The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission) proposes amendments to §290.38, Definitions; §290.39, General Provisions; §290.41, Water Sources; §290.44, Water Distribution; §290.45, Minimum Water System Capacity Requirements; and §290.47, Appendices; the repeal of §290.42, Water Treatment; §290.46, Minimum Acceptable Operating Practices for Public Drinking Water Systems; §§290.101-290.106, and §§290.108-290.121; new §290.42, Water Treatment; §290.46, Minimum Acceptable Operating Practices for Public Drinking Water Systems; §290.101, Purpose; §290.102, General Applicability; §290.103, Definitions; §290.104, Summary of Maximum Contaminant Levels, Maximum Residual Disinfectant Levels, Treatment Techniques, and Action Levels, §290.105, Secondary Standards; §290.106, Inorganic Contaminants; §290.107, Organic Contaminants; §290.108, Radiological Sampling and Analytical Requirements; §290.109, Microbial Contaminants; §290.110, Disinfectant Residuals; §290.111, Turbidity; §290.112, Total Organic Carbon (TOC); §290.113, Disinfection By-products (TTHM AND HAA5); §290.114, Disinfection By-products Other than TTHM and HAA5; §290.115, Transition Rule for Disinfection By-products; §290.117, Regulation of Lead and Copper; §290.118, Secondary Constituents; §290.119, Analytical Procedures; §290.121, Monitoring Plans; and §290.122, Public Notification.

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED RULES

This rule implements the federal Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection By-products Rule (DBP1R), 63 Fed Reg 69390 (1998) and the federal Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), 63 Fed Reg 69478 (1998). The rule will also make changes to the state design criteria for drinking water treatment plants and clarify existing regulatory requirements.

The sections of the rule relating to the federal Stage 1 DBP1R will apply to all community water systems and nontransient, non-community systems regardless of the number of people they serve. Certain requirements of the rule related to chlorine dioxide will also apply to transient non-community water systems. The proposed rule establishes maximum residual disinfectant levels or maximum contaminant levels for certain disinfectants used to treat drinking water and their by-products by January 1, 2002. The rule would implement National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for three disinfectants (chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine dioxide), two groups of organic disinfection by-products (total trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids), and two inorganic disinfection by-products (chlorite and bromate). These rules also include monitoring, reporting and public notification requirements for these compounds.

Those sections of the rule related to the federal Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule apply to public water systems operating surface water treatment plants and treatment plants for groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (GUI). A well is under the direct influence of surface water if water from the surface can flow into the well. For an example, the presence of surface-water dwelling microbes in the water from the well would indicate that the well is under the direct influence of surface water. The rule strengthens combined filter effluent turbidity performance standards, and establishes individual filter turbidity provisions and disinfection benchmark provisions that must be achieved by January 1, 2002.

The federal requirements for IESWTR apply to public water systems that service at least 10,000 people and utilize surface water or GUI. The commission specifically invites comments on its proposal to apply to IESWTR requirements to surface water and GUI systems that serve less than 10,000 people. This provision would be applied to these smaller systems with the exception that a small system could be granted a waiver delaying their compliance date for up to two years, until 2004. Should these standards be required of small systems before a related federal rule is promulgated?

The rules also include monitoring and reporting requirements. Those sections of the rule relating to state design criteria apply to all public water systems. However, some of the changes to the design criteria apply to specific unit processes and therefore will only affect water treatment plants utilizing those specific unit processes. If a plant does not have a specific unit process that is covered by the rule, the plant is not affected by the rules regarding that specific unit process.

SECTION BY SECTION DISCUSSION

In keeping with present agency usage and the definitions in 30 TAC Chapter 3, relating to definitions, the term "commission" refers to the commissioners acting in their official capacity. The term "executive director" is used to refer to the executive director and any authorized individual or individuals designated to act for the executive director (i.e. staff). This usage has prompted a number of proposed changes to Chapter 290, generally to change "commission" to "executive director," in order to clarify that the staff, not the commissioners acting as the deliberative body, will be taking the action. In a number of instances, the rules require certain requests or reports be sent to the staff for some action. In order to get those requests or reports to the appropriate staff as quickly as possible, some provisions of the proposed rules specify that documents be submitted directly to the public drinking water program rather than to the executive director.

Section 290.38, Definitions, is proposed to be amended to incorporate the definition of public drinking water program which is a term used in various sections of the proposed regulations. Because of proposed changes to various rules related to backflow protection and cross-connection control, the definitions for ABPA, ASSE, and high health hazard are proposed to be eliminated. The definition of health hazard is proposed to be amended, and definitions for air gap, nonhealth hazard, potential contamination hazard and L/d ratio are proposed to be added. Other definitions in this section are renumbered to keep them in alphabetical order.

Section 290.39, General Provisions, is proposed to be amended to incorporate two new provisions. This section provides that a person proposing to install a public drinking water system near a city, district, or a certificated service area of another water service provider must file a written application for service with that other service provider and pay all application fees.

Section 290.39(c)(2) is proposed to be amended and moved to new paragraph (3) of this subsection. Section 290.39(c)(2) is proposed to be amended to provide a hardship exception for the requirement to apply for service from an adjacent water supply. If this provision is adopted in the final rule, the executive director will evaluate any request for this hardship exception using criteria found in the agency's regulatory guidance document, "The Feasibility of Regionalization, Water Utilities Program."

Section 290.39(e)(3)-(4) is proposed to be amended to replace the word "commission" with the words "executive director."

Section 290.39(e)(5) is proposed to be added to clarify that construction features and facility siting for new water systems and major improvements must be in conformity with applicable commission rules.

Section 290.41, Water Sources, is proposed to be amended to update the reference to the current American Water Works Association (AWWA) standard for water well pressure cementation methods. That section is also proposed to be amended to add a provision that expressly states the water quality data that must be provided by the design engineer to the staff in order to obtain approval for a new surface water source.

Section 290.41(c)(3)(C), is proposed to be amended to update the reference to the current AWWA standard for water well pressure cementation methods.

Section 290.41(c)(3)(H) is proposed to be amended to move the requirement regarding well location to §290.41(c)(3)(K). This change has been made in order to make it clear that well installation must be done in such a way that the public water supply well is protected from contamination due to flooding.

Section 290.41(e)(1)(F) is proposed to add a provision that expressly states the water quality data that must be provided by the design engineer to the executive director in order to obtain approval for a new surface water source.

The existing §290.42, Water Treatment, is proposed to be repealed and replaced by new §290.42. Proposed new §290.42 contains the state design criteria for drinking water treatment plants. The existing requirements have been reworded for clarity and resequenced to clarify the importance of existing requirements. New provisions as required by the new federal rules are also incorporated into the section.

Proposed new §290.42(a) provides for the capacity of the public water system's production and treatment facilities. New subsection (b) provides the standards for groundwater sources. Both subsections are unchanged from the existing regulations.

Proposed new §290.42(c) addresses standards for springs and other water sources. New paragraph (1) incorporates the new federal requirement, under 40 CFR §141.170(a)(1), that treatment facilities achieve a 2-log (99%) removal of Cryptosporicium oocysts from water sources that may be vulnerable to contamination from surface water.

Proposed new §290.42(d) addresses standards for surface water sources. The majority of the proposed changes from the existing requirements add the new federal requirement that treatment facilities achieve a 2-log (99%) removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts from surface water sources from 40 CFR §141.170(a)(1). Some changes clarify the existing requirements for review and approval of plans and specifications for drinking water treatment plants. Proposed new paragraph (5) requires surface water treatment plants to have flow metering devices to monitor the flow rate of water in separate treatment trains, recycled decant water, and treated water used to backwash filters, in addition to the requirement that flow metering devices be provided for raw and finished water. This will provide the water plant operator with basic operational data with which to operate the plant effectively given the new turbidity requirements of 40 CFR §141.173(a)(1).

Proposed new §290.42(d)(6), relating to the design of chemical storage facilities at surface water treatment plants, has been reordered from the existing requirements to better represent the importance of the various provisions, reworded to clarify that the rule relates to design rather than operation of such facilities, and expanded to enumerate the specific requirements concerning the design of these facilities. Proposed new subparagraph (A) requires that the system be designed with the capability to store a 15-day supply of chemicals at the design capacity of the surface water treatment plant. This clarifies the existing requirement and addresses the fact that resupply in Texas may be accomplished with more rapidity than that which was achievable at the time the current rule was promulgated. Proposed new subparagraph (B) contains the requirements for day tanks and provides for process control to ensure that no overfeed of chemicals occurs. Proposed new subparagraph (C) requires that all chemical tanks be clearly labeled with the tank's contents and new subparagraph (D) contains the requirements for storage of dry chemicals. Proposed new subparagraph (E) requires bulk storage facilities, day tanks, and their containment facilities be designed to minimize the possibility of leaks and spills. Proposed new subparagraph (F) requires that the pumps and control systems used in contact with a chemical be designed to minimize the possibility of leaks and spills. Proposed new subparagraph (G) requires the piping and valves associated with the storage of a chemical be constructed of materials compatible with that chemical.

Proposed new §290.42(d)(7), relating to the facilities used to feed water treatment chemicals, has been reworded from the existing regulations to clarify that this is a design requirement rather than an operational requirement, expanded to make the requirements more specific, and reworded for clarity. The paragraph contains requirements that will allow chemicals to be applied in a manner that will maximize reliability, facilitate maintenance, and ensure optimal finished water quality. Subparagraph (A) requires each chemical feeder to have a standby or reserve unit. Subparagraph (B) addresses chemical feed equipment dosage. Subparagraph (C) requires the materials used for chemical feeders be compatible with the chemical being fed and subparagraph (D) requires that the design of chemical feed systems prevent chemical back-siphoning. Subparagraph (E) addresses enclosed feed lines, subparagraph (F) addresses dry chemical feeders, subparagraph (G) addresses coagulant feed systems, subparagraph (H) addresses the separation of chlorine and ammonia feed equipment, and subparagraph (I) requires chemical feed points be provided to achieve acceptable finished water quality, adequate taste and odor control, corrosion control, and disinfection.

Proposed new §290.42(d)(8) addresses flash mixing equipment, distinct from flocculation, and has been reworded from the existing regulations for clarity and reorganized and expanded to better represent the importance of the requirements. Two sets of mechanical flash mixing equipment are required for plants treating more than 3.0 million gallons per day. Public water systems with other sources of potable water, with which they can meet average daily water demand, are exempted from the requirement for redundant equipment. Flash mixing equipment is to be sized to account for the range of flows likely to be treated at the plant.

Proposed new §290.42(d)(9) contains provisions for flocculation equipment. Subparagraph (A) allows public water systems treating over 3.0 million gallons per day with other sources of potable water, with which they can meet average daily water demand, to design a new plant with one set of flocculation equipment. Subparagraph (B) addresses the design of coagulation to achieve settleable floc. Flocculation facilities are to be designed with a minimum theoretical detention time of at least 20 minutes when operated at the design flow rate to correspond with currently acceptable engineering practice. However, facilities constructed prior to October 1, 2000 are exempt from this requirement if the settled water turbidity of each sedimentation basin remains below 10.0 Nephlometric Turbidity Units (NTU) and meets the requirements of §290.111. Flocculation facilities are to be designed with decreasing mixing energy from the inlet to outlet. Subparagraph (C) requires coagulated water be transported without destruction of floc.

Proposed new §290.42(d)(10) contains the requirements for surface water treatment plant clarification facilities. Subparagraph (A) allows public water systems treating over 3.0 million gallons per day, with other sources of potable water with which they can meet average daily water demand, to design a new plant to have one set of clarification equipment. Subparagraph (B) requires design to prevent short-circuiting and coagulated water flow through the sedimentation basins without destruction of floc. Subparagraph (C) enumerates the specific design parameters needed for adequate sedimentation, and adds surface overflow rate as a design parameter. This subparagraph uses current standard engineering practice regarding surface overflow rate as a design parameter for clarification facilities. Subparagraph (D) requires clarification basins be designed to prevent the accumulation of settled solids and has been reorganized based on the relative importance of the provisions and expanded for specificity. Sedimentation basins must be designed to be capable of complete draining in six hours, if the system has no other sources of potable water with which to meet average daily demand.

Proposed new §290.42(d)(11) contains provisions related to gravity or pressure type filters. Plants must have filtration facilities. Subparagraph (A) requires that the use of pressure filters be limited to installations with a treatment capacity of less than 0.50 million gallons per day. Subparagraph (B) specifies that surface water treatment plants are to be designed with sufficient filter capacity to meet maximum daily demand with the largest filter out of service. This conforms with current industry design practices and ensures an adequate supply of potable water to the system's customers during periods of routine filter maintenance. Subparagraph (C) requirements have been expanded to make the design options for filter beds clearer, to incorporate current engineering practice for alternative filter bed designs, and to enable systems to meet the provisions of 40 CFR §141.173(a). Filter media purity and filter media grain size must conform to American Water Works Association standards. The depth of filter media should be 24 inches or greater and provide an L/d ratio of at least 1,000. Standards for rapid sand filters are specified and require the uniformity coefficient for filter media not to exceed 1.6 in order to operate the plant effectively given the new turbidity requirements of 40 CFR §141.173(a). Specifications for high-rate dual-media gravity filters, high-rate multi-media gravity filters, and high-rate mono-media anthracite or granular activated carbon gravity filters are provided and conform to current standards of engineering design. Subparagraph (D) contains requirements for filter support gravel design and subparagraph (E) provides acceptable filtration rates of various types of filters. Proposed new subparagraph (F) contains the design requirements for monitoring equipment used in conjunction with filters and incorporates provisions of 40 CFR §141.74(a) relating to individual filter monitoring. Proposed new subparagraph (G) contains provisions relating to filter backwashing facilities and contains provisions resulting from 40 CFR §141.175(b). Proposed new subparagraph (H) allows the continued operation of a drinking water treatment plant during any special studies performed as part of the requirements of 40 CFR §141.175(b) relating to special monitoring on individual filters.

Proposed new §290.42(d)(12) contains requirements for pipe galleries.

Proposed new §290.42(d)(13) contains specifications for plant piping paint color schemes to aid in identification. Subparagraph (A) lists the acceptable color code for piping for plants build or repainted after October 1, 2000, and adds required pipe paint colors for additional process piping colors for chlorine dioxide solution, ferric chloride, ferric sulfate, polymer, liquid caustic, caustic solution, fluoride, and ozone process piping. Figure: 30 TAC §290.42(d)(13) which contains the labeling standards appears in the Tables and Graphics section of this issue of the Texas Register . Subparagraph (B) allows deviation from the provisions of subparagraph (A) for plants repainted before October 1, 2000, if those plants provide clear visual distinction between process streams. Subparagraph (C) requires that the process piping color scheme be documented and that the documentation be accessible to plant personnel.

Proposed new paragraph §290.42(d)(14) requires surface water treatment plants to be designed with sampling taps for raw, settled, filtered and finished water.

Proposed new §290.42(d)(15) contains requirements for an adequately equipped laboratory to be available locally so that daily microbiological and chemical tests can be conducted. Provisions required under 40 CFR §141.131(c) are included. Subparagraph (A) requires that any system wishing to perform microbial analysis in an on-site laboratory must obtain certification to perform this analysis from the Texas Department of Health. Subparagraph (B) provides that systems not having on-site microbial analysis facilities may send samples to a certified lab, as long as this can be accomplished within the requisite time period. Subparagraph (C) requires labs to include equipment for required measurements for pH, temperature, disinfectant residual, alkalinity, turbidity, jar tests for determining the optimum coagulant dose, and any other analyses deemed necessary to monitor specific water quality or treatment processes. Subparagraph (D) incorporates the requirement of 40 CFR §141.131(c) that systems using chlorine dioxide have an amperometric titrator with platinum-platinum electrodes. Subparagraph (E) requires systems with sludge blanket clarifier to have a sludge depth measuring device. Subparagraph (F) requires systems using solids recirculation be equipped to measure slurry solids concentration. Subparagraph (G) requires after January 1, 2002, that surface water treatment plants have a computer and software for recording performance data, maintaining records, and submitting reports. This is proposed to assist surface water plants in complying with new data collection and reporting requirements of both the IESWTR and the Stage 1 DBPIR. The agency's public drinking water program will distribute spreadsheet templates to public water systems when the rule is promulgated. The spreadsheet templates will assist the water treatment plant in collecting data, calculating results, and reporting results to the public drinking water program.

Proposed new §290.42(e), relating to disinfection, has been reorganized from the existing provisions to better represent the relative priority of the requirements and to group related requirements together. Paragraph (1) requires water from surface water sources or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water to be disinfected consistent with requirements of §290.110. Paragraph (2) requires that all groundwater must be disinfected prior to distribution and specifies the application point. Paragraph (3) provides standards for disinfection equipment. Paragraph (4) clarifies the placement of safety equipment when chlorine gas is used. Paragraph (5) requires that by January 1, 2001, housing for all gas chlorination equipment and cylinders be in a separate building and meet certain safety standards. Paragraph (6) specifies ventilation requirements. Paragraph (7) contains standards for hypochlorination solution containers and pumps. Paragraph (8) contains standards for the use of anhydrous ammonia feed equipment.

Proposed new §290.42(f) addresses other treatment processes. Proposed new §290.42(g) contains provisions for sanitary facilities for water works installations. Proposed new subsection (h) requires a permit from the agency for discharging wastes from water treatment processes. Proposed new subsection (i) requires that all chemicals and any additional or replacement process media must conform to American National Standards Institute/National Sanitation Foundation Standard 60 for direct additives and Standard 61 for indirect additives. Proposed new subsection (j) contains safety requirements and references the applicable safety standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Texas Hazards Communication Act, Health and Safety Code, Title 5, Chapter 502. The system is required to comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements for risk management plans. Proposed new subsection (k) requires a thorough plant operations manual be compiled and kept up to date.

Section 290.44(h), Backflow, Siphones, is proposed to be amended to clarify the existing rules related to backflow prevention and to avoid conflict with other commission rules regarding the certification and licensing requirements for backflow prevention device testers. Some proposed text has been reworded for clarity.

New §290.44(h)(1)(A) is proposed to be added to incorporate the requirements of existing §290.44(h)(1) relating to residential air gaps or backflow prevention and reworded to clarify that the requirements shall be dependent upon the specific type of potential hazard.

New §290.44(h)(1)(B) is proposed to be added to incorporate the requirements of existing §290.44(h)(1) relating to residential air gaps or backflow prevention, reworded to clarify that residences or establishments that have an adequate cross connection control program in place are not required to have backflow prevention at the meter, and expanded to specify the requirements relating to adequacy of a cross connection control program. New clause (i) is proposed to be added to clarify the requirements for inspection and testing and to establish an adequate cross connection control program. New clause (ii) is proposed to be added to clarify the requirements for reporting and record keeping for an adequate cross connection control program. New clause (iii) is proposed to be added to place responsibility for cross connection control programs on the water purveyor.

Proposed amendments to §290.44(h)(4) clarify which backflow prevention assemblies are required to be tested. Proposed amendments to subparagraph (A) clarify and update references regarding qualifications for backflow prevention device testers to avoid conflict with other rules regarding certification. Clause (i) is proposed to be deleted to eliminate the reference to "General Tester" to avoid conflict with other rules regarding certification. Clause (ii) is proposed to be deleted to eliminate the reference to "Fireline Tester" to avoid conflict with other rules regarding certification.

Existing §290.44(h)(4)(B) is proposed to be deleted to eliminate references that conflict with other rules regarding certification. Existing §290.44(h)(4)(C) is proposed to be deleted and moved to §290.44(h)(4)(B). Existing §290.44(h)(4)(D) is proposed to be deleted and moved to §290.44(h)(4)(C). Existing §290.44(h)(4)(E) is proposed to be deleted and moved to §290.46(f).

Proposed new §290.44(h)(4)(B) is amended to incorporate the provisions of §290.44(h)(4)(C) relating to gauges used to test backflow prevention devices. Proposed new §290.44(h)(4)(C) is proposed to be amended to incorporate the provisions of §290.44(h)(4)(D) relating to the reporting requirements for backflow prevention assemblies, and to be reworded for clarity.

Section 290.45, Minimum Water System Capacity Requirements, is proposed to be amended to update the requirements for redundancy in service pumps for small community and noncommunity water systems in order to help ensure continuous uninterrupted operation of those systems. Redundancy means the provision of two pumps so that, if the main water pump fails, a second pump is available and may be installed quickly so that customers are not without water for extended periods. Some proposed text has been reworded for clarity.

Proposed §290.45(b)(1)(F)(iii) has been amended to require at least two service pumps for all groundwater systems with 100 connections and greater or groundwater systems with fewer than 100 connections that have ground storage. Proposed §290.45(d)(2)(B)(iii) has been amended to require a pump with a total capacity of 2.0 gallons per minute at systems with a maximum demand less than 15 gallons per minute. Existing §290.45(d)(2)(B)(iv) has been moved to §290.45(d)(2)(B)(v). Proposed new clause (iv) has been amended to require at least two pumps at systems with a maximum demand greater than 15 gallons per minute.

The existing §290.46, Minimum Acceptable Operating Practices for Public Drinking Water Systems, is proposed to be repealed and replaced by new §290.46. Proposed new §290.46 contains the minimum acceptable operating practices for public drinking water systems. It incorporates the existing regulations and current engineering standards. Some text existing provisions have been reorganized and reworded for clarity. New provisions required by the new federal rules are also incorporated into the section.

Proposed new §290.46(a) contains general requirements for a public drinking water system and is unchanged from the existing requirements. Proposed new §290.46(b) addresses microbiological analysis submission and requirements. Proposed new subsection (c) requires samples for chemical analysis to be submitted as directed by the agency.

Proposed new §290.46(d) contains requirements for disinfectant residuals and monitoring. It requires systems be operated in such a manner that the disinfectant residuals be acceptable and continuously maintained during the treatment process and throughout the distribution system. New paragraph (1) requires compliance with §290.110 and new paragraph (2) specifies the minimum disinfectant residuals in the finished water storage tank and in the far reaches of the distribution system at all times. Systems using free chlorine must operate the disinfection equipment to achieve a free chlorine residual of 0.2 milligrams per liter. Systems using chloramines must operate the disinfection equipment in such manner to achieve a total chlorine residual of 0.5 milligrams per liter.

Proposed new §290.46(e) provides the conditions under which a system must be under the direct supervision of a certified water works operator. New paragraph (1) provides requirements for systems which utilize groundwater or purchased water and provides the grade of certification required for the water works operator. A system using only groundwater or purchased water with 250 or fewer connections must be operated by an operator holding minimum of a Grade "D" certificate. A system using only groundwater or purchased water serving more than 250 connections must be operated by an operator holding minimum of a Grade "C" certificate. A system using only groundwater or purchased water serving more than 1,000 connections must be operated by two operators holding minimum of a Grade "C" certificate. A system using surface water must employ an operator holding minimum of a Grade "B" surface water certificate after January 1, 2004 to correspond with the changes in operator certification requirements. Until January 1, 2004, a system using surface water must employ an operator holding minimum of a Grade "B" surface water certificate or a Grade "C" surface water certificate and having completed a 20-hour lab class.

Proposed new §290.46(e)(2) requires that a surface water treatment plant must have at least a Grade "C" surface water operator on the premises at any time the plant is in operation or the plant must be equipped with continuous turbidity and disinfectant residual monitors with automatic shutdowns and alarms.

Proposed new §290.46(e)(3) requires systems which are classified as groundwater under the direct influence of surface water to be under the supervision of either an operator who has at least a Grade "C" groundwater certificate and has had additional training or who has at least a Grade "C" surface water certificate. Systems that utilize cartridge filters must be under the supervision of at least a Grade "C" groundwater operator who has completed a 8-hour training course on monitoring and reporting requirements. Systems that utilize coagulant addition and direct filtration must be under the supervision of at least a Grade "C" groundwater operator who has completed a 20-hour Surface Water Protection course and an 8-hour training course on monitoring and reporting requirements. Systems which utilize complete surface water treatment must comply with the requirements of §290.46(e)(2).

Proposed new §290.46(e)(4) requires certified operators to provide written notice of the public water systems which they operate to the agency when applying for, renewing, or upgrading their certification or within ten days of any change in responsibility. Proposed new §290.46(e)(5) provides that the training programs for all chemicals used in the water treatment must meet applicable standards established by OSHA or the Texas Hazard Communications Act, Health and Safety Code, Title 5, Chapter 502.

Proposed new §290.46(f) contains all the requirements for public water systems relating to reporting and record keeping. The proposed subsection has been expanded from the current rules to make the requirements regarding reporting and record keeping clearer and more specific and to establish consistency between operating records and reports required from investor owned utilities and other public water systems. Paragraph (1) discusses the organization of records and maintenance of copies either being kept on file or stored electronically. Paragraph (2) provides that the operating records be accessible for review during inspections.

Proposed new §290.46(f)(3) specifies the retention schedule for record keeping. New subparagraph (A) requires that for at least two years records must be retained for the amount of chemical used daily; volume of water treated each day; complaints with respect to water quality, low pressure, or outages and results of investigations; dates that dead-end mains were flushed; dates that storage tanks and other facilities were cleaned; and maintenance records for water system equipment and facilities. Under new subparagraph (B), three year retention is required for records of violation and corrective action, records of all public notices issued by the system, records of special filter monitoring performed as part of the requirements of §290.111 resulting from the incorporation of 40 CFR §141.175(b), calibration records, and records of backflow prevention programs. New subparagraph (C) requires water systems retain certain records for a period of five years after they are no longer in effect for records regarding a variance or exemption granted to the system and concentration-time (CT) studies. New subparagraph (D) requires the results of microbiological analyses to be retained by the system for five years. New subparagraph (E) requires a 10 year retention for copies of Monthly Operating Reports and supporting documentation including turbidity monitoring results of the combined filter effluent; the results of chemical analyses; written reports, summaries, or communications relating to sanitary surveys; copies of the Customer Service Inspection Reports; and other pertinent data.

Proposed new §290.46(f)(4) requires water systems to submit any monthly or quarterly reports that are required by the executive director. Systems must submit their reports to the public drinking water program's address, and the report must be submitted by the tenth day of the month following the period of time that the report covers (as per federal provision under 40 CFR §141.175(a)). The reports must contain all the information required by the drinking water standards and the results of any special monitoring test which have been required. This specifically includes reports resulting from 40 CFR §141.175(b)(1). The reports must be completed in ink, typed, or computer printed and signed by the certified water works operator.

Proposed new §290.46(g)-(i) contain the same requirements as the existing rule. New subsection (g) provides when disinfection of new or repaired facilities is necessary. New subsection (h) requires that a supply of calcium hypochlorite be kept on hand and used when making repairs, setting meters, and disinfecting new mains prior to placing them in service. New subsection (i) address the adoption of plumbing ordinances, regulations or services agreements by the public water system to insure that neither cross-connections nor other unacceptable plumbing practices are permitted and the use of pipes, fittings, solders, and flux is regulated.

Proposed new §290.46(j) contains customer service inspections requirements. The subsection specifies when an inspection certificate should be completed and who is capable of conducting the customer service inspection certification. New paragraph (2) requires the prompt elimination of potential contaminant hazards as they are discovered. The existence of a health hazard is sufficient grounds for immediate termination of water service. Service can not be restored until the hazard either no longer exist or is isolated. The inspections under this subsection are not acceptable substitutes for and do not apply to sanitary control requirements under §290.102(a)(5). A customer service inspection is limited and the inspector has no authority nor obligation beyond the scope of these regulations. A customer service inspection is not a plumbing inspection as defined and regulated by the Texas State Board of Plumbing Examiners and a customer service inspector is not permitted to perform plumbing inspections.

Proposed new §290.46(k) prohibits interconnection between a public drinking water supply distribution system and any other water supply unless the other water is of a safe, sanitary quality and the interconnection is approved by the executive direction. Proposed new §290.46(l) contains requirements for the flushing of dead-end mains at monthly intervals or more frequently if the disinfectant residuals fall below acceptable levels.

Proposed new §290.46(m) requires that the maintenance and housekeeping practices used by a public water system ensure the reliability and general appearance of the system's facilities and equipment. New paragraph (1) requires the inspection of ground, elevated and pressure tanks annually. Specific determinations must be made for ground and elevated storage tanks and for pressure tanks during the inspection. The instrumentation and controls on tanks must also be inspected to insure they are working properly. New paragraph (2) specifies the inspection requirements for pressure filters. New paragraph (3) requires that the cartridges in cartridge filters be changed as specified by the manufacturer. New paragraph (4) requires that the storage facilities, distribution system lines and related appurtenances be maintained in a watertight condition and free of excessive solids. New paragraph (5) requires that sedimentation basins be maintained free of excessive solids.

Proposed new §290.46(n) contains the specifications for engineering plans, specifications, maps and other pertinent information and requires these documents to be maintained to facilitate the operation and maintenance of the facilities and equipment. New paragraph (1) requires public water systems maintain an accurate and up-to-date set of as-built plans and specifications. This requirement will aid the system in complying with regulations and operating its system and will assist the agency's field inspectors when they perform sanitary surveys of an individual water system. New paragraph (2) requires and accurate and up-to-date map of the distribution system be available so that valves and mains can be easily located during emergencies. New paragraph (3) requires that copies of well construction data, disinfection information, microbiological sample results and a representative chemical analysis report be kept on file for as long as the well remains in service.

Proposed new §290.46(o) contains specifications for filter backwashing at surface water treatment plants. Filters are required to be backwashed when loss of head differential of six to ten feet is experienced between the influent and effluent loss of head gauges. Backwashing of filters is also required when the turbidity level of the filter effluent reaches 1.0 NTU to facilitate compliance with the 40 CFR §141.173(a).

Proposed new §290.46(p) specifies the information regarding water system ownership and management that must be provided to the agency. New paragraph (1) provides for notice when a water system changes ownership. New paragraph (2) requires annual written notice from each certified operator who supervised more than one system to contain the certificate number, address and telephone number, and the name and identification number of each public water system they supervise.

Proposed new §290.46(q) specifies special precautions to be instituted by the system in event of low distribution pressures, water outages, microbiological samples found to contain E.coli or fecal coliform organisms, failure to maintain adequate chlorine residuals, elevated finished water turbidity levels, or other conditions which indicate that the potability of the drinking water supply has been compromised. New paragraph (1) contains specifications for the boil water notifications which must be issued to the customers within 24-hours. New paragraph (2) specifies how to determine if a boil water notification must be issued in the event of the loss of distribution system pressure and how long it shall remain in effect. New paragraph (3) specifies that a boil water notification shall be issued if the turbidity of the finished water produced by a surface water treatment plant exceeds 5.0 NTU and specifies how long it shall remain in effect. New paragraph (4) specifies that other protective measure may be required at the discretion of the executive director.

Proposed new §290.46(r) contains provisions for minimum acceptable distribution system operating pressures of 35 pollutant standard index (psi) throughout the distribution system under normal conditions and 20 psi during emergencies such as fire fighting.

Proposed new §290.46(s) contains requirements for testing equipment, and requires this equipment or some other means of monitoring the effectiveness of any chemical treatment process to be used by the system be provided. New paragraph (1) requires flow meters to be calibrated once every 12-months. New paragraph (2) provides for the proper calibration of laboratory equipment. pH meters are to be calibrated once each day and checked with at least one buffer when samples are run. Benchtop turbidimeters are to be calibrated with primary standards once every 90 days and checked with secondary standards every time a series of samples is run. On-line turbidimeters are to be calibrated with primary standards once every 90 days and checked weekly by comparison with a calibrated benchtop turbidimeter. Disinfectant residual analyzers are to be calibrated to enable systems to achieve compliance with the provisions of 40 CFR §141.173(a). Manual disinfectant residual analyzers are to be checked every 30 days using chlorine solutions of know concentrations. Continuous disinfectant residual analyzers are to be calibrated every 90 days using chlorine solutions of know concentrations and are to be checked at least once each month by comparing the results from the on-line analyzer with the results of approved benchtop amperometric, spectrophotometric, or titration method.

Proposed new §290.46(t) provides system ownership signage requirements.

Proposed new §290.46(u) requires abandoned public water supply wells owned by the system to be plugged. Wells that are not in use and are non-deteriorated must be tested every five years or as required by the executive director to prove that they are in a non-deteriorated condition. Test results must be sent to the agency. Deteriorated wells must be plugged or repaired to a non-deteriorated condition.

Proposed new §290.46(v) requires all electrical wiring to be installed in a securely mounted conduit in compliance with a local or national electrical code.

Section 290.47(d) is proposed to be amended to incorporate provisions of §290.46(j)(3)(A)-(E) in Appendix D, Customer Service Inspection Certificate, and to add a space to denote the reason for the inspection and a remarks section. Changes appear on Figure: 30 TAC §290.47(d) in the Tables and Graphics section of this issue of the Texas Register .

Section 290.47(f) is proposed to be amended to require that a system provide additional information on the test device used and the firm that is conducting the test when completing Appendix F, Backflow Prevention Assembly Test and Maintenance Report, and to add a new area for remarks. Changes appear on Figure: 30 TAC §290.47(f) in the Tables and Graphics section of this issue of the Texas Register.

Section 290.47(i) is proposed to be added to incorporate Appendix I, Assessment of Hazards and Selection of Assemblies to provide for clarification of the backflow prevention and cross-connection control rules contained in §290.44(h). Changes appear on Figure: 30 TAC §290.47(i) in the Tables and Graphics section of this issue of the Texas Register .

Subchapter F, Drinking Water Standards Governing Drinking Water Quality and Reporting Requirements for Public Water Systems is proposed to be substantially reorganized in order to incorporate the new federal rule requirements and the existing Texas rule requirements in a logical sequence. Therefore, it is proposed that the current sections be repealed in their entirety, and that those sections be replaced with the new language. The proposed changes to the organization of this subchapter are necessary to contain information regarding each constituent of concern in a single section dealing with that constituent, to standardize the internal organization of sections dealing with these constituents, to add summaries of maximum contaminants and treatment techniques for reference, to clarify public notification requirements, and to clarify procedural requirements in individual sections. In the proposed organizational structure, provisions that are general to all systems and contaminants will be at the beginning of the subchapter. These are proposed to be followed by sections that cover each of the constituents of concern. After the sections giving detailed regulations for each chemical or contaminant, sections are proposed to be added to contain general analytical, monitoring, and notification requirements. All proposed tables and figures can be found in the Tables and Graphics section of this issue of the Texas Register .

Proposed new §290.101, Purpose, explains that the purpose of the rule is to assure the safety of public water supplies through control test, laboratory checks, operating records and reports.

Proposed new §290.102, General Applicability, provides that the subchapter applies to all public water systems unless the system meets the provisions found in this section. Variances and exceptions may be granted by the executive director. Requirements for these variances and exceptions for one or more of the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or treatment technique and the application procedures for these are discussed. Modified monitoring may be granted by the executive director.

Proposed new §290.103, Definitions, provides definitions for technical terms contained in this subchapter. New definitions that have been added to the currently applicable definitions include, "comprehensive performance evaluation", "enhanced softening", "filter profile", "filter assessment, haloacetic acids (HAA5)", "maximum residual disinfectant level (MRDL), minimum acceptable disinfectant level", "specific ultraviolet absorption at 254 nanometers (SUVA)", and "total organic carbon (TOC)" as required by 40 CFR §141.2.

Proposed new §290.104; Summary of Maximum Contaminant Levels, Maximum Residual Disinfectant Levels, Treatment Techniques, and Action Levels; summarizes the primary maximum contaminant levels, maximum residual disinfectant levels, treatment techniques and action levels. This section provides a listing of all regulated contaminants in a single location. MCLs for inorganic compounds, organic compounds, volatile organic contaminants, radiological contaminants, microbial contaminants, minimum and maximum residual disinfectant levels, turbidity, disinfection by-product precursors, disinfection by-products, and lead and copper action levels are specified. All proposed figures can be found in the Tables and Graphics section of this issue of the Texas Register .

Proposed new §290.105, Summary of Secondary Standards, summarizes the secondary constituents and their maximum levels. Figure: 30 TAC §290.105(b) can be found in the Tables and Graphics section of this issue of the Texas Register .

Proposed new §290.106, contains the requirement for inorganic contaminants (IOCs). The applicability, maximum contaminant levels or treatment technique requirements, monitoring requirements, analytical requirements, reporting requirements, compliance determination, and public notice requirements for inorganic contaminants, and best available technology for treatment are discussed in this section. Requirements for nickel are not proposed because the Environmental Protection Agency no longer requires the regulation of this metal. Figure: 30 TAC §290.106(b) can be found in the Tables and Graphics section of this issue of the Texas Register .

Proposed new §290.107, Organic Contaminants, contains the applicability, maximum contaminant levels or treatment techniques requirements for synthetic organic contaminants and volatile organic contaminants, monitoring requirements, analytical requirements, reporting requirements, compliance determination, public notice requirements for organic contaminants, and best available technology for treatment for these compounds. Requirements for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, and aldicarb sulfone are not proposed. Figure: 30 TAC §290.107(b)(1) and (b)(2) can be found in the Tables and Graphics section of this issue of the Texas Register .

Proposed new §290.108, Radiological Sampling and Analytical Requirements, contains the applicability, maximum contaminant levels, monitoring requirements, analytical requirements, reporting requirements, compliance determination, and public notification requirements. Figure: 30 TAC §290.108(b)(2)(B) can be found in the Tables and Graphics section of this issue of the Texas Register .

Proposed new §290.109, Microbial Contaminants, contains provisions for the applicability, maximum contaminant levels, monitoring requirements, analytical requirements, reporting requirements, compliance determination, and public notification requirements related to these contaminants. Figure: 30 TAC §290.109(c)(2)(A)(iii) can be found in the Tables and Graphics section of this issue of the Texas Register .

Proposed new §290.110, Disinfection Residuals, contains the applicability, minimum and maximum acceptable disinfectant concentrations, monitoring requirements, analytical requirements, reporting requirements, compliance determination, and public notification requirements. The portions of this section that incorporate federal provisions are subsections (b)(3), (b)(5), (c)(2), (f)(5), (f)(7), (f)(8), (g)(1), and (g)(4). Subsection (b)(3) incorporates the maximum residual disinfectant level for the disinfectant chlorine dioxide of 40 CFR §141.65(a). Subsection (b)(5) incorporates the federally imposed maximum residual disinfectant level for chlorine and chloramines of 40 CFR §141.65(a). Subsection (c)(2) incorporates the federally imposed chlorine dioxide monitoring requirements of 40 CFR §141.132(c)(2). Subsection (f)(5) incorporates requirements relating to chlorine dioxide compliance determination in response to 40 CFR §141.133(c)(2). Subsection (f)(7) incorporates requirements relating to chlorine and chloramine compliance determination in response to 40 CFR §141.133(c)(1). Subsection (f)(8) provides that systems shall increase residual disinfectant levels of chlorine or chloramines (but not chlorine dioxide) in the distribution system to a level and for a time necessary to protect public health to address specific microbiological contamination problems caused by circumstances such as distribution line breaks, storm runoff events, source water contamination, or cross-connections as required by 40 CFR §141.130(d). Subsection (g)(1) contains the requirement for public notice in the event of an exceedance of the maximum residual disinfectant residual for chlorine dioxide as required by 40 CFR §141.133(2). Subsection (g)(4) is proposed to be added to contain the requirement for public notice in the event of an exceedance of the maximum residual disinfectant residual for chlorine and chloramines as required by 40 CFR §141.133(1). Figure: 30 TAC §290.110(c)(3)(A) and (f)(6) can be found in the Tables and Graphics section of this issue of the Texas Register .

Proposed new §290.111, Turbidity, contains the applicability, treatment technique requirements, monitoring requirements, analytical requirements, reporting requirements, compliance determination, and public notification requirements. The section includes federal requirements of the IESWTR which apply to public water systems that service at least 10,000 people and utilize surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water. The state rule is proposed to apply to all surface water systems and groundwater systems under the direct influence of surface water regardless of the population served.

The commission invites comments on its proposal to apply the IESWTR combined filter effluent turbidity requirements on surface water systems and groundwater systems under the direct influence of surface water for systems that serve less than 10,000 people and alternate regulatory strategies. Should the final rule apply the treatment technique requirements to all systems regardless of size without the proposed provision for compliance flexibility? Should the turbidity treatment technique standards not be required of small systems until required by federal rules?

Proposed §290.111(b)(2)(C) provides that the executive director may extend the proposed compliance date for the turbidity standards for systems serving fewer than 10,000 people but not beyond January 1, 2004. Subsection (b)(3) contains the new treatment technique requirements for individual filter effluent at plants serving 10,000 people and treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water as required under of 40 CFR §141.173(a). Subsection (b)(3)(A) requires that, beginning January 1, 2002, the turbidity from each individual filter at plants serving 10,000 people or more and treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water should not exceed 0.5 NTU at four hours after the individual filter is returned to service after backwash or shut down as part of the requirements under 40 CFR §141.175(b)(2). Subsection (b)(3)(B) requires that, beginning January 1, 2002, the turbidity from each individual filter should never exceed 1.0 NTU at plants serving fewer than 10,000 people and treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water as part of the requirements of 40 CFR §141.175(b)(1).

Proposed §290.111(c) contains turbidity monitoring requirements as required by 40 CFR §141.175(a). Subsection (c)(3) contains the individual filter turbidity monitoring requirements for individual filters at plants serving 10,000 or more people and treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water as required by 40 CFR §141.174. Subsection (c)(4) contains individual filter turbidity monitoring requirements for individual filters at plants serving fewer than 10,000 people and treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water. Subsection (c)(5) contains special individual filter turbidity monitoring and analysis requirements for individual filters at plants serving 10,000 or more people and treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water as required by 40 CFR §141.175(b). Subsection (c)(5)(A) incorporates the requirement that each time a filter exceeds 1.0 NTU anytime during a filter run, or exceeds 0.5 NTU at four hours after backwash, for two consecutive 15-minute readings, the system must either identify the cause of the exceedance or complete a filter profile on the filter as provided in 40 CFR §141.175(b)(2). Subsection (c)(5)(B) incorporates the requirement that each time a filter exceeds 1.0 NTU anytime during a filter run, or exceeds 0.5 NTU at four hours after backwash, for two consecutive 15-minute readings, on three separate occasions during any consecutive three month period, the public water system must conduct a filter assessment on the filter as provided in 40 CFR §141.175(b)(1). Subsection (c)(5)(C) incorporates the requirement that each time that any combination of filters exceeds 2.0 NTU on two consecutive 15-minute readings during two consecutive months, the public water system must participate in a third-party Comprehensive Performance Evaluation as provided in 40 CFR §141.175(b)(2)(4).

Proposed §290.111(d)(3) requires that plants serving 10,000 or more people and treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water must measure turbidity using continuous on-line turbidimeters on each filter as provided in 40 CFR §141.174(a). Subsection (d)(4) requires that individual filter turbidity at plants serving fewer than 10,000 people and treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water must be measured using grab sampling and bench-top turbidimeters.

Proposed §290.111(e) incorporates the reporting requirements for turbidity as provided in 40 CFR §141.175. Subsection (e)(3) requires that plants serving 10,000 or more people and treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water which are required to do a filter profile must submit a Filter Profile Report for Individual Filters with their Monthly Operating Report (MOR) as provided in 40 CFR §141.175(b)(1) and (2). Subsection (e)(4) requires that plants serving 10,000 people or more and treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water that are required to do a filter assessment must submit a Filter Assessment Report for Individual Filters with their MOR as provided in 40 CFR §141.175(b)(3). Subsection (e)(5) is proposed to be added to require that plants serving 10,000 people or more and treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water that are required to do a Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE), they must submit a Request for Compliance CPE with their MOR as provided in 40 CFR §141.175(b)(4).

Proposed §290.112, Total Organic Carbon (TOC), contains the provisions needed to implement the provisions of the Stage 1 DBP1R pertaining to the monitoring and control of disinfection by-product precursors. Regulations regarding applicability, treatment technique, monitoring requirements, analytical requirements, reporting requirements, compliance determination, and publication notification are specified. Figure: 30 TAC §290.112(b)(1) can be found in the Tables and Graphics section of this issue of the Texas Register.

Proposed new §290.113, Disinfection By-products (TTHM and HAA5), incorporates the provisions of the Stage 1 DBP1R relating to disinfection by-products (TTHM and HAA5). Regulations regarding applicability, maximum contaminant level, monitoring requirements, analytical requirements, reporting requirements, compliance determination, and publication notification are specified. Figure: 30 TAC §290.113(c)(3) and (c)(4) can be found in the Tables and Graphics section of this issue of the Texas Register .

Proposed new §290.114, Disinfection By-products Other than TTHM and HAA5, incorporates the provisions of the Stage 1 DBP1R relating to disinfection by-products other than TTHM and HAA5 and contains regulations for chlorite and bromate. Subsection (a), Chlorite, contains provisions for maximum contaminant level, monitoring requirements, analytical requirements, reporting requirements, compliance determination, and publication notification. Subsection (b), Bromate, contains provisions for maximum contaminant level, monitoring requirements, analytical requirements, reporting requirements, compliance determination, and publication notification.

Proposed new §290.115, Transition Rule for Disinfection By-products, applies to all public water systems serving at least 10,000 people until January 1, 2002 if a system uses surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water and until January 1, 2004 if the system uses only groundwater sources that are not under the direct influence of surface water. After those dates, it is proposed that the systems be required to comply with §290.113, relating to disinfection by-products (TTHM and HAA5). Regulations regarding applicability, maximum contaminant level, and sampling and analytical requirements for total trihalomethanes are specified.

Proposed new §290.117, Regulation of Lead and Copper, contains provisions for general requirements, site selection and material survey, tap sampling, computing 90th percentile lead and copper levels, reduced tap monitoring, monitoring requirements for water quality parameters and source water, public education procedures, corrosion control, lead service line replacement, analytical and sample preservation methods, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Figure: 30 TAC §290.117(c)(6), (c)(8), and (f)(1)(D) can be found in the Tables and Graphics section of this issue of the Texas Register .

Proposed new §290.118, Secondary Constituent Levels, contains provisions for applicability, secondary constituent levels, analytical requirements, reporting requirements, compliance determination, and public notification. Figure: 30 TAC §290.118(b) can be found in the Tables and Graphics section of this issue of the Texas Register .

Proposed new §290.119, Analytical Procedures, contains provisions for acceptable laboratories, acceptable analytical methods, and process control tests.

Proposed new §290.121, Monitoring Plans, contains provisions for applicability, monitoring plan requirements, reporting requirements, compliance determination, and public notification.

Proposed new §290.122, Public Notification, incorporates the provisions of the Stage 1 DBP1R relating to monitoring plans. The section contains provisions for public notification requirements for acute violations; public notification requirements for other MCL or treatment technique violations; public notification requirements for other violations, variances, and exemptions; notice to new billing units, and proof of public notification.

FISCAL NOTE

Jeffrey Horvath, with Strategic Planning and Appropriations, has determined that for the first five-year period the proposed amendments are in effect there will be no significant fiscal implications for the TNRCC. However, there will be costs, in some cases significant costs, for certain units of state and local government and investor owned utilities as a result of administration or enforcement of the proposed amendments. The proposed rulemaking implements the federal Stage 1 DBP1R and the federal IESWTR. The proposed rule will make changes to the state design criteria for some water treatment plant processes and clarify existing regulatory requirements.

The federal IESWTR affects the treatment of surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water used for drinking water, and is aimed at reducing the incidence of Cryptosporidium in drinking water. The IESWTR and Stage 1 DBP1R were published in the Federal Register in 1998. The TNRCC has two years to adopt the rules, or by December 16, 2000.

The sections of the proposed rule relating to the Stage 1 DBP1R establishes maximum residual disinfectant levels for certain disinfectants (chlorine, chlorine dioxide, and chloramines), establishes maximum contaminant levels for certain of their by-products (trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids, chlorite, and bromate), requires systems treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water to control disinfection by-product precursors (total organic carbon), and requires all systems to produce a monitoring plan describing their sampling protocols. The sections of the proposed rule relating to backflow prevention and backsiphonage do not represent a substantive change to current practice and therefore no fiscal impact is anticipated to systems. The sections of the proposed rule relating to the IESWTR strengthen combined filter effluent turbidity performance standards and establish individual filter turbidity provisions, and disinfection profile and benchmark provisions. The proposed rule will also make changes to state design criteria for some water treatment plant processes and include additional monitoring and reporting requirements.

Those sections of the proposed rule related to the federal Stage 1 DBP1R apply to all community water systems and nontransient, non-community water systems regardless of the number of people they serve. Certain requirements of the rule related to chlorine dioxide also apply to transient non-community water systems. Those sections of the proposed rule related to the federal IESWTR apply to public water systems serving at least 10,000 people and operating surface water treatment plants or treatment plants for groundwater under the direct influence of surface water. It is proposed that one of the provisions of the federal rule also be applied to systems serving less than 10,000 people and treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water. Those sections of the proposed rule relating to design criteria apply to public water systems utilizing those unit processes.

The majority of the public water systems covered by the proposed rule are operated by units of local governments, including cities, water districts which are also local governments, and state agencies such as Texas Parks and Wildlife and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Some public water systems are operated by quasi-governmental entities such as water supply corporations, river authorities and some water districts. Other public water systems are operated by investor owned utilities, commercial entities, or industrial facilities. This last class of public water systems may include small businesses. The Texas Department of Health will have increased costs due to analyzing additional water samples and performing additional laboratory certifications. It is assumed these costs will be offset by additional fee revenue collected for analyzing additional water samples.

The state of Texas owns a total of eleven small plants that will incur costs to comply with the new standard. All of these systems serve fewer than 10,000 people. The IESWTR will result in annual costs to those systems treating surface water, or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water, of $3,040. Three state systems may require minor plant modifications with an estimated per-plant cost of $25,000 to meet the new standard. One state system may require more extensive plant modifications with an estimated per-plant cost of $39,781. Two state systems may require an entirely new treatment plant, estimated to cost $427,800 per plant.

There will be an increase in the number of water samples required, along with changes in design criteria and increased capital costs.

Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection By-products Rule . Public water systems will incur annual recurring costs due to increased monitoring for disinfection by-products under the Stage 1 DBP1R. For a typical surface water system, or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water system, serving a population of 10,000 or more, these annual costs are anticipated to range from $4,160 to $6,120. For a typical surface water system, or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water system, serving fewer than 10,000 people, these annual costs are anticipated to range from $1,400 to $5,920. For a typical groundwater system serving 10,000 or more people, the annual recurring costs are anticipated to range from $1,040 to $1,200. For a typical groundwater system serving fewer than 10,000 people, the annual recurring costs are anticipated to range from $350 to $390. The annual increased monitoring costs for typical systems are shown in the following series of tables. Figure: 30 TAC Chapter 290--Preamble regarding Estimated Annual Sampling Costs for Systems Not Using Chlorine Dioxide or Ozone can be found in the Tables and Graphics section of this issue of the Texas Register .

Figure: 30 TAC Chapter 290--Preamble

It is assumed that many systems will be able to reduce monitoring as they will be able to meet established criteria for acceptable levels of trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids. There would be no reduced monitoring for total organic carbon. Approximately 55% of the large ground water systems will be able to reduce monitoring from one sample per quarter to one sample per year. About 22% of the large surface water/groundwater under the influence systems will be able to reduce monitoring from four samples per quarter to one sample per quarter. Of the small groundwater systems, about 26% should be able to reduce monitoring from one per quarter to one per year. About 6.0% of the small surface water/groundwater under the influence systems will be able to reduce monitoring from one sample per quarter to one sample per year. In addition, about 34% of the small groundwater systems will be able to reduce monitoring after the second year of full monitoring from one sample per year to one sample per three years.

Systems using chlorine dioxide must also sample for chlorite. Currently, systems using chlorine dioxide must take one distribution system chlorite sample monthly. Under the new rule, these systems will be required to take three distribution system samples monthly. There are currently about 50 systems that use chlorine dioxide. Each sample costs between $40 and $70 each. The annual increased cost of chlorite monitoring for each system using chlorine dioxide will likely be between $960 and $1,680. The aggregate costs to these systems are estimated between $48,000 and $84,000 each year. There would be no reduced chlorite monitoring for systems using chlorine dioxide.

Systems using ozone must also sample for bromate. For systems using ozone, one additional sample would be required each month estimated to cost between $40 and $70. There are currently about five systems in Texas using ozone. The annual increased cost for each affected system would range from $480 to $840. The aggregate costs to these systems are estimated to be between $2,400 and $4,200 each year. There would be no reduced bromate monitoring for systems using ozone.

The Stage 1 DBP1R requires that all public water systems that treat surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water and use conventional treatment achieve certain levels of removal of naturally occurring TOC. It is estimated that 67 systems serving at least 10,000 people will incur additional chemical costs as a result of this requirement. For those 67 large systems that are expected to incur some additional annual cost associated with increased chemicals, assuming a 10% increase in chemicals at three cents per 1,000 gallons of water treated, and assuming typical water flow rates, the average annual cost to comply will be approximately $191,625 starting in 2002. Some systems serving less than 10,000 people will incur chemical costs starting in 2004 in order to comply with this requirement. Approximately 209 plants may incur an increased chemical cost in order to meet the new total organic carbon costs requirements starting in 2004. Assuming a 10% increase in chemicals at three cents per 1,000 gallons water usage for these 209 plants and assuming typical values for water usage, the average annual cost to comply for these systems is $3,040 per year.

The Stage 1 DBP1R requires that all public water systems produce and maintain a monitoring plan describing all sampling protocols for the plant and potable water distribution system. Approximately 6,000 water systems will be affected. The one-time administrative cost of this provision will range from $480 to $600 for each system. The aggregate costs to these systems are estimated to be between $2,880,000 and $3,600,000.

Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule . The federal IESWTR applies to public water systems serving at least 10,000 people and treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water. The requirements of this rule include strengthened combined filter effluent turbidity requirements, new individual filter turbidity monitoring and reporting requirements, and new disinfection profiling and bench marking requirements.

Of the 95 large systems affected by the federal rule, it is anticipated that none will have any increase in annual operational costs associated with the combined filter effluent rule provision.

It is proposed that the combined filter effluent turbidity provision of the federal rule be applied to systems serving fewer than 10,000 people and treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water. This provision would be applied with the exception that, if a small system required capital improvement to meet the new combined filter effluent turbidity limits, the system would be granted a waiver delaying their compliance date for up to two years, until 2004, thus delaying the impact of estimated capital costs. It is anticipated that 196 of the 299 small systems would be able to meet the new combined filter effluent turbidity limits with no additional cost to the system. Approximately 50 plants may incur increased chemical costs in order to meet the new turbidity requirements for the years of 2002 and 2003. Starting in 2004, the federal total organic carbon removal requirements will cause systems to incur additional chemical costs; the additional chemical usage will result in compliance with both the combined filter effluent turbidity requirements and the total organic carbon removal requirements. Assuming a 10% increase in chemicals at three cents per 1,000 gallons water usage for these 50 plants and assuming typical values for water usage, the average annual cost to comply for these systems is $3,040 per year for 2002 and 2003.

Capital Costs

Capital Costs of the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection By-products Rule . It is also assumed that certain capital costs will be required to meet requirements of the rules. The Stage 1 DBP1R will result in additional capital costs to some systems as a result of modifications to disinfection equipment. It is anticipated that none of the systems treating groundwater only will incur capital costs as a result of the Stage 1 DBP1R. Sixty-six systems treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water and serving between 3,300 people and 10,000 people are expected to incur one-time capital costs of approximately $5,915 per system. Two hundred and thirty three systems serving fewer than 3,300 people are expected to incur one-time capital costs of approximately $530 per system.

Capital Costs of the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule . The combined filter effluent provisions of the IESWTR will result in additional capital costs to some plants that treat surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water. Of the 12 large systems that are expected to require capital improvement, four will need minor changes and eight will need major changes. The eight large systems needing major changes are estimated to require capital expenditures of approximately $124,171. Capital costs for the large systems that require minor changes are estimated at $62,086. Approximately 53 small plants may have the need to incur capital expenses to comply with the new rules. Twenty-one small public water systems may require minor plant modifications estimated to cost $25,000 to meet the new standard. Twenty-two small public water systems may require more extensive plant modifications with an estimated per-plant cost of $39,781. Ten small systems were judged to require an entirely new treatment plant beginning in 2004 at an average cost of about $800,000 per system. Plant costs for large systems were estimated based on EPA estimates provided in the IESWTR. Plant costs for small systems were based on estimates developed by TNRCC staff.

Capital Costs of the New Design Requirements . Each plant treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water and serving 10,000 or more people will be required to have an on-line turbidimeter and recorder on each individual filter. In developing the cost estimates, it is assumed that a large plant has, on average, seven filters. Adding the required monitoring equipment is estimated to cost between $2,000 and $4,000 for each filter. Therefore, the one-time capital cost for each of these systems would range between $14,000 and $28,000.

Certain design requirements of the rules will be updated to support both the IESWTR and the Stage 1 DBP1R and to reflect current acceptable engineering practice. Each surface water system must have a computer and printer for monitoring and other requirements. It is estimated that about 182 systems would be required to make this purchase at an estimated one-time cost for each affected system of $1,000, for an aggregate cost of $182,000. Some surface systems would also be required to upgrade their containment areas for chemical spills. There are an estimated 220 systems which would require an upgrade to their containment area. The containment areas are estimated to cost between $2,000 and $5,000. Total costs for all systems would therefore range between $440,000 and $1.1 million. In addition, about 275 surface systems would be required to install additional water flow meters at their treatment plant. Costs to each system that must install additional water meters are estimated to be between $500 and $1,000; the aggregate one-time cost for all systems would be between $137,500 and $275,000.

PUBLIC BENEFIT

It has also been determined that for the first five years these sections as proposed are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcement of, and compliance with these amendments, will be to safeguard public health by increasing the level of protection from exposure to Cryptosporidium and other pathogens, and by reducing the levels of disinfection by-products and their precursors. The benefits will be to decrease the likelihood of endemic incidences of cryptosporidiosis, giardiasis, and other waterborne disease, decrease the risk of cancer, and avoid the related health costs. The amendments will also allow the state to maintain primary enforcement authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

There are approximately 5,570 groundwater systems and 470 surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water systems that are subject to the rule. Of these, about 800 systems are investor owned utilities. Twenty of these investor owned utilities serve a population of 10,000 or more, the rest serve less than 10,000 people. Costs for small investor owned utilities will be the same as costs for small municipalities.

Some small systems may require new plants. These systems may seek less costly alternatives to constructing a new plant, such as connecting into a larger regional water system.

The commission has estimated the average cost to the public for extending the turbidity standard to small systems is 72 cents per household per month. The public will be subject to a range of possible cost effects of this rule. The majority of the small systems, will see little increase in costs. Customers of these systems should not experience any increase in their monthly water bill as a result of this new turbidity standard. For small systems building new plants and passing all of these costs on to their customers, the public can expect increases to their monthly water utility bill. The commission's estimates for costs to the public were based on the assumptions that all costs would be passed on to customers, an average of three persons per household, and that annual costs would be spread evenly over all households. Based on these assumptions and the costs developed, the cost to the public for the extension of the turbidity standard to small systems is expected to range from no increase in the monthly water utility bill to an $8 per household per month increase. The high end of the range might be estimated too low because an average value for plant cost for small plants was used. The smallest plants would incur costs higher than the average cost. The high end of the range might be estimated too high because the commission has assumed that all costs for any new plant is due to the rule, when most of any new plant cost must be incurred even without the rule. The average monthly increase for the customers of all small public water systems is expected to be 72 cents per household per month.

SMALL BUSINESS AND MICRO-BUSINESS ANALYSES

Economic effects are anticipated to small business and micro-business as a result of implementing the proposed amendments. Small businesses affected by the proposed rule would be investor owned utilities. The fiscal implications will vary with the size of the business. The fiscal implications for these small businesses are the same as for local governments.

There are approximately 5,570 groundwater systems and 470 surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water systems that are subject to the rule. Of these, about 800 systems are investor owned utilities. Twenty of these investor owned utilities serve a population of 10,000 or more, the rest serve less than 10,000 people. Costs for small investor owned utilities will be the same as costs for small municipalities.

Costs to comply with the sections of the rule relating to regulation of disinfection by-products are anticipated to be annual recurring costs due to increased monitoring for disinfection by-products. For a typical surface water system, or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water system, serving a population over 10,000 these annual costs are anticipated to range from $4,160 to $6,120. For a typical surface water system, or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water system, serving less than 10,000, these annual costs are anticipated to range from $1,400 to $2,880. For a typical groundwater system serving over 10,000 people, the annual recurring costs are anticipated to range from $1,040 to $1,200. For a typical groundwater system serving under 10,000 people, the annual recurring costs are anticipated to range from $350 to $390.

For the regulations relating to the surface water treatment, and treatment of groundwater under the direct influence of surface water, the costs for equipment necessary to comply with the rule for typical systems serving more than 10,000 people are estimated to range from $14,000 to $28,000.

Cost estimates for a typical system to comply with changes to the design criteria range from $3,000 to $7,000.

For investor owned utilities to implement the IESWTR, if they are a small or micro-business, the following assumptions could be made. For the first year (2002) that small public water systems will have to comply with the proposed new turbidity standard, of the 299 small systems subject to the proposed rule, the commission estimates 196 systems will comply with the new standards with no significant costs. Approximately 50 systems will be able to comply with some problems. The commission estimates the total costs of compliance with the new standard for these systems to be $152,000. Assuming a 10% increase in chemicals at three cents per 1,000 gallons water usage for 50 plants near compliance and assuming typical values for water usage, the average cost to comply for these systems is $3,040 (50 x $3,040 = $152,000). These costs include chemicals only and do not include capital costs. Approximately 53 systems will have major problems complying. The commission anticipates that the executive director will grant compliance waivers under provision of the new rule to systems that will require capital improvements. Therefore no capital costs are anticipated to be incurred by systems in the year 2002.

All systems serving 10,000 or more people, regardless of the size of the business, will have to comply with the federal standards by January 1, 2002. The proposed rules provide that for systems serving fewer than 10,000 people the executive director may extend the compliance date for the new standards from January 1, 2002 to January 1, 2004. This extended compliance date will allow small systems to seek funding through state and federal loan and grant programs, and construct new facilities that would come on-line by January 1, 2004. Some small systems will have to undertake capital improvements ranging from installation of new filters to complete construction of new water treatment plants in order to comply with the new standard. The commission therefore is estimating that these capital improvements will occur in 2003 so that the improvements will be in place before the January 1, 2004 compliance deadline. Therefore cost estimates starting in 2003 include capital costs.

For the year 2003 and each year thereafter, total costs for all small systems to comply with the new standard is estimated by the commission at $1,900,000. In addition to the chemical costs estimated as described for the year 2002, capital costs were included. Based on monitoring data, 22 small systems were judged to be capable of complying with the new standard by major operation and maintenance changes or minor plant modifications, such as replacement of filter media and changes to flow control devices. Calculation of costs for these plants to comply is difficult because the true costs depends on plant specific modifications. The commission assumed a typical repair cost of $25,000 per system and annualized that cost over an assumed six year useful life for a filter.

Ten systems were judged to require an entirely new treatment plant. A new plant was estimated to cost $768,268. Plant costs were estimated at $1.20 per gallon per day of plant capacity. Average population served for these systems, typical values for housing occupancy, water consumption and 6.0% cost of capital for 20 years were used to arrive at an estimated average annual cost per plant of $67,000. With the addition of chemical costs, the average annual cost for these systems with the worst compliance history are estimated at $70,651. Total costs for the 10 systems would be $7,719,190.

There are 21 small public water systems that fall in between those systems that will require new plants and those systems that will be able to comply by minor modifications to their plants. The estimated average cost for one of these plants to comply was $39,781. An average annual cost mid-range between the cost of a new plant and $25,000 per system was used to estimate the cost for these systems to comply with the proposed rule. Total costs for these 21 systems is estimated to be $835,401.

Those systems building new plants are, in large part, systems who plants have reached the end of their useful lives or that have not performed routine maintenance to keep their plants in good repair and operation. The need for new plants, in many cases, would still be required to come into compliance with the current drinking water standards. The highest costs are estimated for small systems requiring new plants.

Some of those systems may seek less costly alternatives, such as connecting into a larger regional water system, which may be the only alternative for many.

The commission has estimated the average cost to the public for extending the turbidity standard to small systems is 72 cents per household per month. The public will be subject to a range of possible cost effects of this rule. The majority of the small systems, will see little increase in costs. Customers of these systems should not experience any increase in their monthly water bill as a result of this new turbidity standard. For small systems building new plants and passing all of these costs on to their customers, the public can expect increases to their monthly water utility bill. The commission's estimates for costs to the public were based on the assumptions that all costs would be passed on to customers, an average of three persons per household, and that annual costs would be spread evenly over all households. Based on these assumptions and the costs developed, the cost to the public for the extension of the turbidity standard to small systems is expected to range from no increase in the monthly water utility bill to an $8 per household per month increase. The high end of the range might be estimated too low because an average value for plant cost for small plants was used. The smallest plants would incur costs higher than the average cost. The high end of the range might be estimated too high because the commission has assumed that all costs for any new plant is due to the rule, when most of any new plant cost must be incurred even without the rule. The average monthly increase for the customers of all small public water systems is expected to be 72 cents per household per month.

DRAFT REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS

The commission has reviewed the proposed rulemaking in light of the regulatory analysis requirements of Texas Government Code, §2001.022, and has determined that, except as described below, the rulemaking is not subject to §2001.0225 because it is does not meet any of the four applicability requirements listed in §2001.0225(a). The portions of the rule implementing the federal IESWTR and the Stage 1 DBP1R are required by federal law (the Safe Drinking Water Act) and the regulations under 40 CFR Parts 9, 141 and 142.

The portion of the rules which would extend a removal requirement for Cryptosporidium oocysts to small public water systems, serving under 10,000 people and utilizing surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water, are not covered under the federal rule. This portion of the rules are proposed pursuant to Texas Health and Safety Code, §§341.031, 341.0315, and 341.035. Because this portion of the rule may meet the requirement for a regulatory impact analysis under Texas Government Code, §2001.0225, the commission has prepared a draft regulatory impact analysis.

Those portions of the rule that do not implement the federal rules, do not exceed any express requirement of state law. Those requirements are adopted pursuant to the Texas Health and Safety Code, §341.0315 and §341.035. The proposal does not exceed a requirement of any delegation agreement or contract between the state, the TNRCC, and an agency or representative of the federal government. The rule is not adopted solely under the general powers of the agency; the rule is adopted pursuant to the Texas Health and Safety Code, §341.031, which allows the commission to adopt rules to implement the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §300f et. seq; the Texas Health and Safety Code, §341.0315, which requires public water supply systems to meet the requirements of commission rules, and the Texas Health and Safety Code, §341.035, which requires the executive director of the commission to approve plans and specifications for public water supplies. The rule is not proposed or adopted on an emergency basis.

The current state rule for all public water systems treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water requires removal or inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts and removal or inactivation of virus before the water is supplied to any consumer. Those removal standards will be deemed to be met by systems using conventional media filtration if the system achieves a combined filter effluent turbidity that never exceeds 5.0 NTU, a measure of the presence of suspended material in water, and the combined filter effluent is 0.5 NTU or less in at least 95% of the samples tested each month. The new federal IESWTR would require systems that serve more than 10,000 people, beginning January 1, 2002, to achieve at least a 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts. Under the federal rule, for systems using conventional media filtration, that standard will be deemed to be achieved if the combined filter effluent turbidity never exceeds 1.0 NTU and the combined filter effluent is 0.3 NTU or less in at least 95% of the samples tested each month. The federal rule would also require, beginning January 1, 2002, systems that serve 10,000 people or more to continuously monitor the turbidity of the filtered water of each individual filter with a continuous on-line turbidimeter and a continuous recorder. Under the federal requirements of the IESWTR, systems serving under 10,000 people would continue under the existing turbidity standards. The rule proposed by the commission would strengthen the turbidity standards for small public water systems by requiring, beginning January 1, 2002, small systems treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water to also achieve removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts. For plants using conventional media filtration, removal would be demonstrated by a combined filter effluent turbidity that never exceeds 1.0 NTU and is 0.3 NTU or less in at least 95% of the samples tested each month. Small systems would be required to measure individual filter turbidity at the effluent of each individual filter and record the turbidity value at least once each day that the plant is in operation. Small systems would be allowed to monitor individual filter turbidity by measuring the turbidity level in grab samples with a benchtop turbidimeter. The proposed rule also provides that for systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, the executive director could extend the compliance date for the new turbidity treatment levels up to January 1, 2004.

The new turbidity treatment levels for public water systems treating surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water are intended to address the risk of Cryptosporidium oocysts in drinking water supplies. Ingestion of active Cryptosporidium oocysts is the cause of the disease Cryptosporidiosis . Symptoms of Cryptosporidiosis include diarrhea, abdominal discomfort, nausea, and vomiting. While otherwise healthy persons may expect a complete recovery from Cryptosporidiosis , it can be very serious in immuno-compromised persons. Immuno-compromised persons include infants, pregnant women, the elderly, cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, HIV/AIDS patients, and people on immunosuppressant drugs. There is no effective therapeutic drug to cure Cryptosporidiosis . Therefore, the prevention and avoidance of infection is central to minimizing the risks of outbreaks. Humans and other animals may excrete Cryptosporidium oocysts. Transmission of the disease often occurs through ingestion of the oocysts from contaminated water or food, but may also result from the direct or indirect contact with infected persons or animals. Cryptosporidium appears to be common in the environment. Runoff from watersheds allows transport of these microorganisms to water bodies used as intake sites for drinking water treatment plants.

The commission has determined that the new turbidity treatment levels are necessary to address the problem. The current turbidity treatment standards are inadequate to assure adequate removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts. Increasing the current disinfection treatment levels with common disinfectants does not appear to be an effective control strategy because the Cryptosporidium oocysts are especially resistant to those common disinfectants. Not extending the new turbidity treatment levels to small systems would continue to expose approximately 660,000 Texas residents to the risk of Cryptosporidiosis .

The commission anticipates the benefits from adoption and implementation of the rule will be improved public health by increasing the level of protection from exposure to Cryptosporidium and other pathogens and the avoidance of resulting health costs and avoidance of possible deaths due to Cryptosporidiosis .

The commission anticipates that most small public water systems that the proposed rule would require to move to the combined filter turbidity treatment standard will be able to meet the new standard with existing personnel and equipment by changes to operating procedures. These changes may increase the operational cost of the plant due to additional chemicals needed. In some cases, the amount of chemicals used to treat the water may be reduced, with a corresponding reduction in chemical costs. A few small public water systems will have to renovate their water treatment plants to comply with the new combined filter turbidity treatment standard. In those cases, the commission anticipates that the executive director will extend the compliance date for the new turbidity treatment levels to January 1, 2004. This extended compliance date is to allow those small systems to seek funding, and construct new facilities that would come on-line by January 1, 2004. Therefore, capital costs associated with small system compliance are not anticipated to be incurred until 2003 when systems are building new facilities to be in compliance by January 1, 2004.

The estimates of the population served by small water systems was obtained from a database of public drinking water systems maintained by the TNRCC. Exposure of that population to Cryptosporidium oocysts is estimated at 8.0%. That estimate was obtained from the EPA database on the Information Collection Rule and is based on the December 1997 information of Cryptosporidium detects in Texas. The commission used information from a single month because exposure anytime during the year could result in an incidence of Cryptosporidiosis . Use of information from other months was not used because a lack of detection of Cryptosporidium in a sample does not indicate an absence of Cryptosporidium in the source water due to limitations of the analytical methods used. The 8.0% figure was used because it represents occurrence data specific to Texas. It is much lower than the reported national estimate of 60% Cryptosporidium occurrence in source water. The exposure estimate was further reduced by the estimate that only 10% of detected Cryptosporidium oocysts would be viable. The probability of occurrence of disease given an exposure to Cryptosporidium was estimated at 39% and at that probability, it is estimated there would be one death every five years. The probability of mortality was estimated based on the Milwaukee outbreak data of 50 deaths per 400,000 illnesses. An average cost of medical treatment per illness of $2,000 was used to estimate health damages avoided. This estimate was developed by the Centers for Disease Control. An average value of $5.6 million per life saved was used to estimate the benefits of death avoided. This national average was developed by the EPA and is used by the EPA for a number of different rules.

The commission has estimated the costs for state agencies, local governments, the public and the regulated community for the first five years that small public water systems, those serving fewer than 10,000 people, are subject to the new turbidity standard. There are 299 small systems subject to the proposed rule. Most of these systems are owned and operated by local governments. Sixty-one of the small systems are investor owned utilities. The cost for these small investor owned utilities to comply with the proposed new turbidity standard do not differ from other small public water systems. Eleven of the small public water systems subject to the proposed new standard are owned and operated by the state.

For the first year (2002) that small public water systems will have to comply with the proposed new turbidity standard, of the 299 small systems subject to the proposed rule, the commission estimates 196 systems will comply with the new standards with no significant costs. Approximately 50 systems will be able to comply with some problems. The commission estimates the total costs of compliance with the new standard for these systems to be $152,000. Assuming a 10% increase in chemicals at three cents per 1,000 gallons water usage for 50 plants near compliance and assuming typical values for water usage, the average cost to comply for these systems is $3,040 (50 by $3,040 = $152,000). These costs include chemicals only and do not include capital costs. Approximately 53 systems will have major problems complying. The commission anticipates that the executive director will grant compliance waivers under provision of the new rule to systems that will require capital improvements. Therefore, no capital costs are anticipated to be incurred by systems in the year 2002.

The state of Texas operates three plants in this category. The estimated cost to the state to comply with the proposed new standard in the year 2002 is $3,600 for chemicals, based upon water usage.

The proposed new standard would require all small public water systems to achieve removal by January 1, 2004. Some small systems will have to undertake capital improvements ranging from installation of new filters to complete construction of new water treatment plants in order to comply with the new standard. The commission therefore is estimating that these capital improvements will occur in 2003 so that the improvements will be in place before the January 1, 2004 compliance deadline. Therefore, cost estimates starting in 2003 include capital costs.

For the year 2003 and each year thereafter, total costs for all systems to comply with the new standard is estimated by the commission at $1,900,000. In addition to the chemical costs estimated as described for the year 2002, capital costs were included. Based on monitoring data, 22 small systems were judged to be capable of complying with the new standard by major operation and maintenance changes or minor plant modifications, such as replacement of filter media and changes to flow control devices. Calculation of costs for these plants to comply is difficult because the true costs depends on plant specific modifications. The commission assumed a typical repair cost of $25,000 per system and annualized that cost over an assumed six year useful life for a filter.

Ten systems were judged to require an entirely new treatment plant. A new plant was estimated to cost $768,268. Plant costs were estimated at $1.20 per gallon per day of plant capacity. Average population served for these systems, typical values for housing occupancy, water consumption and 6.0% cost of capital for 20 years were used to arrive at an estimated average annual cost per plant of $67,000. With the addition of chemical costs, the average annual cost for these systems with the worst compliance history are estimated at $70,651.

There are 21 small public water systems that fall in between those systems that will require new plants and those systems that will be able to comply by minor modifications to their plants. The estimated average cost for one of these plants to comply was $39,781. An average annual cost mid-range between the cost of a new plant and a $25,000 per system was used to estimate the cost for these systems to comply with the proposed rule.

The state of Texas owns a total of eleven small plants that will incur capital costs to comply with the new standard. The annual cost to the state to comply is estimated, using the assumptions previously mentioned, at $154,000. These cost figures have not been adjusted for inflation in future years. These costs overstate the cost to comply with the new turbidity standard because the costs for new water treatment plants are not simply to comply with the new standard. Those systems building new plants are in large part systems who plants have reached the end of their useful lives or that have not performed routine maintenance to keep their plants in good repair and operation. The need for new plants, in many cases, would still be required to come into compliance with the current drinking water standards. The highest costs are estimated for small systems requiring new plants.

Some of those systems may seek less costly alternatives, such as connecting into a larger regional water system, which may be the only alternative for many.

The commission has estimated the average cost to the public for extending the turbidity standard to small systems is 72 cents per household per month. The public will be subject to a range of possible cost effects of this rule. Well operated and maintained public water systems, the majority of the small systems, will see little increase in costs. Customers of these systems should not experience any increase in their monthly water bill as a result of this new turbidity standard. Other systems that incur small increased costs may be in a financial condition where they are able to avoid passing increased costs on to their customers. At the other end of the spectrum, for small systems building new plants and passing all of these costs on to their customers, the public can expect increases to their monthly water utility bill. The commission's estimates for costs to the public were based on the assumptions that all costs would be passed on to customers, an average of three persons per household, and that annual costs would be spread evenly over all households. Based on these assumptions and the costs developed, the cost to the public for the extension of the turbidity standard to small systems is expected to range from no increase in the monthly water utility bill to an $8 per household per month increase. The high end of the range might be estimated too low because an average value for plant cost for small plants was used. The smallest plants would incur costs higher than the average cost. The high end of the range might be estimated too high because the commission has assumed that all costs for any new plant is due to the rule, when most of any new plant cost must be incurred even without the rule. The average monthly increase for the customers of all small public water systems is expected to be 72 cents per household per month.

The commission believes the proposed rule to physically remove, to the specified level, Cryptosporidium oocysts is the most reasonable method to reduce the risk of ingestion of Cryptosporidium oocysts from drinking water. Cryptosporidium oocysts are especially resistant to disinfection practices commonly used at water treatment plants. Simply increasing existing disinfection levels above those most commonly practiced in Texas does not appear to be an effective control strategy for Cryptosporidium . The proposed rule would strengthen the effectiveness and reliability of physical removal for particulate matter and microorganisms in general, thereby reducing the likelihood of the disinfection barrier being over challenged. Waterborne disease outbreaks have been associated with a high level of particles passing through a water treatment plant. Hence there is a need to optimize treatment reliability and to enhance physical removal efficiencies to minimize the Cryptosporidium levels in finished water. This rule is formulated to address these public health concerns.

The commission based its facts and cost estimates set out in this draft regulatory impact analysis on sources that it believes to be reliable. Much of the information on Cryptosporidium is from the preamble to the final federal IESWTR. Additional information was obtained from Benefits and Costs of the IESWTR , 91 AWWA Journal 148 (April 1999); Assessing the Risk Posed by Oocysts in Drinking Water , 88 AWWA Journal 131 (September 1996). Giardia and Cryptosporidium in Raw and Finished Water , 87 AWWA Journal 54 (September 1995). The information on the occurrence of Cryptosporidiosis was obtained from the Information Collection Rule database maintained by the EPA. The estimate of the monetary benefits of forgone occurrences of that disease are from the Center for Disease Control and were reported in the preamble to the federal rule. The information on the number of systems and population potentially effected by the proposed rule was obtained from databases that the TNRCC maintains on public drinking water systems in Texas. The judgments of the level of effort necessary for small systems to comply with this rule and associated costs are necessarily estimates. Those estimates are based on staff's experience, particularly with the Texas Optimization Program that has provided technical assistance to over fifty-five surface water and groundwater systems under the direct influence of surface water in Texas with the aim to lower their system turbidity to levels that will meet or exceed the proposed rule.

The commission considers the proposed turbidity standards for public water systems serving under 10,000 people and utilizing surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water to be a performance-oriented method of compliance. Systems subject to the regulation are granted the regulatory flexibility to select their own method of achieving removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts. The tests necessary to demonstrate removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts are inaccurate, unreliable and expensive. Therefore, the commission is also proposing a surrogate standard that the commission will accept as demonstrating the appropriate level of removal. For systems using conventional media filtration, the commission will recognize the 0.3 NTU or less in at least 95% of the samples tested each month test and no measurements above 1.0 NTU as a demonstration that the system is meeting the removal standard. For those systems wishing to utilize membrane treatment methods, the executive director will approve site specific treatment technique standards. A more specific surrogate test was not proposed for membrane systems because the technology is changing so rapidly that the commission does not want to exclude from use scientifically acceptable surrogate standards that may be developed shortly. Those systems wishing to utilize other innovative or alternative treatment methods to achieve the removal standards will be allowed to do so using executive director approved alternatives, which is the current practice for innovative or alternative treatment technologies.

There is an opportunity for public comment on this draft regulatory impact analysis. Instructions for how to make public comments are contained in this preamble under the heading "SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS." Comments on this draft regulatory impact analysis may be included with other comments on the proposed rule. All comments on this draft regulatory impact analysis will be addressed in the publication of the final regulatory analysis as a part of any final rule adoption.

TAKINGS IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The commission has prepared a Takings Impact Assessment for these rules pursuant to Texas Government Code Annotated, §207.043. The following is a summary of that Assessment. The specific purpose of the rule is to implement the federal IESWTR, and the Stage 1 DBP1R, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142. The rule also will make changes to the state design criteria for some water treatment plant processes and clarify existing regulatory requirements. The rules will substantially advance these specific purposes by adopting provisions that implement the federal rules cited and by adopting amendments to the state design criteria for water treatment plants. Promulgation and enforcement of these rules will not significantly burden private real property because private real property is not subject to these rules. Moreover, the rule proposal is in response to a real and substantial threat to public health and safety, the proposal is designed to significantly advance the health and safety purpose and does not pose a greater burden than is necessary to achieve the health and safety purpose.

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONSISTENCY REVIEW

The executive director has reviewed the proposed rulemaking and found that the rule is neither identified in Coastal Coordination Act Implementation Rules, 31 TAC §505.11, relating to Actions and Rules Subject to the Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP), nor will it affect any action or authorization identified in Coastal Coordination Act Implementation Rules, 31 TAC §505.11. Therefore, the proposed rule is not subject to the CMP.

PUBLIC HEARING

A public hearing on this proposal will be held in Austin on May 12, 2000 in Building E, Room 201S at 9:00 a.m. of the commission's central office, located at 12100 North IH-35, Park 35 Technical Center, Austin, Texas, 78753. The hearing is structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. Open discussions will not occur during the hearing; however, an agency staff member will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing and will answer questions before and after the hearing.

Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearings should contact the agency at (512) 239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.

SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS

Comments may be submitted to Angela Slupe, Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment, MC205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas, 78711-3087, or faxed to (512) 239-4712. All comments should reference Rule Log Number 1999-015-290-WT. Comments must be received by 5:00pm., May 22, 2000. For further information contact Jack Schulze, P.E., Office of Permitting, Water Permits and Water Resource Management, (512) 239-6046.

Subchapter D. RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS