Business Impact Analysis

Transcription

1 ACTION: Original DATE: 08/16/ :29 AM Business Impact Analysis Agency Name: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Regulation/Package Title: Disruption of Service Rule Number(s): OAC Rule Date: 06/20/2018 Rule Type: X New Amended 5-Year Review Rescinded The Common Sense Initiative was established by Executive Order K and placed within the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. Under the CSI Initiative, agencies should balance the critical objectives of all regulations with the costs of compliance by the regulated parties. Agencies should promote transparency, consistency, predictability, and flexibility in regulatory activities. Agencies should prioritize compliance over punishment, and to that end, should utilize plain language in the development of regulations. Regulatory Intent 1. Please briefly describe the draft regulation in plain language. Ohio EPA is proposing to adopt a new rule to existing Chapter of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC). The new rule establishes requirements for public systems (PWSs) that have a disruption of service involving the distribution system. The proposed new rule is based on the American Water Works Association Standards C and a recently published study from the Water Research Foundation (WRF). The proposed new rule includes the following: Definition of disruption of service for customers in public system s distribution system (i.e. unavailability of to consumers due to line break) Monitoring requirements following disruption of service. BIA p(183199) pa(322445) d: (715898) print date: 08/16/ :42 AM

2 Classification of disruptive events based on pressure loss at repair site, possible contaminant intrusion, uncontrolled shutdown and extent of depressurization. Response requirements based on the severity (partial vs total loss of pressure) of disruptive event. Requirements for disinfection and flushing after repairs are complete. Severity-based requirements for notification to Ohio EPA and consumers. Bacteriological sampling requirements. 2. Please list the Ohio statute authorizing the Agency to adopt this regulation. ORC Section authorizes the Agency to adopt this regulation and states that the director shall adopt, amend, and rescind such rules in accordance with Chapter 119 of the Revised Code as may be necessary or desirable to govern public systems to protect the public welfare, including rules governing contaminants in that may adversely affect the sustainability of the for its intended uses or that may otherwise adversely affect the public health or welfare. 3. Does the regulation implement a federal requirement? Is the proposed regulation being adopted or amended to enable the state to obtain or maintain approval to administer and enforce a federal law or to participate in a federal program? If yes, please briefly explain the source and substance of the federal requirement. The new rule in OAC chapter does not implement a federal requirement and is not required for Ohio EPA to retain primary enforcement authority from the Federal Government. However, the rules in this chapter are used to enable Ohio EPA to administer the multibarrier approach for protecting public health established by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Ensuring drinking distribution system integrity, public information and safe conveyance of are all discrete parts of the multibarrier approach. This rule will ensure that all PWSs address disruptions of service in a consistent manner and will augment the multibarrier approach. 4. If the regulation includes provisions not specifically required by the federal government, please explain the rationale for exceeding the federal requirement. The proposed new rule does not have a federal counterpart. The rule will allow Ohio EPA to ensure each disruption of service with the potential to impact public health at a PWS is reported and addressed in a consistent manner. 5. What is the public purpose for this regulation (i.e., why does the Agency feel that there needs to be any regulation in this area at all)? The public purpose for adopting this regulation is to ensure the availability of a safe and adequate supply of public drinking at all times. Ohio EPA has had a policy for responding to depressurization events. The policy can be found here: Since the monitoring and notification procedures following a disruption of service are not specified by rule, there were discrepancies in customer notification and monitoring between PWSs following

3 depressurization events. This rule ensures a consistent approach and the availability of safe drinking by requiring PWSs respond to an event that leads to disruption of services based on the AWWA guidelines. The proposed rule safeguards public health by providing requirements on sanitary procedures, bacteriological monitoring and public notification to ensure the delivery of safe drinking to all customers. This rule ensure services are restored as quickly as possible after a disruption of services event and is protective of public health by ensuring consumers are notified when the is not safe to drink. 6. How will the Agency measure the success of this regulation in terms of outputs and/or outcomes? The Agency will base success of this rule based on the PWSs compliance rates with the new requirements. The success of this new rule is based on its ability to promote public health by requiring all PWSs to follow AWWA guidelines when dealing with line breaks to ensure the availability of a safe and adequate supply of drinking at all times The PWS is required to complete the type specific response form to demonstrate that the PWS has followed response requirements as established in the rule. Development of the Regulation 7. Please list the stakeholders included by the Agency in the development or initial review of the draft regulation. If applicable, please include the date and medium by which the stakeholders were initially contacted. Stakeholders include public system owners and operators, consultants, environmental organizations, other state agencies, businesses and in general, the public at large. The only measure a person has to take to be notified of the Division of Drinking and Ground Water s (DDAGW) potential rule activity is to request to be added to our electronic or hard-copy mailing list. Ohio EPA has worked with Ohio AWWA Technology Workgroup to use a recently published study from the Water Research Foundation (WRF) as the basis of the rule. The group met extensively over a course of couple of years to develop rule language. Stakeholders were notified of DDAGW s plans to adopt the new rule addressing disruption of service on September 5, 2017 by electronic or regular mail in accordance with their request. In addition, the rule was placed into interested party review from February 16, 2018 through March 19, 2018 to allow stakeholders and staff to comment on the draft rule. The interested party review period occurs before the rules are filed with JCARR and is used to address any concerns or questions from staff and our stakeholders. A list of interested parties will be furnished upon request. 8. What input was provided by the stakeholders, and how did that input affect the draft regulation being proposed by the Agency?

4 Ohio EPA worked with Ohio AWWA Technology Workgroup extensively over the past few years to develop this rule. In addition, some comments were received during the early stakeholder outreach, internal review and interested party review. All comments were considered, and appropriate revision was made to the rule. The division met with members of the Ohio AWWA to discuss the rule and has revised the rule in consultation with the group. 9. What scientific data was used to develop the rule or the measurable outcomes of the rule? How does this data support the regulation being proposed? Ohio EPA utilized the American Water Works Standard C651 and a Water Research Foundation study, Effective Microbial Control Strategies for Main Breaks and Depressurization, to develop the proposed rule. 10. What alternative regulations (or specific provisions within the regulation) did the Agency consider, and why did it determine that these alternatives were not appropriate? If none, why didn t the Agency consider regulatory alternatives? No alternative regulations were considered since there are no regulations that address the requirements. 11. Did the Agency specifically consider a performance-based regulation? Please explain. Performance-based regulations define the required outcome, but don t dictate the process the regulated stakeholders must use to achieve compliance. The monitoring requirements in the rule are performance-based. The rule defines the outcome but does not limit the methods for monitoring. 12. What measures did the Agency take to ensure that this regulation does not duplicate an existing Ohio regulation? Ohio EPA has reviewed internal regulations, including the disinfection requirements in OAC Rule , public notification requirements in OAC Rules and and the contingency plan requirements in OAC Rule , and determined there are no duplications. The proposed regulation only governs public systems in the state of Ohio, which is one of the obligations of the Director of Ohio EPA under Chapter 6109 of the Revised Code. No other State agency has authority to administer the Safe Drinking Water Act in Ohio. 13. Please describe the Agency s plan for implementation of the regulation, including any measures to ensure that the regulation is applied consistently and predictably for the regulated community. Ohio EPA implementation of this rule includes the following: Seeking input from staff on implementation problems and developing solutions. Involving staff in developing the rule amendments. Working with the stakeholders to develop appropriate notification templates and language.

5 Working with the stakeholders to develop forms for the documentation of disruption events. Conducting staff training throughout the state before and continuing after the rule becomes effective. Developing internal procedures and guidance documents for staff to use in implementing rules. Regularly notifying staff of rule changes. Giving presentations on rule updates. Adverse Impact to Business 14. Provide a summary of the estimated cost of compliance with the rule. Specifically, please do the following: a. Identify the scope of the impacted business community; Public systems in the State of Ohio of all population sizes and types are impacted by this rule. b. Identify the nature of the adverse impact (e.g., license fees, fines, employer time for compliance); and The proposed rule will be including some provisions that are cost saving as well as other provisions that will increase the cost of compliance based on the severity of event, classification of PWS and population served. The adverse impacts of this rule are the costs associated with providing bottled (if the PWS chooses to), conducting bacteriological monitoring, having laboratory analysis performed, paying overtime for utility personnel, notifying Ohio EPA of severe disruptive events and issuing public notifications and boil advisories. Some of these costs are somewhat offset by requiring PWSs to follow a standard protocol for responding to disruption of service events, which would allow them to return to normal operations as soon as possible. Also, some of the requirements in the proposed rules are more flexible than Ohio EPA s depressurization policy, specifically for bacteriological samples and disinfection requirements, that PWSs have followed. For community PWSs and non-transient non-community PWSs, serving population of at least 1,000 people, the Ohio EPA policy recommended sampling for all kinds of disruptive events. However, the proposed regulation requires only Type 3 and Type 4 events to conduct a bacteriological sampling. Discussions with the stakeholders have indicated an overwhelming majority of the incidents they deal with are Type 1 and Type 2 events. Ohio EPA depressurization policy advised testing for chlorine residuals for all events however, the rule allows disinfection verification for Type 1 and Type 2 events. In addition, the proposed regulation reduces the minimum required samples for total coliforms in comparison to Ohio EPA s depressurization policy. Moreover, some of the requirements of these rules are required by other existing

6 rules related to notification requirements for replacing service lines that are known or likely to contain lead, contingency planning and disinfection requirements. In addition, records required by this rule have been required by existing rules related to the operation of systems and contingency planning. c. Quantify the expected adverse impact from the regulation. The adverse impact can be quantified in terms of dollars, hours to comply, or other factors; and may be estimated for the entire regulated population or for a representative business. Please include the source for your information/estimated impact. Based on information provided during Early Stakeholder Outreach (ESO), it is estimated that the cost of issuing a boil advisory and collecting bacteriological samples is between $160- $500 per event. This includes the cost of issuing boil advisories, bacteriological sample collection and transport, materials for sample testing, and labor associated with sample collection, transportation, and sample analysis. Additional costs would be incurred with off-hour samples, overtime for utility personnel and laboratory off-hour analysis. However, the cost of sampling is somewhat offset by allowing PWSs to return to normal operations following a negative sample result. Some of the costs associated with this rule are already accounted for in other rules. No additional costs will be incurred for disinfection requirements in the new rule since the cost is already accounted for in OAC Rule Based on the cost analysis, the estimated cost of compliance for disinfection requirements ranges depending on the PWS size, complexity and source of. Type Ground Surface Ground Ground Surface Treatment Chlorination only Settling, filtration, fluoridation, chlorination Lime softening, fluoridation, chlorination Manganese greensand, filtration, fluoridation, chlorination Settling, filtration, fluoridation, chlorination Population

7 Disinfecting mains per AWWA standards C651 prior to being placed into service after repairs unless a minimum of 20 psi is maintained (cost per year) $ $2, $3, $4, $197, The costs of issuing public notification following an E. coli positive sample result is accounted for under OAC Rule Some cost will be incurred for issuing public notifications for systems without a contingency plan for severe events however, PWSs with contingency plan will be required to activate the notification procedures, in accordance with OAC rule , and will incur no additional costs. There will be additional costs associated for providing public notification, when repairs are conducted, in areas known or likely to contain lead service lines however, Ohio EPA believes this cost is minor in comparison to ensuring availability of a safe supply of drinking and protecting public health. Moreover, the language requiring lead notifications has been revised by Ohio EPA, in consultation with Ohio AWWA, to allow PWSs flexibility to choose notification methods that are most cost-effective for the utility and still be protective of public health. Cost for providing notification following replacements of service lines known or likely to contain lead have been accounted for in OAC Rule The rule provides flexibility for all transients and non-transient non-community public system, serving a population of less than 1,000, to either provide bottled or equivalent remedy approved by the director. If the PWS chooses to provide bottled, it is estimated that the cost of providing a minimum of one gallon of per person is $ Why did the Agency determine that the regulatory intent justifies the adverse impact to the regulated business community?

8 The Agency considers the overall cost for complying with this regulation to be minor in comparison with ensuring the public is supplied with a safe and reliable source of drinking. These rules ensure services are restored as quickly as possible after a disruption of service and are protective of public health by ensuring consumers are notified when the is not safe to drink. Regulatory Flexibility 16. Does the regulation provide any exemptions or alternative means of compliance for small businesses? Please explain. There are no exemptions or alternative means of compliance for small business PWSs. Small businesses like small restaurants, retail stores and gas stations are negatively impacted by disruption of service. By requiring the PWS to return to service quickly, small business impacts are minimized. The notification requirement of this rule assists small businesses in understanding what to do when their supply is disrupted. There may be some cost associated with loss of business, especially for businesses which do not have the ability to boil or food establishments, however Ohio EPA believes that the cost is minor when compared to ensuring a safe supply of drinking and preventing borne disease. 17. How will the agency apply Ohio Revised Code section (waiver of fines and penalties for paperwork violations and first-time offenders) into implementation of the regulation? In an event the PWS fails to complete the documentation as required by this rule, a written notice of violation will be issued. Ohio EPA prefers to obtain compliance through outreach prior to any type of formal enforcement. 18. What resources are available to assist small businesses with compliance of the regulation? For technical assistance, small business PWSs can turn to their Ohio EPA District Office Inspector, Ohio Rural Water Rural Community Assistance Program (RCAP) or any training providers that provide training on line repair. Ohio EPA contracts with RCAP to provide assistance for PWS with a population of 10,000 or less.