliers providing conventional or direct filtration and serving fewer than 10,000 people and using surface water or GUDI sources shall conduct continuous monitoring of turbidity for each individual filter using an approved method under the EPA regulation in 40 CFR 141.74(a) and record the results at least every 15 minutes. Beginning ______ (Editor's Note: The blank refers to 1 year after the effective date of adoption of this proposed rulemaking.), a public water supplier using surface water or GUDI sources and providing filtration treatment other than conventional or direct filtration shall conduct continuous monitoring of turbidity for each individual filter using an approved method under 40 CFR 141.74(a) and record the results at least every 15 minutes.

[(A) The water supplier shall calibrate turbidi- meters using the procedure specified by the manufacturer. At a minimum, calibration with an EPA-approved primary standard shall be conducted at least quarterly.

(B) If there is failure in the continuous turbidity monitoring or recording equipment, or both, the system shall conduct grab sampling or manual recording, or both, every 4 hours in lieu of continuous monitoring or recording.

(C) A public water supplier serving 10,000 or more persons has a maximum of 5 working days following the failure of the equipment to repair or replace the equipment before a violation is incurred.

(D) A public water supplier serving fewer than 10,000 persons has a maximum of 14 days following the failure of the equipment to repair or replace the equipment before a violation is incurred.]

(iv) In addition to the requirements of subparagraphs (i)—(iii), a public water supplier shall conduct grab sampling or manual recording, or both, every 4 hours in lieu of continuous monitoring or recording if there is a failure in the continuous monitoring or recording equipment, or both. The public water supplier shall notify the Department within 24 hours of the equipment failure. Grab sampling or manual recording may not be substituted for continuous monitoring for longer than 5 working days after the equipment fails. The Department will consider case-by-case extensions of the time frame to comply if the water supplier provides written documentation that it was unable to repair or replace the malfunctioning equipment within 5 working days due to circumstances beyond its control.

 (2) Performance monitoring for unfiltered surface water and GUDI. A public water supplier using unfiltered surface water or GUDI sources shall conduct the following source water and performance monitoring requirements on an interim basis until filtration is provided, unless increased monitoring is required by the Department under § 109.302:

 (i) Except as provided under subparagraphs (ii) and (iii), a public water supplier:

 (A) Shall perform fecal coliform or total coliform density determinations on samples of the source water immediately prior to disinfection. Regardless of source water turbidity, the minimum frequency of sampling for fecal or total coliform determination may be no less than the following:

System Size (People) Samples/Week
<500 1
500—3,299 2
3,300—10,000 3
10,001—25,000 4
25,001 or more 5

 (B) Shall measure the turbidity of a representative grab sample of the source water immediately prior to disinfection as follows until ______ (Editor's Note: The blank refers to 1 year after the effective date of adoption of this proposed rulemaking.):

 (I) For systems that operate continuously, at least once every 4 hours that the system is in operation, except as provided in clause (C).

 (II) For systems that do not operate continuously, at start-up, at least once every 4 hours that the system is in operation, and also prior to shutting down the plant, except as provided in clause (C).

 (C) May substitute continuous turbidity monitoring for grab sample monitoring until ______ (Editor's Note: The blank refers to 1 year after the effective date of adoption of this proposed rulemaking.), if it validates the continuous measurement for accuracy on a regular basis using a procedure specified by the manufacturer. At a minimum, calibration with an EPA-approved primary standard shall be conducted at least quarterly.

(D) Shall continuously monitor and record the turbidity of the source water immediately prior to disinfection beginning ______ (Editor's Note: The blank refers to 1 year after the effective date of adoption of this proposed rulemaking.), using an analytical method specified in 40 CFR 141.74(a) and record the results at least every 15 minutes while the source is operating. If there is a failure in the continuous turbidity monitoring or recording equipment, or both, the supplier shall conduct grab sampling or manual recording, or both, every 4 hours in lieu of continuous monitoring or recording. The public water supplier shall notify the Department within 24 hours of the equipment failure. Grab sampling or manual recording may not be substituted for continuous monitoring for longer than 5 working days after the equipment fails. The Department will consider case-by-case extensions of the time frame to comply if the water supplier provides written documentation that it was unable to repair or replace the malfunctioning equipment within 5 working days due to circumstances beyond its control.

[(D)] (E) Shall continuously monitor and record the residual disinfectant concentration required under § 109.202(c)(1)(iii) (relating to State MCLs, MRDLs and treatment technique requirements) of the water being supplied to the distribution system and record the lowest value for each day. If a public water system's continuous monitoring or recording equipment fails, the public water supplier may, upon notification of the Department under § 109.701(a)(3), substitute grab sampling or manual recording, or both, every 4 hours in lieu of continuous monitoring. Grab sampling or manual recording may not be substituted for continuous monitoring for longer than 5 days after the equipment fails.

[(E)] (F) Shall measure the residual disinfectant concentration at representative points in the distribution system no less frequently than the frequency required for total coliform sampling for compliance with the MCL for microbiological contaminants.

 (ii) [For] Until ______ (Editor's Note: The blank refers to 1 year after the effective date of adoption of this proposed rulemaking.), for a public water supplier serving 3,300 or fewer people, the Department may reduce the residual disinfectant concentration monitoring for the water being supplied to the distribution system to a minimum of 2 hours between samples at the grab sampling frequencies prescribed as follows if the historical performance and operation of the system indicate the system can meet the residual disinfectant concentration at all times:

System Size (People) Samples/Day
<500 1
500—1,000 2
1,001—2,500 3
2,501—3,300 4

 If the Department reduces the monitoring, the supplier shall nevertheless collect and analyze another residual disinfectant measurement as soon as possible, but no longer than 4 hours from any measurement which is less than the residual disinfectant concentration approved under § 109.202(c)(1)(iii).

 (iii) [For] Until ______ (Editor's Note: The blank refers to 1 year after the effective date of adoption of this proposed rulemaking.), for a public water supplier serving fewer than 500 people, the Department may reduce the source water turbidity monitoring to one grab sample per day, if the historical performance and operation of the system indicate effective disinfection is maintained under the range of conditions expected to occur in the system's source water.

*  *  *  *  *

 (11) Monitoring requirements for entry points that do not provide water continuously.

(i) Entry points from which water is not provided during every quarter of the year shall monitor in accordance with paragraphs (5)—(7) and (14), except that monitoring is not required during a quarter when water is not provided to the public, unless special monitoring is required by the Department under § 109.302.

(ii) At a minimum, all entry points shall provide water to the public on an annual basis to ensure all sources and entry points are included in routine compliance monitoring.

 (12) Monitoring requirements for disinfection bypro-ducts and disinfection byproduct precursors. Community water systems and nontransient noncommunity water systems that use a chemical disinfectant or oxidant shall monitor for disinfection byproducts and disinfection byproduct precursors in accordance with this paragraph. Community water systems and nontransient noncommunity water systems that obtain finished water from another public water system that uses a chemical disinfectant or oxidant to treat the finished water shall monitor for TTHM and HAA5 in accordance with this paragraph. Systems that use either surface water or GUDI sources and that serve at least 10,000 persons shall begin monitoring by January 1, 2002. Systems that use either surface water or GUDI sources and that serve fewer than 10,000 persons, or systems that use groundwater sources, shall begin monitoring by January 1, 2004. Systems monitoring for disinfection byproducts and disinfection byproduct precursors shall take all samples during normal operating conditions. Systems monitoring for disinfection byproducts and disinfection byproduct precursors shall use only data collected under this chapter to qualify for reduced monitoring. Compliance with the MCLs and monitoring requirements for TTHM, HAA5, chlorite (where applicable) and bromate (where applicable) shall be determined in accordance with 40 CFR 141.132 and 141.133 (relating to monitoring requirements; and compliance requirements) which are incorporated herein by reference.

*  *  *  *  *

§ 109.302. Special monitoring requirements.

 (a) The Department may require a public water supplier to conduct monitoring in addition to that required by § 109.301 (relating to general monitoring requirements) if the Department has reason to believe the public water system is not in compliance with the action level, MCL, MRDL or treatment technique requirement for the contaminant.

*  *  *  *  *

§ 109.303. Sampling requirements.

 (a) [The samples taken to determine a public water system's compliance with MCLs or MRDLs or to determine compliance with monitoring requirements shall be taken at the locations identified in §§ 109.301 and 109.302 (relating to general monitoring requirements; and special monitoring requirements), or as follows:] The samples taken to determine a public water system's compliance with MCLs, MRDLs or treatment technique requirements or to determine compliance with monitoring requirements shall be taken at the locations identified in §§ 109.301, 109.302, 109.1003, 109.1103, 109.1202 and 109.1303 and as follows:

*  *  *  *  *

 (4) Samples for determining compliance with MCLs for organic contaminants listed by the EPA under 40 CFR 141.61 (relating to maximum contaminant levels for organic contaminants) [and], inorganic contaminants listed by the EPA under 40 CFR 141.62 (relating to maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for inorganic contaminants), radionuclide contaminants listed by the EPA under 40 CFR 141.66 (relating to maximum contaminant levels for radionuclides) and with the special monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants under § 109.302(f) (relating to special monitoring requirements) shall be taken at each entry point to the distribution system which is representative of each source after an application of treatment during periods of normal operating conditions. [If a system draws water from more than one source and the sources are combined prior to distribution, the system shall sample at the entry point where the water is representative of combined sources being used during normal operating conditions.] If a system draws water from more than one source and the sources are combined prior to distribution, the system shall sample at the entry point during periods of normal operating conditions when water is representative of all sources being used. If sources are blended at a consistent ratio prior to the entry point, a blended sample may be taken to determine compliance. If sources are not blended at a consistent ratio or if sources are alternated prior to the entry point, more than one sample shall be taken to ensure that the samples are representative of all sources.

*  *  *  *  *

 (h) Samples taken to determine compliance with beta particle and photon radioactivity under 40 CFR 141.66(d) may be composited as follows:

 (1) Monitoring for gross beta-particle activity may be based on the analysis of a composite of 3 monthly samples.

 (2) Monitoring for strontium-90 and tritium may be based on the analysis of a composite of 4 consecutive quarterly samples.

(i) Samples taken to determine compliance with this chapter shall be taken in accordance with a written comprehensive monitoring plan as specified in § 109.717 (relating to comprehensive monitoring plan). These plans are subject to Department review and revision.

§ 109.304. Analytical requirements.

*  *  *  *  *

 (c) For the purpose of determining compliance with the monitoring and analytical requirements established under this subchapter and Subchapters K, L and M (relating to lead and copper; long-term 2 enhanced surface water treatment rule; and additional requirements for groundwater sources), the Department will consider only samples analyzed by a laboratory accredited by the Department, except that measurements for turbidity, fluoridation operation, residual disinfectant concentration, temperature, pH, alkalinity, orthophosphates, silica, calcium, conductivity, daily chlorite[,] and magnesium hardness may be performed by a person meeting one of the following requirements:

 (1) A person meeting the requirements of § 109.704 (relating to operator certification).

 (2) A person using a standard operating procedure as provided under authority of the Water and Wastewater Systems Operators' Certification Act (63 P.S. §§ 1001—1015.1) and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

 (3) An environmental laboratory meeting the requirements of Chapter 252 (relating to environmental laboratory accreditation).

 (d) A system shall have Cryptosporidium samples analyzed by a laboratory that is approved under the EPA's Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program for Analysis of Cryptosporidium in Water or a laboratory that has been accredited for Cryptosporidium analysis by an equivalent Department laboratory accreditation program.

(e) A water supplier shall calibrate all turbidimeters used for compliance monitoring using the procedure specified by the manufacturer. At a minimum, calibration with an EPA-approved primary standard shall be conducted at least every 90 days. The Department may extend this 90-day calibration frequency if the calibration due date coincides with a holiday or weekend, or during a water system emergency which prevents timely calibration.

§ 109.305. [Fees] (Reserved).

[(a) Data management fees. Community water systems shall submit the following data management fees to the Department by December 31, 1995:

System Size (population served) Fee
<100 $ 120
100—1,000 $ 120
1,001—3,300 $ 240
3,301—10,000 $ 360
10,001—50,000 $ 600
>50,000 $1,200

(b) Waivers. A request for a waiver from the monitoring requirements in §§ 109.301 and 109.302 (relating to general monitoring requirements; and special monitoring requirements) shall be accompanied by the appropriate fee as follow:

System Size (population served) Fee
<100 $ 100
100—1,000 $ 200
1,001—3,300 $ 400
3,301—10,000 $ 500
10,001—50,000 $1,000
>50,000 $2,000

Fees will be based on system size, taking into consideration the following conditions:

(1) For systems with one or more sources all in the same contribution area—for groundwater systems, the contribution area is the surface area overlying the portion of the aquifer through which water is diverted to a well or flows to a spring or infiltration gallery—the fee will be as indicated in this subsection.

(2) For systems with a single wellfield—one contribution area—the fee will be as indicated in this subsection.

(3) For systems with sources in two or more contribution areas, the fee will be as indicated in this subsection plus 1/2 of the system size fee as indicated in this subsection for each additional contribution area in which a source is located.]

Subchapter D. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

§ 109.416. CCR requirements.

 This section applies only to community water systems and establishes the minimum requirements for the content of the annual CCR that each system [must] shall deliver to its customers. This report [shall] must contain information on the quality of the water delivered by the system and characterize the risks, if any, from exposure to contaminants detected in the drinking water in an accurate and understandable manner.

*  *  *  *  *

 (4) [Report delivery and recordkeeping]. Each community water system shall do the following:

 (i) Mail or otherwise directly deliver to each customer [and to the Department one copy of the annual CCR no later than the date the water system is required to distribute the CCR to its customers] one copy of the annual CCR no later than the date specified in paragraph (2).

(ii) Mail a paper copy of the annual CCR to the Department no later than the date the water system is required to distribute the CCR to its customers.

[(ii)] (iii) Make a good faith effort to reach consumers who do not get water bills. The Department will determine ''good faith'' based on those methods identified in 40 CFR 141.155(b) (relating to report delivery [requirements] and recordkeeping), which are incorporated by reference.

[(iii)] (iv) Submit in writing to the Department no later than 3 months after the delivery of the annual CCR:

 (A) A certification that the annual CCR has been distributed to customers and that the information contained in the report is correct and consistent with the compliance monitoring data previously submitted to the Department.

 (B) A description of what was done to meet the good faith effort requirement described in subparagraph [(ii)] (iii).

[(iv)] (v) If another State agency or commission also regulates the community water system, submit a copy of the system's annual CCR to the other agency or commission upon the specific request of that agency or commission no later than the date the water system is required to distribute the CCR to its customers. Each State agency or commission shall determine the way it requests a copy of the system's CCR. Those agencies or commissions may include, but are not limited to, the following:

 (A) The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and the Office of Consumer Advocate in the Office of the Attorney General, for water systems that are public utilities regulated under 66 Pa.C.S. (relating to Public Utility Code).

 (B) The Department of [Public Welfare] Human Services, for self-contained community water systems serving personal care or other group housing facilities.

 (C) The Department of Health, for self-contained community water systems serving skilled healthcare facilities.

[(v)] (vi) Make copies of its annual CCR available to the public on request.

[(vi)] (vii) If a community water system serves 100,000 or more people, post its current year's report to a publicly accessible site on the Internet.

[(vii)] (viii) Retain copies of each annual CCR and the related information required in paragraph (3) on the premises of the system or at a convenient location near the premises for no less than 3 years after the date of its delivery to customers.

[Continued on next Web Page]



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.


Navigation

webmaster@PaBulletin.com