1. Chapter 109 Safe Drinking Water Fees November 16, 2010 Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation

2. Drinking Water Program Facts No. of Public Water Systems = 9,400  Ranked 4 th in Nation PA pop served by PWSs = 10.7 M Drinking Water complement = 197  Field Operations complement = 155 o Number of sanitarians = 67 o Number of PWSs per san = 140

3. Regulatory Agenda  17 New regulations since 1996  Future Regulations:  Total Coliform Rule Revisions  Distribution System Rule  Radon Rule  Lead and Copper Rule Long Term Rev.  Emerging Contaminants

4. Environmental Program Management Fiscal YearFunding ($1000) 2006-2007$ 36,643 2007-2008$ 39,909 2008-2009$ 41,800 2009-2010$ 32,694 2010-2011$ 29,357

5. Purpose of Proposed Fees  Protect public health.  Supplement state costs for administering the Drinking Water Program.  Ensure state and federal program commitments are met and primacy is retained.

6. Workload Analysis For each activity, a template was created with standard hours per output. For the most part, the outputs are objective – based on state or federal mandates or policies. For example:  DEP must conduct a sanitary survey at all CWSs every 3 years.  A sanitary survey (or full inspection) at a small CWS takes 22.5 hours. This includes the time to prepare/review files, conduct the inspection, and write the final report. Each region completed the template using the appropriate numbers (i.e., # PWSs in the region, etc.). The final numbers were tallied by CO to determine the workload and number of FTEs needed.

7. Workload Analysis Results SERONEROSCRO Total Program Hours43,075.573,98182,082.5 Calculated FTEs25.644.048.9 Complement FTEs143437 Difference-11.6-10.0-11.9 NCROSWRONWRO Total Program Hours38,204.542,951.537,483.64 Calculated FTEs22.725.622.3 Complement FTEs202416 Difference-2.7-1.6-6.3

8. Workload Analysis Impact  The workload analysis supports a return to the pre-furlough complement.  The proposed sanitarian complement will lower the PWSs/san ratio from 140 to 125.  Total complement = 197

9. Positions Included in Fees PositionCOSERONEROSCRONCROSWRONWRO Clerical3222222 Data5000000 Chemist1000000 Engineer2344333 Manager8488555 EPCS0 3 (2) 2 (2) 5 (4) 4 (3) 2 (2) Hydro110 3 (2) 210 San0 8 (2) 23 (5) 19 (3) 9 (1) 8 9 (2) WPS7000000 TOTAL27213941252321

10. Fee Comparison - Other States Pop # Prop PA ServedConnFeesDE OHNJRISCVA 259$300 $50 $112 $120 $330 $113 $18 12546$500 $50 $112 $120 $330 $561 $94 750278$1,500 $250 $534 $120 $417 $1,600 $570 3,3001,222$5,000 $500 $2,346 $720 $1,833 $5,336 $2,505 10,0003,704$10,000 $1,000 $5,482 $720 $5,556 $9,556 $7,593 50,00018,518$30,000 $2,000 $20,370 $1,580 $27,777 $27,716 $37,962 100,00037,037$50,000 $3,000 $38,518 $1,580 $32,500 $33,568 $74,074 120,00045,052$60,000 $3,000 $46,854 $1,580 $32,500 $35,572 $90,104 160,00059,259$60,000 $3,000 $54,518 $3,280 $32,500 $39,448 $121,481 250,00092,592$60,000 $3,000 $85,185 $3,280 $32,500 $44,448 $160,000 660,000244,444$60,000 $3,000 $185,777 $3,280 $32,500 $62,503 $160,000 820,000303,704$60,000 $3,000 $230,815 $3,280 $32,500 $68,429$160,000 1,600,000592,593$60,000 $3,000 $450,371 $3,280 $32,500 $97,318$160,000

11. Example: Fee per Connection  Total population = 10.7 M  Total # connections = 10.7 M / 2.7 = 4 M  Need $7 M from CWS fees  $1.75 / connection  Examples: Pop#ConnectionsFeeService Cost% of Cost 259$15.75$1,3601.16% 12546$80.50$1,5155.31% 750278$486.50$1,67029% 3,3001,222$2,138.50$1,825117% 10,0003,704$6,482.00$1,980327% 50,00018,518$32,406.50$3,400953% 100,00037,037$64,814.75$4,5001,440% 120,00045,052$78,841.00$4,5001,752% 160,00059,259$103,703.25$4,5002,305% 250,00092,592$162,036.00$4,5003,601% 660,000244,444$427,777.00$4,5009,506% 820,000303,704$531,482.00$4,50011,811% 1,600,000592,593$1,037,037.75$4,50023,045%

12. Example: Fee per Connection  Other examples: FacilityPop# ConnectionsFee Nursing home301$1.75 Nursing home4001$1.75 Prison2,4881$1.75 University7,9501$1.75 Resort1,0014$7.00  How should we define the # connections for non-conventional CWSs to ensure an equitable assessment of fees?

13. Comparison of Two Options Option #1Option #2 Pop#ConnectionsPop-based FeeConnection-based Fee 259$300$15.75 12546$500$80.50 750278$2,000$486.50 3,3001,222$2,000$2,138.50 10,0003,704$10,000$6,482.00 50,00018,518$25,000$32,406.50 100,00037,037$50,000$64,814.75 120,00045,052$60,000$78,841.00 160,00059,259$60,000$103,703.25 250,00092,592$60,000$162,036.00 660,000244,444$60,000$427,777.00 820,000303,704$60,000$531,482.00 1,600,000592,593$60,000$1,037,037.75

14. Summary Revisions required to maintain an adequate funding source to retain primacy Revisions will ensure that only people who receive public water will pay for the administration of the Safe Drinking Water program The Department recommends that the EQB approve the proposed revisions with a 30-day public comment period