No. 29368 (Amendment): R309-225. Monitoring and Water Quality: Consumer Confidence Reports

DAR File No.: 29368
Filed: 12/26/2006, 01:02
Received by: NL

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

This rule change is to address the changes required by the federal Long Term 1 and 2 Surface Water Treatment rules (LT1 and LT2), the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts rule (Stage 2), and the Improvement Priority rule (IPS). There are a total of eight amendments that address these rules (Rules R309-105, R309-110, R309-200, R309-210, R309-215, R309-220, R309-225, and R309-150). This rule adoption is necessary to maintain primacy. (DAR NOTE: The proposed amendments are as follows: Rule R309-105 under DAR No. 29369, Rule R309-110 under DAR No. 29364, Rule R309-200 under DAR No. 29371, Rule R309-210 under DAR No. 29365, Rule R309-215 under DAR No. 29366, Rule R309-220 under DAR No. 29367, Rule R309-225 under DAR No. 29368, and Rule R309-150 (changed to R309-400) under DAR No. 29363 all in this issue, January 15, 2007, of the Bulletin.)

Summary of the rule or change:

This change incorporates Stage 2 detections using the locational running annual average compliance methodology.

State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:

Section 19-4-104, and 40 CFR 141 subparts T, W, L, U, and V

Anticipated cost or savings to:

the state budget:

Costs for the state budget, local governments, and other persons will be based on an aggregate for the changes in Rules R309-105, R309-110, R309-200, R309-210, R309-215, R309-220, R309-225 and R309-150. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates state costs to be $9,260,000 annually. Using the percentage of Utah systems versus the national total (approximately 1%), Utah's annual impact is approximately $92,600.

local governments:

For this rule change, aggregate costs will vary by water system size, sources utilized, and type of treatment. EPA estimates the total national annual cost at $143,407,000. Again using the percentage of Utah systems versus the national total, Utah's systems' impact is estimated to be $1,434,070 annually.

other persons:

Other persons that own and operate a public water system may have the same cost impact as listed under "local government" above. Costs to consumers will vary depending upon the water system size. EPA estimates the cost to vary from $1 to $301 per household per year.

Compliance costs for affected persons:

Aggregate compliance costs for the rule change will vary depending upon the water system size, type of source, and type of treatment. EPA estimates the cost to vary from $1 to $301 per household per year. The highest costs are associated with the very small public water systems where there are very few connections to spread the cost of monitoring and treatment across. Persons that own and operate a public water system may have the same cost impact as listed under "local government" above.

Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:

The Department of Environmental Quality agrees with the comments in the cost and compliance summaries above. Dianne R. Nielson, Executive Director

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:

Environmental Quality
Drinking Water
150 N 1950 W
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116-3085

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

Patti Fauver at the above address, by phone at 801-536-4196, by FAX at 801-536-4211, or by Internet E-mail at [e-mail]

Interested persons may present their views on this rule by submitting written comments to the address above no later than 5:00 p.m. on:

02/14/2007

This rule may become effective on:

03/02/2007

Authorized by:

Ken Bousfield, Acting Director

RULE TEXT

R309. Environmental Quality, Drinking Water.

R309-225. Monitoring and Water Quality: Consumer Confidence Reports.

R309-225-1. Purpose.

This rule establishes 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 the risks (if any) from exposure to contaminants detected in the drinking water in an accurate and understandable manner.

R309-225-2 Authority.

R309-225-3 Definitions.

R309-225-4 General Requirements.

R309-225-5 Content of the reports.

R309-225-6 Required additional health information.

R309-225-7 Report delivery and recordkeeping.

R309-225-8 Major Sources of [of ]Contaminants in Drinking Water.

 

R309-225-5. Content of the Reports.

(1) Each community water system must provide to its customers an annual report that contains the information specified in this section and R309-225-6.

 

. . . . . . .

 

(4) Information on Detected Contaminants.

(a) This sub-section specifies the requirements for information to be included in each report for contaminants subject to mandatory monitoring (except Cryptosporidium). It applies to:

(i) Contaminants subject to an MCL, action level, maximum residual disinfectant level, or treatment technique (regulated contaminants);

(ii) Contaminants for which monitoring is required by 40 CFR section 141.40 (unregulated contaminants); and

(iii) Disinfection by-products or microbial contaminants for which monitoring is required by R309-210, R309-215 and 40 CFR sections 141.142 and 141.143, except as provided under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, and which are detected in the finished water.

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

(c) The data must be derived from data collected to comply with EPA and State monitoring and analytical requirements during calendar year 1998 for the first report and subsequent calendar years thereafter except that:

(i) Where a system is allowed to monitor for regulated contaminants less often than once a year, 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 are from the most recent testing done in accordance with the regulations. No data older than 5 years need be included.

(ii) Results of monitoring in compliance with federal Information Collection Rule, (40 CFR sections 141.142 and 141.143) need only be included for 5 years from the date of last sample or until any of the detected contaminants becomes regulated and subject to routine monitoring requirements, whichever comes first.

(d) For detected regulated contaminants, the table(s) must contain:

(i) The MCL for that contaminant expressed as a number equal to or greater than 1.0;

(ii) The MCLG for that contaminant expressed in the same units as the MCL;

(iii) If there is no MCL for a detected contaminant, the table must indicate that there is a treatment technique, or specify the action level, applicable to that contaminant, and the report must include the definitions for treatment technique and/or action level, as appropriate, specified in paragraph(3)(c) of this section;

(iv) For contaminants subject to an MCL, except turbidity and total coliforms, the highest contaminant level used to determine compliance with the quality standards listed in R309-200 and the range of detected levels, as follows:

(A) When compliance with the MCL is determined annually or less frequently: the highest detected level at any sampling point and the range of detected levels expressed in the same units as the MCL.

(B) When compliance with the MCL is determined by calculating a running annual average of all samples taken at a sampling point: the highest average of any of the sampling points and the range of all sampling points expressed in the same units as the MCL. For the MCLs for TTHM and HAA5 in R309-200-5(3)(c)(vi), systems must include the highest locational running annual average for TTHM and HAA5 and the range of individual sample results for all monitoring locations expressed in the same units as the MCL. If more than one location exceeds the TTHM and HAA5 MCL, the system must include the locational running annual averages for all locations that exceed the MCL.

(C) When compliance with the MCL is determined on a system-wide basis by calculating a running annual average of all samples at all monitoring locations[sampling points]: the average and range of detection expressed in the same units as the MCL. The system is required to include individual sample results for the IDSE conducted under R309-210-9 when determining the range of TTHM and HAA5 results to be reported in the annual consumer confidence report for the calendar year that the IDSE samples were taken.

(D) When rounding of results to determine compliance with the MCL is allowed by the rules, rounding should be done prior to converting the number in order to express it as a number equal to or greater than 1.0.

(v) For turbidity.

(A) When it is reported pursuant to R309-205-8 and R309-215-9: the highest average monthly value.

(B) When it is reported pursuant to R309-215-9: the highest single measurement and the lowest monthly percentage of samples meeting the turbidity limits specified in R309-200-5(5)(a) and (b) for the filtration technology being used. The report should include an explanation of the reasons for measuring turbidity.

(vi) For lead and copper: the 90th percentile value of the most recent round of sampling and the number of sampling sites exceeding the action level.

(vii) For total coliform:

(A) The highest monthly number of positive samples for systems collecting fewer than 40 samples per month; or

(B) The highest monthly percentage of positive samples for systems collecting at least 40 samples per month.

(viii) For fecal coliform: the total number of positive samples.

(ix) The likely source(s) of detected contaminants to the best of the operator's knowledge. Specific information regarding contaminants may be available in sanitary surveys and source water assessments, and should be used when available to the operator. If the operator lacks specific information on the likely source, the report must include one or more of the typical sources for that contaminant listed in R309-225-8 that is most applicable to the system.

(e) 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 should contain a separate column for each service area and the report should identify each separate distribution system. Alternatively, systems could produce separate reports tailored to include data for each service area.

(f) The table(s) must clearly identify any data indicating violations of MCLs, MRDLs or treatment techniques and the report must contain a clear and readily understandable explanation of the violation including: 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 in R309-220-14.

(g) For detected unregulated contaminants for which monitoring is required (except Cryptosporidium), the table(s) must contain the average and range at which the contaminant was detected. The report may include a brief explanation of the reasons for monitoring for unregulated contaminants.

 

. . . . . . .

 

KEY: drinking water, consumer confidence report, water quality

Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: March 6, 2007 [December 9, 2002]

Notice of Continuation: May 16, 2005

Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 19-4-104; 63-46b-4