PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following proposed rule:
Proposed Action:
Amendment of Subpart 5-1 of Title 10 NYCRR.
Statutory authority:
Public Health Law, sections 201(1)(l) and 225(8)
Subject:
Public Water Systems.
Purpose:
To incorporate mandatory regulations (federal Ground Water Rule) to increase protection against microbial pathogens in ground water.
Substance of proposed rule (Full text is posted at the following State website:www.health.state.ny.us):
These amendments are necessary due to the promulgation by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the Ground Water Rule (GWR) on October 11, 2006, in order to make New York's regulations of Public Water Systems (PWS) consistent with EPA requirements.
The GWR was promulgated to reduce the risk of exposure to fecal contamination that may be present in public water systems that use ground water sources. The GWR also specifies when corrective action (which may include disinfection) is required to protect consumers who receive water from ground water systems from bacteria and viruses.
The new requirements of the GWR include:
• new Maximum Contaminant Levels/Treatment Techniques for indicators of fecal contamination in ground water sources (wells);
• expanded requirements for conducting inspections of public water systems known as sanitary surveys;
• additional record-keeping requirements for public water systems and local and state health departments; and
• customer notification by public water systems when there is a significant deficiency in the facilities or operation of the public water system or if there is fecal contamination of the raw source water and the system does not provide at least 4-log (99.99%) removal or disinfection of viruses.
Water systems must correct significant deficiencies at facilities or in system operation which may allow contaminated water to reach consumers, when directed by the State or local health department. Customers must be notified and the system must correct this violation of the regulation, either immediately or after development of an approved correction plan.
The minimum required concentration of disinfectant entering the water distribution system (and for chemical disinfectants other than chlorine) is clarified. Systems using chlorine must maintain a minimum of 0.2 mg/l at the entry point, and must notify the State if the concentration falls below that level for four or more hours. Systems must take specific actions if the system fails to meet these requirements, and notify the public in case of failure to meet the specified requirements.
Monitoring plan requirements are expanded to require inclusion of all required sampling locations and frequencies. For simple ground water systems, these monitoring plans will be simple to prepare. While comprehensive monitoring plans are currently required in Department guidance, the current requirements apply only to plans for monitoring disinfection byproducts.
Consecutive PWS, who purchase or otherwise obtain water from PWS's using ground water sources (wholesalers), must describe in their monitoring plan the process by which they will notify their wholesaler in the event of a total-coliform positive sample (unless invalidated or determined to have originated in the distribution system). If the consecutive system, or the wholesaler, provides 4-log treatment that is confirmed, using process compliance monitoring, this additional notification and source water sampling is not required. Confirmation of treatment system performance through measurements and record keeping is known as process compliance monitoring.
Several tables summarizing violation determination or monitoring frequencies have been revised and or added. The affected tables and substantial changes include:
Table 6
• New treatment technique violations when fecal contamination is found at a system that does not provide 4-log microbial treatment.
• The required fecal indicator will remain E.coli. (If fecal contamination is observed in the untreated source water, corrective action must be taken.)
Table 11
• Enterococcus and bacteriophage are added as fecal contaminants, however no monitoring requirements are added.
• Systems with disinfection waivers will no longer be eligible for reduced microbiological monitoring, previously allowed at State discretion.
New Table 11B
• Lists actions required when microbial contamination is detected in routine or follow-up monitoring samples.
GWR Notifications are added to Table 13 of Required Notifications
Tables 15 and 15A
• Revised to reflect changes to disinfection residual measurement as amended by the GWR.
All PWS's must respond to notification of significant deficiencies observed at the PWS and indicate that failure to address any significant deficiencies is a treatment technique violation.
The requirements for completion of daily operation records are simplified to allow for the use of electronic or other forms. These records must include documentation of process compliance monitoring at ground water systems where 4-log treatment is required.
Reporting requirements for all PWS's specific to GWR violations and significant deficiencies have been expanded to ensure that consumers are informed of source contamination or threats to the quality of water provided by the water system.
The reporting responsibilities of consecutive systems are clarified, and include notification of the wholesaler from whom they purchase water as well as the health department, whenever microbiological contamination is observed.
Ground water systems must notify the State within 24 hours of a GWR violation. Failure to do so will result in the requirement for a Tier 1 notification for failure to notify as well as for the violation.
Text of proposed rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:
Katherine Ceroalo, DOH, Bureau of House Counsel, Regulatory Affairs Unit, Room 2438, ESP, Tower Building, Albany, NY 12237, (518) 473-7488, email: regsqna@health.state.ny.us
Data, views or arguments may be submitted to:
Same as above.
Public comment will be received until:
45 days after publication of this notice.
Regulatory Impact Statement
Statutory Authority:
Public Health Law Section 201(1)(l) authorizes the Department of Health (DOH) to regulate public water systems. In addition, Section 225 (8) requires the DOH to establish a system of public notification of public health hazards to be used by public water systems (PWSs). The revisions are in accord with the requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency for the Ground Water Rule (GWR), at 71 FR 65574, November 8, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 216 Correction 71 FR 67427, November 21, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 224.
Legislative Objectives:
The legislative objective is to protect public health. The purpose of promulgating these revised regulations is the enhancement of current protections governing public water supply systems with ground water sources for protection of the health of the consumers. Further, it is necessary to update the State Sanitary Code to be consistent with federal requirements in order to minimize burdens placed on regulated parties.
Needs and Benefits:
An estimated 8,600 public water systems (PWSs) in New York State, serving over 3.6 million people, use ground water as the source of drinking water. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated revised federal drinking water regulations to reduce potential adverse health risks that may be associated with ground water sources and, in particular, the risks associated with fecal contamination. Fecal contamination includes all of the bacteria and viruses-both pathogenic (disease-causing) and non-pathogenic-found in feces. Under certain circumstances, these microorganisms can migrate into ground water sources. Unlike existing requirements for surface water sources, no earlier federal regulations required filtration or disinfection of ground water sources to remove microbial contaminants, although New York State currently requires disinfection at all public water systems, including ground water systems.
These revisions to the PWS regulations, 10 NYCRR Subpart 5-1, are proposed to implement federally mandated provisions of the GWR that were promulgated in October 2006 and became effective December 1, 2009. The GWR aims to improve upon the protection provided by existing sanitary survey requirements for Ground Water Systems (GWSs). A risk-targeted approach was selected for implementation. Because of the difficulties involved in monitoring for the wide range of specific pathogenic bacteria and viruses that could occur in ground water, one of the key provisions of the risk-targeted approach is monitoring for a more easily measured bacterial or viral fecal indicator microorganism. Based on source water sampling results, as well as sanitary survey results, PWSs will be required to take action to minimize the possible presence of pathogenic bacteria and viruses that pose threats to human health.
In the event that the revisions are not made, water systems will still be required to comply with the regulations, and additionally work directly with a second agency for oversight and enforcement. Oversight of public water systems in New York State is by State and Local Health Departments: State, City, and County Health Departments (SLHDs). If the revised regulations are not adopted, oversight of water systems for the GWR will be done directly by EPA while oversight for the implementation of the remaining aspects of public water system oversight will continue under the SLHDs. Additional reporting will be required for both agencies.
The Economic Analysis for the GWR (EAGWR) that was prepared by EPA (EPA 815-R-06-014, October 2006), is available at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/. It reports that the "GWR will provide important protection against illnesses and deaths attributable to ground water contamination. EPA also believes that the GWR will provide this desired protection from groundwater pathogen contamination at a justifiable cost." EPA found that "The GWR is cost-effective (using either the Enhanced or the Traditional Cost of Illness approach): no other alternative achieves greater benefits at the same cost or the same benefits at lower cost."
After a new federal regulation is adopted, requirements must be fulfilled so the State can obtain primacy enforcement responsibility (primacy), a formal process of transfer of authority for rule implementation in which EPA ensures that the State has the authority to take all necessary actions for rule implementation. The GWR was promulgated with a primacy deadline of October 2008 but with the option of a two-year extension. The extension of the date that final primacy requirements are due to the EPA was negotiated and, on November 24, 2008, approved by EPA Region 2. The date for submission of the primacy package by New York State for primacy in implementing the GWR is now November 8, 2010. These revisions of the State Sanitary Code, Subpart 5-1, are needed to incorporate rule requirements and revisions to obtain primacy for GWR implementation from the EPA.
Costs:
Costs to Public Water Systems:
The costs to ground water systems to comply with the rule were estimated based on EPA's EAGWR. For those approximately 300 systems in New York State (3.5% of approximately 8,600 systems statewide) needing capital construction to comply with the rule, initial capital costs were estimated by EPA at an average of about $1.51 per household per year. For systems serving less than 10,000 customers (over 99% of all ground water systems), the average per system cost was estimated at an average of $1900. Overall, the cost of compliance is estimated at less than $1 per ground water system customer household per year.
Costs to the Agency, the State and Local Governments for the Implementation and Continuation of the Rule:
State and local government agencies are affected in several ways by these rule revisions. Some public water systems are operated by local, state or federal government agencies. In New York State, direct supervision of public water systems is performed by SLHDs. The cost to the government agencies that operate water systems to comply with these revised rules will be higher than any increases in oversight costs incurred to implement this rule. There will be little increase in the cost of oversight from the current cost of oversight activities required under the existing rules because most oversight activities are currently required. There will be a small increase in the cost related to record keeping, but the greatest impact to oversight will be the increased effort to enforce rule provisions. Still, if the regulations are not revised, and oversight is split between the SLHDs and the EPA who could retain GWR primacy, the burden on public water systems will be greater.
Source(s) of Cost Information:
The EAGWR was developed by the EPA to evaluate costs of GWR implementation and summarized costs nationally. The report is available online at the address given above. The costs were proportionally applied to the size and type of ground water Public Water Systems in New York State. For the purposes of the EAGWR, one-time and yearly costs were projected over a 25-year time period to coincide with the estimated life span of capital equipment and a time lag of 5 to 10 years for treatment technology installation after rule promulgation.
Local Government Mandates:
These revised rules impose little change in what is requested of the SLHDs. Most of the SLHDs that will be overseeing implementation of these rules are operated by the county governments. None of the provisions affect public water systems owned or operated by local governments any differently from systems operated by any other public or private parties. Local governments that operate public water systems will have to comply with the revised regulations, but the new compliance standards will apply even if the revised regulations are not adopted.
Paperwork:
These revised regulations do not require new forms or other paperwork but for some PWS there will be revisions to the current forms. The biggest increase in paperwork will be for any systems for which enforcement action will be required. If these revisions are not made, the paperwork burden will increase because system reporting will need to go to the EPA as well as the SLHDs. Reporting requirements may vary between the two agencies resulting in two different reporting standards.
Duplication:
Adoption of these revised regulations will reduce duplication in effort for public water systems that use ground water sources because without the revisions, the EPA will not grant primacy to the State for GWR provisions. Without State primacy, systems will face the complication of direct oversight by both EPA and SLHDs for drinking water rules compared with the current system of oversight by SLHDs. States were granted discretion for certain aspects of rule implementation, without reducing the standard for implementation. The simplest approach that met minimum requirements and protected public health was selected in coordination for rule implementation with advice from a Ground Water Rule Implementation Work Group (GWRIWG) that included representatives of the regulated community and local governments.
Alternatives:
The GWRIWG, consisting of members of groups impacted by the revisions to the regulations under the GWR, met several times to provide advice to the Bureau of Water Supply Protection on rule implementation. Some of the options discussed but not selected might have posed an even greater financial or administrative burden on the public water systems. The alternative of not revising the regulations was considered. This would make oversight of water system compliance with the ground water rule the responsibility of the EPA. That option would assign additional reporting and coordination efforts to the water systems in order to report to, meet with, and otherwise be overseen by both the EPA and the SLHD that would retain primacy for enforcement of other drinking water regulations. The proposed rule revisions are the better alternative.
Federal Standards:
These revisions are proposed because of changes in the minimum standards of the federal government for public water systems. After the federal government adopts drinking water regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the state obtains primacy for oversight of rule implementation through the primacy process, which includes revising state regulations and developing or revising implementation guidance documents. Certain aspects of GWR implementation were left to states. The proposed options were selected to provide the least impact on public water systems while meeting rule requirements and protecting public health. For example, EPA requires states to select a fecal indicator but suggests that using two is more protective. To date, available information from New York public water systems do not show that the additional expense of requiring sampling for two indicators of fecal contamination would be more protective than continuing the practice of sampling for E. Coli.
If the proposed revisions to the regulations are not adopted, the federal standards will be implemented directly by the federal EPA and may result in a greater regulatory and compliance burden on the water systems.
Compliance Schedule:
Public Water Systems must comply with GWR requirements effective December 1, 2009, even if these proposed regulatory revisions are not promulgated. SLHDs will have to ensure that all 8 components of the sanitary survey are completed at all community water systems by December 31, 2012 and noncommunity water systems by December 31, 2014. Since sanitary surveys are already required at all public water systems in New York State, this will require only minor changes in the documentation of the sanitary survey.
Effective December 1, 2009, any time a routine coliform sample has a positive result at a ground water system that does not provide and document effective treatment, the water system will have to collect one or more follow-up samples from the raw source water. If the system is complying with the GWR by treating the water, they will have to ensure that process compliance monitoring demonstrates adequate, effective treatment and report the measurements to the SLHD with their monthly operations report.
Note: The above compliance schedule was established by EPA and has taken effect. In late 2008, The NY State Department of Health (DOH) and the EPA signed an agreement extending the deadline for DOH to obtain primary enforcement responsibility (''primacy'') for implementing the GWR, as required under federal regulations. The extension agreement expires on November 8, 2010. When DOH obtains primacy, it will accept authority and responsibility for implementing all aspects of the GWR. The extension agreement authorized DOH to implement day-to-day oversight of rule implementation, while EPA conducts any required GWR enforcement actions on issues that are not resolved within 60 days. Expeditious adoption of these regulatory changes will allow the Department to submit the primacy package to EPA prior to the expiration of the extension agreement.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Effect of Rule:
The revisions to 10 NYCRR Subpart 5-1 are necessary to implement the Federal Ground Water Rule (GWR). If the revisions are not made, the provisions of the rule will be imposed directly by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in addition to the current structure where oversight of public water system compliance with the rest of 10 NYCRR Part 5 is conducted by State and Local (City and County) Health Departments (SLHDs). So the impact of adopting these revisions to the regulations will benefit small businesses by allowing oversight to remain the responsibility of the SLHDs. Systems will have one fewer set of reporting paperwork to prepare and one less agency directly overseeing regulatory compliance. Because most of the sources for ground water systems are not contaminated, most water systems will need to make only minor adjustments to current operation requirements in order to implement the requirements of the GWR.
Local governments and small businesses operate most of the ground water public water systems (GWPWS) affected by these revisions to 10 NYCRR Subpart 5-1. The revised regulations impact about 8,600 of the almost 10,000 public water systems in New York State. Of these impacted systems, 8 serve a population greater than 100,000, 60 serve populations between 10,000 and 100,000, and the rest serve smaller populations. Of the seven largest systems, two are water authorities (one mixed public and private ownership, the other local government owned), three are operated by privately owned companies, and two are municipalities. It is estimated that over 95% of the impacted water systems are either small businesses or local governments. In New York State, about 950 GWPWS are operated by local governments, over 200 GWPWS by state agencies and 16 GWPWS by the federal government.
Compliance Requirements:
These revisions require only minor changes to record keeping or reporting requirements for public water systems. Up to 10 % of the water systems may need to provide additional documentation of disinfection adequacy in the event that they increase the documentation of treatment process as one of the alternatives they may take to comply with the rule requirements. For most of these systems, the additional documentation would amount to recording disinfectant concentration, an existing requirement, at a new or alternate location from currently required location(s), once a day. If these revisions are not made, reporting requirements will increase as new reporting to the EPA will be required in addition to reporting to the SLHD, but the content of the reports will be the same whether one or two agencies provide oversight.
Professional Services:
The revision of these rules require only minor changes to the requirements for professional services that a small business or local government is likely to need to comply with the rule. There will be a small (averaging less than $5 per system per year) increase in water sampling costs for some of the water systems, particularly those that use more than one well to supply water to their customers on a regular basis. In the event that contamination in the form of a total coliform positive sample is detected during routine sampling of the distribution system at a public water system, source water sampling must be completed to determine whether fecal contamination is present in the source water. A typical water sample analyzed for total coliform and E. Coli costs about $50, including sampling and analysis.
Ground water systems that serve less than 1000 customers will have additional sampling costs if they have more than one well. Because systems must sample either each well or representative wells according to their sampling plan, systems with a sampling plan can minimize the need for additional sampling. Of the systems impacted by this rule, 703 have more than two wells, and 1389 use two wells. The remaining systems operate a single well. The 114 systems with a single well serving 1000 or more people may incur additional sampling costs (averaging less than $5 per system per year) to comply with this rule. The other 5889 systems serving less than 1000 population with one well will not be required to pay for any extra samples under these rules, unless they have fecal contamination in the source water.
Because of the enhanced treatment requirements in the few cases of a public water system where fecal contamination is confirmed in the source water, professional services may be required for design of new or updated water treatment or other system updates. Prices will vary with the complexity of required design. EPA estimated costs were prorated for New York State and the cost for professional design services was estimated to be about $0.30 (thirty cents) per household per year.
Compliance Costs:
The EPA estimates that the mean annual cost per household for complying with the GWR will be less than $1 a year for 96% of households affected by the new requirements of the rule. For an estimated 83% of systems, there will be no additional costs incurred in complying with this rule. For those systems needing capital construction to comply with the rule, initial capital costs were estimated by EPA as an average of about $1.51 per household per year, with an average of $1900 per system serving less than 10,000 customers (over 99% of all ground water systems). As described under "Compliance Requirements", above, the cost to systems of compliance with GWR requirements will be higher if the regulations are not revised as direct oversight would be performed by both EPA and the SLHDs. Because compliance with the federal regulations is mandatory for public water systems, the overall workload is similar, but higher costs come from the time and effort spent meeting and otherwise communicating with the EPA, an additional oversight agency.
Economic and Technological Feasibility:
Extensive research has been completed by the EPA to determine whether small businesses and local governments can economically and technically comply with these revised regulations. Their report includes cost/benefit and feasibility analyses and is available online at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/gwr/pdfs/support_gwr_economicanalysis.pdf.
Currently available technology is adequate to meet GWR requirements, although ongoing or future innovation may result in water treatment that would use less energy and/or chemicals while remaining effective at protecting the health of consumers. About 5% of systems may need to add to currently utilized facilities in order to comply with this rule, most of which would be at minimal additional expense.
Minimizing Adverse Impact:
Water systems will have to comply with the requirements of the GWR even if these rules are not revised. In reviewing aspects of rule implementation over which the EPA granted limited discretion to states, costs for implementation as well as ease of implementation by water systems and effective protection of ground water from contamination were considered. For example, some systems are required to complete triggered monitoring, following the trigger of a total coliform positive sample from the distribution system of a public water system. The proposed regulations will require testing for the most effective single fecal indicator, rather than the optional two or three fecal indicator organisms that may be selected by states. Another example is that when a sample collected from the distribution system is found to contain total coliform bacteria (TC+), at a public water system serving less than 1000 population, the system may use one of their currently required follow-up samples rather than collecting an additional sample at the raw water source. Again, the adverse impact of implementing this federally mandated rule will be greater if the regulations are not revised because of the additional oversight agency added if the state is unable to obtain primacy for rule implementation.
Small Business and Local Government Participation:
An ad hoc work group was organized to provide advice to the Department on those aspects of GWR implementation over which states were given discretion. For example, states are instructed to choose at least one fecal indicator organism and were encouraged to select two microorganisms as fecal indicators for use under the rule. The group provided valuable advice on this and other topics. The work group consensus was in favor of the Department's adoption of the GWR. The following organizations and individuals were invited to participate and kept apprised of work group meetings and progress:
• New York State Section of the American Water Works Association (NYSAWWA)
• New York State Association of Towns
• New York State Conference of Environmental Heath Directors
• New York State Association of County Health Officials
• New York State Rural Water Association (NYRWA)
• New York State Housing Association, Inc.
• League of Women Voters
• New York State Hospitality & Tourism Association
• Empire State Restaurant & Tavern Association
• New York State Restaurant Association
• Operators of NY State Public Water Systems (not a group)
Of these, most groups accepted the invitation and participated in some form, whether by attending meetings and participating in discussions, by providing comments on proposed alternatives, or by coordinating with representatives of other groups who were not able to participate directly. Local governments were represented through the participation of county health department staff (CEHD). The interests of water systems were represented by NYSAWWA and NYRWA. In addition, the USEPA consulted with small businesses, water organizations, states and other representatives in writing the requirements of the federal GWR that these revisions to the State Sanitary Code (in 10 NYCRR) are intended to address.
Rural Area Flexibility Analysis
Types and Estimated Numbers of Rural Areas:
The proposed revisions to 10 NYCRR Subpart 5-1 are being made in response to promulgation of the federal Ground Water Rule (GWR) that resulted in revisions to several sections of federal regulations. The GWR goal is to reduce exposure to fecal contamination in the drinking water provided by public water systems. These proposed revisions are needed in order for the New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Water Supply Protection to obtain primacy from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for enforcement of the GWR. If New York does not obtain primacy for rule enforcement, the public ground water systems will be required to comply with the rule provisions under the additional oversight of the EPA. That means that instead of direct oversight provided by the by State and Local (City and County) Health Departments (SLHDs) where the water system is located, the system will be overseen by the SLHD for implementation of some rules and by the EPA for the GWR. The revisions impact all public ground water systems including many public water systems in rural areas. However, if these revisions to the regulations are not made, the impact on systems across the state will not be reduced, and in fact may be greater.
The revisions apply to public water systems in New York State that use ground water as the source for any part of their drinking water. In New York's rural counties, much of the population served by public water systems is served by a large number of mostly small public ground water systems. Most surface water systems (surface water systems supply drinking water to over 80% of New York's population served by community/residential public water systems) are not impacted by this rule. Ground water sources are used by 87% of the public water systems in the state (serving about 30% of the community water system population (Note, because some surface water systems also use ground water sources, this does not add up to 100%)). Many of the systems that use ground water are located in the 42 of the 62 counties in New York State that are considered rural.
Statewide, about 70% of public water systems that use ground water are in rural counties, defined as those counties with a population less than 200,000 residents. These ground water systems serve about 60% of the residential population served by public water systems in these rural counties. The rural counties also host 68%, (4305 of the 6343) of the ground water noncommuity water systems in the state (those public water systems at schools, factories, motels, restaurants and other locations with nonresidential or seasonal consumers). These noncommunity systems in rural counties serve 74% of the population served by noncommuity public water systems.
EPA's analysis of the economic impact of the GWR indicates that there will be a proportionally higher impact on small systems required to implement changes to their operation, particularly in cases where treatment is added or enhanced in order to meet rule requirements, largely because there are fewer customers per system to share the cost. While most rural systems are small systems, EPA did not differentiate between rural and suburban small water systems in their economic impact analysis.
Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements; and Professional Services:
These revisions do not substantially change reporting or record keeping requirements for public water systems in rural areas. Water systems are currently required to maintain records and report to the SLHDs no less than monthly. For a few systems, there may be minor changes in reporting requirements, but for most systems, reporting requirements will not change. Because of the enhanced treatment requirements in the case of a public water system where fecal contamination is found in the source water, in some cases, professional services may be required for design of new or updated water treatment or other system updates. If not adopted, the federal GWR provisions will be directly overseen at the water systems by the EPA. This would add the complication of oversight being provided by two separate agencies, so the impact of not updating the regulations on systems will be greater than authorizing the New York State Department of Health and its designees to enforce the new provisions.
Costs:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the mean annual cost per household for complying with the GWR will be less than $1 a year for 96% of households affected by the new requirements of the rule. For an estimated 83% of systems, there will be no additional costs incurred in complying with this rule. For those systems needing capital construction to comply with the rule, initial capital costs were estimated by EPA as an average of about $1.51 per household per year, with an average of $1900 per system serving less than 10,000 customers (over 99% of all ground water systems). Again, the cost will be higher if the regulations are not revised as compliance with the federal regulations is mandatory for the public water systems.
Minimizing Adverse Impact:
In developing the discretionary aspects of GWR implementation, efforts were taken to make implementation as simple as possible, and to minimize blanket requirements such as universal chlorination requirements or the sudden elimination of disinfection waivers. For most rural public water systems, any additional costs for implementation of revised rule provisions will be minimal and be incurred over a period of several years. If a rural water system is found to have fecal contamination of the source water, then immediate action will be required to provide safe drinking water to the system's customers.
Rural Area Participation:
An ad hoc work group was organized to provide advice on those aspects of GWR implementation over which states were given discretion. For example, states are instructed to choose at least one fecal indicator organism and were encouraged to select two microorganisms as fecal indicators for use under the rule. The group provided advice on this and other items. The work group consensus was in favor of the Department's adoption of the GWR. The following organizations and individuals were invited to participate and kept apprised of work group meetings and progress:
• New York State Section of the American Water Works Association (NYSAWWA)
• New York State Association of Towns
• New York State Conference of Environmental Heath Directors
• New York State Association of County Health Officials
• New York State Rural Water Association (NYRWA)
• New York State Housing Association, Inc.
• League of Women Voters
• New York State Hospitality & Tourism Association
• Empire State Restaurant & Tavern Association
• New York State Restaurant Association
• Operators of NY State Public Water Systems (not a group)
Several of these work group participants represent rural communities and businesses. The Restaurant Association (who also represented the Tavern Association) and the New York State Housing Association, Inc., represent numerous businesses which operate public water systems in rural areas. Staff from participating County Health Departments, including a representative of the New York State Conference of Environmental Health Directors and staff of New York State Health Department District and Regional Offices represented rural areas across the state. The New York Rural Water Association and New York Section of the American Water Works Association both have members who work at or own ground water systems in rural areas and participated in development of the regulations.
Job Impact Statement
The Department of Health has determined that the proposed revisions will not have substantial adverse impact on jobs or employment opportunities. The proposed revisions enhance existing requirements under the State Sanitary Code for protection of drinking water quality. In the event that these revisions are not adopted by New York State, the requirements will be imposed directly by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Thus, the adoption of the changes to the regulations will not substantially impact employment. It is possible that new technologies or products developed to comply with the revised rules would bring new employment opportunities to the state.
