TITLE 30.ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Part 1. TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

Chapter 290. PUBLIC DRINKING WATER

Subchapter H. CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORTS

30 TAC §§290.271 - 290.275

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission) proposes new §§290.271- 290.275, Consumer Confidence Reports. The commission proposes these revisions to Chapter 290, Public Drinking Water, in order to implement a federal rule requiring community water systems to prepare and provide to their customers annual consumer confidence reports on the quality of the water delivered by the systems.

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED RULES

As part of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was required to develop rules requiring community water systems to develop reports on the quality of the water they provide to their customers. These reports provide valuable water quality information to customers of community water systems and allow the customers to make health-based decisions regarding their drinking water consumption.

Consumer confidence reports are the centerpiece of public right-to-know provisions under the SDWA. The information contained in the reports is intended to raise consumer awareness of where their drinking water comes from, help them understand the process by which safe drinking water is delivered to their homes, and educate them on the importance of preventative measures, such as source water protection, that help to ensure a safe drinking water supply. Additionally, the reports provide information for consumers with special health needs and provide information and resources for accessing source water assessments and health effects data.

The federal rule was finalized on August 19, 1998. Community water systems were required to prepare and distribute the first report by October 19, 1999, the second report by July 1, 2000, and subsequent annual reports by July 1, thereafter. Most community water systems developed and distributed reports during 1999.

The federal rule requires states that have safe drinking water primacy enforcement responsibilities to adopt the federal consumer confidence report provisions by August 21, 2000. States may adopt by rule alternative requirements for the form and content of the report. The alternative requirements must provide the same type and amount of information as required by the federal rule and must be designed to achieve an equivalent level of public information and education as would be achieved under the federal rule. These alternative requirements must be submitted to EPA for approval.

Program staff conducted a series of workgroup meetings with representatives of community water systems and interested parties to receive comment and suggestions on the development of the state rules and on the content of a report that would best inform consumers. Program staff also provided assistance during the systems' development of the first report that was distributed by October 19, 1999, and has used information gathered from this assistance in the development of this proposal.

SECTION BY SECTION DISCUSSION

Proposed new §290.271, relating to Purpose and Applicability, explains that the rules establish the minimum requirements for the content of annual reports that community water systems must deliver to their customers.

Proposed new §290.272, relating to Contents of the Reports, describes the information that must be included in the reports. The reports must include information on the source of the drinking water, including any information on source water assessments that have been conducted. The reports must provide explanations for definitions and references of technical and scientific terms used. At a minimum, the terms that need to be defined in the reports are maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG), maximum contaminant level (MCL), variances, exemptions, treatment techniques, action level (AL), parts per million (ppm), parts per billion (ppb), parts per trillion (ppt), parts per quadrillion (ppq), nepholometric turbidity units (NTU), million fibers per liter (mfl), millirems per year (mrem/year), and picocuries per liter (pCi/l).

Proposed new subsection (c) requires the inclusion of information on detected regulated and unregulated contaminants and disinfection by-products subject to mandatory monitoring by 30 TAC Chapter 290, Subchapter F state regulations. The proposed rules do not require reporting of Secondary Constituent Levels listed in §290.113. This section provides appendices that the systems must use in preparing the required tables for the report. Appendices contained in §290.275 provide guidance on how to report the contaminants. Appendix A, relating to Converting MCL Compliance Values for Consumer Confidence Reports, provides factors for converting scientific MCL values into units, such as ppm and ppb, that may be used in the consumer confidence report. Appendix B, relating to Regulated Contaminants, provides information on the likely sources of detected contaminants. Appendix C, relating to Health Effects Language, provides information on potential health effects of detected contaminants that must be included in the consumer confidence report.

Proposed new subsection (d), information on Cryptosporidium , radon, and other constituents, explains that if the system has performed monitoring for Cryptosporidium or radon, and the monitoring indicates the presence of Cryptosporidium , radon, or other contaminants in the finished water, the report shall include the results of the monitoring and the significance of the results.

Proposed new subsection (e), compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR), explains that any violation of the NPDWR requirements occurring over the year covered by the report must be noted in the report. NPDWR requirements include: monitoring and reporting of compliance data; filtration and disinfection equipment and processes; lead and copper controls; treatment techniques for Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin; i.e., recordkeeping of compliance data; special monitoring requirements such as those prescribed by the NPDWR; and violation of the terms of a variance, exemption, administrative order, or judicial order.

Proposed new subsection (f) requires the systems operating under the terms of a variance or exemption to explain the terms and status of the variance or exemption.

Proposed new subsection (g) details the following information that must be included in the report: a brief explanation regarding contaminants that may reasonably be expected to be found in drinking water; phone number of the owner/operator; a statement in Spanish explaining where to call for more information in Spanish and other languages as necessary; information on opportunities for public participation, such as the system's board meetings; and information on interconnector emergency sources of water used during the calendar year. In addition, the report may include additional information that is consistent with, but does not detract from, the report's intended purpose.

Proposed new §290.273, relating to Required Additional Health Information, provides required language that must appear in the report. Subsection (a) includes language on the vulnerability of the general population and certain populations to certain microbial contaminants. Subsection (b) explains that systems which detect arsenic levels above 25 micrograms per liter, but below the MCL, shall include the provided statement about arsenic. Subsection (c) explains that a system that detects nitrate levels above five mg/l but below the MCL, must include the provided statement about the impacts of nitrate on children. Subsection (d) provides a statement on the impacts of lead on children that shall be included by systems where the action level is greater than 5.0% of the homes sampled when 20 or more samples are gathered. Subsection (e) provides that any water system subject to this section may seek approval from the executive director to write its own alternative information statements.

Proposed new §290.274, relating to Report Delivery and Recordkeeping, explains that the reports must be delivered to customers by July 1 of each year. The system shall use adequate and appropriate means for delivering the report to its customers. Systems shall certify that the report has been distributed and provide a copy to the executive director by August 1 of each year. The report shall be made available upon request, and those systems serving 100,000 people or more shall post the report to a publicly accessible site on the Internet. Finally, any system that provides water to another community water system shall deliver the information contained in §290.272 to the community water system by April 1 or a date agreed upon by both systems.

Proposed new §290.275 contains the appendices relevant to this subchapter. These tables appear in the Tables and Graphics section of this issue of the Texas Register .

FISCAL NOTE

Jeff Grymkoski, Director, Strategic Planning and Appropriations, has determined that for the first five-year period the proposed rules are in effect, there will be no significant fiscal implications for state government as a result of administration or enforcement of the proposed new sections. However, there will be significant fiscal implications to units of local government that own community water systems.

The proposed rules will require units of local government that own community water systems to prepare and provide to their customers annual consumer confidence reports on the quality of water delivered by the system. This action is mandated by the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA.

The proposed rules establish the minimum requirements for the content of annual reports that community water systems must deliver to their customers, including a template that will be accompanied by required and suggested language to complete the report.

The fiscal impact to local governments for the development and distribution of the report is estimated to range from $1.00 per connection for those systems with fewer than 500 customers to $2.50 per connection for systems with 100,000 or more customers. Systems with a customer base between 500 and 100,000 will have cost implications between $1.00 to $2.50 per connection.

The following estimates are based on comments received from representatives of large, medium and small water systems at a public meeting the agency held on November 9, 1999.

The estimated average cost for the 24 cities in Texas with 100,000 or more customers to comply with the proposed rules is $2.50 per customer annually, according to representatives from the cities of Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio. It is anticipated that these reports will cost more to produce and deliver than other systems because they will be professionally produced by graphic designers and print shops instead of using the template developed by the agency.

The estimated average cost for the approximately 2,000 community water systems serving at least 500, but less than 100,000 customers to comply with the proposed rules is estimated between $1.00 to $2.50 per customer annually, according to representatives from the City of College Station, Eco Resources, and Severen Trent Environmental. The higher cost estimate reflects the use of a consultant to complete the report and have it professionally printed. The lower cost estimate reflects the community water system's use of the agency's proposed template to comply with the proposed rules.

The estimated average cost for the 2,500 small community water systems serving fewer than 500 customers to comply with the proposed rules is $1.00 per customer annually, according to representatives from Kingsland and Postwood Municipal Utility Districts. It is anticipated that small community water systems will use the proposed template to comply with the rules.

The fiscal costs are determined based on the minimum requirements of the content of the report as set out in this proposed rulemaking. The report's content includes information obtained through monitoring and sampling that is already required of these systems through other regulatory requirements. This proposal does not require any new sampling, testing, or data gathering. System owners on their own may include other information in the report. Costs on which the fiscal impact is based are those related to the development of the document, the copying or printing of the document, and the method for distribution of the report. In most cases, community water systems will be taking available data and information and developing tables as described in the proposed rules. These tables will be accompanied by suggested and required language found in the proposed rules to complete the development of the report. The report will then either be copied or printed. Distribution procedures may include by mail, an insert in the monthly service bill, or hand-delivery by meter readers during their monthly routes. Any additional cost associated with the inclusion of other information not required by the rulemaking is not part of the fiscal implications cited.

PUBLIC BENEFIT

Mr. Grymkoski has also determined that for each year of the first five years the proposed revisions are in effect, the public will benefit by having current information on the quality of the water delivered by their water system, which will allow them to make personal health-based decisions regarding their drinking water consumption. The information contained in these annual reports may raise consumer awareness of where their water comes from, help them understand the process by which safe drinking water is delivered to their homes, and educate them about the importance of preventative measures, such as source water protection, that ensure a safe drinking water supply. Information in the report can be used by consumers, especially those with special health needs, to make informed decisions regarding their drinking water.

Businesses which manage community water systems for units of local government should not be adversely affected by the provisions of the rules. The proposed rules do not require any new sampling, testing, or data gathering. The rules do, however, require the affected unit of local government to pay the cost of preparing and providing consumer confidence reports to its customers.

SMALL AND MICRO-BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSES

Certain small and micro-businesses may experience adverse economic impacts, which are not anticipated to be significant, as a result of implementing the proposed rules.

Some privately held community water systems and "ancillary" community water systems with fewer than 500 customers, such as trailer parks and retirement homes, may be owned by persons, small businesses, or micro-businesses. These systems will also be required to comply with the proposed rulemaking and will have similar fiscal implications to the local governments. It is estimated that the fiscal impact to small and micro-businesses which hold community water systems will range from $1.00 to $2.50 per customer annually for the development and distribution of the report.

DRAFT REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS

The commission has reviewed the proposed rulemaking in light of the regulatory analysis requirements of Texas Government Code, §2001.0225, and has determined that the rulemaking is not subject to §2001.0225 because it does not meet the definition of a "major environmental rule" as defined in the Texas Government Code. The rules implement federal requirements related to community water systems' responsibility to develop and distribute an annual report on the quality of the water they provide to their customers. These reports, called consumer confidence reports, are required of all community water systems, whether these systems are publicly or privately owned. The proposed rules establish the minimum requirements for content in the report and for the distribution of and recordkeeping associated with the report. While the proposed rules are not intended to protect the environment, they may help in reducing human health risks by providing customers with information about their drinking water. The proposed rules will not adversely affect in a material way the economy of the state, any sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public health and safety of the state. Therefore, the proposed rules do not meet the definition of a "major environmental rule."

TAKINGS IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The commission has prepared a takings impact assessment for these rules under Texas Government Code, §2007.043. The following is a summary of that assessment. The specific purpose of the rulemaking is to implement SDWA provisions requiring community water systems to develop annual reports on the quality of the water they provide to their customers. These annual reports are known as consumer confidence reports. The federal regulations require states with safe drinking water primacy enforcement responsibilities to adopt the federal consumer confidence report provisions by August 21, 2000. The proposed rules provide the requirements for the information that at a minimum shall be contained in the reports. This information shall include the source of the drinking water provided by the system, information on any source of water assessments conducted, explanations of the technical terms and references used, and information on regulated and unregulated contaminants. The report shall also include any results from monitoring that is done to determine the presence of Cryptosporidium . The proposed rules also provide language to be used in the report regarding health information, such as vulnerability by general and certain populations to contaminants. Finally, the rules provide that the reports will be delivered to customers by July 1 of each year and copies will be maintained for a designated period.

The proposed rulemaking does not impose a burden on private property as the subject of the rules is related to reporting information on the quality of water provided by community water systems. The proposed rulemaking implements SDWA requirements that states with safe drinking water primacy enforcement responsibilities must adopt. The proposed rulemaking action is intended to fulfill an obligation mandated by federal law.

Therefore, this revision will not constitute a takings under Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007.

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONSISTENCY REVIEW

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

PUBLIC HEARING

A public hearing on this proposal will be held in Austin on June 12, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. in Building F, Room 2210 at the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Complex, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. Open discussion will not occur during the hearing; however, an agency staff member will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes before 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 hearing, should contact the Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment at (512) 239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.

SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS

Comments may be submitted to Lisa Martin, Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment, MC 205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 or faxed to (512) 239-4808. All comments should reference Rule Log Number 1999-065-290-WT. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., June 19, 2000. For further information, please contact Bruce Moulton, Policy and Regulations Division, (512) 239-4809.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

The new sections are proposed under Texas Water Code, §5.103, which provides the commission with the authority to adopt and enforce rules necessary to carry out its powers and duties under the laws of this state; Health and Safety Code, §341.031, which allows the commission to adopt rules to implement the SDWA, 42 United States Code §§300 et seq.; and Health and Safety Code, §341.0315, which requires public water supply systems to meet the requirements of commission rules.

The proposed new sections implement Texas Water Code, §341.031.

§290.271. Purpose and Applicability.

(a)

The purpose of the sections in this subchapter is to establish the minimum requirements for the content of annual reports that community water systems must deliver to their customers. These reports must contain information on the quality of the water delivered by the systems and characterize any risk from exposure to contaminants detected in the drinking water in an accurate and understandable manner. This subchapter applies only to community water systems.

(b)

Each community water system must provide to its customers an annual report that contains the information specified in this subchapter.

§290.272.Content of the Report.

(a)

Information on the source of the water delivered must be included in the report.

(1)

Each report must identify the source(s) of the water delivered by the community water system by providing information on the type of the water (such as surface water or groundwater) and any commonly used name and location of the body(ies) of water.

(2)

If a source water assessment has been completed, the report must notify consumers of the availability of this information and the means to obtain it. In the reports, systems should highlight significant sources of contamination in the source water area if they have readily available information.

(3)

If a system has received a source water assessment from the executive director, the report must include a brief summary of the system's susceptibility to potential sources of contamination using language provided by the executive director.

(b)

The following explanations must be included in the annual report.

(1)

Each report shall contain definitions of:

(A)

Maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) - the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety; and

(B)

Maximum contaminant level (MCL) - the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology.

(2)

The following terms and their descriptions shall be included when they appear in the report:

(A)

MFL - million fibers per liter (a measure of asbestos);

(B)

mrem/year - millirems per year (a measure of radiation absorbed by the body);

(C)

NTU - nephelometric turbidity units (a measure of turbidity);

(D)

pCi/l - picocuries per liter (a measure of radioactivity);

(E)

ppb - parts per billion, or micrograms per liter ( g/l);

(F)

ppm - parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/l);

(G)

ppt - parts per trillion, or nanograms per liter; and

(H)

ppq - parts per quadrillion, or picograms per liter.

(3)

A report for a community water system operating under a variance or an exemption of the Safe Drinking Water Act shall include a description of the variance or the exemption granted under §290.115 of this title (relating to Variance and Exemptions).

(4)

A report that contains data on a contaminant for which the EPA has set a treatment technique or an action level must include, depending on the contents of the report, the definitions for:

(A)

Treatment technique (TT) - a required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water; and

(B)

Action level (AL) - the concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements which a water system must follow.

(c)

Information on detected contaminants.

(1)

This subsection specifies the requirements for information to be included in each report for detected contaminants subject to mandatory monitoring, excluding Cryptosporidium . Mandatory monitoring is required for:

(A)

regulated contaminants subject to an MCL, action level, or treatment technique;

(B)

unregulated contaminants for which monitoring is required by 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §141.40, relating to Unregulated Contaminants and found in §290.275(4) of this title (relating to Appendices A-D); and

(C)

disinfection by-products or microbial contaminants for which monitoring is required by 40 CFR §141.142, relating to Information Collection Requirements (ICR) for Public Water System- Disinfection by-product and related monitoring, and 40 CFR §141.143, relating to Microbial Monitoring Requirements.

(2)

The data relating to these detected contaminants shall be displayed in one table or in several adjacent tables. Any additional monitoring results which a community water system chooses to include in its reports must be displayed separately.

(3)

The data shall be derived from data collected to comply with EPA and the commission monitoring and analytical requirements during the previous calendar year, except when a system is allowed to monitor for regulated contaminants less often than once per year. In that case, the table(s) must include the date and results of the most recent sampling, and the report must include a brief statement indicating that the data presented in the report is from the most recent testing done in accordance with the regulations. The report does not need to include data that is older than five years. Furthermore, results of monitoring in compliance with the 40 CFR §141.142, relating to ICR Disinfection by- product and related monitoring, and 40 CFR §141.143, relating to ICR Microbial Monitoring Requirements, need only be included for five years from the date of the last sample or until any of the detected contaminants becomes regulated and subject to routine monitoring requirements, whichever comes first.

(4)

For detected regulated contaminants listed under §290.275 of this title, the table(s) shall contain:

(A)

the MCLs for those contaminants expressed as a number equal to or greater than 1.0 (as provided under §290.275 of this title);

(B)

the MCLGs for those contaminants expressed in the same units as the MCLs (as provided for under §290.275 of this title);

(C)

if there is no MCL for a detected contaminant, the treatment technique or specific action level applicable to that contaminant; and

(D)

for contaminants subject to an MCL, except turbidity and total coliforms, the highest contaminant level used to determine compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and the range of detected levels.

(i)

For contaminants subject to MCLs, except turbidity and total coliforms, when sampling takes place once per year or less often, the table(s) must contain the highest detected level at any sampling point and the range of detected levels expressed in the same units as the MCL.

(ii)

If sampling takes place more than once per year at each sampling point, the table(s) must contain the highest average of any of the sampling points and the range of all sampling points expressed in the same units as the MCL.

(iii)

If compliance with any MCL is determined on a system-wide basis by calculating a running annual average of all samples at all sampling points, the table(s) must include the average and range of detection expressed in the same units as the MCL.

(iv)

If the executive director allows the rounding of results to determine compliance with the MCL, rounding should be done prior to multiplying the results by the factor listed under §290.275 of this title.

(E)

When turbidity is reported under §290.111 of this title (relating to Turbidity), the table(s) must contain the highest single measurement and the lowest monthly percentage of samples meeting the turbidity limits specified in that section for the filtration technology being used. The report should include an explanation of the reasons for measuring turbidity.

(F)

When lead and copper are reported, the table(s) must contain the 90th percentile value of the most recent round of sampling and the number of sampling sites exceeding the action level.

(G)

When total coliform is reported, the table(s) must contain either the highest monthly number of positive samples for systems collecting fewer than 40 samples per month or the highest monthly percentage of positive samples for systems collecting at least 40 samples per month.

(H)

When fecal coliform is reported, the table(s) must contain the total number of positive samples.

(I)

The table(s) must contain information on the likely source(s) of detected contaminants based on the operator's knowledge. Specific information regarding contaminants may be available in sanitary surveys or source water assessments and should be used when available. If the operator lacks specific information on the likely source, the report must include one or more typical sources most applicable to the system for any particular contaminant listed under §290.275 of this title.

(i)

If a community water system distributes water to its customers from multiple hydraulically independent distribution systems that are fed by different raw water sources, the table(s) must contain a separate column for each service area, and the report must identify each separate distribution system. Systems may produce separate reports tailored to include data for each service area.

(ii)

The table(s) must clearly identify any data indicating violations of MCLs or treatment techniques. The report must contain a clear and readily understandable explanation of the violation. The explanation must include the length of the violation, the potential adverse health effects, and actions taken by the system to address the violation. To describe the potential health effects, the system must use the relevant language contained under §290.275 of this title.

(5)

For detected unregulated contaminants found under §290.275 of this title, for which monitoring is required (except Cryptosporidium ), the table(s) must contain the average and range of concentrations at which the contaminant was detected. The report must include the following explanation: "Unregulated contaminants are those for which EPA has not established drinking water standards. The purpose of unregulated contaminant monitoring is to assist EPA in determining the occurrence of unregulated contaminants in drinking water and whether future regulation is warranted."

(d)

Information on Cryptosporidium , radon, and other contaminants.

(1)

If the system has performed any monitoring for Cryptosporidium , the report must include a summary of the results of the monitoring and an explanation of the significance of the results.

(2)

If the system has performed any monitoring for radon which indicates that radon may be present in the finished water, the report must include the results of the monitoring and an explanation of the significance of the results.

(3)

If the system has performed additional monitoring which indicates the presence of other contaminants in the finished water, the executive director strongly encourages systems to report any results which may indicate a health concern. To determine if the results may indicate a health concern, the executive director recommends that systems find out if the EPA has proposed a standard in the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) or issued a health advisory for any particular contaminant. This information may be obtained by calling the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The executive director considers detections that are above a proposed MCL or health advisory level to indicate possible health concerns. For such contaminants, the executive director recommends that the report include the results of the monitoring and an explanation of the significance of the results. The explanation should note the existence of a health advisory or a proposed regulation.

(e)

Compliance with NPDWR. In addition to the requirements in subsection (b)(6) of this section, the report must note any violation that occurred during the year covered by the report of a requirement listed in paragraphs (1)-(7) of this subsection.

(1)

The report must include a clear and readily understandable explanation of each violation of monitoring and reporting of compliance data and explain any adverse health effects and steps the system has taken to correct the violation.

(2)

The report must include a clear and readily understandable explanation of each violation of filtration and disinfection prescribed by Subchapter F of this chapter (relating to Drinking Water Standards Governing Drinking Water Quality and Reporting Requirements for Public Water Supply Systems) and explain any adverse health effects and steps the system has taken to correct the violation. This applies both to systems which have failed to install adequate filtration, disinfection equipment or processes, and to systems that have had a failure of such equipment or processes, each of which constitutes a violation. In either case, the report must include the following language as part of the explanation of potential adverse health effects: "Inadequately treated water may contain disease- causing organisms. These organisms include bacteria, viruses and parasites which can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea and associated headaches."

(3)

The report must include a clear and readily understandable explanation of each violation of the lead and copper control requirements prescribed by §290.117 of this title (relating to Regulation of Lead and Copper). For systems which fail to take one or more actions prescribed by §290.117(g), (h), and (i) of this title, the report must include the applicable health effects language of §290.275 of this title for lead, copper, or both and the steps the system has taken to correct the violation.

(4)

The report must include a clear and readily understandable explanation of each violation of treatment techniques for Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin prescribed by §290.107 of this title (relating to Organic Contaminants). If a system violates these requirements, the report shall include the relevant health effects language from §290.275 of this title and the steps the system has taken to correct the violation.

(5)

The report must include a clear and readily understandable explanation of each violation of recordkeeping of compliance data and explain any adverse health effects and steps the system has taken to correct the violation.

(6)

The report must include a clear and readily understandable explanation of each violation of special monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants and special monitoring for sodium as prescribed by 40 CFR §141.40 and §141.41 and explain any adverse health effects and steps the system has taken to correct the violation.

(7)

The report must include a clear and readily understandable explanation of each violation of the terms of a variance, exemption, administrative order, or judicial order and explain any adverse health effects and steps the system has taken to correct the violation.

(f)

Variances and exemptions. If a system is operating under the terms of a variance or exemption issued under §290.102(b) of this title (relating to General Applicability), the report must contain:

(1)

an explanation of the variance or exemption;

(2)

the date on which the variance or exemption was issued and on which it expires;

(3)

a brief status report on the steps the system is taking, such as installing treatment processes or finding alternative sources of water, to comply with the terms and schedules of the variance or exemption; and

(4)

a notice of any opportunity for public input as the review or renewal of the variance or exemption.

(g)

Additional information.

(1)

The report must contain a brief explanation regarding contaminants which may reasonably be expected to be found in drinking water (including bottled water). This explanation may include the language contained within subparagraphs (A)-(C) of this paragraph, or systems may include their own comparable language. The report must include the language of subparagraphs (D) and (E) of this paragraph.

(A)

The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally-occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity.

(B)

Contaminants that may be present in source water include:

(i)

microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, which may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife;

(ii)

inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, which can be naturally-occurring or result from urban stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming;

(iii)

pesticides and herbicides, which might have a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and residential uses;

(iv)

organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, which are by- products of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban stormwater runoff, and septic systems; and

(v)

radioactive contaminants, which can be naturally-occurring or the result of oil and gas production and mining activities.

(C)

In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the EPA prescribes regulations which limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations establish limits for contaminants in bottled water which must provide the same protection for public health.

(D)

Contaminants may be found in drinking water that may cause taste, color, or odor problems. These types of problems are not necessarily causes for health concerns. For more information on taste, odor, or color of drinking water, please contact the system's business office.

(E)

Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791.

(2)

The report must include the telephone number of the owner, operator, or designee of the community water system as an additional source of information concerning the report.

(3)

The report must include the following statement in a prominent placement on the first page: "Este reporte incluye informacion importante sobre el agua para tomar. Para obtener una copia de esta informacion traducida al Espanol, favor de llamar al telefono (XXX) XXX-XXXX." In addition to this statement in Spanish, for communities with a large proportion of non-English and non-Spanish speaking residents, as determined by the executive director, the report must contain information in the appropriate language(s) regarding the importance of the report or contain a telephone number or address where such residents may contact the system to obtain a translated copy of the report or assistance in the appropriate language.

(4)

The report must include information about opportunities for public participation in decisions that may affect the quality of the water (e.g., time and place of regularly scheduled board meetings). Investor-owned utilities are encouraged to conduct public meetings, but must include a phone number for public input.

(5)

The systems may include such additional information for public education consistent with, and not detracting from, the purposes of the report.

(6)

Systems that use an interconnect or emergency source during the calendar year of the report must provide the source of the water, the length of time used, an explanation of why it was used, and whom to call for the water quality information.

§290.273.Required Additional Health Information.

(a)

All reports must prominently display the following language on the first page of the consumer confidence report or in bold print on the second page of the report: " You may be more vulnerable than the general population to certain microbial contaminants, such as Cryptosporidium, in drinking water. Infants, some elderly, or Immuno-compromised persons such as those undergoing chemotherapy for cancer; those who have undergone organ transplants; those who are undergoing treatment with steroids; and people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders can be particularly at risk from infections. You should seek advice about drinking water from your physician or health care provider. Additional guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791) ."

(b)

A system which detects arsenic levels above 25 micrograms per liter but below the maximum contaminant level (MCL) shall include in its report a short informational statement about arsenic using the following language: " EPA is reviewing the drinking water standard for arsenic because of special concerns that it may not be stringent enough. Arsenic is a naturally-occurring mineral known to cause cancer in humans at high concentrations ."

(c)

A system which detects nitrate at levels above five milligrams per liter (mg/l), but below the MCL shall include a short informational statement about the impacts of nitrate on children using the following language: "Nitrate in drinking water at levels above 10 ppm is a health risk for infants of less than six months of age. High nitrate levels in drinking water can cause blue baby syndrome. Nitrate levels may rise quickly for short periods of time because of rainfall or agricultural activity. If you are caring for an infant, you should ask advice from your health care provider ."

(d)

Systems collecting 20 or more samples which detect lead above the action level in greater than 5.0% of homes sampled shall include a short informational statement about the special impact of lead on children using the following language: " Infants and young children are typically more vulnerable to lead in drinking water than the general population. It is possible that lead levels at your home may be higher than at the homes in the community as a result of materials used in your home's plumbing. If you are concerned about elevated lead levels in your home's water, you may wish to have your water tested and flush your tap for 30 seconds to two minutes before using tap water. Additional information is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791 ."

(e)

Any water system subject to any or all of subsections (b)-(d) of this section may seek approval from the executive director to write its own alternative educational informational statement.

(f)

Public water systems that detect total trihalomethanes above 0.080 mg/l but below the MCL of 0.10 mg/l as an annual average must include health effects language provided by 40 Code of Federal Regulations §141.154(e), Appendix C, paragraph (73).

§290.274.Report Delivery and Recordkeeping.

(a)

Each community water system must mail or otherwise directly deliver one copy of the report to each customer by July 1 of each year. Each report must contain data collected during the previous calendar year. For tests not performed each year, data used shall not be older than five years. Each new community water system must deliver its first report by July 1 of the year after its first full calendar year in operation and annually thereafter. In addition, each community water system must provide a copy of the report to each new customer upon request.

(b)

In addition to delivering a report to each customer, the system must make a good-faith effort to reach consumers who do not get water bills, using means recommended by the executive director. An adequate good-faith effort should be tailored to the consumers who are served by the system but are not bill-paying customers, such as renters or workers. A good-faith effort to reach such consumers should include a mix of methods appropriate to the particular system such as: posting the reports on the Internet; mailing to postal patrons in metropolitan areas; advertising the availability of the report in the news media; publication in a local newspaper; posting in public places such as cafeterias or lunchrooms of public buildings; delivery of multiple copies for distribution for single-billed customers such as apartment buildings or large private employers; and delivery to community organizations.

(c)

Each community water system shall certify to the executive director that the report has been distributed and that the information in the report is correct and consistent with the compliance monitoring data previously submitted to the executive director. This certification and a copy of the report must be mailed to the executive director by August 1 of each year.

(d)

Each community water system shall deliver the report to any other agency or clearinghouse identified by the executive director no later than the date the system is required to distribute the report to its customers.

(e)

Each community water system shall make its report available to the public upon request.

(f)

Each community water system serving 100,000 or more people shall post its current year's report to a publicly accessible site on the Internet.

(g)

Any system providing water to a community water system shall deliver the applicable information required by §290.272 of this title (relating the Content of Reports) to the retail community by April 1 or at a time agreed upon by the parties and specifically included in a contract or written agreement between the parties.

(h)

Any system subject to this subchapter must retain copies of its consumer confidence reports for no less than five years.

§290.275.Appendices A-D.

The following appendices are integral components of the subchapter:

(1)

Appendix A--Converting MCL Compliance Values for Consumer Confidence Reports;

Figure: 30 TAC §290.275(1)

(2)

Appendix B--Sources of Regulated Contaminants;

Figure: 30 TAC §290.275(2)

(3)

Appendix C--Health Effects Language;

Figure: 30 TAC §290.275(3)

(4)

Appendix D--Unregulated Contaminants.

Figure: 30 TAC §290.275(4)

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State, on May 8, 2000.

TRD-200003211

Margaret Hoffman

Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Proposed date of adoption: August 23, 2000

For further information, please call: (512) 239-1966


Chapter 321. CONTROL OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES BY RULE

Subchapter B. CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS

30 TAC §§321.34, 321.35, 321.48

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission) proposes amendments to §321.34, Procedures for Making Application for an Individual Permit; §321.35, Procedures to Making Application for Registration; and new §321.48, Additional Requirements for Certain Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. The primary purpose of the proposed amendments and new section is to implement House Bill (HB) 801, Section 3, relating to Public Participation in Certain Environmental Permitting Procedures of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 76th Legislature, 1999.

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED RULES

HB 801, Section 3 (the "Act") amended Texas Water Code (TWC), Chapter 26 by adding §26.0286, which requires the commission to process an application for authorization to construct or operate a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) as an application for an individual permit, if the CAFO is located or proposed to be located in the watershed of a sole-source surface drinking water supply and it is located sufficiently close, as determined by commission rule, to a public water supply system intake in the sole-source surface drinking water supply so that contaminants discharged from the CAFO could potentially affect the public drinking water supply. Section 7(b) of the Act provides that the changes in law apply only to applications declared administratively complete on or after September 1, 1999 and that former law is continued in effect for those applications declared administratively complete before September 1, 1999. In July 1999, the commission proposed new §321.48 to implement this legislation (see 24 TexReg 5458). In response to comments received on that proposal and to allow further consideration of alternative approaches for implementation of this legislation, the commission allowed proposed new §321.48 to be automatically withdrawn six months after the date of publication (see 25 TexReg 562).

As a general rule under TWC, Chapter 26, any CAFO that discharges wastewater into or adjacent to water in the state must obtain an individual permit from the TNRCC according to TWC, §26.121 unless the commission chooses to regulate the CAFO through rule under the repealed version of TWC, §26.040 or through a general permit under the existing version of TWC, 26.040. The commission has adopted rules in Chapter 321, Subchapter B, under TWC, §26.040 which allows some CAFOs to apply for a registration rather than an individual permit if they meet the conditions set out in the rules. In addition, under §321.33(b)(1), the executive director may require any CAFO to obtain an individual permit if the CAFO is located near surface or groundwater resources even if the CAFO would otherwise be eligible to obtain authorization through registration. The Act merely prohibits CAFOs located sufficiently close, as determined by commission rule, to a public water supply system intake in the sole-source surface drinking water supply so that contaminants discharged from the CAFO could potentially affect the public drinking water supply from obtaining authorization through registration, and instead requires them to obtain an individual permit as is generally required of all CAFOs under TWC, §26.121.

This rulemaking now proposes new amendments to Chapter 321 to implement HB 801, Section 3.

SECTION BY SECTION DISCUSSION

Section 321.34(a) is proposed to be amended to substitute the phrase "concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO)" for "CAFO" and to correct the cross-reference to "§321.35(c)(1)-(13)" by changing it to "§321.35(c)." This change accounts for the proposed change in the number of paragraphs under §321.35(c), discussed later in this preamble, by simply referring to §321.35(c), rather than §321.35(c)(1)-(14). Other minor editorial changes are proposed under §321.34(b)(2), (c), (d), and (h). These changes are the deletion of extraneous "(relating to...)" phrases and the correction of "Executive Director" to "executive director."

Section 321.35(a) is proposed to be amended to substitute the phrase "concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO)" for "CAFO." Section 321.35(c) is proposed to be amended to add the following sentence, relating to applicability of the proposed new §321.35(c)(8), the requirements of which are discussed later in this preamble: "The requirements under paragraph (8) of this subsection apply only to registration applications declared administratively complete on or after the effective date of paragraph (8) of this subsection." While the Act provides that its provisions apply to applications declared administratively complete on or after September 1, 1999, the commission proposes that this rule apply prospectively, rather than retroactively, in order to ensure the orderly implementation of the rule and increase certainty for persons involved in the registration and permitting processes. The executive director is reviewing CAFO registration applications declared administratively complete on or after September 1, 1999 but prior to the effective date of these rules on a case-by-case basis to determine if the location of the CAFO is sufficiently close to the intake of a sole-source surface drinking water supply so that the contaminants discharged from the CAFO could potentially affect the drinking water supply. Based upon this review, the executive director will determine whether an individual permit is required by the Act.

Section 321.35(c) is proposed to be amended under paragraph (7) to divide the requirements for this application requirement into subparagraphs (A) and (B) to improve the readability of this paragraph. The parenthetical term "(USGS)" is also proposed to be added after the phrase "United States Geological Survey."

Section 321.35(c) is also proposed to be amended to add new paragraph (8), which would require all applications for registration, including amendments and renewals, to submit one original, with the remainder in copies, of a USGS 7-1/2 minute quadrangle topographic map or an equivalent high quality copy showing: (1) the boundaries of land owned, operated, or controlled by the applicant and to be used as a part of a CAFO, and within 500 feet of the outer boundary of the land application area(s), open lots and control facilities; (2) the location of all private water wells (abandoned or in use), public wells, springs, or ponds within one mile of the outer boundary of the retention facility and downstream of the CAFO, and all other watercourses and lakes located downstream and within three miles of the outer boundary of the CAFO; (3) the location of the protection zone, as defined in §321.48 of this title (relating to Additional Requirements for Certain Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations), for each watercourse or lake located downstream and within three miles of the outer boundary of the CAFO, if any such watercourse or lake is a "sole-source surface drinking water supply" as defined in TWC, §26.0286(a); and (4) delineation of the locations of all pens, lots, ponds, and any other types of control or retention facilities that are located within the protection zone of a "sole-source surface drinking water supply" as defined in TWC, §26.0286(a).

The requirements under §321.35(c)(8) are proposed to clarify registration application requirements and to ensure that a CAFO registration application will include the information necessary to determine whether the CAFO is or will be located within the protection zone of a sole-source surface drinking water supply, thereby necessitating processing as an individual permit application. These proposed rules require the applicant to delineate the protection zone associated with a sole-source surface drinking water supply. The number and identity of surface water bodies that qualify as sole- source surface drinking water supplies changes with some frequency. For example, a community that relies exclusively on surface water could add a secondary groundwater supply. If this community had the only sole-source supply intake in the surface water body, and that water body qualified as a sole- source surface drinking water supply only because of this community, then the water body would no longer qualify as a sole-source. On the other hand, a lake which does not initially qualify as a sole- source surface drinking water supply could have an intake added by a community relying exclusively on surface water. In this way, a water body may become a sole-source surface drinking water supply. In order to assist the regulated community in making determinations concerning protection zones of watercourses and lakes which are sole-source surface drinking water supplies, the executive director maintains a list of sole-source public water system intakes, which facilitates the identification of the watercourses and lakes qualifying as sole-source surface drinking water supplies. This list is available on the agency's web site at www.tnrcc.state.tx.us.

In order to account for the addition of new proposed §321.35(c)(8), existing paragraphs (8)-(13) are proposed to be renumbered (9)-(14). Proposed paragraph (11) contains the clarification of "NRCS" by changing it to "Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)," and substituting "NRCS" for "Natural Resource Conservation Service" under subparagraph (E).

Proposed new §321.48, implements the requirements of new TWC, §26.0286, relating to Procedures Applicable to Permits for Certain Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, as added by HB 801, Section 3.

Proposed new §321.48(a) provides that this section applies to any application for registration to construct or operate a CAFO that is declared administratively complete on or after the effective date of these rules. While the Act provides that its statutory provisions apply to applications declared administratively complete on or after September 1, 1999, the commission proposes that this rule apply prospectively, rather than retroactively, in order to ensure the orderly implementation of the rule and increase certainty for persons involved in the registration and permitting processes.

Proposed new §321.48(b) provides that if, as of the date of declaration of administrative completeness, any part of any pen, lot, pond, or any other type of control or retention facility is located within the protection zone of a "sole-source surface drinking water supply," as defined in TWC, §26.0286(a), the application must be processed as an application for an individual permit. Thus, the determination of whether or not a CAFO is in the protection zone is based upon the facts established at the time of declaration of administrative completeness. If a later date were used, an application for a facility within a protection zone might be processed as a registration only to be subject to re-processing as an individual permit based upon changed circumstances occurring at a later date. Establishing a fixed time for such determinations increases certainty in the process. With regard to the areas of the permitted or registered site within the protection zone that trigger the requirement for an individual permit (i.e., any part of any pen, lot, pond, or any other type of control or retention facility), these are the areas with the greatest concentration of animal waste within the site, and therefore releases of waste from these areas have the potential to adversely impact a sole-source surface drinking water supply.

Proposed new §321.48(c) defines "protection zone" as that area within the watershed of a sole-source surface drinking water supply, as defined in TWC, §26.0286(a), that is within two miles of the normal pool elevation, as indicated on the USGS map, of a sole-source surface drinking water supply; or within two miles of that part of a perennial stream that is tributary to the sole-source surface drinking water supply and within three linear miles upstream of the normal pool elevation, as indicated on the USGS map, of a sole-source surface drinking water supply; or within two miles of that part of a stream that is a sole-source surface drinking water supply, extending three linear miles upstream from the water supply intake. The protection zone is intended to provide for greater scrutiny and opportunities for public participation of those CAFO applications within the protection zone. The primary pollutants of concern within protection zones include the nutrients phosphorus and nitrogen, which CAFOs have the potential to release. The protection zone of a sole-source water supply is proposed to extend three miles upstream from any perennial stream as defined by a USGS topographic map primarily because perennial streams are the primary contributors to reservoirs. Therefore, potential pollutants associated with land-use activities along or near the banks of perennial streams take a more direct route to the reservoir than activities further inland or those along an intermittent stream. For intakes on streams, the protection zone is the area within two miles of the three-mile stream reach upstream from the intake. This approach of extending the area of influence further upstream of perennial streams is consistent with the Texas Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Strategy approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

The two-mile distance around the reservoir is proposed based on the increased potential for CAFOs within that area to have adverse impacts on a sole-source surface drinking water supply. It is more likely that, outside the protection zone as defined in this rule, released contaminants will be absorbed or otherwise attenuated prior to entering the aquatic environment. In other words, compared to any released nutrients from CAFOs within a protection zone, any released nutrients from CAFOs located outside a protection zone are more likely to be attenuated (e.g., assimilated by terrestrial or aquatic plants or microorganisms) before entering the sole-source surface drinking water supply. The protection zone, as defined in proposed new §321.48(c), surrounds the entire sole-source surface drinking water supply. A protection zone based only on the intake point would not take the entire water supply into consideration and, therefore, would contain gaps that could leave portions of the water supply unprotected. For example, if the protection zone was proposed to be based on the intake point, a CAFO, or many CAFOs, for that matter, could be located in close proximity to a reservoir which is a sole-source surface drinking water supply, and be further than two miles from the intake point, and not be subject to individual permits, but still pose deleterious threats to the quality of the drinking water supply. In addition, by applying the protection zone around the entire water body, the protection zone will remain constant, even though new water supply intakes may be added. For example, if the protection zone were based on the intake point, and new sole-source intakes were added each year for several years, then the protection zone would necessarily have to be redefined each time an intake was added, for several years in a row. In such a case, there would be much less certainty over whether a registration or an individual permit would be required in the context of this proposed rule. Thus, defining the protection zone in the manner proposed in this rule, based on the entire surface water body, facilitates the efficient administration of the Act.

In addition, under existing §321.33(n), any new CAFO located within one mile of Coastal Natural Resource Areas as defined by the Natural Resources Code, §33.203(1) must apply for and obtain an individual permit in accordance with §321.34. That rule is designed to provide a closer review of applications and allow for a contested case hearing prior to a CAFO locating within one mile of ecologically sensitive estuaries. Unlike §321.33, which is intended to protect ecologically sensitive estuary systems and other coastal waters, the proposed rules are related to drinking water supplies. Therefore, a protection zone of greater than one mile is warranted due to the human health concerns related to drinking water.

The commission intends to revisit the definition of the protection zone once a vulnerability assessment has been completed for all public water systems. These assessments, which are required by the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), are scheduled to be completed by May 2003 and will take into consideration soils, climate, slope, land use, and other factors which will be used to determine the vulnerability of a water supply to a list of contaminants. The SDWA amendments strengthened protections for all members of the public, while allowing the agency to focus on the highest risks to human health and to develop responsible solutions. The criteria for determining relative susceptibility to different sources of contamination incorporates sound scientific principles which will yield similar results under similar circumstances when applied in different parts of the state. The results of this study will allow the commission to, in the future, promulgate rules that are more specifically tailored to the individual characteristics and vulnerability of each sole source surface drinking water supply. In the absence of this scientific data and because the Act applies to applications currently being processed, the commission believes that the conservative approach reflected in these rules is both appropriate and reasonable.

FISCAL NOTE

Jeffrey Horvath, Strategic Planning and Appropriations, has determined that for the first five- year period the proposed rules are in effect, there will be no significant fiscal implications for the agency or other units of state and local government as a result of administration or enforcement of the proposed amendments. The proposed rules would implement certain provisions of HB 801, relating to Public Participation in Certain Environmental Permitting Procedures of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 76th Legislature, 1999, which amends TWC, Chapter 26.

HB 801 requires the agency to process an application for authorization to construct or operate a CAFO as a application for an individual permit, if the CAFO is located or proposed to be located in the watershed of a sole-source surface drinking water supply and it is located sufficiently close to a public water supply system intake in the sole-source surface drinking water supply so that contaminants discharged from the CAFO could potentially affect the public drinking water supply.

Currently, under §321.33(b)(1), the executive director may require CAFOs located close to surface water resources to obtain an individual permit. To implement HB 801, the proposed rules would require an individual permit for CAFOs located within the defined protection zone. There are currently 591 permitted or registered CAFOs, of which an estimated 70 or 12%, would fall in a defined protection zone and upon amendment or renewal would be required to apply for an individual permit rather than a registration. Even though site-specific requirements in an individual permit could result in additional costs to the facility owner or operator, the proposed rules are not anticipated to have significant costs for those applicants deemed to be within a protection zone and required to obtain an individual permit unless the commission grants a request for a contested case hearing by an affected person. Costs for those seeking permit applications would still include consultant and/or engineering fees for permit application preparation, permit fees, and costs associated with facility design and construction to meet agency and statutory requirements. However, if the commission grants a request for a contested case hearing, estimated costs to the applicant, could range anywhere from $5,000- $100,000 for attorney fees. The amount of attorney fees would vary, depending on the complexity of the issues involved, and the length of the hearing. The number of individual permit applications subject to contested case hearings cannot be determined. In general additional costs to document existing data in the forms required for an individual permit will vary depending on the detail and data entry required to document compliance with permit requirements and are not anticipated to be significant.

PUBLIC BENEFIT

Mr. Horvath has determined that for each of the first five years the proposed rules are in effect, the public benefit anticipated from the enforcement and compliance with these proposed rules will be increased protection of the public drinking water supply and the possibility of increased opportunity for public participation in the CAFO permitting process conducted by the commission. The proposed rules would require the agency to process an application for authorization to construct or operate a CAFO as a application for an individual permit, if the CAFO is located or proposed to be located in the watershed of a sole-source surface drinking water supply and it is located sufficiently close to a public water supply system intake in the sole-source surface drinking water supply so that contaminants discharged from the CAFO could potentially affect the public drinking water supply.

Currently, under §321.33(b)(1), the executive director may require CAFOs located close to surface water resources to obtain an individual permit. The proposed rules would require an individual permit for CAFOs located within the defined protection zone. There are currently 591 permitted or registered CAFOs, of which an estimated 70 or 12%, would fall in a defined protection zone. Upon amendment or renewal, CAFOs located within the protection zone would be required to apply for an individual permit rather than a registration. This will allow for increased protection of the public drinking water supply by allowing for the possible inclusion of site-specific requirements into an individual permit. This will also allow for an increased opportunity for public participation by providing an opportunity for affected persons to request a contested case hearing on the application. Even though site-specific requirements in an individual permit could result in additional costs to the facility owner or operator, the proposed rules are not anticipated to have significant costs for those applicants deemed to be within a protection zone and required to obtain an individual permit unless the commission grants a request for a contested case hearing by an affected person. Costs for those seeking permit applications would still include consultant and/or engineering fees for permit application preparation, permit fees, and costs associated with facility design and construction to meet agency and statutory requirements. However, if the commission grants a request for a contested case hearing, estimated costs to the applicant could range anywhere from $5,000-$100,000 for attorney fees. The amount of attorney fees would vary, depending on the issues involved, and the length of the hearing. The number of individual permit applications subject to contested case hearings cannot be determined. In general additional costs to document existing data in the forms required for an individual permit will vary depending on the detail and data entry required to document compliance with permit requirements and are not anticipated to be significant.

SMALL AND MICRO-BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSIS

In general, no significant economic effects are anticipated to small and micro-businesses as a result of implementing the proposed rules. However, adverse economic effects could be anticipated to small and micro-businesses if there is a contested case hearing. Small or micro-businesses affected by the proposed rules could include feedlots, dairies, poultry operations, hog farms, or other livestock operations that meet the definition of a CAFO, including confinement of greater than or equal to 1,000 animal units.

Currently under §321.33(b)(1), the executive director may require CAFOs located close to surface water resources to obtain an individual permit. The proposed rules would require an individual permit for CAFOs located within the defined protection zone. There are currently 591 permitted or registered CAFOs, of which an estimated 70 or 12%, would fall in a defined protection zone and upon amendment or renewal would be required to apply for an individual permit rather than a registration. It is not known how many of these facilities are small or micro-businesses. Even though site-specific requirements in an individual permit could result in additional costs to the facility owner or operator, the proposed rules are not anticipated to have significant costs for those applicants deemed to be within a protection zone and required to obtain an individual permit unless the commission grants a request for a contested case hearing by an affected person. Costs for those seeking permit applications would still include consultant and/or engineering fees for permit application preparation, permit fees, and costs associated with facility design and construction to meet agency and statutory requirements. However, if the commission grants a request for a contested case hearing, estimated costs to the applicant could range anywhere from $5,000-$100,000 for attorney fees. The amount of attorney fees would vary, depending on the complexity of the issues involved, and the length of the hearing. The number of individual permit applications subject to contested case hearings cannot be determined. In general additional costs to document existing data in the forms required for an individual permit will vary depending on the detail and data entry required to document compliance with permit requirements and are not anticipated to be significant.

DRAFT REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The commission has reviewed the proposed rulemaking in light of the regulatory analysis requirements of the Texas Government Code, §2001.0225, and has determined that the rulemaking is not subject to §2001.0225 because it does not meet the definition of a "major environmental rule" as defined in the statute. The proposal does not meet the definition of "major environmental rule" for several reasons. First, these proposed rules are procedural in nature, dealing primarily with application requirements that are needed to enable the executive director to determine whether a particular CAFO is located in the watershed of a sole-source surface drinking water supply and sufficiently close to an intake of a public water supply system in such a surface drinking water supply that contaminants discharged from the CAFO could potentially affect the public drinking water supply. If so located or proposed to be so located, the commission, by statute, must process an application for authorization to construct or operate such a CAFO as an individual permit application. Furthermore, the commission's rules currently allow the executive director to require a CAFO to apply for an individual permit if the operation is located near surface water resources. Therefore, the requirement to apply for an individual permit is not a new requirement, and thus the rule does not adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, or jobs of the state or a sector of the state. Finally, because the rules deal primarily with application requirements, they are procedural in nature and would not adversely affect the environment, or the public health and safety of the state or a sector of the state.

In addition, these proposed rules do not exceed a standard set by federal law, exceed an express requirement of state law, exceed a requirement of a delegation agreement, or propose to adopt a rule solely under the general powers of the agency. This proposal does not exceed a standard set by federal law because there are no such corresponding federal standards. This proposal does not exceed an express requirement of state law because it is specifically required by TWC, §26.0286, which requires the commission to use certain procedures for processing applications for certain CAFOs. This proposal does not exceed a requirement of a delegation agreement or contract between the state and an agency or representative of the federal government to implement a state and federal program because the September 14, 1998 Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the TNRCC, authorizing the commission to implement the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permitting program in Texas, requires CAFOs, as defined in the federal Clean Water Act, to obtain Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination System authorization but does not specify whether the authorization must be through an individual permit, registration under a permit-by- rule, or through a general permit. This proposal does not adopt a rule solely under the general powers of the agency, but rather under specific state law (i.e., TWC, §26.0286, which requires the commission to use certain procedures for processing applications for certain CAFOs).

TAKINGS IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The commission has prepared a takings impact assessment for these proposed rules pursuant to Texas Government Code, §2007.043. The following is a summary of that assessment. The purpose of the proposed rules is to implement the requirements of HB 801 regarding CAFOs. The specific primary purpose of the proposed rules is to establish by rule the parameters of how to determine, in accordance with HB 801, whether a particular CAFO is located in the watershed of a sole-source surface drinking water supply and is located sufficiently close to an intake of a public water supply system in the sole-source surface drinking water supply so that contaminants discharged from the CAFO could potentially affect the public drinking water supply; thereby requiring the commission to process an application for authorization to construct or operate such a CAFO as an individual permit application. The proposed rules will substantially advance this stated purpose by establishing the protection zone, which is the primary parameter of how to determine whether a particular CAFO is located in the watershed of a sole-source surface drinking water supply and is located sufficiently close to an intake of a public water supply system in the sole-source surface drinking water supply so that contaminants discharged from the CAFO could potentially affect the public drinking water supply, thereby triggering permit requirements.

Promulgation and enforcement of these proposed rules will not affect private real property which is the subject of the rules primarily because these proposed rules are procedural in nature. A CAFO facility located within the protection zone would still be able to operate, but only after obtaining an individual permit rather than another form of authorization such as a registration. These proposed rules are not anticipated to affect private real property because they do not prohibit or restrict a CAFO from operating within a protection zone. They simply require the facility to follow different procedures for obtaining authorization to construct or operate. Furthermore, CAFOs located near surface water resources are already required to prevent the likelihood of inadvertent discharges and to ensure that permitted discharges do not degrade water quality. These proposed rules establish by rule the parameters of how to determine, in accordance with HB 801, whether a particular CAFO is located in the watershed of a sole-source surface drinking water supply and is located sufficiently close to an intake of a public water supply system in the sole-source surface drinking water supply so that contaminants discharged from the CAFO could potentially affect the public drinking water supply; thereby requiring the commission to process an application for authorization to construct or operate such a CAFO as an individual permit application. Therefore, these proposed rules will not constitute a takings under Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007.

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONSISTENCY REVIEW

The commission has reviewed the 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. This action concerns only the procedural rules of the commission and general agency operations. Therefore, the proposed rules are not subject to the CMP.

PUBLIC HEARING

A public hearing on this proposal will be held in Austin on June 15, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. in Building F, Room 3202A at the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission complex, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in the order of registration. Open discussion will not occur during the hearing; however, an agency staff member will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes before 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 hearing should contact the Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment 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, MC 205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 or faxed to (512) 239-4808. All comments should reference Rule Log Number 1999-030-321-AD. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., June 19, 2000. For further information, please contact Ray Austin, Policy and Regulations Division, (512) 239-6814.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

The amended and new sections are proposed under TWC, §26.0286, which requires the commission to process an application for authorization to construct or operate a CAFO as an application for an individual permit if the CAFO is located or proposed to be located in the watershed of a sole-source surface drinking water supply and it is located sufficiently close to a public water supply system intake in the sole-source surface drinking water supply so that contaminants discharged from the CAFO could potentially affect the public drinking water supply. The rules are also proposed under TWC, §5.102, which establishes the commission's general authority necessary to carry out its jurisdiction; §5.103, which establishes the commission's general authority to adopt rules; §5.105, which establishes the commission's authority to set policy by rule; §5.013, which establishes the commission's authority over various statutory programs; §26.011, which establishes the commission's authority over water quality in the state; and §26.028, which establishes the commission's authority to approve certain applications for wastewater discharge; and Texas Government Code, §2001.006, which authorizes state agencies to adopt rules or take other administrative action that the agency deems necessary to implement legislation.

The proposed amendments and new section implement TWC, §26.0286.

§321.34.Procedures for Making Application for an Individual Permit.

(a)

A concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) [ CAFO ] that was not authorized under a rule, order, or permit issued or adopted by the commission and in effect at the time of the adoption of these amended rules (1999) shall apply for an individual permit in accordance with the provisions of this section or shall apply for registration in accordance with the provisions of §321.35 of this title (relating to Procedures for Making Application for Registration). Application for an individual permit shall be made on forms provided by the executive director. The applicant shall provide such additional information in support of the application as may be necessary for an adequate technical review of the application. A facility which is not required under federal law to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System authorization may apply for a state-only individual permit, for a term of five years, which authorizes the discharge or disposal of waste or wastewater into or adjacent to water in the state only in the event of a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event. At a minimum, the application shall demonstrate compliance with the technical requirements set forth in §§321.38-321.42 of this title (relating to Proper CAFO Operation and Maintenance, Pollution Prevention Plans, Best Management Practices, Other Requirements, and Monitoring and Reporting Requirements) and shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements specified in §321.35(c) [ §321.35(c)(1)-(13) ] of this title [ (relating to Procedures for Making Application for Registration) ]. Applicants shall comply with §§305.41, 305.43, 305.44, 305.46, and 305.47 of this title (relating to Applicability, Who Applies, Signatories to Applications, Designation of Material as Confidential, and Retention of Application Data). Each applicant shall pay an application fee as required by §305.53 of this title (relating to Application Fees). An annual waste treatment inspection fee is also required of each permittee as required by §305.503 and §305.504 of this title (relating to Fee Assessments and Fee Payments). An annual Clean Rivers Program fee is also required as required under §220.21(d) of this title (relating to Water Quality Assessment Fees). Except as provided in subsections (b)-(e) of this section, each permittee shall comply with §§305.61 and 305.63-305.68 of this title (relating to Applicability, Renewal, Transfer of Permits, Permit Denial, Suspension and Revocation; Revocation and Suspension Upon Request or Consent; and Action and Notice on Petition for Revocation or Suspension). Notice, public comment, and hearing on applications shall be conducted in accordance with commission rules governing individual permits issued under Chapter 26 of the Texas Water Code. Each permittee shall comply with §305.125 of this title (relating to Standard Permit Conditions). Individual permits granted under this subchapter shall be effective for a term not to exceed five years. To qualify for the air quality standard permit, the applicant must meet the requirements in §321.46 of this title (relating to Air Standard Permit Authorization).

(b)

All applications for permit renewal must be administratively and technically complete, meet all applicable technical requirements of this subchapter, and be in accordance with one of the following.

(1)

(No change.)

(2)

Except as provided by §305.63(a)(3) of this title [ (relating to Renewals) ], an application for a renewal of an individual permit for a facility as described in §321.33(a)(2) of this title (relating to Applicability) may be granted by the executive director without public notice if it does not propose any change which constitutes a major amendment as defined in Chapter 305 of this title (relating to Consolidated Permits) or a major source as defined under Chapter 116 of this title (relating to Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification). Renewal under this paragraph shall be allowed only if there has been no related formal enforcement action against the facility during the last 36 months of the term of the permit in which the commission has determined that:

(A)-(C)

(No change.)

(3)

(No change.)

(c)

Each applicant shall pay an application fee as required by §305.53 of this title [ (relating to Application Fees) ].

(d)

A permittee submitting an application for renewal satisfying the criteria in subsection (b)(2) of this section will automatically be issued a notice of renewal for the existing permit by the executive director [ Executive Director ].

(e)-(g)

(No change.)

(h)

If an application requests an amendment as defined by §321.33(p) of this title [ (relating to Applicability) ] of an existing individual permit, the application shall be filed and processed under in this section.

(i)

(No change.)

§321.35.Procedures for Making Application for Registration.

(a)

A concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) [ CAFO ] that is not authorized under a rule, order, or permit of the commission in effect at the time of the adoption of these amended rules (1999) shall apply for and receive registration under this section or shall apply for an individual permit in accordance with the provisions of §321.34 of this title (relating to Procedures for Making Application for an Individual Permit). A person who requests a registration or renewal of such registration granted under this subchapter, or an amendment as defined in §321.33(p) of this title (relating to Applicability), shall submit a complete and accurate application to the executive director, according to the provisions of this section.

(b)

(No change.)

(c)

Application for registration under this section shall be made on forms prescribed by the executive director. A facility which is not required under federal law to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System authorization may apply for a state-only registration, which authorizes the discharge or disposal of waste or wastewater into or adjacent to water in the state only in the event of a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event, or may transfer from an individual permit to such a registration in accordance with §321.33(l) of this title. The applicant shall submit an original completed application with attachments and one copy of the application with attachments to the executive director at the headquarters in Austin, Texas, and one additional copy of the application with attachments to the appropriate Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission regional office. The requirements under paragraph (8) of this subsection apply only to registration applications declared administratively complete on or after the effective date of paragraph (8) of this subsection. The completed application shall be submitted to the executive director signed and notarized and with the following information:

(1)-(6)

(No change.)

(7)

One original (remainder in copies) United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7 - 1/2 minute quadrangle topographic map or an equivalent high quality copy showing :

(A)

the boundaries of land owned, operated, or controlled by the applicant and to be used as a part of a CAFO, and within 500 feet of the outer boundary of the land application area(s), open lots and control facilities ; and [ , ]

(B)

the location of all private water wells (abandoned or in use) and public wells and all springs, lakes, or ponds within one mile of the outer boundary of the retention facility and downstream of the facility.

(8)

For all registration applications, including amendments and renewals, one original (remainder in copies) USGS 7-1/2 quadrangle topographic map or an equivalent high quality copy showing:

(A)

the boundaries of land owned, operated, or controlled by the applicant and to be used as a part of a CAFO, and within 500 feet of the outer boundary of the land application area(s), open lots and control facilities;

(B)

the location of all private water wells (abandoned or in use), public wells, springs, or ponds within one mile of the outer boundary of the retention facility and downstream of the CAFO, and all other watercourses and lakes located downstream and within three miles of the outer boundary of the CAFO;

(C)

the location of the protection zone, as defined in §321.48 of this title (relating to Additional Requirements for Certain Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations), for each watercourse or lake located downstream and within three miles of the outer boundary of the CAFO, if any such watercourse or lake is a "sole-source surface drinking water supply" as defined in Texas Water Code (TWC), §26.0286(a); and

(D)

delineation of the location of all pens, lots, ponds, and any other types of control or retention facilities that are located within the protection zone of a "sole-source surface drinking water supply" as defined in TWC, §26.0286(a).

(9)

[ (8) ] Sections of the pollution prevention plan to be designated by the executive director. Prior to utilization of wastewater retention facilities, documentation of liner certifications by a licensed professional engineer must be submitted (if applicable).

(10)

[ (9) ] A copy of a recorded deed or tax records showing ownership, or a copy of a contract or lease agreement between the applicant and the owner/operator of any lands to be utilized under the proposed CAFO. This requirement does not apply to any lands not owned, operated, or controlled by the applicant for the purpose of off-site land application of manure wherein the manure is given or sold to others for beneficial use, provided the owner/operator of the CAFO is not involved in the application of the manure.

(11)

[ (10) ] A certification by a Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) [ NRCS ] engineer, licensed professional engineer or qualified groundwater scientist documenting the absence or presence of any recharge features identified on any tracts of land owned, operated or controlled by the applicant and to be used as a part of a CAFO. Documentation, by the certifying party shall identify the sources and/or methods used to identify the presence or absence of recharge features. The documentation shall include the method or approach to be used to identify previously unidentified and/or undocumented recharge features that may be discovered during the time of construction. At a minimum, the records and/or maps of the following entities/agencies shall be reviewed to locate any artificial recharge features:

(A)

Railroad Commission;

(B)

Groundwater District, if applicable;

(C)

Texas Water Development Board;

(D)

TNRCC;

(E)

NRCS [ Natural Resource Conservation Service ];

(F)

previous owner of site, if available, and

(G)

on-site inspection of site with a NRCS engineer, licensed professional engineer or qualified groundwater scientist.

(12)

[ (11) ] Where the applicant cannot document the absence of recharge features on the tracts for which an application is being filed, the proposed site plan shall also indicate the specific location of any and all recharge features found on any property owned, operated, or controlled by the applicant under the application as certified by a NRCS engineer, licensed professional engineer, or qualified groundwater scientist. The applicant shall also submit a plan, developed by a NRCS engineer or licensed professional engineer, to prevent impacts on any located recharge feature and associated groundwater formation which may include the following:

(A)

installation of the necessary and appropriate protective measures for each located recharge feature such as impervious cover, berms, or other equivalent protective measures covering all affected facilities and land application areas; or

(B)

submission of a detailed groundwater monitoring plan covering all affected facilities and land application areas. At a minimum, the ground-water monitoring plan shall specify procedures to annually collect a ground-water sample from representative wells, have each sample analyzed for chlorides, nitrates, and total dissolved solids, and compare those values with background values for each well; or

(C)

any other similar method or approach demonstrated by the applicant to be protective of any associated recharge feature.

(13)

[ (12) ] Area land use map (Air quality only). This map shall identify the property line, the permanent odor sources and the distance and direction to any residences, animal feeding operations, businesses, public parks or occupied structures within a one mile radius of the permanent odor sources to show compliance with §321.46 of this title [ (relating to Air Standard Permit Authorization) ]. The map shall include the north arrow and scale of map.

(14)

[ (13) ] The applicant shall indicate in the application the location and times where the application may be inspected by the public. Within 48 hours of receiving notice of administrative and technical completeness, the applicant shall make a copy of the application and the entire pollution prevention plan available for public inspection at the applicant's place of business during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, and at a public place within the county where the proposed facility is to be located so that the copy may be made available for inspection at a public place during normal business hours. For the purposes of this section, normal business hours shall be at a minimum of: 9:00 a.m. to noon and from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday allowing for the observance of state and/or federal holidays. Such places may include, but are not limited to, public libraries; district, county, or municipal offices; community recreation centers; or public schools.

(d)-(f)

(No change.)

(g)

(Air Quality Only). To qualify for the air quality standard permit, the applicant must meet the requirements in §321.46 of this title [ (relating to Air Standard Permit Authorization) ].

(h)

Registrations issued under §321.37 or §321.47 of this title (relating to Action on Applications for Registration or Initial Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Authorization) shall expire five years after the effective date of these amendments (1999), and no new registrations shall be issued after that date. However, if the commission proposes to amend or readopt these rules prior to such expiration date, all registrations shall remain in effect until final commission action on the proposed amendment or readoption. An application for renewal of a registration under this section must be administratively and technically complete, meet all applicable technical requirements of this subchapter, and, except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (1)-(5) of this subsection, be processed according to §321.36 and §321.37 of this title (relating to Notice of Application for Registration and Action on Application for Registration). A registration for a facility described in §321.33(a)(2) of this title [ (relating to Applicability) ] may be renewed, according to the following procedures:

(1)

(No change.)

(2)

Each applicant shall pay an application fee as required by §305.53 of this title [ (relating to Application Fees) ].

(3)

(No change.)

(4)

If the application for renewal of a registration cannot meet all of the criteria in paragraph (1) of this subsection, then an application for renewal of the registration shall be filed in accordance with subsection (a) of this section and processed in accordance with §§321.36-321.37 of this title [ (relating to Notice of Application for Registration and Action on Applications for Registration) ].

(5)

(No change.)

§321.48.Additional Requirements for Certain Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.

(a)

This section applies to any application for registration to construct or operate a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO), including amendments and renewals, that is declared administratively complete on or after the effective date of this section.

(b)

If, as of the date of declaration of administrative completeness, any part of any pen, lot, pond, or any other type of control or retention facility is located within the protection zone of a "sole-source surface drinking water supply," as defined in Texas Water Code, §26.0286(a), the application for authorization to construct or operate a CAFO shall be processed as an application for an individual permit under §321.34 of this title (relating to Procedures for Making Application for an Individual Permit).

(c)

In this subchapter, "protection zone" is defined as that area within the watershed of a sole-source surface drinking water supply that is:

(1)

within two miles of the normal pool elevation of a body of surface water that is a sole-source surface drinking water supply; or

(2)

within two miles of that part of a perennial stream that is:

(A)

a tributary of a sole-source surface drinking water supply; and

(B)

within three linear miles upstream of the normal pool elevation of a sole-source surface drinking water supply; or

(3)

within two miles of that part of a stream that is a sole-source surface drinking water supply, extending three linear miles upstream from the water supply intake.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State, on May 8, 2000.

TRD-200003212

Margaret Hoffman

Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Proposed date of adoption: June 19, 2000

For further information, please call: (512) 239-4712


Chapter 312. SLUDGE USE, DISPOSAL, AND TRANSPORTATION

Subchapter A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

30 TAC §312.9

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission) proposes an amendment to §312.9, concerning Sludge Fee Program.

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED RULE

The purpose of the proposed change to Chapter 312 is to incorporate recent changes required by House Bill (HB) 3288, 76th Legislature, 1999, which prohibit the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) from charging disposal fees for sewage sludge that has been treated to the lowest pathogen density level provided by commission rules and that meets metal concentration limits, vector attraction reduction, and pathogen reduction requirements.

SECTION BY SECTION DISCUSSION

Proposed amendments to §312.9(b)(2) will delete this paragraph to conform with HB 3288. The commission can no longer charge a solid waste disposal fee for sewage sludge that has been treated to reduce the density of pathogens to the lowest level provided by TNRCC rules.

FISCAL NOTE

Jeffrey Horvath, 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 units of state or local government as a result of administration or enforcement of the proposed amendments. The amendments would implement provisions of House Bill 3288 (relating to the exclusion of certain sewage sludge from solid waste disposal fees), 76th Legislature, 1999.

The proposed rule amendments would eliminate disposal fees charged to wastewater treatment plants or other processors who produce and use Class A sewage sludge. Class A sewage sludge is defined as material that has been treated to reduce the density of pathogens to the lowest level provided by agency rule, and complies with commission rules regarding metal concentration limits, pathogen reduction, and vector attraction reduction.

The loss in disposal fee revenue, estimated to be $40,000 per year, is not significant and minimal economic impacts are anticipated to TNRCC. There will be insignificant savings in staff time related to fee assessments.

Local units of government that own and operate wastewater treatment facilities may realize some cost savings for producing Class A sludge, depending on the amount produced. Current fees are $0.20 per dry ton of the material produced. Facilities that produce this material through composting are already exempt from disposal fees under current agency rule. There are 11 entities currently authorized to market and distribute Class A sludge to consumers, most of which are wastewater treatment facilities owned by units of local government. In general, cost savings to these facilities is not expected to be significant due to the abatement of the fee assessment, depending on the amount of material produced.

PUBLIC BENEFIT

Mr. Horvath has also determined that for each of the first five years the proposed amendments are in effect, the public benefit anticipated will be to stimulate the production of sewage sludge for use rather than disposal, divert potential waste from landfills, and recycle a valuable product. The proposed rule amendments would eliminate disposal fees charged to wastewater treatment plants or other processors for the production and use of Class A sewage sludge. Class A sewage sludge is defined as material that has been treated to reduce the density of pathogens to the lowest level provided by agency rule, and complies with commission rules regarding metal concentration limits, pathogen reduction, and vector attraction reduction.

Wastewater treatment plants may realize some cost savings for producing Class A sludge, depending on the amount produced. Current fees are $0.20 per dry ton of the material produced. There are currently 11 entities authorized to market and distribute the material, most of which are wastewater treatment plants owned or operated by units of local government. Cost savings to these facilities from the abatement of the fee assessment is not anticipated to be significant depending on the amount of material produced.

Any business affected by the proposed rule would realize cost savings from the elimination of the fee assessment, but these savings are not anticipated to be significant depending upon the amount of material produced and used.

SMALL BUSINESS AND MICRO-BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSES

No adverse economic affects are anticipated to any small business as a result of the implementation of the proposed amendments because fee assessments for the production of certain sewage sludge will be eliminated. The amendments would implement provisions of House Bill 3288 (relating to the exclusion of certain sewage sludge from solid waste disposal fees), 76th Legislature, 1999.

The proposed rule amendments would eliminate disposal fees charged to wastewater treatment plants or other processors for the production and use of Class A sewage sludge. Class A sewage sludge is defined as material that has been treated to reduce the density of pathogens to the lowest level provided by agency rule, and complies with commission rules regarding metal concentration limits, pathogen reduction, and vector attraction reduction.

Although no small or micro-business has been identified to be affected by the proposed rule, any affected small or micro-business would realize cost savings due to the abatement of the fee assessment. Most of the facilities affected by the proposed amendments will be owned or operated by units of local government. However, for those that are small businesses some cost savings could be realized, though these are not anticipated to be significant, depending on the amount of material produced.

DRAFT REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS

Staff has reviewed the proposed rulemaking in light of the regulatory analysis requirements of Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 and has determined that the rulemaking does not meet the definition of a major environmental rule as defined by the Texas Government Code. "Major environmental rule" means a rule the specific intent of which is to protect the environment or reduce risks to human health from environmental exposure and that may adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public health and safety of the state or a sector of the state. The proposed amendment is administrative in that it would eliminate a fee for the disposal of sewage sludge that has been properly treated. The removal of this fee should benefit persons involved in the management of this material and therefore does not materially affect the economy in an adverse way. Elimination of the fee promotes proper treatment of sewage sludge and does not adversely affect the environment, or the public health and safety of the state or a sector of the state.

In addition, the proposed rules do not exceed a standard set by federal law, exceed an express requirement of state law, or exceed a requirement of a delegation agreement. The amendment implements the specific provisions of House Bill 3288 which removed the commission's authority to assess such a fee.

TAKINGS IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Staff has prepared a takings impact assessment for the rule under Texas Government Code, 2007.043. Promulgation and enforcement of the rule will not burden private real property because the action proposed removes fee requirements for disposal of certain sludges. This action does not constitute a taking of private property.

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONSISTENCY REVIEW

Staff has reviewed this rulemaking proposal and found that it is subject to the Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP) and is consistent with all applicable goals and policies of the CMP. The rule conforms with §501.14(d) of the Coastal Coordination Act Implementation Rules by promoting the proper treatment of sewage sludge to reduce pathogens as required by the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act, §361.022(c) through the elimination of a disposal fee on sewage sludge that has been properly treated. Additionally, this rule amendment implements administrative changes without significantly affecting the current substantive requirements which provide for the protection of the environment and public health and safety.

SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS

Comments may be submitted to Lisa Martin, MC 205, Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or faxed to (512) 239-4808. All comments should reference Rule Log Number 1998-079- 312-WT. Comments must be received by 5:00 pm., June 19, 2000. For further information, please contact Dan Burke, Policy and Regulations Division, (512) 239-1543.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

The amendment is proposed under Texas Water Code, §5.103, which provides the commission with the authority to adopt any rules necessary to carry out the powers and duties under the provisions of the Texas Water Code and other laws of this state and to establish and approve all general policies of the commission; and the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act, Health and Safety Code, §361.011, which provides the commission with the authority to manage municipal waste and §361.013, which provides the commission with the authority to adopt rules and establish fees for the transportation and disposal of solid waste.

The proposed amendment implements HB 3288, 76th Legislature, 1999.

§312.9.Sludge Fee Program.

(a)

The following words and terms, when used in this section, shall have the following meanings [ meaning ], unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

(1)-(3)

(No change.)

(b)

Except as provided in subsection (f) of this section, the amount of the annual fee which is assessed is determined by weight of solids disposed of and reported to the commission as of September 1, of each year. Failure to report the disposal of sewage sludge or water treatment sludge does not exempt a registrant or permitted from this fee. The fees shall be as follows.

(1)

The minimum fee assessed against each registration or permit is $100, regardless of whether the site is active or inactive.

[ (2)

When water treatment sludge is mixed with a Class A sewage sludge or when sewage sludge that is classified as Class A is destined to be applied to the land for a beneficial use, the fee shall be $0.20 per dry ton. ]

(2)

[ (3) ] When water treatment sludge is mixed with a Class B sewage sludge or when sewage sludge that is classified as Class B is applied to the land for beneficial use as described in Subchapter B of this chapter (relating to Land Application) the fee shall be $0.75 per dry ton.

(3)

[ (4) ] When sewage sludge or water treatment sludge is applied to a site for disposal and the disposal was authorized by the commission or predecessor agency prior to the October 1, 1995, the fee shall be $1.25 per dry ton.

(4)

[ (5) ] When sewage sludge is applied to a site for disposal or when water treatment sludge is applied to a site for disposal and the activity requires a permit as specified in Subchapter F of this chapter (relating to Disposal of Water Treatment Sludge), and the disposal is authorized by the commission or predecessor agency on October 1, 1995 or thereafter, the fee shall be $1.25 per ton.

(5)

[ (6) ] When water treatment sludge is applied to a site for disposal and the activity does not require a permit as specified in Subchapter F of this chapter [ (relating to Disposal of Water Treatment Sludge) ], the fee shall be $0.20 per dry ton.

(6)

[ (7) ] When sewage sludge is fired in a sewage sludge incinerator as described in Subchapter E of this chapter (relating to Guidelines And Standards for Sludge Incineration) the fee shall be $1.25 per dry ton.

(c)-(f)

(No change.)

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State, on May 8, 2000.

TRD-200003209

Margaret Hoffman

Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Proposed date of adoption: July 26, 2000

For further information, please call: (512) 239-1966