National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper
[Federal Register: January 12, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 8)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1949-2015]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12ja00-25]
[[Page 1949]]
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final
Rule
[[Page 1950]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9, 141 and 142
[FRL-6515-6]
RIN 2140-AC27
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making several
minor revisions to the national primary drinking water regulations
(NPDWRs) for lead and copper to improve implementation. The intended
effect of this action is to eliminate unnecessary requirements,
streamline and reduce reporting burden, and promote consistent national
implementation. The changes promulgated in today's action do not affect
the lead or copper maximum contaminant level goals, the action levels,
or the basic regulatory requirements. In compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), this action also amends the table that lists the
Office of Managment and Budget (OMB) control numbers issued under the
PRA for NPDWRs for Lead and Copper.
DATES: This final rule is effective April 11, 2000.
For judicial review purposes, this final rule is promulgated as of
1 p.m., eastern time on January 26, 2000, as provided in 40 CFR 23.7.
ADDRESSES: The rulemaking record, including public comments on the
proposed revisions and EPA's responses, applicable Federal Register
notices, other major supporting documents, and a copy of the index to
the public docket for this rulemaking, are available for review at
EPA's Water Docket; 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460. For
access to the Docket materials, call (202) 260-3027 between 9:00 a.m.
and 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time for an appointment and directions to room
EB57.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll
free (800) 426-4791, or Judy Lebowich; Standards and Risk Management
Division; Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water; EPA (4607); 401 M
Street S.W.; Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7595.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this Lead and Copper Rule Minor
Revisions (LCRMR) rulemaking are public water systems (PWSs) that are
classified as either community water systems (CWSs) or non-transient
non-community water systems (NTNCWSs). Regulated categories and
entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. Privately-owned CWSs and
NTNCWSs.
State, Tribal, and local governments...... Publicly-owned CWSs and
NTNCWSs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities regulated by the LCRMR. This table
lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be
regulated by the LCRMR. Other types of entities not listed in the table
could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility is
regulated by the LCRMR, you should carefully examine the applicability
criteria in Secs. 141.3 and 141.80(a) of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR). If you have questions regarding the
applicability of the LCRMR to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Section.
Effective Date
Section 1412(b)(10) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Amendments of 1996 specifies that any amendments to a NPDWR promulgated
under SDWA section 1412 shall take effect on the date that is 3 years
after the date on which the regulation is promulgated ``unless the
Administrator determines that an earlier date is practicable, except
that the Administrator, or a State (in the case of an individual
system), may allow up to 2 additional years to comply with a maximum
contaminant level or treatment technique if the Administrator or State
(in the case of an individual system) determines that additional time
is necessary for capital improvements.''
Section 1445(a) of the SDWA, which authorizes EPA to establish
recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring requirements, does not
specifically address when such requirements shall become effective. The
Agency's authority to establish effective dates for requirements under
this provision, therefore, is governed by the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), which provides that an Agency publish a final
rule in the Federal Register not less than 30 days before its effective
date, although an earlier effective date can be established under
certain circumstances.
The Agency believes that a delay of three years is not necessary,
or appropriate. The revisions in today's action are effective April 11,
2000. Until today's action takes effect, the existing requirements of
the NPDWRs for Lead and Copper, and applicable State requirements,
remain in effect and are enforceable.
As noted above, section 1412(b)(10) provides the Agency with
flexibility to establish an effective date for a NPDWR earlier than 3
years after promulgation where ``practicable''. In addition, under
section 1445(a), EPA has the flexibility to establish an effective date
for recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring requirements any time not
shorter than 30 days after promulgation. EPA is promulgating the
recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring requirements under both
sections 1445 and 1412 of the SDWA, and the remainder of the rule under
section 1412. EPA believes that a 90-day effective date is appropriate
under both of these provisions. For purposes of its effective date
under section 1412, EPA believes it is practicable for systems to
implement the revised rule requirements in today's rule in 90 days.
First, the revisions to the existing regulation are minor and generally
do not require any installation of new or different treatment by PWSs.
Second, this rule in many respects streamlines existing requirements
and some of the benefits of the regulation will not be realized if
implementation were to be delayed for three years. Because the
effective date is well in advance of the deadline for State adoption of
these revised regulations, EPA will take steps to enter into a
cooperative agreement with the States to ensure that the primacy States
(rather than EPA) continue to be the lead entity implementing these new
requirements. Although EPA will enforce the new regulations until
States get primacy for the revised regulations, States will share
information with EPA about water system compliance with the new
requirements.
More Stringent State Provisions
For water systems in those States that have primary enforcement
responsibility for the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), State program
requirements that are more stringent than revisions in today's rule
will continue to govern until the primacy State incorporates these
revisions into its approved Primacy program. As discussed in the next
section, States have two years, from the date of promulgation, to
revise their Primacy program to incorporate the revisions in today's
rule, unless they qualify for an
[[Page 1951]]
extension. Table 1 identifies which provisions in today's rule, which
are less stringent than the 1991 LCR and which, therefore, must be
adopted into the primacy State's regulations before they can be
implemented by water systems within the State's jurisdiction. Water
systems, therefore, should check with their Primacy Agency before
implementing any of these less stringent provisions.
Table 1.--LCRMR Provisions Requiring State Adoption Prior to Implementation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFR Section Revision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
141.81.................................... Deemed to have optimized corrosion control criterion under Sec.
141.81(b)(3)(i).
141.82.................................... Compliance determinations under Sec. 141.82(g).
141.85.................................... All revisions to section.
141.86.................................... Following revisions:
Eliminate justification letters for too few tier 1 sites
(formerly under Sec. 141.86(a)(8)) and/or lead service line sample
sites (formerly under Sec. 141.86(a)(9));
NTNCWSs and special-case CWSs without sufficient first-draw
sites under Secs. 141.86(b)(1), (2), and (5);
Minimum holding time for acidified lead and copper samples
prior to analysis under Sec. 141.86(b)(2);
Eliminate requirement for systems subject to water quality
parameter monitoring to explicitly request approval for reduced
monitoring under Secs. 141.86(d)(4)(ii) and (iii);
Use of alternate period to conduct reduced lead and copper
tap monitoring under Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(iv);
Accelerated reduced monitoring for lead and copper at the
tap under Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(v);
Sample invalidation under Sec. 141.86(f); and
Monitoring waivers under Sec. 141.86(g).
141.87.................................... All revisions to section except the table at the end of the section.
141.88.................................... Reduced source water monitoring for systems without maximum
permissible source water levels.
141.89.................................... All revisions to section.
141.90.................................... All revisions to Secs. 141.90(a)(1), 141.90(a)(2), 141.90(a)(4),
141.90(a)(5), and 141.90(h).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primacy State Program Revisions
States with primary enforcement responsibility (``primacy'') under
40 CFR Part 142 subpart B must adopt, and submit to EPA for approval, a
primacy program revision to incorporate all new and revised EPA
regulations into their approved primacy program. As a condition of
primacy, a State is required to adopt, a State rule that is no less
stringent than EPA's regulations. Table 2 identifies those provisions
in today's action that States must adopt to retain primacy. The
requirements States must meet to receive primacy are listed in
Sec. 142.10 and requirements to revise an approved primacy program are
in Sec. 142.12. Special primacy requirements unique to specific
regulations are in Sec. 142.16.
On April 28, 1998, EPA amended its State primacy regulations at 40
CFR 142.12 (EPA 1998d, 63 FR 23362). In accordance with these
regulations, States must adopt the LCRMR by January 14, 2002; however,
under certain circumstances States may receive an extension of up to
two years. These State primacy regulations also incorporate the new
process identified in the 1996 SDWA amendments for granting primary
enforcement authority to States while their applications to modify
their primacy programs are under review. The new process grants interim
primary enforcement authority for a new or revised regulation during
the period in which EPA is making a determination with regard to
primacy for that new or revised regulation. This interim enforcement
authority begins on the date of the primacy application submission or
the effective date of the new or revised State regulation, whichever is
later, and ends when EPA makes a final determination. However, this
interim primacy authority is only available to a State whose existing
approved primacy program is current with respect to every existing
NPDWR in effect when the new regulation is promulgated. As a result,
States that have primacy for every existing NPDWR already in effect may
obtain interim primacy for this rule, beginning on the date that the
State submits its complete and final application for primacy for this
rule to EPA, or the effective date of its revised regulations,
whichever is later. In addition, a State which wishes to obtain interim
primacy for future NPDWRs must obtain primacy for this rule.
Table 2.--LCRM Provisions Requiring State Adoption to Maintain Primacy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFR Section Revision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
141.81.................................... All revisions to section except deemed to have optimized corrosion
control criterion under Sec. 141.81(b)(3)(i).
141.82.................................... All revisions to section except compliance determinations under Sec.
141.82(g).
141.84.................................... All revisions to section.
141.86.................................... Following revisions:
Requirement to use representative sites under Secs.
141.86(a)(5) and (a)(7) when the system has insufficient tier 1, 2,
or 3 sites;
Requirement that reduced monitoring must be representative
and that States may specify sampling locations for reduced
monitoring under Sec. 141.86(c); and
Requirement to notify the State of a change in treatment or
additional of a new source for sysems on reduced monitoring under
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(vii).
141.88.................................... Resampling triggers for composite source water samples, if the State
allows compositing
141.90.................................... All revisions to Secs. 141.90(a)(3), 141.90(f).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1952]]
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Glossary of Abbreviations and Definitions Used in This Document
A. Background
1. Reason for this rulemaking
2. Overview of public comments received
3. Impacts on costs and benefits
B. Continued exclusion of transient non-community water systems
1. Overview and summary of Agency position
2. Detailed discussion of rationale
a. Background
b. Occurrence and exposure at transient systems
c. Health effects of lead
d. Objections to the exclusion
C. Revisions to 40 CFR 141, requirements for public water systems
1. Revisions to Sec. 141.81
a. Clarification of the requirement to install and maintain
operation of optimal corrosion control
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
b. Water systems deemed to be optimized pursuant to
Sec. 141.81(b)(2)
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
c. Water systems deemed to have optimized corrosion control
under Sec. 141.81(b)(3)
(i) Copper action level requirements
(A) Proposed revision and background
(B) Comments and analysis
(C) Today's action
(ii) Routine monitoring for lead and copper at the tap
(A) Proposed revision and background
(B) Comments and analysis
(C) Today's action
(iii) State discretion to impose additional requirements
(A) Proposed revision and background
(B) Comments and analysis
(C) Today's action
(iv) Systems triggered into corrosion control
(A) Proposed revision and background
(B) Comments and analysis
(C) Today's action
(v) Difference between source water lead concentrations and 90th
percentile lead levels
(A) Proposed revision and background
(B) Comments and analysis
(C) Today's action
2. Revisions to Sec. 141.82
a. Clarification of requirement to operate and maintain optimal
corrosion control
b. Excursions from State-designated optimal water quality
parameter ranges or values
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
3. Revisions to Sec. 141.84
a. Proposed revision and background
b. Comments and analysis
(i) Definition of ``control''
(ii) Elimination of the rebuttable presumption
(iii) Possible adverse health effects associated with partial
LSL replacement
(iv) Resident notification of partial LSL replacement
(v) Reporting of post-replacement sampling results to the State
(vi) Financial impacts of LSL replacement
(vii) Other LSL comments
c. Today's action
4. Revisions to Sec. 141.85
a. Changes affecting content of written materials
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
b. Public education delivery requirements
(i) CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer people
(A) Proposed revision and background
(B) Comments and analysis
(C) Today's action
(ii) Timing and method of distribution
(A) Proposed revision and background
(B) Comments and analysis
(C) Today's action
c. Schedule for reporting completion of public education tasks
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
5. Revisions to Sec. 141.86
a. Systems with an insufficient number of tier 1, 2, and 3
sample sites
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
b. Elimination of justification letters for use of non-tier 1
sample sites and insufficient lead service line sample sites
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
c. NTNCWSs without enough taps to provide first-draw samples
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
d. Minimum holding time for acidified lead and copper samples
prior to analysis
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
e. Selection of sample sites under reduced monitoring
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action f. State determination of eligibility for
reduced monitoring
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
g. Timing of sample collection under reduced monitoring
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
h. Accelerated reduced monitoring for lead and copper at the tap
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(A) Using the PQL as the lead threshold
(B) Usefulness of proposed provision
(C) Accelerated reduced monitoring for only one contaminant
(D) Monitoring less frequently than triennially
(E) Prior State approval
(iii) Today's action
i. Loss of eligibility for reduced lead and copper tap water
monitoring
j. Requirements for systems subject to reduced monitoring that
change treatment or source water
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
k. Sample invalidation
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
l. Monitoring waivers for small systems
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(A) Materials specification
(B) Monitoring issues
(C) Changes potentially affecting monitoring waivers
(D) Waiver renewals
(E) Partial waivers
(F) Pre-existing waivers
(iii) Today's action
6. Revisions to Sec. 141.87
a. Monitoring for optimal water quality parameters
b. Use of representative sites for entry point water quality
parameter monitoring at ground water systems
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
c. Accelerated reduced monitoring for water quality parameters
at the tap
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
d. Summary of water quality monitoring requirements
7. Revisions to Sec. 141.88
a. Resampling triggers for composite source water samples
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
b. Reduced source water monitoring for systems without State-
designated maximum permissible source water levels
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
8. Revisions to laboratory certification requirements in
Sec. 141.89
a. Proposed revision and background
b. Comments and analysis
c. Today's action
9. Revisions to system reporting requirements in Sec. 141.90
a. Timing of reporting of tap water monitoring for lead and
copper and water quality parameter monitoring
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
b. Elimination of certification requirements pertaining to
first-draw samples
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
c. State calculation/reporting of 90th percentile levels
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
[[Page 1953]]
(iii) Today's action
10. Revisions to Sec. 141.43
D. Revisions to requirements for States
1. Records kept by States
2. Reporting requirements for States
a. Proposed revision and background
b. Comments and analysis
c. Today's action
3. Special primacy considerations
E. Burden reduction suggestions not adopted
1. Reduced frequency of water quality parameter monitoring at
entry points for systems subject to water quality parameter
monitoring requirements
a. Burden reduction suggestion and background
b. Comments and analysis
2. Use of flushing/bottled water at NTNCWSs in lieu of corrosion
control treatment
a. Burden reduction suggestion and background
b. Comments and analysis
3. Requirement for water systems to justify corrosion control
methods not recommended
a. Burden reduction suggestion and background
b. Comments and analysis
4. Use of alternatives to tap samples to assess corrosion
control effectiveness
a. Burden reduction suggestion and background
b. Comments and analysis
5. Reduced frequency for State reporting of 90th percentile and
milestone data
a. Burden reduction suggestion and background
b. Comments and analysis
F. Simultaneous compliance comments
1. Request for comments and background
2. Comments and analysis
3. Today's action
G. Administrative requirements
1. Executive Order 12866
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
3. Paperwork Reduction Act
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
5. Executive Orders on Federalism
6. Consultation with Indian tribal governments
7. Risk to children analysis
8. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
9. Likely effect of compliance with the LCRMR on the technical,
financial, and managerial capacity of public water systems
10. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
H. References
List of Tables
Table 1--LCRMR provisions requiring State adoption prior to
implementation
Table 2--LCRMR provisions requiring State adoption to maintain
primacy
Table 3--Summary of monitoring requirements for water quality
parameters
Table 4--Summary of changes to system reporting requirements
Table 5--Net Effect of LCRMR on Average Annual Recordkeeping and
Reporting Burden and Cost
Glossary of Abbreviations and Definitions Used in This Document
The following definitions are presented to assist the reader in
understanding acronyms and other short-hand phrases used in the
preamble.
(b)(1) System: A small or medium-size water system that is deemed
to have optimized corrosion control pursuant to 40 CFR 141.81(b)(1).
(b)(2) System: A water system that is deemed to have optimized
corrosion control pursuant to 40 CFR 141.81(b)(2).
(b)(3) System: A water system that is deemed to have optimized
corrosion control pursuant to 40 CFR 141.81(b)(3).
g/D: Micrograms per day.
g/L: Micrograms per liter.
1991 Rule: Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper as promulgated on June
7, 1991 (56 FR 26460) and subsequently modified by technical amendments
published on July 15, 1991 (56 FR 32113), June 29, 1992 (57 FR 28786)
and June 30, 1994 (59 FR 33860).
90th Percentile Value: The concentration of lead or copper in tap
water exceeded by 10 percent of the sites sampled during a monitoring
period.
Action Level: The 90th percentile value for lead or copper in water
that determines, in some cases, whether a water system must install
corrosion control treatment, monitor source water, replace lead service
lines, and undertake a public education program.
April 1996 Proposal: Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule
(61 FR 16348, April 12, 1996) requesting public comments on proposed
minor revisions to the 1991 Rule.
April 1998 Notice: Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule
(63 FR 20038, April 22, 1998) containing additional data and regulatory
options relating to the April 1996 Proposal and requesting public
comment on these new data and options.
August 1998 Notice: Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule
(63 FR 44214, August 18, 1998) requesting public comment on a
refinement of a regulatory option discussed in the April 1998 Notice.
ASDWA: Association of State Drinking Water Administrators.
AWWA: American Water Works Association.
CCT: Corrosion control treatment.
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations.
CWS: Community Water System.
DDBP: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations--Disinfectants
and Disinfection Byproducts; Final Rule (63 FR 69389, Dec. 16, 1998).
DSC: Data Sharing Committee.
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency.
Excursion: A ``daily value'' (calculated pursuant to
Sec. 141.82(g)) for a water quality parameter at a sampling location
that is below the minimum value or outside the range of values
designated by the State under Sec. 141.82(f) as representing optimal
corrosion control for the water system.
FDA: Food and Drug Administration.
FR: Federal Register.
IESWTR: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations--Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment; Final Rule (63 FR 69477, Dec. 16,
1998).
Large System: For purposes of the Lead and Copper Rule only, a
water system serving more than 50,000 people.
LCR: Lead and Copper Rule.
LCRMR: Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions.
LSL: Lead service line.
MCLG: Maximum contaminant level goal.
MDL: Method Detection Limit.
Medium-Size System: For purposes of the Lead and Copper Rule only,
a water system serving from 3,301 to 50,000 people.
mg/L: Milligrams per liter.
NAS: National Academy of Sciences.
NPDWRs: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
NRDC: National Resources Defense Council.
NSF: National Sanitation Foundation.
NTNCWS: Non-transient non-community water system.
OCCT: Optimal corrosion control treatment.
OMB: Office of Management and Budget.
OWQP: Optimal water quality parameter.
PE: Performance evaluation.
pH: Negative logarithm of the effective hydrogen-ion concentration.
Phase I Rule: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Synthetic
Organic Chemicals; Monitoring for Unregulated Contaminants; Final Rule
(52 FR 25690, Jul. 8, 1987).
Phase II Rule: National Revised Primary Drinking Water
Regulations--Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic Chemicals;
Monitoring for Unregulated Contaminants; National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations Implementation; National Secondary
[[Page 1954]]
Drinking Water Regulations (56 FR 3526, Jan. 30, 1991).
Phase V Rule: National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations; Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic Chemicals; Final
Rule (57, FR 31776, Jul. 17, 1992).
ppb: Part per billion.
PQL: Practical quantitation level.
PRA: Paperwork Reduction Act.
PWS: Public water system.
RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act.
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act.
SDWIS: Safe Drinking Water Information System.
Small System: For purposes of the Lead and Copper Rule only, a
water system serving 3,300 or fewer people.
TNCWS: Transient non-community water system.
UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
WQP: Water quality parameter.
A. Background
1. Reason for this rulemaking. EPA promulgated maximum contaminant
level goals (MCLGs) and NPDWRs for lead and copper in 1991 (56 FR
26460, June 7, 1991). The goal of the LCR is to provide maximum human
health protection by reducing lead and copper levels at consumers' taps
to as close to the MCLGs as is feasible. To accomplish this goal, the
LCR establishes requirements for CWSs and NTNCWSs. These systems must
conduct periodic monitoring and optimize corrosion control. In
addition, these systems must perform public education when the level of
lead at the tap exceeds the lead action level, treat source water if it
is found to contribute significantly to high levels of lead or copper
at the tap, and replace lead service lines in the distribution system
if the level of lead at the tap continues to exceed the lead action
level after optimal corrosion control has been installed.
In April 1996, EPA proposed a number of minor revisions to the LCR
(60 FR 16348, April 12, 1996). The proposed revisions do not affect the
lead and copper MCLGs, action levels, or basic regulatory requirements.
EPA proposed some of the minor revisions to streamline and reduce
regulatory burden where such changes can be made without jeopardizing
the level of public health protection or protection of the environment.
The Agency proposed other minor changes to clarify requirements and to
improve the rule's implementation. Finally, the Agency addressed two
issues that were the subject of a judicial remand. The April 1996
Proposal also requested comment on several provisions for which no
specific regulatory changes were proposed.
In an April 1998 Notice, the Agency published, and made available
for public review and comment, new data relating to two of the
provisions discussed in the April 1996 proposal and several additional
regulatory options that the Agency was considering (63 FR 20038, April
22, 1998). Finally, in August 1998, EPA requested additional public
comment on a refinement of one of the options discussed in the April
1996 Notice (63 FR 44214, August 18, 1998).
2. Overview of public comments received. EPA received approximately
900 comments from 97 commenters in response to the April 1996 Proposal.
With the exception of the proposed definition of ``control'' as it
applies to lead service line (LSL) replacement, commenters generally
supported the proposed minor revisions; however, many suggested
possible refinements of specific provisions. A few commenters also
expressed frustration that the proposed changes were ``too little'' and
``too late'' to benefit many systems. The Agency received comments from
30 commenters in response to the April 1998 Notice and 26 commenters
responded to the August 1998 Notice. Most of the commenters to the 1998
Notices supported the additional regulatory options in concept,
however, were concerned with the draft rule language discussed.
The comments pertaining to topics addressed in these Notices and
EPA's response are summarized by topic in sections B through F of this
preamble. The verbatim comments and EPA's responses to them are
contained in EPA's Response to Comments on the Lead and Copper Rule
Minor Revisions (EPA, 1999e).
3. Impacts on costs and benefits. Today's action does not affect
the treatment-related costs (e.g., capital improvements) associated
with the LCR. The revisions affect costs associated with the monitoring
and reporting requirements of the LCR, however, and these estimated
impacts have been calculated as part of the Information Collection
Request (EPA, 1999a) developed in support of today's action. These
impacts are discussed in section H.3. of this preamble.
As discussed in the April 1996 Proposal, the revisions in today's
action are not expected to change the level of public health protection
resulting from implementation of the lead and copper regulations. The
Agency therefore has not identified any quantifiable benefits
associated with today's action. EPA believes there should be some non-
quantifiable benefits, however, because improved implementation should
result in some health benefits being achieved sooner.
B. Continued Exclusion of Transient Non-community Water Systems
1. Overview and summary of Agency position. In the preamble to the
April 1996 Proposal, EPA noted that the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) had challenged the rule's exclusion of transient non-
community water systems (TNCWSs, also referred to as ``transient
systems'') on the grounds that persons served by these systems may be
at risk of non-carcinogenic adverse effects. The court granted the
Agency's request for a voluntary remand so that the Agency could
provide a more detailed justification of this exclusion.1 In
the April 1996 Proposal, EPA indicated that the Agency was collecting
additional information relevant to this issue and would make this new
information available for public review and comment prior to the
promulgation of a final rule. EPA also requested public comment
regarding the continued appropriateness of the exclusion, whether
modification of the current exclusion would be appropriate and, if so,
what alternative approaches are available for addressing those systems.
EPA included the new information in the April 1998 Notice and signaled
its preliminary conclusions that the new information does not resolve
significant data gaps or present a compelling argument to change the
Agency's policy of excluding TNCWSs from the provisions of the LCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This issue was one of several issues included in legal
challenges to the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule brought by the American
Water Works Association (AWWA) and the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC). (American Water Works Association, et al. v. EPA, 40
F.3d 1266 (D.C.Cir., 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eighteen commenters submitted comments on the appropriateness of
the continued exclusion in response to the April 1996 Proposal. All of
the commenters supported the continued exclusion. No new data were
submitted; however, most commenters cited reasons for continuing the
TNCWS exclusion. These reasons included: the absence of data suggesting
there are adverse health effects resulting from short-term exposure to
lead; the limited exposure that is likely to occur at transient
systems; the potential that subjecting transient systems to the rule's
requirements will cause many of them to close, with the possible
unintended consequence that consumers would utilize other, less
protected, sources of
[[Page 1955]]
drinking water (e.g., untreated lakes and streams in National Forests);
concern that the rule's monitoring and treatment requirements were not
appropriate for transient systems; and the tremendous added burden that
would be placed on limited State resources. EPA received 18 comments in
response to the April 1998 Notice. Only one of these commenters raised
concerns with the exclusion. This commenter recommended that TNCWSs,
except those meeting the materials criteria for monitoring waivers that
EPA proposed in 1996,2 should be required to monitor tap and
source water lead and copper levels at least once every nine years. The
commenter argued that transient systems, where the difference between
the source water and the tap water exceeds five (5) parts per billion
(ppb) lead, should not be excluded from the Rule's provisions. As
discussed in the following paragraph, EPA disagrees with this
commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See section C.5.l. of this preamble for a discussion of the
monitoring waiver provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After consideration of the additional information collected by the
Agency and the public comments received, EPA believes that it is
appropriate to retain the current exclusion. EPA believes that
maintaining the longstanding exclusion of transient systems from
coverage of the NPDWR for lead is warranted in light of the de minimis
risk of adverse health effects cited by NRDC as justification for
regulating these systems. Very high levels of lead have clinically
evident effects on the brain (acute encephalopathy). However, the
Agency was not able to identify any studies that demonstrate critical
neurochemical responses to short-term, moderate lead exposures. The
data on which the Agency based its health assessment for short term
exposures to lead came from studies by Cools et al, (1976), Schlegel
and Kufner, (1979) and Struik, (1974) which indicate that the most
likely adverse effect of the moderate levels of lead that might on
occasion be encountered at a TNCWS would be temporary suppression of
one of the enzymes responsible for the synthesis of hemoglobin, the
oxygen carrying protein in the blood. However, the data suggest that
there are no clinical effects of the enzyme suppression unless it
continues for a more extended exposure period than would typically
occur for persons who drink water at transient systems such as rest
stops, motels, gas stations and restaurants, which serve customers for
only short periods of time. Morever, EPA does not believe that even
those persons who may drink water from transient systems on a more
continuous basis (e.g., employees) would be at health risk given the
likely levels of lead to which they would be exposed.
2. Detailed discussion of rationale
a. Background. A public water system is classified as a community
water system if it has at least 15 service connections used by year-
round residents or if it regularly serves at least 25 year-round
residents. All other public water systems are non-community water
systems and are considered to be either ``non-transient'' or
``transient'' depending on the number of the same people regularly
served over 6 months of the year. A non-community water system that
does not regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons over 6 months
of the year is classified as a transient non-community water system.
Examples of transient systems include highway rest stops, gas stations,
and recreational facilities where fewer than 25 of the same individuals
consume the water over an extended period of time (i.e., at least six
months of the year). In addition, the vast majority of people who
consume water from such systems (i.e., customers and members of the
public who are at the facility) generally consume small quantities over
short periods of time.
EPA's longstanding policy is to exclude transient systems from
drinking water regulations except for those contaminants, such as
nitrate, that EPA believes have the potential to cause immediate
adverse human health effects resulting from short-term exposure. These
are known as ``acute contaminants'' because the adverse health effects
may occur after limited exposure. Other drinking water contaminants are
considered to be ``chronic contaminants'' because adverse effects on
human health generally have been associated with extended periods of
exposure. In the preamble to the final Phase I Rule, EPA explained that
the Agency does not believe it necessary to regulate water systems that
only serve transient populations for chronic contaminants because
exposure to these contaminants for only brief periods of time, such as
that which occurs at transient systems, does not pose a long-term
health risk (52 FR 25695, first column). For the reasons discussed in
the following section, EPA considers lead to be a chronic contaminant.
b. Occurrence and exposure at transient systems. In 1995, the
Environmental Quality Institute at the University of North Carolina at
Asheville conducted a survey to collect actual data on lead in drinking
water from transient systems in order to better characterize potential
exposure risks. Of 8,000 systems throughout the country invited to
receive free lead testing, 115 participated. The relatively small
number prevents conclusive analysis, although a fairly representative
range of system types across the country is included.
First draw (1-liter) and one-minute purged (30 milliliters) samples
were collected at each site. The median and average concentrations of
the first draw samples were relatively low (2.3 and 9.2 ppb,
respectively). Approximately 12 percent of the sites (13) exceeded the
action level of 15 ppb. The average one-minute purged sample was 2.3
ppb, with a 90th percentile of 3.4 ppb. The purged samples had much
lower concentrations (75% lower on average) and less variable readings
than the first draw samples. The maximum value reported from all
sampling was 229 ppb. The flushed sample for this sampling site had a
value of 0.7 ppb, raising the distinct possibility that the results of
the first sample may have been the result of sampling error such as
contamination of the sample. (EPA, 1995c).
While extensive information is not currently available, EPA
believes that the results of the University of North Carolina survey
indicate generally that the levels of lead in transient systems are not
dissimilar to the levels found in non-transient systems. With both
transient and non-transient systems, it appears that the levels of lead
are associated strongly with the length of time that the water has been
standing in household plumbing prior to use.
c. Health effects of lead. Lead is considered a chronic contaminant
that impairs and damages the nervous system and other systems or
processes after extended periods of exposure. Lead toxicity is believed
to be a function of repeated exposures over time that result in a
gradual accumulation of lead in the soft tissues and the skeleton. Lead
moves from its storage sites to the blood resulting in adverse effects
even after exposures have diminished.
The Agency decision to exclude TNCWSs from the LCR is supported by
toxicological data from studies in adults which identified increased
concentrations of erythrocyte protoporphrine and depressed activity of
aminolevulinic acid dehydratase as the critical effects from short-term
lead exposures (Cools et al., 1976; Schlegel and Kufner, 1979; Struik,
1974). These effects are markers for inhibition of heme synthesis
(ATSDR, 1998; Hindmarsh, 1986). Aminolevulinic acid dehydratase is the
key enzyme regulating the rate of heme synthesis and erythrocyte
protoporphrine is a
[[Page 1956]]
precursor to heme and, thus, a biomarker for heme production. Heme is
the iron containing component of hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying
pigment in red blood cells.
A study by Struik (1974) demonstrated the effects of short-team
lead exposure on heme synthesis in adults. Two groups of 5 women and
one group of 5 men were orally administered 1.4 or 2.1 mg/day lead in
the form of lead acetate for three weeks. Suppression of the activity
of erythrocyte aminolevulinic acid dehydratase became apparent by the
third day of exposure. The degree of suppression increased until day 14
and then remained constant for the remainder of the study. Effects on
erythrocyte protoporphrine were noted in the women but not the men
after 2 weeks of exposure. Blood lead levels had increased to 40
g/dL or higher before effects on erythrocyte protoporphrine
were noted. The effects on aminolevulinic acid dehydratase and
erythrocyte protoporphrine are reversible and do not persist after
exposure has ceased. A short term deficit in heme production is not
immediately manifest in a decreased supply of red blood cells. The
average red cell remains in circulation for about 120 days and
physiological controls on their turnover insure that there is a
continuous replacement of aging and damaged cells (Montgomery et al.,
1990). Therefore, a short term deficit in heme production will not
immediately cause anemia or diminish the oxygen transporting properties
of the blood. Moreover, the lead levels used in this study were several
orders of magnitude greater than the median lead levels observed in
TNCWSs in the University of North Carolina study (EPA, 1995c).
As discussed above, there is very limited information that can
assist in estimating the levels of lead that may be of concern due to
short-term exposures from drinking water. Because of the limited data
EPA does not believe that it is possible to develop guidance at this
time. However, based on the data that are available, from the Struik
study, EPA estimates that average, short-term, lead exposures would
have to exceed 500 ppb for adults and 60 ppb for infants or children
and would have to persist for an extended period of time to cause even
a transient effect on the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood (EPA,
1998b). The value for infants is lower than that for adults because
infants are able to absorb greater amounts of lead from the
gastrointestinal track. In the University of North Carolina study, the
average first draw sample was less than 10 ppb, and the average fully
flushed sample was approximately 2 ppb. The 90th percentile value of
first draw samples was 20 ppb, and the 90th percentile fully flushed
sample was approximately 3 ppb. Taking into account the available data
regarding acute exposures to lead at TNCWSs, EPA does not believe there
is any significant risk that exposures through drinking water at the
concentrations monitored would result in adverse acute health effects
among users of transient systems, including infants and children.
d. Objections to the exclusion
As noted above, all but one commenter during this rulemaking
supported maintaining the exclusion of transient systems. In its
comments on the original rule--and in subsequent litigation--NRDC
argued that EPA's exclusion of transient systems from the rule was both
inconsistent with the SDWA and not justified by the science. According
to NRDC, the Act mandates that NPDWRs apply to all PWSs without
exception, and therefore EPA lacks the authority to fashion a de
minimis exclusion for transient systems. NRDC also argued that, even if
EPA had the legal authority to exclude transient systems, lead causes
acute adverse health effects from short-term exposure, and that
employees of transient systems would be at risk from longer term
exposures.
EPA first disagrees that the SDWA does not permit the Agency to
fashion an appropriate de minimis exclusion for transient systems from
regulation of contaminants like lead. It is the exceptional case in
which an agency does not possess such authority. In Alabama Power Co.
v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1979), the D.C. Circuit reviewed
EPA's decision to create a de minimis exclusion under the Clean Air
Act. The court stated that, ``[u]nless Congress has been
extraordinarily rigid, there is likely a basis for an implication of de
minimis authority to provide exemption when the burdens of regulation
yield a gain of trivial or no value.'' 636 F.2d at 360-361. EPA does
not believe that the SDWA falls within the very narrow class of
statutes that precludes fashioning appropriate exclusions for
activities with de minimis impact.
Congress has in numerous respects accorded EPA substantial
flexibility in focusing implementation on areas of cognizable public
health risks. Indeed, such flexibility was a theme of the most recent
comprehensive amendments to the Act in 1996. A major impetus for this
legislation was the ``need for a more streamlined and flexible approach
to controlling drinking water contamination consistent with continued
protection of public health.'' House Report 104-632, 104th Cong., 2d
Sess., at 8. For example, Congress was concerned that the 1986
amendments to the Act required EPA to regulate 25 new contaminants
every three years, a requirement that had ``imposed significant burdens
at the State, local and Federal level, and have led to questions about
whether the Act is focused on the most significant risks to public
health.'' Id. at 9. In numerous ways, the 1996 amendments reflected
Congress' desire for EPA to focus its efforts taking into account risks
to public health, as well as the benefits and costs involved in setting
standards under the Act. See, e.g., SDWA section 1412(b)(1)(C)
(directing EPA to prioritize selection of contaminants for regulation
based on consideration of those ``that present the greatest public
health concern''); sections 1412(b)(3) and (b)(6) (directing EPA to
consider information regarding the incremental costs and benefits in
establishing NPDWRs). While none of these amendments addressed the
precise question of what PWSs must be covered by NPDWRs, in light of
Congress' overall concern with encouraging flexibility and priority-
setting in the Act's implementation, EPA does not believe it is logical
or sensible to conclude that Congress intended to deprive EPA of its
inherent administrative authority to fashion appropriate de minimis
exclusions from the Act's requirements where negligible risks are
present. Moreover, EPA's policy of excluding transient systems from
NPDWRs for contaminants posing chronic health risks has been in place
for over a decade. At no time during this period has Congress sought to
modify EPA's approach.
NRDC has also contended that, even if EPA has the legal authority
to create a de minimis exclusion, EPA's decision was unlawful because
lead does pose non-carcinogenic adverse health effects from short-term,
acute exposures. EPA believes that this contention is based on
misunderstandings by NRDC of several factors. NRDC's claim that lead is
an acute contaminant was based on information from three reports: The
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, Drinking Water and Health
(1982), a study of lead exposure in infants, and EPA's recommendation
regarding lead in school drinking water fountains. The Agency disagrees
with NRDC that these citations support classification of lead as an
acute contaminant. The Agency's conclusions
[[Page 1957]]
are discussed in the following paragraph.
NRDC's reference to the NAS (1982) report on Drinking Water and
Health focused on the ``maximum daily exposure recommendations for
children'' cited in that report. The NAS report cites Mahaffey (1977)
who recommended that lead intake for children less than 6 months of age
should be no more than 100 g/day and the intake for children
between 6 months and 2 years of age should be no more than 150
g/day. These values would translate to 100 ppb and 150 ppb,
assuming a daily water intake for children of 1 liter per day and no
exposure from other sources. Mahaffey (1977) concluded that water
containing 50 ppb lead would not be a hazard to infants and children
when other lead exposures were minimized. These values were derived
based on an assumption of chronic exposure, not short-term exposures
similar to those that would occur at a TNCWS and, thus, are not
relevant. In fact, NAS determined that there were ``no adequate data to
derive health-based guidelines for acute exposures, i.e. a 24-hour or a
7-day `Suggested No-Adverse Response Level'.''
In its comments on EPA's prior rulemaking, NRDC cited a study by
Shannon and Graef (1992) which they claimed showed that for 15 percent
of the lead poisoned infants at one clinic, the primary source of the
lead was infant formula made with drinking water. This is not quite
what the authors reported. Although formula preparation with lead-
contaminated water was the apparent cause for elevated blood lead
levels in 9 of 50 children (18%), lead in unboiled, ``first draw''
water was the problem for only one case (2%). Excessive boiling of
contaminated tap water for formula preparation was the problem in 5
cases (10%) and use of a leaded vessel for the heating of the water
(tap or spring) was the problem for the other three cases (6%). In
analysis of formula samples, lead concentrations as high as 200,000 ppb
were detected, values far greater than the levels observed at transient
facilities. The blood lead levels of the children exposed through
formula were similar to those children exposed through other routes
(paint chips, household renovation), but hemoglobin and red cell
volumes were lower indicating that the exposures had been chronic
rather than acute.
Finally, NRDC claims that the reason that the EPA recommends that
any school drinking water outlets that are found to have more than 20
g/L lead in a 250 mL sample be removed from service is to
protect against acute health risks to young children. This is
incorrect. The Agency developed that policy to protect children who are
exposed to lead in drinking water on a chronic, not acute, basis.
NRDC has also argued that transient systems should not be excluded
from regulation because frequent users of these systems, such as
employees, could be exposed to lead in the drinking water over an
extended period of time. Such persons could include pregnant women and
children, who are particularly vulnerable to adverse effects of chronic
lead exposure. While such users may consume water from the same system
repeatedly, EPA does not share NRDC's concern that such persons can
realistically be said to be at risk of adverse health effects from
exposure to lead. As explained in detail in EPA's 1991 rulemaking,
levels of lead at the tap correlate with the length of time that water
has been sitting motionless in plumbing materials containing lead. The
longer the water sits, the more likely lead will leach from lead-
bearing plumbing materials into the water. Typically, the highest
levels of lead in the water are contained in the first liter from the
tap after the water has been sitting for some time. In order to have
the best understanding of the extent to which corrosivity of the water
is causing leaching of lead, the LCR requires that sampling be done
with such ``first flush'' water after the tap has not been used for at
least six hours. This sampling protocol was designed to ensure that the
water system had the benefit of the best information regarding the
extent to which water chemistry was interacting with lead-bearing
materials to cause leaching into drinking water, and also recognized
that some users could, under some scenarios, repeatedly drink first
flush water.
However, transient systems such as restaurants and gas stations by
their nature would serve a large number of persons throughout the day.
The vast majority of the users are, in fact, ``transient.'' In
addition, the nature of these facilities would mean that taps are in
fairly constant use, reducing the likelihood of lead leaching into
standing water. Also, given the types of populations served by
transient systems, we would anticipate that it would be extremely
unlikely that the same persons would repeatedly be exposed to the water
that has been sitting for an extended period of time. Data collected by
EPA regarding occurrence of lead in transient systems suggests that
even frequent users are not at risk. Since it is unlikely that the same
persons would repeatedly be exposed to ``first flush'' water in these
systems, the vast majority of water would consist of fully flushed
water. The median level of lead in running water in transient systems
found by the University of North Carolina (EPA, 1995c) survey was 0.7
ppb, and the average level was approximately 2 ppb. The median first
flush level was approximately 2 ppb, and the average level was 9 ppb,
levels below those of health concern. Thus, information collected by
EPA strongly supports its conclusion that there are only de minimis
risks in transient systems from exposure to lead.
Given the de minimis risks posed by lead in these systems, EPA
continues to believe that excluding these systems from the lead NPDWR
is appropriate. EPA believes, in fact, that including them within the
regulation could even have the unintended effect of harming public
health. In the face of monitoring and treatment requirements for lead,
EPA anticipates, based on the public comments received and other
anecdotal data, that many transient systems will opt to stop providing
water rather than to assume the extra burden of the rule's
requirements. This would leave consumers in the position of finding
their own alternative source of drinking water. In some cases, the
alternative source may be less protective of public health than the
transient system. For example, if National or State parks were to no
longer provide drinking water, visitors may drink untreated water
directly from nearby lakes, rivers and streams.
C. Revisions to 40 CFR 141, Requirements for Public Water Systems
1. Revisions to Sec. 141.81
a. Clarification of the requirement to install and maintain
operation of optimal corrosion control. (i) Proposed revision and
background. In the April 1998 Notice, EPA requested comment on possible
revisions to the regulatory language of Sec. 141.81(b) and the first
sentence of Sec. 141.82(g) to clarify that all water systems are
required to operate and maintain optimal corrosion control even if
there are no specific Federal requirements for the system to monitor
for water quality parameters (WQPs). As EPA explained in that Notice,
there are several ``pathways'' by which systems may be considered to be
optimized. Many, but not all, require that corrosion control treatment
(CCT) be physically installed. The Agency is concerned that some
systems deemed to be optimized pursuant to Sec. 141.81(b) may
misinterpret the absence of specific Federal controls in the regulatory
language as meaning that they have
[[Page 1958]]
license to ``turn off'' or depart from optimal corrosion control
treatment (OCCT) between Federally-prescribed monitoring periods.
(ii) Comments and analysis. With one exception, commenters
supported the proposed clarification. The one commenter who objected to
the proposed clarification argued that it is not necessary since his
State already had established such controls. EPA believes clarification
is appropriate. The Agency notes that while most States have reasonable
process controls in place to assure consistent and proper operation of
CCT, some do not. EPA believes that it is appropriate to clarify that
all systems are expected to maintain optimal corrosion control even if
they are not subject to Federally-prescribed WQP monitoring.
Several commenters predicated their support on the presumption that
States would retain flexibility to determine the specific nature of the
process controls for (b)(1) and (b)(3) systems. EPA agrees that such
flexibility is appropriate. Today's action, therefore, does not
prescribe specific operating requirements for water systems to meet the
criteria of Sec. 141.81(b)(1) or (b)(3).
A few commenters expressed concern that the proposed language
changes would preclude a (b)(1) or a (b)(3) system from ever changing
its treatment once it has been deemed to be optimized. EPA recognizes
that water systems need to make treatment changes, on occasion, to
react to changing circumstances (e.g., new requirements, changes in
source water quality, and changes in the distribution system). Nothing
in today's action is intended to prevent a State from approving
treatment changes when they are warranted and appropriate. Rather, the
intent of today's action is to ensure that any such treatment changes
are consistent with the Rule's goal of minimizing levels of lead and
copper at the tap to the maximum extent practicable. The Agency
believes the phrase ``and meet any requirements that the State
determines appropriate to ensure such treatment is maintained''
provides States sufficient flexibility to approve appropriate treatment
changes that may be warranted by emerging conditions at the water
system.
One commenter requested that EPA clarify in the rule language that
(b)(2) systems are not required to have CCT physically present. EPA
disagrees that this is appropriate. Section 141.81(b)(2) applies only
to those water systems that completed corrosion control steps
equivalent to those specified in Sec. 141.81(d) or (e) before the
effective date of the LCR. The Agency's intent is to relieve such
systems of the need to repeat those steps merely to comply with the
Rule's milestones. Assuming a water system had completed an equivalent
corrosion control study and installed appropriate CCT prior to the
effective date of the Rule, EPA believes the Rule is clear that
additional treatment may not be warranted if the State believes the
system's CCT already is optimized. For large water systems,
Sec. 141.81(b)(2) does not eliminate the need to have any CCT in place,
unless the water system can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
State that such treatment will have no effect on reducing the levels of
lead and copper at the tap. Merely meeting the lead and copper action
levels is not a sufficient test for large systems since the Rule
requires these systems to reduce corrosion to the maximum extent
possible to be considered optimized. EPA expects few, if any, large
water systems can make this demonstration without CCT.
(iii) Today's action. After considering the comments received, the
Agency has decided to promulgate the revisions to Sec. 141.81(b) and
the first sentence of Sec. 141.82(g) as follows. The introductory text
of Sec. 141.81(b) has been revised to read: ``A system is deemed to
have optimized corrosion control and is not required to complete the
applicable corrosion control treatment steps identified in this section
if the system satisfies one of the criteria specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section. Any such system deemed to have
optimized corrosion control under this paragraph, and which has
treatment in place, shall continue to operate and maintain optimal
corrosion control treatment and meet any requirements that the State
determines appropriate to ensure optimal corrosion control treatment is
maintained.'' The first sentence (following the paragraph title) of
Sec. 141.82(g) has been revised to read: ``All systems that have
installed treatment optimizing corrosion control shall continue to
operate and maintain optimal corrosion control treatment, including
maintaining water quality parameters at or above minimum values or
within ranges designated by the State under paragraph (f) of this
section, in accordance with this paragraph for all samples collected
under Secs. 141.87(d)-(f).''
This revision necessitates a change to the State recordkeeping
requirements in Part 142. A requirement has been added as a new
Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(i) 3 to require States to retain records
of any conditions imposed by the State on specific water systems deemed
to be optimized under Sec. 141.81(b)(1) or (b)(3) to ensure the
continued operation and maintenance of treatment in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ As discussed in Section D.1. of this preamble, today's
action renumbers existing paragraphs of Sec. 142.14(d)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These wording changes make clear the Agency's intent in the 1991
Rule that all systems operate and maintain optimal corrosion control.
They do not add any new requirements.
b. Water systems deemed to be optimized pursuant to
Sec. 141.81(b)(2).
(i) Proposed revision and background. In the April 1996 Proposal,
EPA requested comment on a regulatory option that would result in minor
wording changes to the language of Sec. 141.81(b)(2) to clarify that
systems deemed to have optimized corrosion control pursuant to that
paragraph are required to continue WQP monitoring after State
designation of optimal water quality parameters (OWQPs). The Agency
proposed this change to eliminate possible confusion about monitoring
requirements after the installation of CCT for these systems.
(ii) Comments and analysis. EPA received several comments on the
proposed clarification. None of the commenters opposed the proposed
revision, however, one commenter raised concerns about how the
requirement would be applied in those instances where no treatment is
installed. The commenter also noted that the requirement to monitor
WQPs at every entry point could be onerous at such a system,
particularly if it were a ground water system with many wells. EPA
developed the Sec. 141.81(b)(2) optimization criteria to address those
water systems that had both completed a corrosion control study
comparable to that required by the LCR and installed an appropriate CCT
process prior to the Rule's schedule. To be comparable, the study would
have had to include an evaluation of the three corrosion control
options--pH and alkalinity adjustment, calcium hardness adjustment, and
inhibitor addition. This study also would have had to use some of the
testing methods specified in the Rule to evaluate the options. EPA
believes that studies that meet the Sec. 141.81(b)(2) requirements
would indicate that the installation of a CCT process was warranted and
that it is therefore appropriate to require (b)(2) systems deemed to be
optimized pursuant to Sec. 141.81(b)(2) to meet State-designated OWQPs.
EPA recognizes that it may not be necessary to install treatment at
every entry point, however, especially at ground water systems. As
discussed in section C.6.b. of this preamble, EPA also
[[Page 1959]]
is making a change to Sec. 141.87(c)(3) that will allow ground water
systems to limit entry point WQP sampling to those entry points that
are representative of water quality and CCT throughout the system. This
provision means that a ground water system deemed to be optimized
pursuant to Sec. 141.81(b)(2) may be able to reduce--but not eliminate
entirely--the number of entry point WQP samples that must be collected.
(iii) Today's action. EPA therefore is revising Sec. 141.81(b)(2),
as proposed, by inserting a sentence after the second sentence in
Sec. 141.81(b)(2) to clarify WQP monitoring requirements for systems
deemed to have optimized corrosion control. The inserted sentence
reads: ``Water systems deemed to have optimized corrosion control under
this paragraph shall operate in compliance with the State-designated
optimal water quality control parameters in accordance with
Sec. 141.82(g) and continue to conduct lead and copper tap and water
quality parameter sampling in accordance with Sec. 141.86(d)(3) and
Sec. 141.87(d), respectively.''
c. Water systems deemed to have optimized corrosion control under
Sec. 141.81(b)(3).
(i) Copper action level requirements.
(A) Proposed revision and background. In 1996, EPA proposed that
water systems demonstrating, pursuant to Sec. 141.81(b)(3), that very
little lead corrosion is occurring in the distribution system (i.e.,
(b)(3) systems) be required to meet the copper action level. The Agency
proposed such a requirement to correct an oversight in the 1991 Rule.
(B) Comments and analysis. EPA received mixed comments on this
proposed change. Several commenters viewed the revision as a new
requirement that could lead to treatment modifications in some systems.
In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA acknowledged that a few
systems may be triggered into CCT because of the requirement that
(b)(3) systems meet the copper action level. EPA agrees that there will
be additional costs incurred by the systems if installation/
modification of CCT processes are necessary. The goal of the LCR,
however, is to minimize the risk from both lead and copper. EPA
believes that this change is appropriate to better conform with the
stated goal of the LCR. The copper action level is equivalent to the
copper MCLG, so adverse health effects from copper should be avoided if
systems meet the action level. Since (b)(3) systems that do not meet
the copper action level are not triggered into CCT processes until 18
months after the LCRMR is published in the Federal Register, (b)(3)
systems that exceeded the copper action level during the initial rounds
of monitoring have time to make changes to reduce copper levels before
being triggered out of (b)(3) status.
(C) Today's action. In addition to the 1991 (b)(3) criteria,
today's action prevents systems that exceeded the copper action level
on or after July 12, 2001, from being considered to be a (b)(3) system.
This requirement is specified at Sec. 141.81(b)(3)(iv).
(ii) Routine monitoring for lead and copper at the tap.
(A) Proposed revision and background. EPA proposed to correct
another oversight in the 1991 Rule by requiring (b)(3) systems to
continue routine monitoring for lead and copper at the tap at least
once every three calendar years (triennially) at the reduced number of
sites specified in Sec. 141.86(c). This proposed revision included a
start date for resumption of monitoring no later than the first full
summer (i.e., June through September time frame) after the effective
date of the revision.
(B) Comments and analysis. Commenters generally supported the
reduced monitoring frequency; however, several preferred less frequent
monitoring cycles, such as once every six or nine years. EPA disagrees
with the commenters who advocate monitoring less frequently than once
every three years for (b)(3) systems. Large systems comprise most, if
not all, of the (b)(3) systems because most small and medium-size
systems that satisfy Sec. 141.81(b)(3) criteria can also meet the less
onerous criteria of Sec. 141.81(b)(1) that do not require source water
monitoring. Since (b)(3) systems are not required to monitor their
corrosion control process using WQPs, lead and copper tap monitoring is
the only mechanism for determining whether levels of lead and copper at
the tap remain low. For this reason, EPA does not believe that
monitoring should be less frequent than once every 3 years for these
systems.
EPA also received comments on the proposed deadline for the
resumption of monitoring. As proposed, (b)(3) systems would have been
required to resume monitoring the first full June through September
after publication of the LCRMR. This requirement would apply only to
those (b)(3) systems that had not monitored during the three years
immediately preceding promulgation of the LCRMR. Several commenters did
not realize that the schedule for the resumption of monitoring would
not apply to those (b)(3) systems that already are monitoring regularly
and that have conducted at least one round of monitoring in the past
three years.
(C) Today's action. EPA has added provisions at
Sec. 141.81(b)(3)(ii) pertaining to the routine monitoring requirement
in today's action. The proposed requirement that routine lead and
copper tap water monitoring occur at least once every three years has
been retained. The Rule language has been clarified to indicate that
those (b)(3) systems that have conducted a round of standard or reduced
monitoring after September 30, 1997, may continue monitoring at the
reduced number of sites every three years based on the date of their
most recent monitoring. All other (b)(3) systems must conduct a round
of tap water monitoring for lead and copper no later than September 30,
2000.
(iii) State discretion to impose additional requirements.
(A) Proposed revision and background. The April 1996 proposed
revision to Sec. 141.81(b)(3) states: ``The State may require any
system deemed to have optimized corrosion control pursuant to this
paragraph to conduct additional monitoring or to take other action the
State deems appropriate to ensure that such systems maintain minimal
levels of corrosion in the distribution system (e.g., if there is a
change in treatment or a new source is added).'' EPA proposed this
provision to provide States sufficient flexibility to require
additional actions in those cases where such actions are necessary to
ensure the system maintains minimal corrosion in the distribution
system.
(B) Comments and analysis. Several commenters raised concern that
this provision could require (b)(3) systems to conduct lead and copper
tap sampling whenever treatment changes or a new source is added. The
decision to require additional monitoring will be made by the State
only after considering the impact of the treatment change or addition
of a new source on the corrosion control process. The rule does not,
and is not intended to categorically require monitoring when treatment
changes are made. The additional monitoring is not limited to lead and
copper monitoring. The State could require WQP monitoring and/or source
water monitoring instead of, or in addition to, lead and copper tap
monitoring.
(C) Today's action. EPA has included the following provision at
Sec. 141.81(b)(3)(iii). ``Any water system deemed to have optimized
corrosion control pursuant to this paragraph shall notify the State in
writing pursuant to Sec. 141.90(a)(3) of any change in treatment or the
addition of a new source. The
[[Page 1960]]
State may require any such system to conduct additional monitoring or
to take other action the State deems appropriate to ensure that such
systems maintain minimal levels of corrosion in the distribution
system''. EPA also has added a corresponding State recordkeeping
requirement in a new Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(ix).
Section C.5.j. of this preamble describes the reporting
requirement, and EPA's rationale for adding it, in more detail. While
the proposed revised Sec. 141.81(b)(3) rule language did not explicitly
require (b)(3) systems to notify the State when a new source is added
or changes in water treatment occur, the requirement was implicit in
the proposed reporting requirement for any system subject to a reduced
lead and copper tap water monitoring frequency. Today's action
clarifies that (b)(3) systems are included in this category.
(iv) Systems triggered into corrosion control.
(A) Proposed revision and background. Because it would no longer be
possible for large water systems newly triggered into CCT requirements
to meet the date-specific milestones of the 1991 Rule, EPA proposed in
1996 that any system triggered into CCT steps because it no longer
meets the Sec. 141.81(b)(3) criteria comply with the treatment step and
deadline requirements of Sec. 141.81(e) with any such large system
adhering to the schedule specified in that paragraph for medium-size
systems.
(B) Comments and analysis. EPA did not receive any comments
objecting to this provision.
(C) Today's action. Section 141.81(b)(3) has been revised to add a
provision at Sec. 141.81(b)(3)(v) requiring any system triggered into
CCT steps because it no longer meets the Sec. 141.81(b)(3) criteria to
comply with the treatment steps and deadline requirements in
Sec. 141.81(e). Any such large system shall adhere to the schedule
specified in that paragraph for medium-size systems.
(v) Difference between source water lead concentrations and 90th
percentile lead levels.
(A) Proposed revision and background. The April 1996 Proposal did
not include any changes to the 1991 criterion that allowed water
systems to demonstrate that the difference between the highest source
water lead concentration and the 90th percentile lead tap level is less
than the Practical Quantitation Level (PQL) for lead. Nevertheless, one
commenter suggested that EPA modify the lead criterion of
Sec. 141.81(b)(3) because, as written, a system with very low 90th
percentile lead levels and undetectable source water lead levels may be
precluded from becoming a (b)(3) system.
(B) Comments and analysis. EPA agrees with the commenter. Section
141.89(a)(3) requires that all measurements below the Method Detection
Limit (MDL) be reported as zero, whereas measurements between the MDL
and the PQL of 0.005 mg/L may be reported as one-half the PQL (0.0025
mg/L). A system with source water lead levels just below an MDL of
0.001 mg/L and a 90th percentile tap level of 0.005 mg/L would not be
deemed to be optimized using the 1991 (b)(3) criteria which requires
the difference to be less than 0.005 mg/L. In this example, the
difference would be 0.005 mg/L (i.e., 0.005 mg/L-0mg/L=0.005 mg/L). On
the other hand, assuming a lead MDL of 0.001 mg/L, a system with source
water lead levels of 0.0011 mg/L and a 90th percentile of 0.006 mg/L
would be considered to be optimized under the 1991 (b)(3) criteria
since the source water levels could be reported as 0.0025 mg/L. In this
example, the difference would be 0.0035 mg/L (i.e., 0.006 mg/L-0.0025
mg/L=0.0035 mg/L).
(C) Today's action. Therefore, EPA is making a slight revision to
Sec. 141.81(b)(3) to address the problem. The following provision has
been added as Sec. 141.81(b)(3)(i): ``Those systems having source water
lead levels below the Method Detection Limit may also be deemed to have
optimized corrosion control under this paragraph if the 90th percentile
tap water lead level is less than or equal to the Practical
Quantitation Level for lead for two consecutive 6-month monitoring
periods.''
2. Revisions to Sec. 141.82
a. Clarification of requirement to operate and maintain optimal
corrosion control. As discussed in section C.1.a., EPA is revising the
first sentence of Sec. 141.82(g) to clarify that all systems deemed to
have optimized corrosion control pursuant to Sec. 141.81(b) are
required to continuously operate and maintain any installed CCT
properly.
b. Excursions from State-designated optimal water quality parameter
ranges or values.
(i) Proposed revision and background. In the April 1998 Notice, EPA
requested public comment on a regulatory option that would revise the
way in which compliance with State-designated OWQPs is determined under
Sec. 141.82(g). Under the 1991 Rule, a water system would be out of
compliance with the requirements of Sec. 141.82(g) if the results of
any WQP sample were below the minimum value or outside the range of
values designated by the State under Sec. 141.82(f). Systems could take
a confirmation sample within three days of the original sample,
however. If such a confirmation sample were taken, the results of the
original sample and the confirmation sample were to be averaged to
determine compliance. Several commenters responding to issues raised in
the 1996 Proposal expressed concern about this method of determining
compliance. These commenters, while advocating frequent WQP sampling,
noted that the Rule's approach for determining compliance creates a
significant disincentive for sampling more frequently than required,
since the more frequently measurements are taken, the greater the
potential that some of the results will be outside the State-specified
limits. These commenters urged EPA to adopt a percentage-based approach
to determining compliance.
The April 1998 Notice contained a regulatory option that would
replace the confirmation-sample concept with a repeat-sample concept.
Under the repeat-sample concept, a water system whose initial
monitoring results were below the minimum value or outside the range of
values designated by the State could take a repeat sample within three
days of the original sample. If taken, the results of the repeat sample
would be used to determine compliance under Sec. 141.82(g); otherwise,
the results of the original sample would be used.
In the August 1998 Notice, EPA sought public comment on a
refinement of the repeat-sample concept in order to better address
issues associated with measuring WQPs more frequently than once a day.
Under the refined option, compliance with Sec. 141.82(g) would be
determined quarterly. To be in compliance for the quarter, a water
system would need to be in compliance for each applicable WQP at each
sampling location at which that WQP is measured during the quarter. The
method of determining compliance for a WQP at a sampling location would
depend on the frequency with which that parameter is measured at that
sampling location during the quarter. Where the measurements are taken
once a day or less often, compliance would be determined using a
repeat-sample approach similar to the one described in the April 1998
Notice. That is, if the result of any measurement is below the minimum
value or outside the range designated by the State under
Sec. 141.82(f), the system may take a repeat sample within 72 hours of
the original
[[Page 1961]]
sample; if a repeat sample is taken, those results would be used to
determine compliance, otherwise the results of the original sample
would be used. For sampling locations where the parameter is measured
more frequently than once a day, a system would be in compliance with
the requirements of Sec. 141.82(g) so long as at least 95 percent of
the measurements taken for the parameter at the sampling location
during the quarter are within the State-designated limits and no single
excursion lasts more than 72 hours. In those instances where monitoring
is continuous, systems would be required to record the results at least
every four hours and to use the recorded results for determining
compliance. Finally, the August 1998 option also would revise the
reporting requirements at Sec. 141.90(a)(1) to clarify that systems
would be required to report to the State on a quarterly basis, all
water quality parameter results collected during the quarter, unless
the State specified a more frequent reporting schedule.
(ii) Comments and analysis. While commenters responding to the
April 1998 Notice thought the repeat-sample approach represented an
improvement over the confirmation-sample approach, most expressed
concern that the repeat-sample approach did not eliminate the
disincentives for frequent monitoring or the problems in determining
compliance that would occur when WQPs were measured more frequently
than once a day. These commenters continued to urge EPA to allow a
percentage-based approach, at least in those instances where WQPs are
measured frequently.
Most commenters to the refined approach discussed in the August
1998 Notice expressed support for a percentage-based approach; however,
many disagreed with some of the specific provisions proposed. Several
commenters, for example, advocated using a lower percentage than that
proposed by the Agency as the basis for determining compliance with the
requirements of Sec. 141.82(g). A number of commenters suggested that
90 percent would be more appropriate since lead and copper action level
exceedances are determined based on the 90th percentile lead and copper
tap water values. Other commenters supported the use of 90 percent
because of system-specific or uncontrollable factors that may affect
water quality. They argued that, if 10 percent, or more, of the water
quality measurements were allowed to be outside OWQP limits, the State
would tend to set narrower OWQP ranges than in those instances where 95
percent of the results were required to be within the State-specified
OWQP limits. A few commenters suggested that EPA allow States the
flexibility to determine the percent of samples that must be within
acceptable levels.
EPA believes setting the performance measure at 95 percent is
appropriate. Today's action adopts a percent-of-time approach to
determining compliance. If the performance measure were set at 90
percent, for example, a water system could be out of compliance with
WQP requirements for more than 18 days in a six-month period or 36 days
in a twelve-month period. The Agency does not believe that allowing
this much deviation from OWQPs provides adequate levels of public
health protection. Since States will have the results of the two 6-
month rounds of follow-up monitoring after the installation of
corrosion control before designating OWQPs, the Agency believes it is
reasonable for States to set OWQPs that water systems should be able to
maintain at least 95 percent of the time. The Agency also believes that
determination of OWQP compliance (intended to demonstrate proper
operation and maintenance of a treatment process) is not sufficiently
analogous to determination of action level exceedances (intended to
indicate a need for treatment) to justify the use of the same
percentage for both just to maintain consistency in the calculations.
No commenter objected to using a percentage-based approach for
water systems that measure WQPs more than once per day. Many commenters
advocated use of the percentage approach for systems that collect daily
samples and some advocated using the percentage approach across-the-
board for the sake of simplicity. EPA agrees that it is reasonable for
a single approach to be used when determining compliance, as long as
the approach can accommodate large variations in sampling frequency. To
maintain reasonable fairness between systems that collect entry point
measurements biweekly and those that collect entry point measurements
several times a day, the Agency has adopted the suggestion made by
several commenters to shift from a percent-of samples calculation to a
percent-of-time calculation. EPA also has revised the compliance-
determination period from quarterly to every six months. To remain in
compliance, a water system may have no more than nine days during a
six-month monitoring period when any excursions occur (or persist).
This corresponds to having no excursions approximately 95 percent of
the time. Where a system measures a parameter several times a day at
the same location, the daily value for the purposes of determining
compliance with Sec. 141.82(g) will be calculated by averaging all
results collected during the day unless EPA has approved an alternative
formula under Sec. 142.16(d)(1)(ii) in the State's application for a
primacy revision.
A few commenters also disagreed with the approach outlined in the
August 1998 Notice that would require each sampling location to be in
compliance in order for the system to be considered in compliance. The
Agency disagrees that aggregating the results from all sampling
locations before determining whether or not an excursion has occurred
provides sufficient health protection. Aggregating the results from
multiple locations could mask a problem that affects only a part of the
system. EPA has therefore retained the requirement that excursions be
determined for each WQP and sampling location.
Some commenters raised concern over the requirement that repeat
samples be collected within 72 hours of the original sample. These
commenters noted that it might not be possible to make necessary
adjustments within 72 hours, particularly if the problem occurs just
before a weekend or holiday and the system is unable to obtain a
necessary part for several days or if several days are necessary before
the effects of treatment changes are apparent at distribution system
monitoring sites. EPA believes the modified approach for determining
compliance in today's action will provide some relief to those systems
that need several days to effect necessary repairs. At the same time,
the Agency believes it is essential to minimize excursion durations to
the maximum extent possible. One study, for example, suggests that
disruptions of four to five days in CCT may potentially affect levels
of lead at the tap adversely (Colling, et al., 1992). The Agency has no
data that suggest the impact on copper levels would be any different.
The Agency believes it is appropriate, therefore, for those systems
with chronic equipment problems to develop and implement appropriate
sampling schedules and contingency plans to minimize possible ``down''
time. Since the LCR does not require frequent sampling at distribution
system tap locations, the Agency believes systems should have
sufficient flexibility to avoid sample collection at these locations
during times of known equipment problems or other factors not
representative of normal operations.
Today's action eliminates the repeat-sample approach and makes no
[[Page 1962]]
distinction for compliance purposes between samples collected at entry
points and those collected from distribution system taps. The duration
of an excursion for a WQP measured less frequently than daily at a
sampling location is the number of days between the excursion and the
day a subsequent sample taken for the same parameter at the same
sampling location is within the State-specified limits. The day on
which the daily value is outside the State-specified limits is the
first day of the excursion. The day preceding the day that a subsequent
sample taken for the same parameter at the same sampling location is
again within the State-specified limits is the last day of the
excursion. Thus, if a distribution system tap location has an excursion
(e.g., on a Monday) and the system collects another sample three days
later (e.g., on Thursday) that is within the limits, the system has had
an excursion of with a duration of 3 days and will remain in compliance
if it does not have more than six other days in the six-month period
during which an excursion occurs at any sampling location.
The August 1998 Notice proposed that where a water system is
conducting continuous monitoring, the results be recorded every four
hours for the purpose of determining compliance with Sec. 141.82(g).
Some commenters expressed concern that this requirement could be
burdensome for some systems. One State noted that such a requirement
would necessitate a change to State reporting forms which currently
only have room for the system to record a daily value for each WQP.
Other commenters noted that the proposed provisions did not address
those instances where continuous monitoring equipment is not working
properly. EPA has dropped the requirement to record continuous
monitoring results every four hours. States have the discretion to
specify the frequency of recording continuous monitoring results.
Today's action makes no distinction between continuous monitoring
results and grab sample results. If both are collected on the same day,
both must be included in the calculation of the daily value.
Several commenters objected to the proposed requirement that OWQP
compliance be determined quarterly and suggested that a more
appropriate frequency would be annual or every six months. A few of
these commenters expressed the opinion that a quarterly compliance
determination would be more stringent than the 1991 requirements. EPA
disagrees with this interpretation. Under the 1991 requirements, a
water system could incur a violation any time the results of a sample
(or the results of a sample averaged with the results of a confirmation
sample taken within three days of the original sample) were below the
minimum value or outside the range of values designated by the State
under Sec. 141.82(f). A system could thus incur a violation as
frequently as every two weeks. Under the revisions proposed in the
August 1998 Notice, a water system would incur no more than one OWQP
violation a quarter. Nevertheless, the Agency agrees that determining
compliance with OWQPs once every six months, instead of once every
three months, is more consistent with other monitoring frequencies in
the LCR. For these reasons, today's action requires OWQP compliance to
be determined every six months.
Finally, a few commenters responded that they did not believe the
proposed modifications made clear the circumstances that would remove a
system's eligibility for reduced monitoring under Secs. 141.86 and
141.87. Today's action includes some additional changes to the language
of Secs. 141.86 and 141.87 to clarify that failure to comply with the
requirements of Sec. 141.82(g) removes a system's eligibility for
reduced monitoring for lead and copper at the tap as well as reduced
WQP monitoring within the distribution system. Systems that lose this
eligibility must requalify in accordance with the requirements of
Sec. 141.86(d)(4) in order to resume reduced monitoring for lead and
copper at the tap and must requalify in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 141.87(e) in order to resume reduced monitoring
for WQPs at the tap.
(iii) Today's action. After considering the comments received, EPA
has modified the OWQP compliance requirements of Sec. 141.82(g) as
follows:
Compliance will be calculated for each 6-month period
specified in Sec. 141.87(d) during which the water system is required
to conduct WQP monitoring, regardless of the frequency of WQP
monitoring. The first six-month period begins on the date the State
specifies the OWQPs under Sec. 141.82(f). A water system with
excursions (see following paragraph) occurring/persisting on more than
nine (9) days during the six-month period would be out of compliance.
The 9 days need not be consecutive, but may be.
An excursion is defined as a ``daily value'' for a
parameter that is below the minimum value or outside the range of
values designated by the State under Sec. 141.82(f) as representing
optimal corrosion control.
``Daily values'' will be determined for each parameter at
each sampling location. The daily values are to be calculated based on
the frequency of sampling for the parameter at the sampling location.
If measurements for the parameter are collected at the sampling
location more frequently than once a day, the daily value will be
calculated by averaging all of the results measured at the sampling
location for the parameter during the day (regardless of whether the
results are measured through continuous monitoring, grab samples, or
both) unless EPA has approved an alternative formula under Sec. 142.16
as a part of the State's application for a primacy revision submitted
pursuant to Sec. 142.12. If measurements for the parameter are
collected only once a day at a sampling location, the daily value will
be the daily measurement. If measurements for the parameter are
collected less frequently than once a day at the sampling point, the
daily value will be the most recent measurement taken, even if that
measurement was collected during a previous monitoring period.
Under this calculation, there is no distinction between a
measurement taken at an entry point and one collected from a
distribution system tap. The Agency recognizes that systems subject to
reduced monitoring for WQPs at the tap may not collect samples from
every site during each six-month period. In such cases, where the
system does not collect any samples for a distribution system tap
sampling location during the six-month period, the sampling location
would have no excursions if the most recent measurements at that site
were within the State-specified limits. If, on the other hand, the
system's most recent measurements were taken at the distribution system
tap sampling location during the previous monitoring period and were
outside the State-specified limits, the system would be out of
compliance with Sec. 141.82(g) and would therefore be triggered back
into standard WQP monitoring.
Corresponding revisions have been made to the language of
Secs. 141.86, 141.87, and 141.90. EPA has revised the language of
Secs. 141.86(d)(4)(v)--redesignated as Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(vi)--and
141.87(e)(4) to clarify that any water system that is out of compliance
with the requirements of Sec. 141.82(g) is ineligible to conduct
reduced monitoring for lead and copper at the tap and for WQPs within
the distribution system. Systems that lose their eligibility for
reduced monitoring cannot resume reduced monitoring for lead and copper
at the tap or for WQPs within the distribution system until they have
completed two consecutive six-month rounds of monitoring that
[[Page 1963]]
meet the requirements of Secs. 141.86(d)(4) and 141.87(e),
respectively.
Section 141.87(d) has been revised to define the six-month periods
for the purpose of WQP monitoring once the State has designated OWQPs
under Sec. 141.82(f). The first such period shall begin on the date the
State specifies the OWQPs. For small and medium-size systems conducting
reduced monitoring for lead and copper at the tap that are triggered
into WQP monitoring pursuant to Sec. 141.87(d), the end of the six-
month period for monitoring under Sec. 141.87(d) shall be synchronized
with the end of the reduced monitoring period under Sec. 141.86(d)(4)
during which the action level exceedance occurred. The wording of
Sec. 141.87(d) has been streamlined by referencing, but not repeating,
the compliance requirements specified in Sec. 141.82(g). The Agency has
revised the requirements of Sec. 141.90(a)(1) to require that the WQP
monitoring results be provided to the State no less frequently than ten
days after the end of each six-month monitoring period, unless the
State has specified a more frequent reporting requirement.
Finally, today's action revises the provisions of Sec. 142.16(d)(1)
to add an optional special primacy condition for States that want to
use a formula, other than that specified in Sec. 141.82(g), to
calculate the daily value when multiple measurements are taken on the
same day for a water quality parameter at the same sampling location.
3. Revisions to Sec. 141.84
a. Proposed revision and background. Section 141.84 requires
systems that fail to meet the lead action level after installing CCT
and/or source water treatment to replace lead service lines (LSLs). As
promulgated in 1991, Sec. 141.84(d) required a water system to replace
the entire LSL, up to the building inlet, unless the system
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the State that it controlled less
than the entire service line. EPA promulgated a definition of
``control'' that was subsequently vacated and remanded to EPA as a
result of a judicial challenge to this aspect of the Rule to the extent
the definition of control applied to portions of the line beyond a
water system's ownership.4 The court in that case ruled that
EPA did not provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the
Agency's expansive definition of control. The court did not address the
question of whether the definition was within EPA's authority under
SDWA. In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA requested comment on a revised
definition of ``control'' that would include the portion of the line
the water system owns as well as any additional portion over which it
has the authority to replace. The Agency explained that it was
concerned that the LSL replacement requirements in the 1991 LCR, which
obligated systems to also replace the privately-owned portion of the
line where the system had the authority to replace, repair, or maintain
the line, or had other forms of authority over the line, could result
in confusion and delay in implementation of the Rule. Confusion could
result from different perceptions of the precise scope of the system's
legal authority, and resolution of such disputes could require the
intervention of the State in a potentially time-consuming process. EPA
also proposed to remove the rebuttable presumption in Sec. 141.84(e)
that the water system controls the entire length of the LSL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ AWWA v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is aware of some information indicating that partial
replacement of LSLs may result in transitory increases in levels of
lead at the tap immediately following replacement (see 56 FR 26505,
middle of second column, Jun. 7, 1991). The Agency believes that the
entire length of the service line should be replaced wherever such
replacement is possible. For this reason, the 1996 proposed revision to
Sec. 141.84(d) did not include any changes to the requirement that
water systems offer to replace the privately-owned portion of the LSL
(at the building owner's expense) and, if requested by the resident(s),
collect a post-partial replacement sample and report the results to the
resident(s) within 14 days of the partial LSL replacement.
In light of commenter concerns about the retention of partial LSL
replacement requirements in the April 1996 Proposal, EPA included a
request for comment in the April 1998 Notice on additional changes to
the LSL requirements. Specifically, EPA requested comment on the
following: (1) Clarifying that a system should make the offer to
replace the privately-owned portion of the LSL to the owner, rather
than the user; (2) adding a requirement that the system notify the
resident(s) of the building(s) served by the LSL at least 45 days prior
to partial LSL replacement and provide guidance on possible short-term
lead level increases and preventive measures consumers can take to
minimize exposure; (3) replacing the 1991 LCR requirement for a
resident-requested follow-up sample within 14 days of partial LSL
replacement with a requirement to collect a sample within 24 hours of
partial LSL replacement, and to notify the resident(s) within 3 days of
the system's receipt of the results; and (4) adding flexibility in the
method of resident notification.
b. Comments and analysis.
(i) Definition of ``control.'' In the April 1996 Proposal, the
Agency solicited comments, specifically regarding the degree to which
systems may have the authority to replace the privately-owned portions
of LSLs. In addition, EPA solicited comments regarding the option of
only requiring replacement of the portion of the line owned by the
water system, explaining that such an approach would further simplify
implementation of the rule because the division in ownership between
the system and the user would be clear to all parties.
Three commenters supported the definition of control that EPA
proposed, that is water systems must replace the portion that they own
as well as the portion over which they have the authority to replace.
All other commenters supported the more limited definition that equates
control with ownership. Commenters felt that it is appropriate to hold
the water system responsible only for the portion of the service line
the system owns. In addition, the commenters felt that defining control
as ownership would avoid confusion and ambiguities about the scope of
the water system's authority to replace LSLs. These commenters opposed
the idea of also requiring a water system to replace any additional
portion of the line that it does not own but for which it has the
authority to replace. Their reasons for opposing the proposed
definition included: lack of legal authority; difficulty obtaining
permission to replace LSLs on private property; concern about using
public funds to do work on private property; and potential conflicts/
lawsuits involving utilities, homeowners and independent contractors.
Some commenters argued that EPA does not have the statutory authority
to require LSL replacement by the water supplier on private property.
After consideration of these comments, the Agency agrees that the
broader definition of ``control'' (that is, the water system would be
required to replace the portion of the LSL that it owns plus any
additional portion of the line that it has the authority to replace)
could result in unintended delays and other complications. For this
reason, EPA believes it is appropriate to equate ``control'' with
``ownership'' in order to eliminate potential legal confusion and
delays in implementing the Rule.
(ii) Elimination of the rebuttable presumption. Most commenters did
not
[[Page 1964]]
explicitly address EPA's proposal to remove the rebuttable presumption
that the water system controls the entire length of the LSL. Those who
did address the issue supported the Agency's proposal. EPA is
eliminating the rebuttable presumption as proposed, since it is no
longer needed now that the definition of ``control'' equals ownership
under today's rule.
(iii) Possible adverse health effects associated with partial LSL
replacement. A number of commenters to the April 1996 Proposal and the
April 1998 Notice expressed concern about the possible adverse health
effects associated with partial replacement of LSLs. These concerns
were similar to those expressed by commenters to the 1988 proposed LCR.
The commenters felt that replacing only part of the service line could
actually increase the lead levels at the tap because of galvanic
action, the disruption of the protective coating on the inside of the
pipe and the entry of particulate lead to the supplied water. Some of
the commenters on the April 1996 Proposal referred to the case studies
(Britton and Richards, 1981; EPA, 1991b; Pocock, 1980) cited by the
Agency in the preamble to the 1991 LCR. EPA stated in the preamble that
the Agency thought partial LSL replacement could increase lead levels,
but that EPA believed increased levels, if they occur, will be
temporary and will decrease over time. A number of commenters argued
that these studies show increased lead levels from partial LSL
replacement and that the levels do not necessarily decrease. EPA has
reanalyzed the three case studies to better assess the lead level
increases resulting from partial LSL replacement (EPA, 1998c). This
reanalysis confirmed that lead levels at the tap, will in some
instances, increase immediately after partial replacement of the LSL.
The results of the same studies also revealed that subsequently, over
the long run, lead levels will decrease below the pre-replacement
levels after partial LSL replacement. The commenters on both the 1996
and 1998 proposals also stated that several water systems which began
voluntary programs to replace their portion of the LSL observed
increased lead levels after replacement. However, no new data were
submitted to the Agency for analysis. The Agency believes that the
temporary rise in lead levels indicates not only the presence of lead
materials in the distribution system (i.e., service lines, probably
lead pipe), but also poor corrosion control. It is expected that
potential for temporary increases in lead levels will be minimal for
those systems where corrosion control has been fully implemented and
optimized as required by the Rule.
Four case studies were examined to assess the impact of partial LSL
replacement (EPA, 1998c). Only two of the case studies have adequate
data to assess the impact on lead levels at the tap, relative to time
elapsed after replacement. The first study was conducted in Scotland.
Lead levels were observed at a residence after partial LSL replacement
over a four-month period (Britton and Richards, 1981). The other study
was conducted by EPA at several homes in Oakwood, Ohio and lead levels
were recorded for several weeks after replacement (EPA, 1991b).
The study by Britton and Richards showed a temporary rise in lead
levels at the tap. There were four monitoring periods in this case
study: before replacement, one week after replacement, two months after
replacement, and four months after replacement. During each period, 10
first-draw and 10 random daytime samples were collected daily over a
two-week period. First-draw samples were taken in the morning before
any other water in the household had been run. The random daytime
samples were taken later that day without running any water to waste
before sampling.
The elevated lead levels produced by partial LSL replacement were a
short-term phenomenon. The average concentrations for the first-draw
and random daytime samples taken ``four months after replacement'' are
lower than the average concentrations of the ``before replacement''
samples. In addition, the first-draw and random daytime samples were
averaged for each sampling period to better assess the impact of
partial LSL replacement on lead levels at the site. The averages of all
samples taken ``four months after replacement'' is 25 percent lower
than the averages of all samples taken ``before replacement.'' The
percentage reduction is even larger when the average of the first-draw
samples are compared. The data on the range of concentrations and the
percentages of samples above 0.100 mg/L and 0.050 mg/L also support the
benefits of partial LSL replacement. The highest concentration in the
first-draw samples taken ``four months after replacement'' is less than
half the highest concentration taken in the first-draw samples taken
``before replacement.'' In addition, the percentages of samples with
concentrations above 0.100 mg/L and 0.050 mg/L are lower in the data
taken ``four months after replacement.'' This trend is observed in both
the first-draw and the random daytime samples. This study supports
EPA's contention that although lead levels at the tap will in some
instances increase immediately after partial replacement of the LSL,
over the long run, lead levels will decrease below the before
replacement levels.
The EPA study was designed to observe the effects of partial LSL
replacement. First-draw samples and service line samples were taken
before and after replacement of LSLs at four sites in Oakwood, Ohio.
One limitation of this study is that the lead levels before replacement
were below the trigger of 0.015 mg/L. LSL replacement would not be
required for these sites under the LCR. Another limitation is the
duration of sampling. A complete set of post-replacement samples was
not taken at every site making it difficult to fully examine the impact
of time on post-replacement lead levels. The third limitation is that
the date of the partial LSL replacement for each of the four sites is
not recorded in the summary.
The results from the first round of post-replacement samples are
very similar to the pre-replacement results. The averages of the pre-
and post-replacement samples for three of the sites were within 3
``/L of one another, and all were at or below 10 /L.
The average service line lead level almost doubled at one site and
exceeded the action level of 15 /L after replacement. However,
the average for the three service line samples taken at this site the
following week was dramatically lower. The averages for the service
line samples taken at the other two sites during this sampling period
were also lower than the averages for the first after replacement
sampling period. The results from the second round of post-replacement
monitoring showed a significant decrease in lead levels when compared
to the pre-replacement averages. The post-replacement averages from the
second monitoring period showed approximately a 50 percent reduction
from the pre-replacement averages. The data from the third round of
post-replacement monitoring only showed a slight additional decrease in
lead levels. The levels are below 5 /L, so further significant
reductions would be unlikely. These data do not support the commenter's
contentions that lead levels are elevated after partial LSL replacement
and that lead levels do not necessarily decrease. These data do appear
to indicate that requiring replacement of lines where tap levels are
already low (i.e., below 0.015 mg/1) might not result in dramatic
improvements in lead levels.
In practice, EPA believes that many systems required to replace
LSLs will receive consent to remove any privately-
[[Page 1965]]
owned portions since it is in the homeowners' interest to completely
remove this source of lead in their drinking water. In those cases
where the PWS cannot obtain permission to remove the entire line, EPA
still believes there are benefits to partial replacement. Partial
removal of a LSL will reduce the likelihood of exposure to lead from
drinking water because there will be a smaller volume of water in
contact with the LSL. Consumers are more likely to consume water with
elevated lead levels from longer lines because a larger volume of water
will have elevated lead levels. As previously explained in detail in
the 1991 LCR, data collected by Pocock (1980) from over 2,000 homes in
the United Kingdom support the view that the likelihood of elevated
lead levels varies in relation to the length of the LSL. These findings
are also consistent with Kuch and Wagner's (1983) mass transfer
modeling, which predicted the dependence of lead levels on the length
and diameter of a lead pipe (i.e., higher lead levels with longer lead
pipe).
The Agency believes the water system should replace the entire
length of the line wherever possible. Today's action therefore retains
a requirement for the water supplier to offer to replace the privately-
owned portion of the line. This requirement has been revised to exclude
those instances where doing so is precluded by State, local or common
law. There is no requirement for the system to bear the cost of
replacing the privately-owned portion of the line. Thus, if the
property owner does not want to pay for removal of the privately-owned
portion of the line, the system is only required to replace the portion
it owns. The Agency believes that the requirement for systems to offer
assistance with replacement of privately-controlled service lines is an
efficient and effective means of maximizing the public health benefits
achieved by the rule.
(iv) Resident notification of partial LSL replacement. In response
to the April 1998 Notice, no commenter objected to requiring the system
to contact the ``owner'' rather than the ``user'' when offering to
replace the privately-owned portion of the service line. Several
commenters expressed concern that requiring notification to residents
45 days in advance of the partial replacement would present a hardship
in instances where the system is replacing the line in conjunction with
making emergency repairs. A few commenters objected to the requirement
that the water system be responsible for providing notification to
residents of multi-family buildings and other non-billing unit
residents and suggested this should be the responsibility of the
building owner. Finally, several commenters expressed concern about the
requirement for a post-replacement sample taken within 24 hours of the
replacement. The concerns included timing problems associated with
weekends and holidays, the likelihood that such a sample would not be
representative of the lead levels after stabilization, and the added
cost and burden associated with the requirement.
To minimize the risk that residents will incur increased exposure
because of partial line replacement, EPA is including the requirement
that water systems provide a notice of the partial replacement to the
residents at least 45 days before commencing with the partial LSL
replacement, inform residents that they may experience a temporary
increase of lead levels in their drinking water, and provide residents
with guidance about the measures they can take to minimize their
exposure to lead. The Agency feels that 45 days is a sufficient amount
of time for the recipients to study the guidance provided by the water
supplier, to familiarize themselves with the potential ramifications
associated with the partial LSL replacement, and to plan and implement
appropriate measures to avoid exposure to lead. The Agency agrees with
commenters, however, that a 45-day lead time is not practicable in
those instances when replacement is being done in conjunction with
emergency repairs. EPA has therefore included provisions giving States
the discretion to allow for notification of less than 45 days in such
instances. States will need to review such requests on a case-by-case
basis unless they adopt appropriate State regulations to allow
notification of less than 45 days in conjunction with emergency
repairs.
As an additional precautionary measure, the water system is
required to collect a follow-up LSL sample, to determine whether the
partial LSL replacement caused an increase of lead levels in the
drinking water, and to provide the results to residents. The 1991 LCR
required the water supplier to inform residents served by partially-
replaced LSLs that they were entitled to have a tap water sample drawn
and analyzed within 14 days of the completion of the partial
replacement. Upon further consideration, the Agency believes the
requirement, as codified in 1991, could place an undue burden on the
water system in those instances where a line serves a large multi-
family residence because the system could be required to take a large
number of samples if every unit requested one. The follow-up sampling
that would be required by the changes to Sec. 141.84(d) discussed in
the April 1998 Notice is intended to show the ``worst-case'' effects of
partial LSL replacement and is not intended to be used in 90th
percentile calculations or for determining compliance with optimal
corrosion control or source water treatment requirements. Under the
revised requirement, the water system is required to collect only one
sample for each partially-replaced LSL. EPA therefore does not believe
that a large number of samples is required.
EPA is including the requirement that the water system collect a
tap water sample representative of the water in the service line for
analysis of lead content as prescribed in Sec. 141.86(b)(3) and provide
the results to the residents quickly. Prior to collecting the follow-up
sample, water must remain sitting in the pipe for at least 6 hours
following partial LSL replacement. The Agency is sensitive to commenter
concerns that collecting such a sample within 24 hours of the partial
replacement may cause additional burden. In those cases where the
partial replacement is completed on a Friday or just before a holiday,
staff may not be available outside of normal working hours to collect
such a sample. For these reasons, EPA agrees with commenters that
extending the time frame for collecting the follow-up sample from 24
hours to 72 hours is reasonable and the Agency has done so in the final
rule language. In response to commenter suggestions, the Agency also is
clarifying in the rule language that the water system is expected to
pay for this sampling. EPA does not believe that the follow-up sampling
and notification constitute a significant burden to the system compared
with the cost of the partial LSL replacement.
The Agency believes that the affected parties should be provided
with the test results as quickly as possible so they can implement
appropriate measures, commensurate with the findings, as soon as they
can to minimize their exposure to lead. In addition, unnecessary
expenses and further concerns on the part of consumers could be
alleviated in instances where the analytical results indicate little or
no increase in lead levels, or an immediate decrease in lead levels,
resulting from the partial removal of the LSL. EPA therefore is
retaining the requirement that water systems provide the results of
this post-replacement sample to consumers within three days of
receiving the results. The Agency has
[[Page 1966]]
clarified the rule language to reflect that the three days are business
days.
While EPA is sensitive to the difficulties associated with
providing notification to residents of non-billing units (for example,
apartment buildings and other rental units), the Agency believes it is
important that the water system take pro-active measures to notify
these residents. The Agency therefore is including the requirement that
the water system provide the pre-partial LSL replacement information
and the post-replacement sample results to these residents as well as
to the residents of billing units. In the case of single family
residences, this notice must be made by mail unless another mechanism
is approved by the State. To avoid problems arising from delivery
delays beyond the system's control, notifications which are postmarked
within the required time will be considered acceptable. In the case of
multi-family residences, the regulation gives the water supplier the
option to post the information in a conspicuous place.
(v) Reporting of post-replacement sampling results to the State.
Most commenters supported the proposed requirement that water systems
provide the State a copy of the results of samples collected
immediately following partial LSL replacement within the first ten days
of the month following the month in which the results are received from
the laboratory. Two commenters, however, suggested that EPA provide
States flexibility in the manner, format, and timing of reporting;
three other commenters opposed the requirement altogether. After
consideration of these comments, EPA has retained the reporting
requirement but has given States the flexibility to modify or eliminate
it. Even if the State does not require these results to be reported,
water systems are required to maintain records of the sampling results
in accordance with Sec. 141.91.
(vi) Financial impacts of LSL replacement. Some commenters were
concerned about the financial impacts associated with LSL replacement.
They felt that compliance with the regulation will be particularly
burdensome for some cities that have a high percentage of LSLs. One
commenter stated the belief that EPA's 1991 LCR estimate of the average
removal cost per line was extremely conservative when made and is now
outdated, and actual costs could be significantly higher and submitted
supporting data. The cost of the original LSL replacement requirements
is outside the scope of this rulemaking. EPA did not propose any
changes to the basic LSL replacement requirements nor did EPA ask for
comment on those requirements or otherwise reopen that issue.
(vii) Other LSL comments. Some commenters raised issues with the
basic LSL replacement requirements of the rule, such as the requirement
to replace or sample 7 percent of lines each year and the basic
reasonableness of requiring systems to replace some portion of the line
when levels at the tap are above 15 ppb. These comments are outside the
scope of this rulemaking because EPA did not propose revisions to, or
otherwise reopen, the basic LSL replacement requirements in this
proceeding. Rather, the only aspects of the 1991 Rule addressed here
are the definition of ``control'' for purposes of determining the
portion of the service line the system is required to replace, and
sampling and notification requirements that relate to the potential for
partial LSL replacement.
c. Today's action. EPA has eliminated the ``control'' terminology
from the Rule. Today's action revises Sec. 141.84(d) to require the
water system to replace only the portion of the LSL that it owns. Water
systems subject to LSL replacement requirements continue to be required
to offer to replace the privately-owned portion of the line, however,
Sec. 141.84(d) has been revised to clarify that the offer must be made
to the owner of the property, or the owner's authorized agent, rather
than the user.
Today's action also revises the requirements in Sec. 141.84(d) that
a water system must satisfy when replacing only a portion of the LSL.
The requirement that a water system offer to take a post-replacement
sample within 14 days of the partial replacement has been replaced with
the following requirements.
At least 45 days prior to the partial replacement, the
water system must notify all residents of the building served by the
line that the partial replacement will occur, alert them that they may
experience a temporary increase of lead levels in their drinking water,
provide them with guidance on measures they can take to minimize their
exposure to lead, and inform them that the water system will collect a
follow-up sample within 72 hours of completing the partial replacement,
and notify them of the results of that sample. The State has the
discretion to allow less than a 45-day advance notice in those
instances where the partial replacement is being performed in
conjunction with emergency repairs.
Within 72 hours of completing the partial LSL replacement,
the water system shall collect a tap water sample representative of the
water in the service line for analysis of lead content in accordance
with the procedures specified in Sec. 141.86(b)(3). The system shall
report the results of the analysis to the owner and the resident(s)
served by the line within 3 business days of receiving the results.
Mailed notices post-marked within 3 business days of receiving the
results shall be considered ``on time.''
For the purpose of satisfying the notification
requirements of Sec. 141.84(d), the water system shall provide the
information to the residents of individual dwellings by mail or by
other methods approved by the State. In instances where multi-family
dwellings are served by the line, the water system shall have the
option to post the information at a conspicuous location.
Today's action also makes three other changes in Sec. 141.84.
Section 141.84(e) has been deleted, since the rebuttable presumption is
no longer appropriate. Sections 141.84(f) through (h) have been
redesignated as Secs. 141.84(e) through (g). The Agency also has made a
slight modification to Sec. 141.84(b) to explicitly require the system
to document, in system files, the portion(s) of the LSL(s) owned by the
system. The third sentence of Sec. 141.84(b) has been revised to read
as follows: ``The system shall identify the initial number of lead
service lines in its distribution system, including an identification
of the portion(s) owned by the system, based on a materials evaluation,
including the evaluation required under Sec. 141.86(a) and relevant
legal authorities (e.g., contracts, local ordinances) regarding the
portion owned by the system.'' EPA does not intend that systems provide
this information to the State; however, the Agency thinks it is
important for a record to exist that documents the baseline. These
records should be available for inspection at the system upon request.
The reporting requirement at Sec. 141.90(e)(4), to submit
documentation if the system believes it does not control the entire
length of the line, has been replaced with a requirement that the water
system report the results of the post-partial replacement sampling to
the State within the first ten days of the month following the month in
which the system receives the laboratory results, unless otherwise
specified by the State. States, at their discretion, may eliminate this
reporting requirement. Systems shall also report additional information
as specified by the State, and in a time and manner prescribed by the
State, to verify that all partial LSL replacement activities have taken
place.
Finally, these changes to Sec. 141.84 necessitate conforming
changes to
[[Page 1967]]
Sec. 141.85(a) and Part 142. EPA has revised the language of
Sec. 141.85(a) slightly to remove references to LSL control. The phrase
``each lead service line that we control'' in Sec. 141.85(a)(1)(i) (as
redesignated) has been revised to read ``the portion of each lead
service line that we own.'' The discussion of LSL replacement in
Sec. 141.85(a)(1)(iv)(B)(5) (as redesignated) has been revised to
reflect the notification and post-partial replacement sampling
requirements in today's action. Section 142.14(d)(8)(vii), requiring
States to maintain records of their determination that a water system
does not control the entire length of the LSL, has been deleted;
however, two new State recordkeeping requirements have been added.
Section 142.14(d)(8)(xvi) requires States to maintain records of any
system-specific determinations regarding the submission of information,
including post partial replacement test results, to demonstrate
compliance with partial lead service line replacement requirements.
Section 142.14(d)(10)(ii) has been added to include a requirement that
States maintain records related to system compliance with partial lead
service line replacement requirements. Section 142.16(d)(3) has been
revised to eliminate the requirement that States describe in their
primacy program revision application how they plan to make
determinations that a water system does not control the entire length
of the LSL. It has been replaced with a requirement that States
describe in their primacy program revision how they will verify that
all partial LSL replacement activities have been completed properly.
4. Revisions to Sec. 141.85
a. Changes affecting content of written materials.
(i) Proposed revision and background. In the April 1996 Proposal,
EPA requested comment on a revision that would provide separate
mandatory public education language for use by NTNCWSs and certain
CWSs, such as prisons and hospitals, which is more appropriate for
these systems. The proposed NTNCWS language would eliminate references
to ``homes in the community'' and some suggestions for reducing lead
exposure which may be beyond the control of consumers served by such
water systems. As a part of this provision, the Agency proposed that
the CWSs approved to use the NTNCWS language also be permitted to
deliver their public education program as if they were a NTNCWS. The
Agency proposed these changes to address concerns of EPA Regions and
States that the mandatory language specified in the 1991 LCR may not be
appropriate for NTNCWSs or certain small CWSs (such as prisons and
hospitals) that primarily serve confined populations. In order to
incorporate these changes into the LCR, EPA proposed to renumber
Sec. 141.85(a) as Sec. 141.85(a)(1) and to incorporate the NTNCWS
language at Sec. 141.85(a)(2). EPA also proposed to add a paragraph
(c)(7) to Sec. 141.85. This new paragraph would identify the types of
CWSs who might be eligible to use the NTNCWS language. As proposed,
CWSs would need State approval to use the NTNCWS language, however, EPA
also solicited public comment on the necessity of this up-front
approval.
(ii) Comments and analysis. While all commenters supported the
proposed revisions, some offered additional suggestions for
consideration by EPA. For example, suggestions were made to allow CWSs
to delete references to LSLs where none exist, and to delete references
to building permit records where the records are unavailable. Another
suggestion was to allow NTNCWSs with internal e-mail systems to
distribute the required public education information electronically in
lieu of printed format. EPA agrees with these suggestions, and has
incorporated language which gives States the flexibility to approve
these minor changes to the public education language.
Some commenters suggested that EPA allow systems additional
flexibility to tailor public education language. The public education
language specified in the regulations is a mandatory minimum. The
mandatory language specified in the regulations was developed to
provide consistent, beneficial information to consumers regarding lead
in their water supply. Systems may request approval from States to
include additional language, to provide consumers with information
specific to a particular system. EPA believes the LCR, as revised by
today's action, provides sufficient flexibility to address system-
specific circumstances.
EPA received mixed comments on whether up-front State approval for
CWSs to use the NTNCWS public education language should be required for
CWSs that meet the specified criteria in the proposed
Sec. 141.85(c)(7). After considering these comments, EPA believes that
the issue of whether to require up-front approval should be decided by
the States. The language at Sec. 141.85(c)(7) has been modified to
allow States to decide whether systems that qualify to use the
alternative public education language need to request State approval.
(iii) Today's action. EPA has made the following revisions to
Sec. 141.85 to reflect the changes discussed above. The Agency has
redesignated paragraph (a), except for the phrase, ``Content of written
public education materials,'' as paragraph (a)(1) and titled it as
``Community water systems.'' The subordinate paragraphs have been
redesignated accordingly. The introductory text of paragraph (a)(1) has
been expanded to allow CWSs, with State approval, to delete information
pertaining to lead service lines if no lead service lines exist
anywhere in the water system service area. As discussed in section
C.3.c. of this preamble, EPA has replaced the phrase ``each lead
service line that we control'' in paragraph (a)(1) with the phrase
``the portion of each lead service line that we own.'' Section
141.85(a)(1)(iv)(B)(5) also has been revised to reflect that a water
system is only required to replace the portion of the lead service line
that it owns and to reflect the notification and post-partial-
replacement sampling requirements contained in Sec. 141.84(d) of
today's action. Systems, however, may continue to use pre-printed
materials with the old language, if they so choose.
The language of Sec. 141.85(a)(1) also has been expanded to allow
systems to modify, with State approval, the language at
(a)(1)(iv)(B)(5) and (a)(1)(iv)(D)(2) regarding building permit record
availability and consumer access to these records if such information
is not available.
EPA has added new paragraphs at (a)(2) to specify alternative
mandatory language for use by NTNCWSs. These systems have the
discretion to use either the language in Sec. 141.85(a)(1) or the
language in Sec. 141.85(a)(2). The introductory text of
Sec. 141.85(c)(4) also has been revised to update the paragraph
references applicable to repeat public education tasks.
EPA also has added a paragraph (7) to Sec. 141.85(c). This
paragraph specifies the characteristics of CWSs that may be eligible to
use the NTNCWS language and provides flexibility for eligible CWSs to
substitute posting and distribution of informational pamphlets/
brochures in lieu of meeting the CWS public education distribution
requirements. CWSs delivering public education as if they were a NTNCWS
would be required to repeat public education tasks only once per
calendar year in which the system exceeds the lead action level. States
have the flexibility to waive the requirement for prior State approval
for these special-
[[Page 1968]]
case CWSs to deliver public education as if they are NTNCWSs.
In addition, EPA has revised Sec. 141.85(c)(4)(ii) to permit a
NTNCWS to utilize electronic transmission in lieu of or combined with
printed materials as long as it achieves at least the same coverage.
Finally, EPA has added provisions in a new Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(x)
that require States to maintain records pertaining to any system-
specific decisions made under Sec. 141.85 regarding the content of
written public education materials and/or the distribution of these
materials.
b. Public education delivery requirements.
(i) CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer people.
(A) Proposed revision and background. The April 1996 Proposal
included a provision to allow CWSs serving 500 or fewer people to
forego the newspaper and electronic media notifications required as a
part of public education because these systems rarely are served by
general circulation newspapers and radio/television stations that have
audiences limited to the public water system's service area. The Agency
explained that it believes such a revision is necessary to minimize the
unintended burden resulting from a system needing to respond to
numerous inquiries from individuals it does not serve. For the same
reason, EPA also proposed to allow systems serving 500 or fewer people
to limit the distribution of informational brochures to facilities and
organizations likely to be frequented by pregnant women and children.
Finally, EPA requested public comment on a burden reduction suggestion
to allow CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 people to forego the public service
announcement requirements contained in Sec. 141.85(c)(2)(iv) since the
major radio/television stations usually broadcast to a much broader
area than that served by the water system.
(B) Comments and analysis. Most of the commenters supported the
proposed revision pertaining to the delivery of public education by
CWSs serving 500 or fewer people. Several commenters noted
discrepancies between the preamble discussion and the rule language,
however, and expressed concern that the rule language, as proposed,
would not accomplish the intended objectives.
One of the discrepancies involves the distribution of informational
pamphlets or brochures to facilities and organizations visited
frequently by pregnant women and children. In the preamble, EPA stated
the Agency's intent that these materials be distributed to appropriate
facilities served by the system and ``only those locations outside the
system's service area that are regularly visited by the system's
consumers.'' This latter requirement, to provide informational
materials to facilities and organizations not served by the system, was
not included in the proposed rule language. Several commenters
expressed concern that including such a requirement would result in the
same confusion and unintended consequences as the original
requirements. EPA agrees that limiting the distribution of materials to
facilities/organizations within the service area is appropriate and the
final rule language has been revised accordingly.
The second discrepancy between the 1996 preamble and proposed rule
language involves the question of what, if anything, the water system
would be required to do in lieu of newspaper and electronic
notification. In the preamble, EPA indicated that the Agency was
proposing to require CWSs, that serve 500 or fewer people and that
desire to omit tasks requiring submission of information to newspapers
and radio and television stations, to mail or hand deliver lead public
education materials to all other regular consumers (e.g., tenants of
multi-family residences whose water is included in their rent), in
addition to mailing these materials to all billing units (60 FR 16355,
top of third column). EPA inadvertently omitted this requirement from
the proposed rule language. Even though several commenters expressed
concern that such an alternative requirement would be as burdensome as
the original requirements, the Agency believes that such a requirement
is appropriate when newspaper notification and/or broad distribution of
pamphlets/brochures does not occur. The purpose of these activities is
to ensure that as many individuals served by the system as possible
receive timely public education materials. For systems serving 500 and
fewer people, the Agency does not believe that mailing or hand
delivering these materials to all households served by the system, in
lieu of these activities, constitutes an undue burden. The revised
provisions allow these systems the flexibility to select the least
burdensome among the allowable delivery mechanisms. The Agency has
therefore incorporated this requirement into the final rule language.
The comments received also supported the burden reduction
suggestion to eliminate the public service announcement requirement for
CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 people. EPA agrees and today's action revises
the rule language accordingly.
Several commenters recommended that EPA also allow CWSs serving 501
to 3,300 people to forego newspaper notification and broad distribution
of pamphlets and brochures to facilities and organizations that are
visited frequently by pregnant women and children. These commenters
believe that the problems associated with newspaper notification and
broad distribution of informational pamphlets and brochures affect most
small systems. EPA concurs that many systems serving between 501 and
3,300 people may be on the fringe of an urban or suburban area and that
distribution of broad-based public education for these systems may have
unintended consequences. The Agency believes, however, that allowing
these systems to automatically limit distribution of public education
materials is inappropriate. Such systems, for example, are more likely
to be served by local newspapers in which it may be appropriate to
include information about the system's lead levels. EPA believes that
States are in the best position to determine the extent to which CWSs
serving 501 to 3,300 people should limit distribution of public
education materials. The final rule therefore gives States the
authority, either through State regulations or by case-by-case written
approval, to allow CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 people to omit the
newspaper notification requirements and to limit the distribution of
materials to appropriate facilities and organizations served by the
system.
Finally, one commenter suggested that the alternate delivery
allowed for NTNCWSs and some small CWSs (institutions) should be
extended to mobile home parks, housing projects, subdivisions and
apartments. The commenter believes such systems serve a more or less
confined population that is readily accessible through a central mail
area and/or laundry area that makes hand delivery much easier and more
effective. EPA believes that the revisions discussed below provide
sufficient flexibility for the delivery of public education by CWSs.
EPA therefore has no plans at this time to make further changes to the
public education language requirements beyond those contained in
today's action.
(C) Today's action. EPA has revised the rule to add a new paragraph
at Sec. 141.85(c)(8) to allow any CWS serving less than or equal to
3,300 people to omit the public service announcement requirements of
Sec. 141.85(c)(2)(iv). Such systems are not required to obtain prior
State approval to omit these announcements, nor are they required to
[[Page 1969]]
substitute any other tasks, in lieu of public service announcements, as
part of meeting the public education requirements.
In addition to omitting the public service announcement task for
small CWSs, the new Sec. 141.85(c)(8) provides some flexibility for
small CWSs to omit the newspaper notification required by
Sec. 141.85(c)(2)(ii) and to limit the distribution of informational
pamphlets under Sec. 141.85(c)(2)(iii) to appropriate facilities and
organizations served by the water system. In addition to mailing lead
public education materials to billing units, systems electing to limit/
omit these activities must also mail or hand deliver the required
public education materials to all other regular customers of the system
(i.e., households that are not billing units). CWSs serving 501 to
3,300 people must receive prior written approval from the State. State
approval is not required for CWSs serving 500 or fewer people, however,
Sec. 141.85(c)(8)(i)(A) gives States the authority to require such a
system to distribute to facilities and organizations not served by the
system in those instances where the State believes that a broader
distribution is appropriate. As discussed above, today's action also
adds the corresponding State recordkeeping requirements at a new
Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(x).
Finally, Sec. 141.85(c)(8)(ii) clarifies that small CWSs that omit
the public service announcement tasks are required to repeat public
education tasks only once during each calendar year until such time as
the results of lead and copper tap water monitoring indicate that they
no longer exceed the lead action level.
(ii) Timing and method of distribution.
(A) Proposed revision and background. In the April 1996 Proposal,
EPA sought comment on proposed changes pertaining to the mailing and
timing of public education materials by CWSs that exceed the lead
action level. Specifically, the Agency proposed two modifications to
Sec. 141.85(c)(2)(i) to: (a) Allow a CWS having a billing cycle that
does not include a billing within 60 days of exceeding the lead action
level to mail the materials on the same schedule as the system's
billing cycle as long as the mailing occurs within six months after the
exceedance; and (b) allow a CWS that cannot insert information in the
water utility bill, without making major changes to its billing system,
to use a separate mailing to deliver the public education materials as
long as the information is delivered within the required time frame.
EPA also proposed to require CWSs utilizing a separate mailing to
include an alert with the materials to minimize the risk that they
would be discarded as ``junk mail.'' The Agency proposed these changes
to minimize the unintended additional burden associated with making
changes in a water system's billing cycle and/or process to accommodate
the rule's public education requirements.
(B) Comments and analysis. Commenters generally were supportive of
these proposed changes, except for one State which disagreed with
allowing systems up to six months to deliver the public education
materials because of the potential health risks, especially for
pregnant women, if customers are not informed in a timely manner. After
further consideration of the public health issues, EPA has decided to
retain the current requirement that all systems exceeding the lead
action level distribute public education materials within 60 days of
the exceedance. The decision to retain the 60-day requirement is based
on these considerations: (1) Extending the time period to distribute
public education materials could lessen public health protection.
Pregnant women, in particular, might not receive timely notice if the
system were allowed up to six months after becoming aware of an
exceedance to provide the public education materials. (2) Allowing
different time requirements based on non-risk-related factors such as
billing cycles could provide unequal health protection. (3) State
administrative costs would increase since the State would need to be
aware of a system's billing cycle in order to determine compliance with
this requirement.
EPA agrees with commenters, however, that the mailing of public
education materials separately from the water bill is appropriate in
many instances and is revising the public education requirements
accordingly. The Agency believes that this change will provide
sufficient flexibility for systems to meet the public education
requirements without incurring the added burden of making substantial
changes to their billing processes.
One commenter seems to have misunderstood the requirements
pertaining to the timing of public education if a CWS is required to
repeat public education tasks pursuant to Sec. 141.85(c)(3). It is not
EPA's intention that such a system provide public education materials
within 60 days of any subsequent exceedance as well as repeat mailing
of these materials every 12 months based on the initial exceedance.
Rather, the Agency intends that public education materials be mailed
every 12 months for as long as the system continues to exceed the lead
action level. There is nothing in the regulation, however, that
precludes such a system from mailing the materials sooner than 12
months after the initial mailing, in order to synchronize the repeat
mailing with its billing cycle.
(C) Today's action. EPA is revising Sec. 141.85(c)(2)(i) to allow a
CWS the option of using a separate mailing when the system's billing
cycle does not include a mailing within 60 days of exceeding the action
level or where the system cannot insert information with the water
utility bill without making major changes in its billing system. The
separate mailing must occur within 60 days of exceeding the lead action
level and the system must include an alert in the package or on the
outside of the envelope containing the following message, in large
print: SOME HOMES IN THIS COMMUNITY HAVE ELEVATED LEAD LEVELS IN THEIR
DRINKING WATER. LEAD CAN POSE A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO YOUR HEALTH. PLEASE
READ THE ENCLOSED NOTICE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.
EPA also is revising the introductory text of Secs. 141.85(c)(2)
and 141.85(c)(4) to clarify that the requirement to deliver public
education within 60 days of a lead action level exceedance applies only
in the following instances:
The first time the water system exceeds the lead action
level; or
The first time the water system again exceeds the lead
action level after one (or more) round(s) of tap water monitoring for
lead and copper where the system did not exceed the lead action level.
c. Schedule for Reporting Completion of Public Education Tasks.
(i) Proposed revision and background. The April 1996 Proposal
included a change in the deadline for a PWS to report completion of
public education tasks to the State. Under the 1991 Rule, the deadline
for reporting was December 31 of each year in which the system was
subject to the Rule's public education requirements. EPA proposed to
replace the December 31 deadline with a requirement for the water
system to report completion of public education tasks to the State
within 10 days after the date by which the system is required to
perform any such tasks. EPA proposed this revision because the Agency
believes that the schedule for water systems to report completion of
public education tasks by December 31 of each year (in which the system
is required to conduct any public education task) fails to provide the
States and EPA with information in a
[[Page 1970]]
manner timely enough to oversee systems' compliance with the public
education program requirements.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Commenters were mixed in their support
for this revision. Those opposing it believe this will unnecessarily
increase burden. Of those supporting the revision, some support it as
written and some support it with changes. Two of those supporting it
with changes wanted the reporting time to increase from 10 days to 30
days, and one supporting it with changes expressed concern about
submitting a full packet of information each reporting period.
Several commenters who opposed this revision wanted to retain the
annual reporting requirement. EPA recognizes that this revision will
require those CWSs that must deliver public service announcements to
radio and television stations every six months to submit two letters to
the State during a calendar year instead of the single letter initially
required. However, EPA believes that accelerating the public education
reporting requirement will improve compliance because, in addition to
making the requirements easier to enforce, it also will encourage water
systems that exceed the lead action level to deliver the public
education program in a more timely manner.
EPA also believes it is appropriate to require reporting within 10
days after a public education task is scheduled to be completed. The 10
days allows systems time to assemble records and notify the State. Such
a requirement is consistent with the time frame allowed in other
reporting requirements, which allow 10 days for reporting to the State
after an action or the end of a reporting period. Very few systems
should be required to conduct public education tasks more than once per
year, since today's action also eliminates public service announcements
for small CWSs. In addition, since it is expected that not many systems
will continue to exceed the lead action level after installation of
OCCT (EPA, 1999b), EPA believes that this new requirement will not
increase burden for most systems.
As stated previously, one commenter suggested that, for ongoing
public education, it should not be necessary for a water system to
submit the full packet of information to the State for each subsequent
public education task to verify that all appropriate actions have been
taken, as long as the State receives a letter indicating that the
information has been sent out and the letter includes any changes to
the original information. The 1991 Rule requires that systems provide
sufficient documentation for States to determine whether all
appropriate actions have been taken. Today's action does not alter the
requirement that the demonstration be supported with appropriate
documentation. The Agency agrees that it may relieve some reporting
burden for systems if they are not required to submit the same
information more than once. On the other hand, EPA recognizes that
eliminating the requirement to submit the supporting materials each
time may increase the State burden to determine compliance since all of
the information may not be readily available at the time compliance is
assessed. For this reason, the Agency believes it is most appropriate
to leave the decision to the State about the need for repetitious
submission of the same information. If the State elects to eliminate
these repetitious submissions, however, EPA believes it is appropriate
to require the water system to certify that there have been no changes
in the supporting documentation. Regardless of the State's decision on
this matter, Sec. 142.14(d)(9) requires the State to maintain records
of system submittals which should contain the initial and any
subsequent public education information sent to the State. This
requirement is not affected by today's action.
(iii) Today's action. EPA is revising Sec. 141.90(f) to require any
water system, subject to the public education requirements of
Sec. 141.85, to report its completion of all required public education
tasks to the State within 10 days after the date by which the system is
required to complete semi-annual/annual public education tasks. The
Agency also is adding language to Sec. 141.90(f) that eliminates the
need for systems to submit supporting documentation that has been
submitted previously unless there is a change in the information or the
State requires that the documentation be included with each submission.
Systems that do not submit supporting documentation must certify that
there have been no changes to the information. A new
Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(xvii) requires States to maintain records of any
system-specific decisions made under Sec. 141.90(f) regarding the
resubmission of detailed documentation to demonstrate completion of
public education tasks.
5. Revisions to Sec. 141.86
a. Systems with an insufficient number of tier 1, 2, and 3 sample
sites.
(i) Proposed revision and background. The April 1996 Proposal
included new language at Sec. 141.86(a)(5) and Sec. 141.86(a)(7) which
instructs CWSs and NTNCWSs, respectively, to complete their sampling
pools with representative sites throughout the distribution system if
they are unable to locate a sufficient number of sample sites that meet
the tiering criteria specified in Sec. 141.86(a). EPA proposed this
revision to clarify that all systems are required to collect samples
from a minimum number of sites in accordance with Sec. 141.86(c), even
if a sufficient number of high-risk sites are not available.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Most commenters agreed with the
proposed new language. However, one commenter suggested that EPA
provide a clear definition or understanding of what constitutes a
``representative site''. The Agency believes that a ``representative
site,'' in this context, is a site in which the plumbing materials used
at that site would be commonly found at other sites served by the water
system. This definition for ``representative site'' is specific to
these two paragraphs and has been added to the regulatory language at
Sec. 141.86(a)(5) and Sec. 141.86(a)(7).
One commenter suggested that, rather than requiring a water system
to identify representative sites to complete its sampling pool if it
cannot identify a sufficient number of tier 1, 2, or 3 sites (if it is
a CWS) or a sufficient number of tier 1 or 2 sites (if it is a NTNCWS),
a CWS should be allowed to collect samples from only those sites
meeting the tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria, and a NTNCWS should be allowed to
collect samples from only those sites meeting the tier 1 or 2 criteria,
if they provide written justification, even if it means collecting
fewer than the minimum number of required samples.
EPA believes that if a water system collects fewer than the
required number of samples, the water system will not be able to
accurately characterize a lead or copper problem, if it exists. The
number of samples specified for initial monitoring, follow-up
monitoring and reduced monitoring was established to sufficiently
account for variability of lead and copper at taps while at the same
time being reasonable for a system to implement. Since there can be
variability in lead and copper levels at different taps within the same
building and even at the same tap at different points in time, EPA
believes that systems that do not have the requisite number of sites
must sample at multiple taps used to provide drinking water for human
consumption within available buildings. Systems with too few taps must
collect multiple samples from available taps used to provide drinking
water on different days during the monitoring period to meet the
monitoring requirements. The Agency therefore is not revising the
minimum
[[Page 1971]]
site requirement to allow fewer samples to be collected.
(iii) Today's action. EPA has revised the language of
Sec. 141.86(a)(5) to require that a CWS complete its sampling pool with
representative sites throughout the distribution system if it does not
have a sufficient number of tier 1, 2, and 3 sampling sites available.
Likewise, the Agency has revised the language of Sec. 141.86(a)(7) to
require that a NTNCWS complete its sampling pool with representative
sites throughout the distribution system if it does not have a
sufficient number of tier 1 and tier 2 sites available. The revised
language of both provisions includes the definition of a
``representative site,'' discussed above, that applies to these
provisions.
While today's action provides systems the flexibility to use any
representative site, EPA strongly encourages CWSs that are unable to
locate a sufficient number of tier 1, 2, or 3 sample sites and NTNCWSs
that are unable to locate a sufficient number of tier 1 and 2 sample
sites to add to their sampling pool those sites with copper plumbing
installed subsequent to local implementation of the lead ban (typically
1988 or 1989), provided these sites can be considered
``representative''. Sample sites meeting the tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria
have a greater likelihood of experiencing high lead levels than sample
sites not meeting the tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria because these sites
typically contain the newest lead plumbing materials in a community or
a facility. (Newer lead has a greater lead leaching potential than
older lead.) These same sample sites, however, may actually have a
lesser likelihood of experiencing high copper levels than sample sites
not meeting these criteria because these sites may not contain the
newest copper plumbing materials in a community or a facility.
Including sites in the sample pool that have copper plumbing installed
more recently than 1988 or 1989 may allow a water system to identify
copper corrosion problems not apparent by sampling sites meeting the
tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria.
b. Elimination of justification letters for use of non-tier 1
sample sites and insufficient lead service line sample sites.
(i) Proposed revision and background. One of the burden reduction
measures that EPA proposed in April 1996 was to eliminate the
requirement at Secs. 141.86(a)(8) and 141.90(a)(2)-(3) that a system
unable to locate a sufficient number of tier 1 sites send a letter to
the State justifying the selection of non-tier 1 sites. EPA also
proposed to eliminate the requirement at Secs. 141.86(a)(9) and
141.90(a)(4) that a system with LSLs, that cannot identify a sufficient
number of sampling sites served by a LSL for its sampling pool, send a
letter to the State demonstrating why it is unable to do so. EPA
explained that the original intent of these requirements was to help
ensure that systems collect samples from high-risk sites. The Agency
expected these justification letters to be completed prior to the start
of initial monitoring. Water systems are having to adjust their
sampling pools much more frequently than EPA anticipated because of the
difficulty they are experiencing in obtaining continued access to the
same sites. The requirement of constantly justifying the adjustments to
the sampling pool is adding an unintended extra burden on systems,
however, and the Agency believes that other appropriate tools available
to States, such as periodic on-site inspections and file reviews, can
be used to ensure that systems are routinely sampling at appropriate
sites.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Commenters were supportive of these
proposed changes. One commenter, however, objected to the basic
requirement in Sec. 141.86(a)(9) (redesignated by today's action as
Sec. 141.86(a)(8)) that requires that a system with LSLs collect 50
percent of the samples each monitoring period from taps served by LSLs.
EPA did not propose to revise this requirement. The commenter noted
that requiring the collection of samples at all sites identified in the
sampling plan is unrealistic, as not all homeowners identified in the
sampling plan are willing to participate. EPA recognizes that there may
be times when the system may be denied access to targeted sites. In
those instances, where there is an insufficient number of tier 1 sample
sites or an insufficient number of willing participants served by lead
service lines to constitute 50 percent of the sampling pool, the system
is expected to collect samples from all such sites that it can. The
system must then choose other sample sites from which to collect the
remaining number of samples. Sites where the homeowner refuses access
are no longer available for inclusion in the sampling pool and the
water system should document the reason the site was not sampled in its
files. EPA believes this issue is best clarified through guidance
rather than a change in rule language.
(iii) Today's action. After considering the comments received, EPA
is revising the provisions of Secs. 141.86(a)(8)-(9) and 141.90(a)(2)-
(4) as proposed in April 1996. Specifically, Secs. 141.86(a)(8) and
141.90(a)(2)-(3), requiring the system to send a letter to the State
justifying the use of non-tier 1 sites, have been deleted. Section
141.86(a)(9) has been redesignated as Sec. 141.86(a)(8) and revised to
eliminate reference to the reporting requirement that a water system
with LSLs that does not have sufficient sites served by LSLs available
to comprise 50 percent of the sampling pool send a letter to the State
justifying why it cannot do so. Section 141.90(a)(4), which contained
the corresponding reporting requirement, has been replaced with a new
reporting requirement pertaining to small system waivers (see section
C.5.l. of this preamble). Although the regulatory requirement to send
these sample site justifications to the State has been eliminated, the
Agency encourages systems to provide this information to the State as a
courtesy.
c. NTNCWSs without enough taps to provide first-draw samples.
(i) Proposed revision and background. One of the provisions that
EPA proposed in April 1996 would allow NTNCWSs that do not have enough
taps where the water will have stood in the plumbing for at least six
hours to ask the State, in writing, for approval to sample from taps
where the water will have stood for less than six hours. These systems
would be required to collect first-draw samples from as many taps
having at least a six-hour standing time as possible. For the remaining
samples, systems would be required to identify and report to the State,
sampling times and locations that would likely result in the longest
standing time. Systems would then be required to sample at times and
locations approved by the State. EPA also requested comment on an
alternative that would give the States flexibility to eliminate the
requirement for up-front State approval of the sampling plan. Under
this scenario, NTNCWSs would still be required to sample from taps with
the longest standing times possible, however, States would not need to
approve these sites prior to monitoring. In the preamble to the April
1996 Proposal, EPA noted that States would retain discretion to verify,
at any time, that the proper sampling was done.
EPA proposed this provision to address the problem many NTNCWSs
that provide drinking water 24 hours a day (e.g., a factory operating
on a 3-shift basis) face in complying with the LCR's requirements. Such
systems may not have periods of normal operation during which the water
will have stood motionless in the plumbing for at least six hours prior
to collecting tap water lead and copper samples. The Agency believes
that it is unnecessary to require such systems to shut down operations
in order to achieve a standing time that
[[Page 1972]]
does normally exist. The proposed provision would allow these systems
to sample at times and locations that are most likely to be
representative of these systems' worst case scenarios.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Most commenters supported allowing
these NTNCWSs to substitute non-first-draw samples for first-draw
samples if they do not have enough taps that can achieve the required
six-hour standing time. A few of these commenters, however, suggested
that it is not always practical to try to determine which tap(s) have
the longest standing times. Others suggested that repeat sampling, on
separate days, at the tap(s) that meet the six-hour standing time
requirement be permitted, rather than substituting samples that do not
meet the six-hour standing time requirement.
EPA believes that if a system cannot locate the requisite number of
taps that satisfy the six-hour standing time requirement, it must make
the effort to identify the taps having the longest standing times and
collect substitute samples from these sites. Sampling at sites that
have the longest standing time will assist the system in determining
the maximum potential level of lead and copper exposure from drinking
water. EPA also believes that it is more important to collect samples
from the required number of sites (as long as these are sites that are
typically used to provide drinking water) than it is to collect samples
that have stood in the tap for six hours if a six-hour standing time is
not typical at that NTNCWS because it is operating 24 hours per day.
The minimum number of samples for initial, follow-up, and reduced
monitoring has been established to sufficiently account for the
variability of lead and copper at different taps while at the same time
being reasonable for a system to implement. Collecting the required
number of samples, but from fewer sample sites, does not address the
variability issue as well, especially if the system has other taps that
are typically used and that can be sampled. For these reasons, today's
action retains the requirement to collect at least the minimum number
of samples specified in Sec. 141.86(c).
Many of the commenters supporting the substitution of non-first-
draw samples did not address the issue of up-front State approval.
Commenters who did address this issue were mixed in their support.
While most commenters who supported up-front approval did not explain
why they did so, one commenter suggested that up-front notification and
approval may be easier for States to implement and control. Another
commenter supported up-front approval but suggested that the system
should be free to proceed without specific written concurrence from the
State if the State did not respond within a reasonable period. Several
commenters supported substitution of samples without prior State
approval; however, some supported such flexibility only if States were
allowed to conduct verification inspections.
In consideration of these comments, today's action gives States
discretion to decide whether or not to require prior State approval of
sampling plans. Systems in States not requiring prior State approval
must submit documentation of their sampling plan to the State, when
they submit their sampling results. This documentation must include
identification of the substitute sample sites and the length of
standing time for each substitute sample.
Some commenters also used this opportunity to propose that NTNCWSs
that have fewer than five sample taps where five samples are required,
or fewer than ten sample taps where ten samples are required, be
permitted to collect only as many samples as there are sample taps. EPA
believes that it is inappropriate to reduce the minimum number of
samples required. The LCR requires all water systems to collect a
minimum number of samples (dependent on size of population served by
the system) as per Sec. 141.86(c). As stated previously, the number of
samples specified for initial, follow-up, and reduced monitoring has
been established to sufficiently account for variability of lead and
copper at taps while at the same time being reasonable for a system to
implement. There is also some variability in concentrations across
multiple samples from the same tap collected at different points in
time. EPA believes that absent a sufficient number of appropriate taps,
the variability in lead levels from samples collected from the same tap
at different times warrants retaining the requirement for the minimum
number of samples to be collected. Water systems with fewer sample taps
than required should thus contact the State to discuss an appropriate
sampling plan that would include collecting the required number of
samples at the available sample taps.
Finally, one commenter noted that there also are some CWSs (e.g.,
prisons, nursing homes) that have similar characteristics to NTNCWSs.
EPA agrees. Today's action therefore also allows special-case CWSs,
such as prisons and hospitals, that do not have a sufficient number of
taps to provide first-draw samples to sample from taps where the water
will have stood for less than six hours.
(iii) Today's action. EPA has added provisions at Sec. 141.86(b)(5)
that require a NTNCWS which does not have enough taps that can supply
first-draw samples to collect as many first-draw samples from
appropriate sample taps as possible and to complete the sampling pool
with locations that would likely result in the longest standing time
for the remaining samples. These provisions also apply to special-case
CWSs. Special-case CWSs are those specified in Secs. 141.85(c)(7)(i)
and (ii) where the system is a facility, such as a prison or hospital,
where the population served is not capable of or is prevented from
making improvements to plumbing or installing point-of-use treatment
devices and where the system provides water as part of the cost of
services provided and does not separately charge for water consumption.
States have discretion to decide whether or not prior State
approval is required before a system can substitute non-first-draw
samples. EPA has added provisions at Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(xi) for States
to maintain records of any system-specific decisions made regarding use
of non-first draw samples. Where prior State approval is not required,
systems must submit documentation with the sampling results that
identify each site that does not meet the six-hour minimum standing
time and the length of standing time for the sample(s) collected from
that site. Nothing in the rule language precludes verification
inspections by the State. A State conducting a water system inspection
for any purpose can also use that opportunity to review the sampling
plan that should be available on-site. (Water systems are required to
retain all records for at least 12 years, as per Sec. 141.91.) States
opting to allow systems to proceed with sampling without requesting
prior approval from the State should inform the systems, before the
start of the monitoring period, that up-front approval is not required.
Today's action also modifies the language at Sec. 141.90(a)(2)
5 to add the corresponding reporting requirement. If the
State requires prior State approval, the system must provide written
documentation to the State identifying sampling times and locations of
the non-first-draw samples which the system proposes to use to complete
its sampling pool prior to sampling. If the
[[Page 1973]]
State does not require prior State approval, the modified language at
Sec. 141.90(a)(2) requires the system to identify each site that did
not meet the 6-hour minimum standing time and the length of standing
time for that particular sample, and submit this information at the
same time that it submits its lead and copper tap sample results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ As noted in section C.5.b. of this preamble, the requirement
previously codified at Sec. 141.90(a)(2) for a CWS to justify the
use of non-tier 1 sampling sites has been eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, today's action makes a conforming revision to the language
at Sec. 141.86(b)(2) to require non-first-draw samples collected
pursuant to Sec. 141.86(b)(5) to be one liter in volume and to be
collected at an interior tap from which water is typically drawn for
consumption. This changed language provides coverage for those NTNCWSs
and special-case CWSs that must complete their sampling pool with non-
first-draw samples and is consistent with the requirement that first-
draw samples be one liter in volume and be drawn from taps that are
routinely used to provide drinking water.
d. Minimum holding time for acidified lead and copper samples prior
to analysis.
(i) Proposed revision and background. In the April 1996 Proposal,
EPA sought comment on a revision to Sec. 141.86(b)(2) to make the
minimum length of time that a lead and copper sample must stand in the
original container after acidification consistent with the analytical
methods for other metals. Rather than explicitly specifying the holding
time in subpart I, the proposed revision would require these samples to
stand in the original container ``for the time specified in the
approved EPA method,'' eliminating the need to revise the LCR in the
future to reflect methods changes. The Rule, as promulgated in 1991,
requires that a sample stand in the original container for at least 28
hours after acidification before sample analysis can occur. The
analytical method requiring this minimum holding time was revised in
1994 to allow laboratories to analyze samples for metals other than
lead and copper 16 hours after acidification, instead of having to wait
28 hours before this analysis can occur (59 FR 62456, December 5,
1994). EPA believes the revision to Sec. 141.86(b)(2) relieves
laboratories of the burden to have separate acidification holding times
for lead and copper and increases the number of samples that can be
analyzed in a day.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Two commenters had concerns about the
proposed change. One requested clarification as to why the change was
needed. As explained above, EPA believes this revision is appropriate
to maintain consistency with the analytical methods for other metals.
Another commenter opposed the proposed revision on the basis that it
would decrease the amount of time available for sample analysis,
thereby increasing the potential for laboratory error resulting in the
need to collect additional samples. This commenter apparently
interpreted the acidification holding time as the maximum time that can
elapse between acidification and analysis. In fact, the acidification
holding time is the minimum time that must elapse after acidification
before the sample is analyzed. By reducing this time, EPA believes
that, if anything, the potential for laboratory error will decrease, as
the amount of time available for sample analysis will increase.
One commenter who supported the revision noted that EPA also needs
to revise the laboratory licensure requirements in the CFR to reflect
this change. Laboratory certification requirements are defined in the
``Manual for the Certification of Drinking Water Laboratories'', not in
the CFR. EPA has revised this manual to conform with the revised
holding times specified at Sec. 141.86(b)(2).
(iii) Today's action. Today's action revises the next to last
sentence of Sec. 141.86(b)(2), as proposed, to read: ``After
acidification to resolubilize the metals, the sample must stand in the
original container for the time specified in the approved EPA method
before the sample can be analyzed.''
e. Selection of sample sites under reduced monitoring.
(i) Proposed revision and background. The LCR specifies the number,
location, and timing of samples to be collected for standard monitoring
of lead and copper at the tap. At a minimum, systems must conduct
standard monitoring initially and as a follow-up to installing CCT. The
Rule also allows a reduced number and frequency of samples for certain
water systems once corrosion control has been optimized. However, the
rule language promulgated in 1991 failed to specify which of the
previously tested sampling sites should be included in the reduced
sampling pool. To correct this omission, in 1996, EPA proposed to
require reduced monitoring sites to be representative of the sites
required for standard monitoring. EPA also proposed to allow States the
discretion to specify which sites a system subject to reduced
monitoring should use if, in the judgment of the State, such an action
is warranted.
EPA proposed this language because of the concern that some water
systems, if allowed to select sample sites under reduced monitoring
without any restrictions, might be tempted to select only those sites
that had the lowest analytical results during the initial monitoring,
thereby skewing the 90th percentile calculations downward.
(ii) Comments and analysis. In their comments, some water systems
raised concern that States might require them to select only those
sites with the highest analytical results during the initial
monitoring, which would skew the 90th percentile calculation upward.
EPA does not want either of these extremes to be used in the selection
of sites under reduced monitoring and is therefore revising
Sec. 141.86(c) to require that the sample sites selected under reduced
monitoring be representative of those selected initially.
Of the 18 comments received, only 1 commenter directly disagreed
with the proposal. That commenter felt the proposal displayed a lack of
trust in water systems and increased the burden on the States. EPA
believes that the revised wording in today's action should not be
construed as indicating a lack of trust in all water system decisions.
The intent of the revised wording is to allow most water systems to
make their own decisions, but to also allow a State the option of
specifying the sampling sites under reduced monitoring, if it believes
that a system needs assistance in identifying which of the sample sites
in the system's sampling pool are truly representative of the sampling
pool. EPA expects that States will allow most water systems to specify
reduced monitoring sample site locations without State involvement.
However, if the State feels the need to intervene, the Rule now clearly
gives them the authority to do so.
Three commenters questioned the requirement to draw 50 percent of
the tap samples from sites served by a LSL during reduced monitoring.
These commenters believe that water systems should be permitted to
sample from any of the original tap sites during reduced monitoring.
Two of these commenters also believe that for a water system with only
a few LSLs, the requirement to collect samples from all of the sites
with LSLs will provide a misleading characterization of the sampling
pool and the distribution system in general. The sampling scheme
promulgated in 1991 was not established to characterize lead and copper
levels throughout the entire water system. Rather, it was established
to ensure that systems collect samples from residences most likely to
experience elevated levels of lead in tap water due to corrosion (i.e.,
high-risk sites). EPA believes that these high-risk locations should be
accounted
[[Page 1974]]
for in a monitoring plan to better ensure that high levels of lead are
detected and that the system institutes treatment that provides uniform
and adequate levels of public health protection throughout the entire
distribution system. EPA feels that the reasoning that led to the
requirement that 50 percent of the tap samples be drawn from sites
served by a LSL during initial monitoring is just as valid for reduced
monitoring and has thus not revised this requirement. In addition, just
as for initial monitoring, systems with LSLs, which do not have enough
sample sites with LSLs to comprise 50 percent of their sampling pool,
must collect samples during reduced monitoring at as many homes with
LSLs as they have access to.
One commenter thought that EPA's language in Sec. 141.86(c) could
be interpreted to mean that a water system is required to collect only
one sample in a round of monitoring (although that sample would have to
represent the required number of sites, possibly by being a composite
sample or possibly by being taken randomly from one of the sites) and
suggested a revision to the wording that would require at least one
sample be collected from each of the number of sites specified. EPA
believes that the vast majority of water systems have been interpreting
EPA's intent correctly and are collecting one sample per site during
reduced monitoring. In addition, the Agency believes that the
commenter's suggested wording change, that systems conducting reduced
monitoring collect at least one sample from ``each of the number of
sites specified,'' might confuse those NTNCWSs that have fewer sites
(i.e., faucets) available than the number of samples they are required
to collect in a monitoring period. Those systems must collect multiple
samples from some sites in order to collect the required number of
samples. The commenter's wording could be interpreted to mean that the
system need only collect as many samples as there are sample sites.
Since this is not EPA's intent, the wording has not been revised as
suggested by the commenter.
(iii) Today's action. For the reasons discussed above, EPA has
revised the wording of Sec. 141.86(c), as proposed, to clarify that the
reduced monitoring sites must be representative of the sites required
for standard monitoring and to give States discretionary authority to
specify the reduced monitoring sites. A corresponding State
recordkeeping requirement, to maintain records pertaining to any State
designations of reduced monitoring sites, has been added as
Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(xii).
f. State determination of eligibility for reduced monitoring.
(i) Proposed revision and background. Under the 1991 Rule, systems
subject to water quality parameter monitoring after the installation of
corrosion control treatment must explicitly request State approval to
begin reduced monitoring for lead and copper at the tap. In 1996, EPA
proposed to eliminate the requirement for these systems to request
State approval. However, such systems would still be required to
receive written approval from the State before reducing the frequency
of monitoring. EPA proposed this provision as a burden reduction
measure. Since most States routinely review eligibility for reduced
monitoring at the time they review monitoring results and notify those
systems that have become eligible to reduce monitoring, the requirement
that systems explicitly request the State to determine eligibility is
an unnecessary administrative burden.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Most commenters agreed with EPA's
proposal. Some, however, expressed concern that systems may become
confused as to what their monitoring requirements are; others expressed
concern that States might not routinely provide timely notification
unless prompted by a request from the system. These commenters
suggested that EPA at least provide States flexibility to retain the
current requirement. The Agency does not believe that such flexibility
needs to be written into the rule language. Nothing in the Federal
regulations precludes systems from continuing to request State approval
if they believe that such a request will ensure timely State
notification.
Some commenters also raised the question of whether the proposed
change effectively reduces burden or merely shifts it from the system
to the State. The Agency believes that this provision will reduce
burden. EPA estimates that the current requirement imposes both a
system burden (requesting approval for reduced monitoring) and a State
burden (reviewing the request and relevant monitoring and treatment
data and providing written notification to the system). The Agency
estimates that the system burden will be eliminated with the revised
provision and that no increase in State burden will occur because the
State will determine a system's eligibility for reduced monitoring as
part of its routine determination of compliance with the LCR monitoring
requirements.
(iii) Today's action. Sections 141.86(d)(4)(ii) and (d)(4)(iii)
have been revised to allow any water system that maintains the range of
values for the WQPs reflecting OCCT specified by the State under
Sec. 141.82(f) to reduce the frequency of monitoring to once per year
or once every three years, respectively, if the system meets the other
conditions specified in Secs. 141.86(d)(4)(ii) or (d)(4)(iii),
respectively, and receives written notification from the State that it
can reduce the frequency of monitoring. The system reporting
requirement at Sec. 141.90(a)(5) for systems to request approval for
reduced monitoring has been eliminated.
g. Timing of sample collection under reduced monitoring.
(i) Proposed revision and background. The 1991 Rule language
required water systems subject to reduced monitoring to conduct that
monitoring during the months of June, July, August, and/or September.
EPA imposed this requirement because the Agency believed that the
highest levels of lead at the tap were most likely to occur during warm
weather months. This requirement, however, has had the unintended
consequence of forcing seasonal NTNCWSs that do not operate during the
summer months to collect samples during periods that are not
representative of normal operations. To correct this problem, in 1996,
EPA proposed to allow a seasonal NTNCWS that does not operate during
the months of June, July, August, or September, to collect samples,
under reduced monitoring, during the system's warmest month(s) of
operation.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Most commenters supported this proposed
revision. A few commenters expressed concern, however, that it would be
difficult to determine alternate ``warmest month(s) of operation'' or
that the revised requirement would create a hardship for laboratories
by forcing all monitoring into a single month. These commenters
suggested that EPA give States the authority to designate the
alternative month(s) of sampling or retain the current requirements.
Two commenters stated their belief that there is no justification for
requiring any system to limit reduced monitoring to warm weather months
and suggested EPA remove this requirement across the board.
EPA has reviewed recently published data and analyses pertaining to
the effect of temperature on lead and copper leaching. The Agency
provided notice of the availability of these data and requested public
comment in the April 1998 Notice on a regulatory option that would
allow systems conducting reduced tap water monitoring for lead and
copper to collect samples during
[[Page 1975]]
months of normal operation when lead levels are likely to be the
highest, or as otherwise designated by the State.
Although there is no definitive data, there are several factors
which might explain why metal levels could frequently be higher in cold
weather months, various combinations of which may be simultaneously
present in a given water system. These factors include:
The intrinsic net solubility of many minerals, especially
carbonates, increases as the temperature decreases.
Corrosion inhibitors, especially orthophosphate, may react
more slowly at lower temperatures, so passivating film formation is
less effective in colder water.
Corrosion inhibitors and other treatment chemicals may be
more viscous at lower temperatures. Therefore, the chemical feed rates
may be lower when cold.
Many pipes are near heating systems, and in the winter the
operation of the heating systems causes the pipes to be hotter. Plus,
the change in temperature could also disrupt the existing protective
films in the pipes built up over the earlier months of more stable
temperatures.
Dissolved oxygen levels are often higher in colder waters,
resulting in increased concentrations of oxidants (e.g., oxygen, free
chlorine, chloramines) in the water. This causes more rapid increases
in metal levels through enhanced oxidation during short standing times
(less than 16 hours).
Only one commenter opposed such a revision, on the basis that such
a change might be disruptive to utilities and laboratories. EPA
disagrees. Since the revised language allows States to retain the
requirement to conduct reduced monitoring during the months of June
through September, the Agency believes the regulatory language provides
sufficient flexibility to accommodate the scheduling issues raised by
the commenter.
Based on a review of the current science and comments received in
response to the April 1996 Proposal and the April 1998 Notice, EPA
believes that the requirement to limit reduced monitoring to warm
weather months is no longer justified. Today's action therefore revises
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(iv) to provide States some flexibility to specify an
alternative time for the collection of samples under reduced
monitoring.
In the April 1998 Notice, EPA also requested public comment on the
need for the rule language to explicitly allow a transition period for
those water systems, already on a reduced monitoring schedule, that
want to take advantage of the greater flexibility in the revised
regulation. Most of the commenters who addressed this question strongly
supported including provisions for a transition period in the rule
language. EPA agrees that it is appropriate to define a transition
period. It is not the Agency's intent that systems already on reduced
monitoring be locked into the months of June through September for
sample collection. Nor is it the Agency's intent that such systems be
penalized by being forced into scheduling a subsequent round of
monitoring significantly earlier than otherwise would be necessary just
to change the allowable months for sample collection. EPA has therefore
included provisions for a transition period in today's action.
(iii) Today's action. EPA has revised the language of
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(iv) to require that systems subject to reduced
monitoring collect samples during the months of June, July, August, or
September unless the State has approved a different sampling period.
The alternate sampling period must be no longer than four consecutive
months and represent a time of normal operation where the highest
levels of lead are most likely to occur. EPA recognizes that in many
cases it will be difficult to predict when the highest lead values
might occur given a system's water chemistry coupled with other
influencing physical factors. There may be instances, however, where
monitoring data from similar systems or prior monitoring or survey
experience at a particular system is available to the States that would
suggest when the most appropriate monitoring time(s) will occur. If the
State is unable to identify an alternate monitoring period for a system
where the highest levels of lead are most likely to occur, then the
system must continue monitoring during the months of June, July,
August, or September. However, if the system is a NTNCWS that does not
operate during the months of June through September, the final rule
allows these systems to monitor during a period designated by the State
that represents a time of normal operation for the system.
For systems already on reduced monitoring that have been collecting
samples during the June through September time frame, the revision to
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(iv) specifies the deadline for completing the first
round of monitoring using the alternate period. Systems on an annual
monitoring schedule must collect their first round of samples during
the alternate months during a time period that ends no later than 21
months after the previous round of sampling. Systems on a triennial
schedule must collect their first round of samples during the alternate
months during a time period that ends no later than 45 months after the
previous round of sampling. Thereafter, these systems must revert to an
annual or triennial schedule based on the alternate months of sampling.
This transition period allows systems conducting annual or
triennial monitoring an extra nine months in which to make the
transition without sampling significantly early or incurring a
monitoring and reporting violation. For systems transitioning to an
alternate sampling period that includes the period of March, April, or
May, EPA believes it is not unreasonable that the first round of
samples under the alternate months be collected slightly earlier than
would otherwise be required. For similar reasons, the Agency does not
believe it is necessary to specify a transition period for small water
systems with monitoring waivers granted under Sec. 141.86(g). The
revised Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(iv) therefore requires that the first round
of monitoring using the alternate months be completed within 9 years of
the previous round of monitoring for systems with waivers.
Finally, today's action makes two conforming changes to Part 142.
EPA has added a State recordkeeping requirement at
Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(xiii). States must maintain records pertaining to any
system-specific determinations to alternative sample collection periods
for systems subject to reduced monitoring. EPA also has added a special
primacy condition at Sec. 141.16(d)(4) for States to describe how they
plan to determine the months when the lead levels are likely to be the
highest at community water systems subject to reduced monitoring where
tap water lead and copper samples will be collected in months other
than June, July, August and/or September.
h. Accelerated reduced monitoring for lead and copper at the tap.
(i) Proposed revision and background. Under the provisions of
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(iii), a small or medium-size water system may reduce
the frequency of lead and copper tap water monitoring to once every
three years if it does not exceed either action level during three
consecutive years of annual monitoring. The regulations also allow any
water system that maintains the range of values for the water quality
control parameters reflecting OCCT specified by the State during three
consecutive years of monitoring to reduce the frequency of lead and
copper tap water monitoring to once every three years, if approved by
the State. In the
[[Page 1976]]
April 1996 Proposal, in an effort to help water systems avoid
significant unnecessary monitoring costs and minimize the inconvenience
to homeowners in the sampling pool, EPA proposed that systems with very
low levels of lead and copper at the tap during two consecutive six-
month rounds of monitoring be allowed to immediately reduce the
frequency of lead and copper tap water monitoring to once every three
calendar years without having to conduct the required rounds of annual
monitoring first. In the proposal, the thresholds for ``very low levels
of lead and copper at the tap'' were defined as ``less than or equal to
the PQL for lead specified in Sec. 141.89(a)(1)(ii),'' which is 0.005
mg/L, and ``less than or equal to one-half the copper action level
specified in Sec. 141.80(c)(2),'' which is 0.65 mg/L.
(ii) Comments and analysis. While one commenter specifically
disagreed with the proposal, the vast majority of commenters either
agreed fully or agreed while raising one or more of the issues which
EPA is addressing below.
(A) Using the PQL as the lead threshold. A number of commenters
suggested that it is inconsistent to use the PQL as the threshold for
lead while using one-half the action level as the threshold for copper.
Some commenters suggested that using the PQL for lead is too
restrictive and that one-half the lead action level should be used
instead. In the preamble to the April 1996 Proposal, EPA indicated that
accelerated reduced monitoring would apply only to those systems whose
90th percentile lead and copper levels fall significantly below the
lead and copper action levels during two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods. The Agency's intent was to allow for a burden
reduction but still provide adequate public health protection. Because
of the high degree of variability in lead and copper levels at
household taps, EPA believes it is important to establish criteria that
minimize the risk of allowing systems that may have elevated levels of
lead or copper at the tap during subsequent monitoring periods to be
eligible for accelerated reduced monitoring. EPA believes that the
criteria that minimize risk are the PQL for lead and one-half the
action level for copper.
EPA disagrees with those commenters who believe there is an
inconsistency between using the PQL for lead and one-half the action
level for copper when consideration is given to the relationship
between the action level and the MCLG for each. Consistency lies in the
fact that the minimized risk levels (i.e., the threshold levels for
allowing accelerated reduced monitoring) are those levels most
protective of public health. This is explained as follows. The MCLG is
the level at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health
of persons would occur and which allows an adequate margin of safety.
EPA must regulate contaminants in drinking water to a level as close to
the MCLG as is feasible. The action level for copper is set at the MCLG
of 1.3 mg/L, thus there is no health concern at copper levels equal to
the action level or, subsequently, at one-half the action level (0.65
mg/L). In addition, EPA believes that it is highly unlikely that a
water system having a 90th percentile copper level equal to one-half
the action level might exceed the copper action level during subsequent
monitoring. In contrast to copper, the action level for lead is set at
0.015 mg/L, which is higher than its MCLG of zero. Since it is
unreasonable to expect that most systems can achieve a 90th percentile
lead level of zero, EPA established a lead action level which the
Agency believes is achievable and sufficiently protective of public
health. However, because there are health concerns for any lead level
above zero, EPA believes that setting the threshold level for lead for
accelerated reduced monitoring at the PQL (0.005 mg/L) is more
protective of public health than setting the level at one-half the lead
action level (0.0075 mg/L). In addition, EPA believes that it is less
likely that a system whose 90th percentile lead level is equal to or
less than the PQL would exceed the lead action level during a
subsequent round of monitoring than it is for a system whose 90th
percentile lead level is one-half the action level.
A few commenters expressed concern that the PQL is hard to measure
accurately and therefore should not be used as a threshold. EPA
disagrees. Performance evaluation (PE) studies have confirmed that at
least 75 percent of EPA, State, and commercial laboratories can analyze
lead at 0.005 mg/L within 30%. EPA believes that specifying
the PQL for lead as the threshold for identifying very low levels is
appropriate on the basis of laboratory capability.
(B) Usefulness of proposed provision. Several commenters, including
the commenter who specifically disagreed with the proposal, mentioned
that it is too late for this provision to have any effect for existing
systems. EPA agrees that this provision will be of no benefit to those
systems that are already conducting monitoring on a triennial basis.
This provision may benefit new systems, however, in addition to those
water systems that are in the process of installing CCT and whose 90th
percentile lead and copper levels meet the criteria for accelerated
reduced monitoring after conducting the required two rounds of follow-
up sampling subsequent to the installation of OCCT. It will also be
available for systems that are triggered into a new set of two six-
month rounds of full tap sampling due to changes in treatment or source
water. For these reasons, the Agency still believes it is appropriate
to add provisions for accelerated reduced monitoring to the LCR.
(C) Accelerated reduced monitoring for only one contaminant. Two
commenters suggested that States be given the option to authorize
accelerated reduced monitoring for either lead or copper if a system is
only able to meet the 90th percentile threshold for one of the
contaminants but not the other. While EPA wishes to reduce monitoring
burdens where possible, EPA meant for this provision to be applicable
only to those systems where there is little likelihood of discovering
elevated levels of either lead or copper at the tap during subsequent
monitoring periods. EPA believes that there is less of a risk that
there may be an undetected problem if both lead and copper levels are
below the threshold levels than if only one of the contaminant levels
is less than the threshold level and that there is more uncertainty in
the case where one of the contaminant levels is higher than the
threshold level. To avoid this potential risk, the Agency has decided
to not allow accelerated reduced monitoring for one contaminant when
the other contaminant has a 90th percentile level above the specified
threshold level.
(D) Monitoring less frequently than triennially. Another commenter
suggested changing the frequency of reduced monitoring to once every
nine years (provided that there is no change in treatment or new source
introduced) and suggested that this would be consistent with the
``reliably and consistently'' waivers allowed under the Phase II and
Phase V rules. The age range for the population at risk for lead is
prenatal up to about six years of age. For systems that contain lead
and copper materials, a nine-year monitoring cycle would allow large
groups of the sensitive subpopulations to be exposed to water that was
never tested during their highest risk years. EPA believes it is
inappropriate to reduce the monitoring to a frequency where some
children would not receive the benefit of such monitoring. The Agency
considers a 9-year monitoring cycle appropriate only for systems that
have no lead or copper materials present and that meet the criteria for
a
[[Page 1977]]
monitoring waiver pursuant to Sec. 141.86(g).
(E) Prior State approval. One commenter suggested that written
approval by the State should be required before a system is permitted
to accelerate reduced monitoring. Elsewhere in Sec. 141.86(d), written
authorization by the State to reduce lead and copper tap monitoring is
required only when the basis for the reduction is compliance with
optimal water quality control parameters for two consecutive 6-month
monitoring periods or three consecutive years. Those cases are more
complex and require greater State oversight. The basis for a system
being able to accelerate reduced monitoring is straightforward and EPA
does not believe it is necessary to mandate prior State approval in
this case. Nothing in the rule language, however, prevents a State from
requiring such approval.
(iii) Today's action. After careful consideration of all comments
pertaining to this issue, EPA has decided to promulgate the provisions
for accelerated reduced monitoring as proposed in April 1996. EPA is
adding these provisions to Sec. 141.86(d)(4) by redesignating paragraph
(d)(4)(v) as (d)(4)(vi) and adding a new paragraph (d)(4)(v). This new
paragraph allows any water system that demonstrates for two consecutive
six-month monitoring periods that the 90th percentile lead level is
less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L and the 90th percentile copper level
is less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L to reduce the frequency of sampling
to once every three calendar years.
i. Loss of eligibility for reduced lead and copper tap water
monitoring. As discussed in section C.2.b. of this preamble, today's
action contains a conforming change to the requirements of the newly
designated Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(vi) to clarify that a system subject to
reduced monitoring that also is subject to the WQP monitoring
requirements of Sec. 141.87(d) or (e) loses its eligibility for reduced
monitoring for lead and copper at the tap (until such time when it may
again qualify) if it fails to meet the compliance requirements of
Sec. 141.82(g). Today's action also corrects an error in this
paragraph. The first sentence has been corrected to read: ``A small or
medium-size water system * * * shall resume sampling in accordance with
paragraph (d)(3) of this section and collect the number of samples
specified for standard monitoring under paragraph (c) of this
section.'' The paragraph previously read: `` * * * collect the number
of samples specified for standard monitoring under paragraph (d) of
this section.''
j. Requirements for systems subject to reduced monitoring that
change treatment or source water.
(i) Proposed revision and background. In the April 1996 Proposal,
EPA requested comment on a provision that would require water systems
operating under reduced monitoring to report any changes in treatment
or changes in source water to the State within 60 days. If the State
believes the change merits additional monitoring, the State may require
the system to resume standard monitoring, increase WQP monitoring, or
re-evaluate its corrosion control and/or source water treatment given
the potentially different water quality considerations. EPA proposed
this requirement to help ensure that timely and appropriate action is
taken to maintain optimal corrosion control when events occur that
could significantly affect water quality.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Most commenters supported the proposed
change. Several commenters thought the proposed rule was too general
and should include more information describing a reportable treatment
change. These commenters provided language to limit reportable
treatment changes to those that affect the WQPs or interfere with the
efficacy of the corrosion control strategy. EPA disagrees with these
commenters. EPA does not believe that all systems understand the
potential impacts of other treatments on corrosivity and, thus, is
requiring that systems report all treatment changes to the State to
avoid situations where systems could potentially overlook factors that
influence corrosivity. The State will then review the treatment change
and determine if additional monitoring or other action is necessary.
EPA does agree, however, that it should not be necessary for the system
to notify the State every time the system makes changes among approved
sources of water. For this reason, today's action limits the reportable
source water changes to those involving the addition of a new source of
water.
The only other major concern relayed by commenters is that some
believe that water systems may be required to conduct unnecessary
monitoring every time treatment is changed. EPA has addressed this
issue in section C.1.c. of today's preamble as a part of the discussion
pertaining to water systems deemed to have optimized corrosion control
in accordance with Sec. 141.81(b)(3).
(iii) Today's action. EPA has revised the LCR by adding a provision
at Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(vii) requiring any water system subject to reduced
tap monitoring that either adds a new source of water or changes any
water treatment to inform the State in writing no later than 60 days
after making the change or addition, unless the State requires earlier
notification. The State has the authority to require the system to take
appropriate steps to ensure that optimal treatment is maintained. The
corresponding system reporting requirements have been added as a new
Sec. 141.90(a)(3).6 Corresponding State recordkeeping
requirements have been included as a part of the Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(ix)
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As noted in section C.5.b. of this preamble, the requirement
previously codified at Sec. 141.90(a)(3), for a NTNCWS to justify
the use of non-tier 1 sites, has been eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
k. Sample invalidation.
(i) Proposed revision and background. The April 1996 Proposal
included provisions which defined four conditions under which States
could invalidate tap water lead and copper samples:
If the laboratory establishes that improper sample
analysis caused erroneous results;
If the State determines that the sample was taken from a
site that does not meet the site selection criteria of Sec. 141.86;
If the sample container is damaged in transit; or
If the State has substantial reason to believe that the
sample was subject to tampering.
The proposed provisions also specified documentation requirements
and provided a window for replacement samples to be taken, if needed,
to avoid a monitoring and reporting violation. EPA believes sample
invalidation under any of the above-mentioned conditions is appropriate
to avoid the use of sample results that may not represent the tap water
levels of lead and copper taken from the water system's high risk
sites.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Several States, PWSs, and water utility
trade associations commented on the proposed sample invalidation
provisions. None of the commenters objected to the four conditions
proposed; however, several advocated providing States even more
flexibility than proposed. A few commenters, for example, recommended
that EPA allow States to invalidate any samples they believe are
inappropriate. Other commenters suggested adding a fifth condition,
such as allowing for sample invalidation when improper sample
collection procedures are used or when the water has been standing in
the pipes for longer than the six-hour standing time required by the
Rule. EPA believes
[[Page 1978]]
that the conditions proposed in April 1996 will allow sufficient
flexibility to ensure that samples can be invalidated where
appropriate. Sample invalidation provisions are not intended to replace
the need for proper guidance in the collection of samples. The Agency
believes that proper education is a more appropriate method to address
incorrect sample collection procedures.
Although the 1996 Proposal did not address the provision that
prohibits a system from challenging the results of samples collected by
residents, several commenters objected to its retention. Those comments
are outside the scope of this rulemaking because EPA did not reopen
that provision in the 1991 Rule or otherwise solicit comment on that
provision.
One commenter requested that EPA clarify the rule language to
specify that only one of the four conditions needs to be met for a
sample to be invalidated. EPA agrees that clarification would be useful
and has made this correction in today's action. Another commenter
recommended that systems be allowed to proceed with follow-up samples
and then submit all results including follow-up results with detailed
documentation to the request for sample invalidation. The Agency
believes States have sufficient flexibility to decide whether to allow
this without expressly adding this provision to the Rule. EPA also
encourages water systems to collect more than the minimum number of
required samples to minimize the need to collect replacement samples in
the first place.
The preamble to the April 1996 Proposal stated the Agency's intent
that States be prohibited from invalidating a sample solely on the
grounds that the lead or copper concentration found in a follow-up
sample is higher or lower than the lead or copper concentration found
in the original sample. EPA inadvertently omitted this prohibition in
the proposed rule language for Sec. 141.86(f)(3). Although a few
commenters objected to this prohibition, the Agency believes it is
appropriate. A number of factors may cause the levels of lead and
copper at the tap to vary at times and the existence of an elevated
result may be an indicator that additional treatment is warranted. The
mere fact that the level in the follow-up sample has changed would not
alone be an indicator that the sample is invalid, especially because
lead levels can be so variable at the tap. EPA has therefore inserted
this language in the final rule.
(iii) Today's action. EPA is promulgating sample invalidation
provisions, as proposed, in a new Sec. 141.86(f). Section 141.86(f)(1)
defines four circumstances, described above, under which the State may
invalidate a sample. A water system requesting sample invalidation must
submit appropriate documentation to the State along with the results of
all samples collected, pursuant to Sec. 141.86(f)(2). The requirement
for States to document all decisions in writing and provide the
rationale for the decision is contained in Sec. 141.86(f)(3). This
paragraph also prohibits States from invalidating a sample solely
because a follow-up sample has a higher or lower concentration than the
original sample. Section 141.86(f)(4) requires that any replacement
samples for samples invalidated pursuant to Sec. 141.86(f) be taken as
soon as possible, either within 20 days of the date the State
invalidates the sample or by the end of the applicable monitoring
period, whichever is later. Replacement samples are necessary only in
those instances where there otherwise would be too few samples, due to
the invalidation of one or more of the original samples, to meet
minimum sampling requirements. Replacement samples taken after the end
of the applicable monitoring period may not also be used to meet the
monitoring requirements of a subsequent monitoring period. This
paragraph also requires that any replacement sample be taken at the
same location as the invalidated sample or, if that is not possible,
then at a location other than one already used for sampling during the
monitoring period.
Today's action also includes a revision to the system reporting
requirements in Sec. 141.90. As proposed, EPA is adding the requirement
for a system requesting sample invalidation to submit the appropriate
documentation to the State at Sec. 141.90(a)(1)(ii). Corresponding
State recordkeeping requirements have been added at
Sec. 142.14(d)(10)(iii).
l. Monitoring waivers for small systems.
(i) Proposed revision and background. The April 1996 Proposal
included a new provision at Sec. 141.86(g) that would allow States to
grant monitoring waivers to small systems that satisfy specific 90th
percentile lead and copper levels and meet certain materials
requirements. The intent of the proposed provision was to provide
monitoring relief to small systems that provide substantive
documentation or equivalent evidence that they are free of sources of
lead and copper contamination. EPA believes that monitoring relief is
appropriate for these systems because there is no value in requiring
States and water systems to invest limited resources on frequent
monitoring where sources of lead and copper contamination appear to be
non-existent.
(ii) Comments and analysis. While all commenters supported this
monitoring waiver concept, many commenters took issue with how
Sec. 141.86(g) and the preamble were worded. Section 141.86(g) has been
reworded in today's action to address these comments. These changes
should remove the ambiguity of the proposed rule and clarify
requirements that were unclear in the proposal. The major comments
received are discussed below.
(A) Materials specification. Commenters raised several concerns
with the language that addressed the materials requirements. Several of
these commenters objected to the use of the terminology ``all plastic
system.'' These commenters felt that EPA's use of such terminology
would send a message that EPA considers other plumbing materials
unacceptable. They pointed out that there are other plumbing materials
that pose no concern from the standpoint of lead and copper
contamination and identified the many benefits of metallic plumbing,
including copper pipes. One commenter noted that copper from copper
pipes contributes to meeting the essential nutrient requirements for
humans. Commenters also noted that many manufacturers of brass and
bronze fittings and fixtures (i.e., endpoint devices) are attempting to
meet the standard established by National Sanitation Foundation (NSF)
International for lead leaching for faucets and other drinking water
plumbing components that contain low levels of lead or are completely
free of lead-containing materials.
EPA, in utilizing the terminology ``all plastic system,'' did not
intend to advocate the use of one particular type of plumbing over any
other. The proposed rule used the phrase ``all plastic system'' as
short-hand for systems that are free of lead-containing and copper-
containing materials that have the potential to adversely affect levels
of lead and copper at the tap. The Agency recognizes the benefits of
many different types of plumbing materials. EPA recognizes the
confusion that the ``all plastic system'' terminology has caused and
agrees that the wording in the proposal could be interpreted to
preclude the granting of a waiver to a water system even if none of the
buildings connected to the system have any ``lead-containing'' or
``copper-containing'' materials. EPA has dropped the use of the ``all
plastic system'' terminology in today's action.
[[Page 1979]]
The language in today's action is specific as to what materials are
considered lead-containing and copper-containing. Lead-containing
materials include: Plastic pipes and service lines which contain lead
plasticizers; lead service lines; lead pipes; lead-soldered pipe
joints; and leaded brass or bronze alloy fittings and fixtures that do
not meet the specifications of any lead-leaching standard established
pursuant to section 1417(e) of the SDWA Amendments of 1996 (42 U.S.C.
300g-6(e)). While the proposed rule did not specify the exclusion of
plastic pipes and service lines which contain lead plasticizers, this
exclusion can be inferred from the proposed regulatory language since
this kind of plastic pipe is a ``lead-containing material.''
7 The language pertaining to plastic pipes and service lines
which contain lead plasticizers has been added to the final rule for
the purpose of clarification. Copper-containing materials include
copper pipes and copper service lines. EPA agrees that copper in
drinking water can contribute to meeting dietary requirements. However,
humans have limited tolerance to copper. Although low levels of
exposure (below the MCLG) are beneficial, higher levels, especially
when present in water or beverages, can cause nausea, vomiting and/or
diarrhea. The MCLG for copper in potable water was established to
protect humans from these adverse effects. Thus, because changing
circumstances at systems with copper-containing materials could result
in copper levels above the MCLG, EPA believes it would be inappropriate
to allow such systems to monitor for copper less frequently than once
every three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Information regarding the suitability of different plastic
materials may be obtained by investigating compliance with third-
party standards such as NSF Standard 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's action does not preclude small water systems with leaded
brass or bronze alloy fittings and fixtures that meet the ``lead free''
criteria defined under sections 1417(d) and (e) of the SDWA from
qualifying for a monitoring waiver. On August 22, 1997, EPA published a
Federal Register Notice recognizing NSF Standard 61, Section 9, as
meeting the requirements for a voluntary lead-leaching standard (62 FR
44686). This standard, developed with the assistance of EPA, the
plumbing industry, numerous State and local regulatory officials, water
utilities, independent health consultants, and the academic community
covers endpoint devices including kitchen and bar faucets, lavatory
faucets, water dispensers, drinking fountains, water coolers, glass
fillers, residential refrigerator ice makers, supply stops and endpoint
control valves. Today's action does not incorporate specific reference
to the NSF standard, however, in case other standards that meet the
requirements of SDWA sections 1417(d) and (e) are established in the
future. Notification of additional third-party standards that meet
these specifications will be published in future Federal Registers as
appropriate.
The rule language remains silent on the materials composition of
in-line devices, such as valves and meters. EPA has no data that
suggest that in-line devices will contribute lead or copper at levels
that will leach these materials in excess of the action levels. Thus,
water systems with in-line devices containing lead or copper components
may apply for a waiver, if they meet the other eligibility
requirements.
Some commenters pointed out that the language in the proposed rule
could preclude the issuance of any monitoring waivers because it would
have required that all ``buildings'' (rather than ``plumbing'')
connected to the system be free of materials containing lead and
copper. Commenters interpreted this to mean that water systems with
buildings containing materials such as copper wiring, brass screws, or
any copper-containing or lead-containing materials in building
wastewater systems, would be ineligible to receive a waiver. Today's
action clarifies that the materials requirement applies only to the
drinking water distribution or service lines and the drinking water
supply plumbing (including plumbing conveying drinking water within all
residences and buildings connected to the system).
Other commenters suggested that only a limited number of CWSs would
be able to qualify for a waiver, either because it would be difficult
for most water systems to identify all the plumbing materials used in
all buildings or because few water systems, when examining all the
buildings connected to the water system, would actually be able to meet
the materials requirement. EPA recognizes that it may be quite
difficult for CWSs to identify all the plumbing materials used in all
buildings connected to the system and that it is possible that very few
systems may be able to meet the materials requirement. The Agency
believes that some systems will qualify, however, and is including the
waiver provisions in today's action to benefit those systems.
(B) Monitoring issues. Under the provisions proposed in 1996, a
system meeting the materials criteria could apply for a waiver once it
had completed one six-month round of standard tap monitoring for lead
and copper subsequent to becoming free of materials containing lead and
copper. To qualify for the waiver, the system's 90th percentile lead
and copper levels could not exceed 0.005 mg/L for lead or 0.65 mg/L for
copper. Systems with waivers would be required to complete at least one
round of monitoring, at the reduced number of sites specified in
Sec. 141.86(c) at least once every nine years.
One commenter requested that the language be modified to require
``at least'' one six-month round of standard tap water monitoring to
provide States some flexibility and authority to require additional
testing if the State believes these additional data are needed to make
the waiver decision. EPA agrees that this is appropriate and has
incorporated this modification into today's action.
A few commenters questioned the rationale for establishing the lead
PQL (0.005 mg/L) as the lead threshold for waiver eligibility and
suggested that the threshold be set at one-half the action level, as
proposed for copper. EPA does not believe that setting the lead
threshold for waivers at one-half the lead action level is as
protective of public health as setting it at the PQL.8 In
addition, since systems receiving a monitoring waiver will be required
to monitor lead and copper levels only once every 9 years, the Agency
believes it is essential to minimize the risk that these systems will
have elevated levels of lead at the tap. Requiring a lower 90th
percentile lead level for allowing waivers will help to minimize this
risk. Today's action, therefore, retains using the lead PQL, for
determining if a system may qualify for a waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Section C.5.h. of this preamble provides EPA's rationale for
utilizing the PQL for lead instead of one-half the action level when
establishing a threshold lead level for implementing accelerated
reduced monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commenter disagreed with setting the lead level for States
to consider waivers at 0.005 mg/L because, under this requirement,
source water with lead levels at or slightly above this level could
exclude a system from qualifying for a waiver. EPA believes that if a
system's 90th percentile lead level is above 0.005 mg/L, no matter what
the reason, tap water lead levels should not go unchecked for as long
as nine years.
One commenter suggested that EPA rethink and expand the waiver
option included in the April 1996 Proposal to allow any system that
``reliably and consistently'' meets the action levels for
[[Page 1980]]
lead and copper to reduce its monitoring to once every nine years. The
commenter also pointed out that this concept would tie in to most of
the existing State waiver programs. The Agency believes that a
``reliably and consistently'' waiver is appropriate for many inorganic
and organic contaminants regulated under the Phase II and Phase V rules
because source water levels of these contaminants are not highly
variable. Lead and copper levels, which are measured at the tap, can be
highly variable. Tap water lead and copper levels can vary from day to
day and even hour to hour at the same sample site. Because of this high
variability, EPA does not believe a waiver program based solely on lead
and copper analytical values is sufficiently protective of public
health because there is a risk that such an approach would allow a
system with an undetected lead or copper problem to reduce monitoring
to a point where the population most at risk (children) would not
receive the benefit of such monitoring if it occurred only once every
nine years. The Agency has therefore coupled very low tap water lead
and copper levels with the materials criteria to further reduce this
risk.
A few other commenters proposed that a system not be required to
monitor at all once it meets the materials requirements and
demonstrates that its 90th percentile lead level is less than or equal
to 0.005 mg/L and its 90th percentile copper level is less than or
equal to 0.65 mg/L. EPA has not incorporated this suggestion into the
final rule. The Agency believes that the risks from ingesting copper
and lead are too much of a health hazard to totally ignore. Tap water
monitoring (even if conducted only once every nine years) could point
out use of lead-containing plumbing fixtures or copper pipes that have
been installed unbeknownst to the system owner/operator in the years
following receipt of a waiver.
One commenter stated that if new systems are properly installed
under State specification and approval, if approved plumbing materials
are used, and if there is no lead in the source water, there is little
reason for conducting lead and copper monitoring. The commenter also
stated that the standard number of sites to be sampled is excessive for
these systems even if some confirmatory monitoring is performed.
EPA believes that monitoring for lead and copper is still necessary
in these circumstances. Even if a system is ``properly installed,'' the
water may be corrosive to copper pipes and lead-containing faucets used
within the homes and buildings served by this new public water supply.
Many faucets purchased in the last ten years, although labeled ``lead
free,'' may contain up to 8 percent lead, which had been allowed under
the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, and thus may leach high
levels of lead. Prior to August 6, 1998, States may have approved the
use of the aforementioned ``lead-free'' faucets (although they may have
required warning labels on these faucets).
In addition, all States allow the use of copper pipes in
distribution systems and/or interior building plumbing. New copper
pipes frequently leach high levels of copper until the pipes stabilize.
Additionally, copper in source water can still be a concern in systems
with no lead in the source water. While the 1996 SDWA Amendments
require all faucets introduced into commerce after August 6, 1998, to
meet the specifications of an approved lead-leaching standard which
will lessen the amount of lead that can leach from a tap, there is
still the potential for some lead to leach from some taps. With this
continued potential for lead leaching, copper leaching, and copper in
source water, EPA disagrees with the commenter's contention that there
is little reason for conducting lead and copper monitoring if new
systems are properly installed under State specification and approval,
if approved plumbing materials are used, and if there is no lead in the
source water.
EPA also disagrees with the commenter's statement that the standard
number of sample sites is excessive for new systems. Such systems have
yet to confirm that their water supply is minimally corrosive. The
number of samples required for initial monitoring was established to
sufficiently account for variability of lead and copper at taps while
at the same time being reasonable for a system to implement. Assuming
these systems do not otherwise qualify for a monitoring waiver, if
testing does confirm that these new systems are very low in lead and
copper (i.e., the system's 90th percentile lead level is less than or
equal to 0.005 mg/L and the system's 90th percentile copper level is
less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L) during two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods, today's action allows these systems to reduce
sampling to once every three years and allows systems that collected 10
samples or more during initial monitoring to reduce the number of
sample sites by half.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See section C.5.h. in this preamble for discussion
pertaining to ``accelerated reduced monitoring.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) Changes potentially affecting monitoring waivers. The April
1996 proposed rule language included a requirement for a water system
subject to a monitoring waiver to notify the State within 60 days of
the addition of a new source of water or any change in water treatment.
EPA proposed to give the State discretion to require additional
monitoring or other appropriate action, if the State believes such
action is warranted in these cases, to ensure that low levels of tap
water lead and copper are maintained. The proposed language also
required a water system to revert to monitoring pursuant to
Sec. 141.86(d)(4) if, as a result of new construction or repairs, the
system could no longer certify it was free of lead-containing and
copper-containing materials. Finally, the proposed language would have
given States the discretion to require a system to revert to more
frequent monitoring pursuant to Sec. 141.86(d)(3) or (4) and/or to take
other appropriate action if the system's 90th percentile lead levels
exceeded 0.005 mg/L and/or the 90th percentile copper levels exceeded
0.65 mg/L during a subsequent round of monitoring. No commenters
addressed these provisions specifically; however, upon further
consideration, the Agency believes a few modifications to these
provisions are appropriate.
The requirement for a water system subject to a monitoring waiver
to notify the State if the system adds a new source of water or makes a
change in water treatment has been revised slightly to keep it
consistent with the comparable requirement for (b)(3) systems and other
systems subject to reduced monitoring. Today's action clarifies that
the notification must occur no later than 60 days after the change is
made, unless the State requires earlier notification. The LCR does not
require prior State approval of these changes; however, it may be
required by other drinking water regulations or by the State. In those
cases where prior State approval is not required, EPA nevertheless
encourages water systems to notify the State before making the change
to minimize the risk that the change will result in unanticipated
adverse effects on tap water lead and copper levels. Today's action
does not prescribe that additional tap water monitoring for lead and
copper occur as a part of these changes; however, States have the
authority to require additional round(s) of monitoring and/or other
appropriate action, if the State thinks such action(s) are warranted to
ensure that the water system continues to meet waiver eligibility
criteria.
[[Page 1981]]
Today's action also clarifies that a water system that becomes
aware that it can no longer certify that it is free of lead-containing
or copper-containing materials must notify the State within 60 days of
becoming aware of this situation. Such systems no longer are eligible
for a monitoring waiver. Likewise, a system loses its waiver
eligibility if it has a 90th percentile lead level greater than 0.005
mg/L or a 90th percentile copper level greater than 0.65 mg/L
subsequent to receiving the waiver. Assuming a system that loses its
waiver eligibility has not exceeded either action level, it must revert
to a triennial monitoring frequency.10 Such systems may be
able to take action to identify and remove source(s) of lead and/or
copper before they are due to collect samples again and may reapply for
a waiver. Systems exceeding an action level, however, must begin
implementation of CCT in accordance with the deadlines in
Sec. 141.81(e). EPA believes these rule language modifications are
consistent with the intent of the monitoring waiver program which only
allows a system to monitor once every nine years if it can provide an
acceptable materials certification and demonstrate acceptable 90th
percentile lead and copper levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ EPA does not believe it is necessary that these systems
monitor more frequently than once every three years since they would
have been on a triennial schedule already if the waiver had not been
issued and they had reduced monitoring in accordance with the
schedule in Sec. 141.86(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(D) Waiver renewals. The proposed rule language neglected to
specifically address what happens with a waiver if the system continues
to satisfy the waiver requirements. Some commenters suggested that
systems be required to re-certify periodically that they remain free of
lead-containing and copper-containing materials. EPA agrees that
periodic re-certification is appropriate and has therefore included a
requirement in today's action for the water system to submit the re-
certification every nine years, along with its lead and copper tap
water results and 90th percentile calculations. States may require re-
certification sooner, for example, if the system adds a new source of
water, modifies water treatment, or undergoes new construction. Any
system that loses eligibility for a monitoring waiver must revert to
more frequent monitoring and/or implement CCT as discussed above.
(E) Partial waivers. A few commenters suggested that a copper
waiver should be available to those systems that are unable to meet the
rule's lead waiver criteria because of lead-containing components
within the system, if the system could meet the copper-related waiver
criteria. Similarly, a lead waiver should be available to those systems
that meet the waiver criteria with respect to lead but not with respect
to copper. These commenters suggested that this would allow additional
reductions in monitoring and reporting for such systems and would allow
the States to focus more of their limited resources elsewhere. EPA has
considered these suggestions. While the Agency questions whether such
provisions will significantly reduce burden, today's action gives
States the discretion to grant a waiver for either lead or copper, if
the system meets all the criteria relevant to that contaminant. The
Agency is adding this provision because some water systems, if granted
a waiver for either lead or copper, although still required to collect
tap water samples every three years (or more often) for the non-waived
contaminant, may be able to benefit from reduced analytical costs due
to the fact that the tap water samples will only have to be analyzed
for one of the contaminants in two of the three monitoring periods
(assuming the non-waived contaminant is on a triennial schedule) that
constitute the nine-year waiver period.
On the other hand, the Agency also recognizes that the issuance of
partial waivers may add administrative burden to States who would now
be required to track additional monitoring schedules. For this reason,
EPA is leaving the decision whether, or not, to issue partial waivers
up to the State.
(F) Pre-existing waivers. EPA is aware that several States already
may have issued monitoring waivers for small systems based on guidance
provided to the EPA Regions in 1995 (EPA, 1995a). In some cases, the
State's implementation of waiver provisions is very similar to those
contained in today's rule. That is, in addition to requiring that the
system demonstrate it is free of lead-containing and copper-containing
materials, the State required that the system demonstrate, through at
least one round of standard tap water monitoring, that the 90th
percentile lead level does not exceed 0.005 mg/L and the 90th
percentile copper level does not exceed 0.65 mg/L. EPA believes that
monitoring waivers issued prior to April 11, 2000 should remain in
effect as long as the water system meets the ongoing waiver monitoring
requirements and continues to meet the waiver eligibility requirements.
The next round of monitoring for such systems should occur no later
than nine years after the date of the most recent lead and copper tap
water monitoring conducted by the system. EPA has incorporated these
provisions into today's action.
In some cases, however, States may have issued waivers without
requiring any prior tap water lead and copper monitoring. Although such
waivers were not precluded by the 1995 guidance memo, they are
inconsistent with the provisions of today's action that make clear the
requirement that all community and non-transient non-community water
systems conduct some monitoring to verify that they do not have
undetected lead or copper problems. Today's action, therefore, requires
water systems with waivers issued prior to April 11, 2000 that have not
conducted at least one round of tap water monitoring consistent with
the requirements of Sec. 141.86(g)(2) to complete a round of monitoring
pursuant to Sec. 141.86(g)(2) no later than September 30, 2000.
Assuming such a system continues to meet the waiver eligibility
criteria, the next round of monitoring under the waiver would be due no
later than nine years later.
(iii) Today's action. After considering the comments received and
other factors as discussed above, today's action includes new
provisions at Sec. 141.86(g) that allow States to grant monitoring
waivers to small water systems if specified conditions are met. In
order to qualify for a full waiver, a small water system must meet all
of the materials criteria specified in Sec. 141.86(g)(1) and the
monitoring criteria specified in Sec. 141.86(g)(2). Specifically, the
system must certify, with appropriate supporting documentation, that
the distribution system and service lines and all drinking water supply
plumbing, including plumbing conveying drinking water within all
residences and buildings connected to the system, are free of lead-
containing and copper-containing materials. A system is considered to
be free of lead-containing materials if it contains no plastic pipes
with lead plasticizers or plastic service lines with lead plasticizers
and if it is free of lead service lines, lead pipes, lead soldered pipe
joints, and leaded brass or bronze fittings and fixtures, unless such
fittings and fixtures meet the specifications of any lead-leaching
standard established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 300g-6(e) (SDWA section
1417(e)). Systems are considered free of copper-containing materials if
they contain no copper pipes or copper service lines. Systems also must
have completed at least one 6-month round of standard tap water
monitoring for lead and copper, subsequent to becoming free of lead-
containing and copper-containing materials, at sites approved by the
State and from the number of
[[Page 1982]]
sites required for standard monitoring under Sec. 141.86(c) that
demonstrates that the 90th percentile levels of lead and copper at the
tap do not exceed 0.005 mg/L for lead and 0.65 mg/L for copper.
If permitted by State regulation, Sec. 141.86(g) also permits a
small system that meets the lead-related criteria of Secs. 141.86(g)(1)
and (2), but not the copper-related criteria, to apply for a partial
waiver for lead only (i.e., a lead waiver). Likewise, a small system
that meets the copper-related criteria of Secs. 141.86(g)(1) and (2),
but not the lead-related criteria, may apply for a partial waiver for
copper only (i.e., a copper waiver).
Section 141.86(g)(3) requires the State to notify the system, in
writing, of its waiver determination, setting forth the basis for the
decision and any conditions of the waiver. States have the authority to
impose conditions such as requiring limited monitoring in addition to
the once every nine year monitoring required by Sec. 141.86(g)(4) and/
or requiring the system to provide periodic outreach to consumers to
remind them to avoid installation of materials that might void the
waiver. A system cannot reduce to a nine-year tap water monitoring
frequency before it receives the written waiver approval from the
State.
Routine tap water monitoring requirements and requirements for
reporting certain system changes between tap water monitoring events
are specified in Sec. 141.86(g)(4). Systems with waivers must conduct a
round of monitoring for the waived contaminant(s) at least once every
nine years at the reduced number of sites specified in Sec. 141.86(c)
and provide appropriate materials re-certification to the State along
with the monitoring results. Systems with partial waivers must continue
to monitor for the non-waived contaminant in accordance with the
provisions of Sec. 141.86(d)(1), (d)(3), or (d)(4), as appropriate.
Systems with waivers must notify the State no later than 60 days after
the addition of a new source of water or any changes in water
treatment. As discussed above, systems may be required by other Federal
drinking water regulations or State regulations to receive prior State
approval before making any of these changes. Where prior State approval
is not required, EPA encourages systems to notify the State before
making the change to minimize the risk it will result in an
unanticipated adverse effect on tap water lead and copper levels.
States have the authority to impose additional waiver conditions (e.g.,
requiring a materials re-certification and/or requiring additional
rounds(s) of monitoring), if it deems such additional conditions are
necessary to assess and/or address treatment or source water changes at
the system. A system with a full or partial waiver also must notify the
State within 60 days of becoming aware that it is no longer free of
lead-containing and/or copper-containing materials.
As long as the water system is in compliance with the requirements
of Sec. 141.86(g)(4), continues to meet the appropriate eligibility
materials criteria of Sec. 141.86(g)(1), and maintains 90th percentile
lead levels that do not exceed 0.005 mg/L (unless the system has a
copper waiver) and 90th percentile copper levels that do not exceed
0.65 mg/L (unless the system has a lead waiver), Sec. 141.86(g)(5)
specifies that the waiver will be renewed automatically unless the
State notifies the system otherwise, in writing, setting forth the
basis of its decision. Systems with waivers that have been revoked may
re-apply for a full or partial waiver, as appropriate, at such time as
it again meets the eligibility criteria of Secs. 141.86(g)(1) and
(g)(2).
Systems whose waivers have been revoked must complete appropriate
CCT and/or lead and copper tap water monitoring requirements. This
provision is specified in Sec. 141.86(g)(6). In other words, if the
system's waiver is revoked because the system has exceeded the lead or
copper action level, the system must implement CCT in accordance with
the deadlines specified in Sec. 141.81(e). If the system's waiver is
revoked for other reasons, and the system meets both action levels, the
system must monitor for lead and copper at the tap no less frequently
than once every three years using the reduced number of sample sites
specified in Sec. 141.86(c).
Section 141.86(g)(7) addresses what, if anything, a system with a
full waiver 11 granted prior to April 11, 2000 must do for
the waiver to remain in effect. Pre-existing waivers issued to a small
system that have previously met the eligibility requirements of both
Secs. 141.86(g)(1) and (g)(2) remain in effect so long as the system
continues to meet the waiver eligibility criteria of Sec. 141.86(g)(5).
The first round of tap water monitoring conducted pursuant to
Sec. 141.86(g)(4) must be completed no later than nine years after the
last time the system has monitored for lead and copper at the tap. If,
on the other hand, the pre-existing waiver was issued to a small system
that met the materials criteria in Sec. 141.86(g)(1) but was not
required to conduct any tap water monitoring and/or to meet the lead
and copper threshold levels specified in Sec. 141.86(g)(2), the waiver
will remain in effect only if the system continues to meet the
eligibility requirements of Sec. 141.86(g)(5) and completes a round of
standard monitoring for lead and copper at the tap by September 30,
2000 in which the 90th percentile lead and copper levels do not exceed
0.005 mg/L and 0.65 mg/L, respectively (i.e., meet the eligibility
criteria of Sec. 141.86(g)(2)). After completing this round of
monitoring, the system must continue monitoring at a frequency of once
every nine years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Waivers issued prior to April 11, 2000 would have reflected
guidance provided in a policy memo issued by EPA in 1995 (EPA,
1995a). That memo addressed systems that were free of both lead-
containing and copper-containing materials. EPA therefore does not
believe that there should be any systems with partial waivers issued
prior to the effective date of the LCRMR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's action also makes two changes to the provisions of
Sec. 141.90(a) to reflect system reporting requirements associated with
small system waivers. As discussed previously,12
Sec. 141.90(a)(3) now specifies the reporting requirement for a water
system monitoring for lead and copper at the tap less frequently than
every six months to report, in writing, the addition of a new source or
a change in water treatment to the State no later than 60 days after
the change has occurred, unless the State requires earlier
notification. Section 141.90(a)(4) contains the reporting requirements
associated with applying for a waiver and submitting appropriate
documentation demonstrating whether or not the system continues to meet
the continuing waiver eligibility criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See section C.5.j. of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, two new changes in State recordkeeping requirements have
been made to Sec. 142.14. A new Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(xiv) contains the
requirement for States to maintain records pertaining to monitoring
waiver determinations, waiver recertifications, and waiver revocations.
As previously discussed, Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(ix) contains the State
recordkeeping requirements pertaining to systems monitoring less
frequently than every six months that change treatment or add a new
source of water.
6. Revisions to Sec. 141.87
a. Monitoring for optimal water quality parameters. As discussed in
section C.2.b. of this preamble, today's action revises the way in
which compliance with OWQPs is determined under Sec. 141.82(g).
Corresponding changes have been made to Secs. 141.87(d) and (e)(4). The
language of Sec. 141.87(d) has been streamlined to refer to, but not
[[Page 1983]]
repeat, the compliance requirements of Sec. 141.82(g). The language of
Sec. 141.87(e)(4) has been revised to clarify that a system subject to
the reduced frequency of monitoring for WQPs at the tap must revert to
standard WQP monitoring if it fails to comply with the requirements of
Sec. 141.82(g).
b. Use of representative sites for entry point water quality
parameter monitoring at ground water systems.
(i) Proposed revision and background. The April 1996 Proposal
included a provision that would allow ground water systems to limit
entry point WQP monitoring to those locations that are representative
of the water quality conditions throughout the system. As explained in
the 1996 preamble, some ground water systems, especially in the western
States, can have dozens or even more than a hundred wells and it can be
difficult and expensive to conduct biweekly monitoring at each entry
point. The Agency believes that monitoring at each entry point for
large ground water systems may not be necessary in all cases. Ground
water systems can limit entry point sampling to those entry points that
are representative of water quality and treatment conditions throughout
the system. If water from untreated ground water sources mixes with
water from treated ground water sources, the system must monitor for
WQPs both at representative entry points receiving treatment and
representative entry points receiving no treatment. For example, a
ground water system with seven entry points may draw water from a
distinct hydraulic zone (i.e., where water from the zone does not mix
with water from any other zone). If the system can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the State that all seven entry points drawing water
from the same distinct hydraulic zone have similar water quality
characteristics, taking seasonal variability into account, the State
can allow the system to conduct biweekly entry point monitoring at one
or two of the entry points instead of all seven. However, if CCT is
applied at one of the seven entry points and not at the other six entry
points, then a representative sample or samples would need to be taken
for the six entry points and a sample would also need to be taken at
the entry point where the CCT is applied.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Commenters generally supported this
proposed revision. Two commenters expressed concern that the proposed
changes still would require extensive monitoring for large water
systems relying on ground water sources, even when no CCT is required.
EPA believes that entry point monitoring for WQPs at least once every
two weeks is appropriate for large non-(b)(3) water systems after the
installation of CCT and for those small and medium-size systems that
continue to exceed an action level after the installation of CCT. The
regulations, as revised by today's action, provide sufficient
flexibility for systems to meet this requirement without imposing an
unreasonable monitoring burden where it is not warranted.
(iii) Today's action. The Agency therefore is making the following
regulatory changes. First, EPA is revising the wording of
Secs. 141.87(a)(2) and (c)(2), slightly, to indicate that the
Sec. 141.87(c)(2) requirements apply to entry point monitoring ``except
as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section'' (which contains the
provisions pertaining to ground water systems). EPA also has revised
Sec. 141.87(c)(2) to clarify that once every two weeks (biweekly) is
the minimum sampling frequency for routine entry point WQP monitoring.
The Agency has replaced the phrase, ``one sample every two weeks
(biweekly),'' with the phrase, ``at least one sample no less frequently
than every two weeks (biweekly).'' Since many systems are monitoring
WQPs more frequently than biweekly, EPA believes this change is
appropriate to clarify that entry point monitoring is to be conducted
no less frequently than every two weeks.
EPA is adding a new paragraph (c)(3) to Sec. 141.87 to allow ground
water systems subject to WQP monitoring requirements after the
installation of CCT to limit their entry point monitoring to those
locations that are representative of water quality conditions
throughout the system. At a minimum, these systems must monitor for
WQPs both at some points receiving treatment and at some points
receiving no CCT if the water from those points mixes with other source
water in the system that is treated. Systems taking advantage of this
provision are required to provide sufficient documentation to the State
to demonstrate that the locations monitored are, in fact,
representative of water quality throughout the system. The specific
documentation to be provided may vary depending on the system's
characteristics and State reporting requirements. For locations that
are not treated, for example, such documentation might include complete
water analyses from the different wells over time, or taken for the
purpose of determining equivalence. For wells receiving treatment,
documentation might include records of chemical identity, well flow
rates and total volumes per day into the distribution system, observed
chemical dosages per unit of flow and usage rates that are demonstrated
to be the same as those at the ``equivalent'' entry point(s). The
documentation supporting the selection of these representative sites
must be submitted to the State prior to the start of any routine WQP
monitoring pursuant to Sec. 141.87(c)(3). EPA is adding the
corresponding system reporting requirement at
Sec. 141.90(a)(5).13 EPA also is adding
Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(xv) to require States to maintain records of any
determinations made pursuant to Sec. 141.87(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The reporting requirement associated with systems
requesting approval for reduced monitoring, previously codified at
Sec. 141.90(a)(5), has been eliminated. See section C.5.f. of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Accelerated reduced monitoring for water quality parameters at
the tap.
(i) Proposed revision and background. The April 1996 Proposal also
included new language at Sec. 141.87(e)(2) that would allow water
systems meeting the criteria for accelerated reduced monitoring for
lead and copper at the tap to also accelerate reduced monitoring for
WQPs at the tap to once every three years, more rapidly than previously
allowed. This revision applies primarily to large, non-(b)(3), systems
but could apply to any system subject to the monitoring requirements of
Sec. 141.87(d) or (e). As EPA explained in the preamble to the April
1996 Proposal, this revision would not affect the requirement that
systems subject to WQP monitoring after the installation of CCT collect
WQP samples at entry points no less frequently than once every two
weeks, as specified in Sec. 141.87(c)(2).
(ii) Comments and analysis. In general, commenters supported the
proposed accelerated reduced monitoring of WQPs at the tap. Only two
commenters opposed the provisions allowing accelerated reduced
monitoring for WQPs at the tap. Of these, one advocated retaining the
current monitoring frequency; the other suggested EPA require daily
monitoring. These commenters may have misunderstood the intent of the
proposed revision and thought that EPA was proposing to also reduce the
frequency of entry point WQP monitoring. As explained in section E.1.
of this preamble, EPA is retaining the requirement that water systems
subject to water quality parameter monitoring requirements after the
installation of CCT continue to monitor WQPs at entry points no less
frequently than once every two weeks. The Agency agrees
[[Page 1984]]
that this monitoring is essential for good process control and
encourages water systems to conduct such monitoring even more
frequently than once every two weeks. The LCR already permits systems
to reduce the frequency of water quality parameter monitoring within
the distribution system to triennial. The proposed revision would allow
this to occur more rapidly. EPA also encourages systems to perform this
monitoring more frequently but has not made it a regulatory requirement
because of the potential burden involved.
Two commenters who supported the idea of accelerated reduced WQP
monitoring at the tap suggested alternative eligibility criteria. One
recommended the copper threshold be set at one-half the copper PQL
instead of one-half the copper action level. EPA's rationale for
setting the copper threshold at one half the copper action level is
discussed in section C.5.h. of this preamble.
Another commenter pointed out a discrepancy between the April 1996
preamble and the proposed revised rule language. The proposed rule
language would have required lead and copper levels to be `` less
than'' the lead PQL and one-half the copper action level, respectively;
the preamble stated that systems with lead and copper levels ``less
than or equal to'' the lead PQL and one-half the copper action level,
respectively, would be eligible for reduced monitoring. The preamble
language reflected EPA's intent and the Agency has corrected this error
in today's action.
(iii) Today's action. EPA is promulgating the following revisions
to Sec. 141.87(e)(2). The existing paragraph Sec. 141.87(e)(2) has been
redesignated as Sec. 141.87(e)(2)(i). A new paragraph,
Sec. 141.87(e)(2)(ii) has been added to allow a water system to reduce
the frequency with which it collects tap samples for applicable WQPs
specified in Sec. 141.87(e)(1) to every three years if the system
demonstrates during two consecutive monitoring periods that its tap
water lead level at the 90th percentile is less than or equal to the
PQL for lead specified in Sec. 141.89(a)(1)(ii), that its tap water
copper level at the 90th percentile is less than or equal to one-half
the action level for copper (0.65 mg/L) in Sec. 141.80(c)(2), and that
it also has maintained the range of values for the WQPs reflecting OCCT
specified by the State under Sec. 141.82(f).
d. Summary of water quality monitoring requirements. The table
shown below summarizes the WQP monitoring requirements, and reflects
the clarification that entry point monitoring after the installation of
CCT must occur no less frequently than every two weeks.
Table 3.--Summary of Monitoring Requirements for Water Quality Parameters \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring period Parameters \2\ Location Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Monitoring............... pH, alkalinity, Taps and at entry Every 6 months.
orthophosphate or silica point(s) to
\3\, calcium, distribution system.
conductivity,
temperature.
After Installation of Corrosion pH, alkalinity, Taps.................... Every 6 months.
Control. orthophosphate or silica
\3\, calcium \4\.
pH, alkalinity, dosage Entry point(s) to No less frequently than
rate and concentration distribution system \6\. every two weeks.
(if alkalinity adjusted
as part of corrosion
control), inhibitor
dosage rate and
inhibitor residual \5\.
After State Specifies Parameter pH, alkalinity, Taps.................... Every 6 months.
Values for Optimal Corrosion orthophosphate or silica
Control. \3\, calcium \4\.
pH, alkalinity dosage Entry point(s) to No less frequently than
rate and concentration distribution system \6\. every two weeks.
(if alkalinity adjusted
as part of corrosion
control), inhibitor
dosage rate and
inhibitor residual \5\.
Reduced Monitoring............... pH, alkalinity, Taps.................... Every 6 months, annually
orthophosphate or silica \7\ or every 3 years
\3\, calcium \4\. \8\; reduced number of
sites.
pH, alkalinity dosage Entry point(s) to No less frequently than
rate and concentration distribution system \6\. every two weeks.
(if alkalinity adjusted
as part of corrosion
control), inhibitor
dosage rate and
inhibitor residual \5\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table is for illustrative purposes; consult the text of this section for precise regulatory requirements.
\2\ Small and medium-size systems have to monitor for WQPs only during monitoring periods in which the system
exceeds the lead or copper action level.
\3\ Orthophosphate must be measured only when an inhibitor containing a phosphate compound is used. Silica must
be measured only when an inhibitor containing silicate compound is used.
\4\ Calcium must be measured only when calcium carbonate stabilization is used as part of corrosion control.
\5\ Inhibitor dosage rates and inhibitor residual concentrations (orthophosphate or silica) must be measured
only when an inhibitor is used.
\6\ Ground water systems may limit monitoring to representative locations throughout the system.
\7\ Water systems may reduce frequency of monitoring for WQPs at the tap from every six months to annually if
they have maintained the range of values for WQPs reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive
years of monitoring.
\8\ Water systems may further reduce the frequency of monitoring for WQPs at the tap from annually to once every
3 years if they have maintained the range of values for WQPs reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3
consecutive years of annual monitoring. Water systems may accelerate to triennial monitoring for WQPs at the
tap if they have maintained 90th percentile lead levels less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L, 90th percentile
copper levels less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L, and the range of WQPs designated by the State under Sec.
141.82(f) as representing optimal corrosion control during two consecutive six-month monitoring periods.
[[Page 1985]]
7. Revisions to Sec. 141.88
a. Resampling triggers for composite source water samples.
(i) Proposed revision and background. EPA proposed to revise
Sec. 141.88(a) to delete the reference to Sec. 141.23, which pertains
to inorganic chemical sampling requirements, and to spell out the
specific requirements for lead and copper source water monitoring in
Sec. 141.88(a). The Agency explained that it believed it would be less
confusing to specify the requirements regarding lead and copper in
Subpart I, where all other lead and copper sampling is addressed. In
addition, the Agency proposed to retain the resampling trigger for
composite source water samples for lead at the detection limit of 0.001
mg/L and to change the resampling trigger for composite source water
samples for copper from the detection limits of 0.001 mg/L and 0.020
mg/L to 0.160 mg/L.14 EPA also proposed adding rule language
to clarify that compositing of samples must be done by certified
laboratory personnel and to allow systems to use duplicates or original
samples, where possible, instead of resampling. The remaining
requirements in Sec. 141.88(a), pertaining to sample location and
number of samples, were retained from Sec. 141.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Since up to five samples may be composited for analysis, in
1996, EPA proposed resampling triggers that are one-fifth of the
levels above which EPA recommends source water treatment. (EPA's
guidance document Lead and Copper Rule Guidance Manual Volume II:
Corrosion Control recommends source water treatment when the
concentration of lead in the source water is greater than 0.005 mg/L
or the concentration of copper in source water is greater than 0.800
mg/L.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Comments and analysis. While most commenters supported the
proposed revisions to Sec. 141.88(a), a few commenters raised issues.
One commenter asked how the 90th percentile would be calculated when
samples are composited. EPA would like to clarify that compositing
applies to source water samples only. Tap samples cannot be composited.
Therefore, compositing does not affect the way in which the 90th
percentile is to be calculated.
Another commenter discussed the potential impact of rounding the
reported value for the composite sample. The commenter was concerned
that if water systems with a source water lead level just above 0.001
mg/L rounded down to 0.001 mg/L, under the proposed rule, resampling of
the composite sample would not need to occur. EPA has addressed this
potential problem by revising the language in today's action to change
the resampling triggers from lead levels greater than 0.001 mg/L and
copper levels greater than 0.160 mg/L to lead levels greater than or
equal to 0.001 mg/L and copper levels greater than or equal to 0.160
mg/L.
In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA requested public comment on whether
compositing should be allowed in light of the fact that the resampling
trigger for composited lead source water samples is the detection limit
and therefore, half the samples whose true value is at the MDL could be
reported as false negatives. While no commenters suggested eliminating
compositing due to the above-mentioned concern, several commenters
wanted compositing to be eliminated because of a concern about the
ability of laboratories to successfully analyze samples near the
detection limit. The Agency does not believe that it is appropriate to
eliminate flexibility and potential cost savings for some utilities
because some laboratories may not be able to meet the criteria to
perform compositing. Therefore, compositing is being retained in
today's action.
(iii) Today's action. EPA has made the following changes to
Sec. 141.88(a)(1). The requirements for source water sample location,
number of source water samples, and collection methods have been
incorporated directly into Sec. 141.88(a)(1) and the reference to
Sec. 141.23 has been eliminated. Systems may composite up to five
source water samples. The compositing must be done by certified
laboratory personnel. If the lead concentration in the composite sample
is greater than or equal to 0.001 mg/L or the copper concentration in
the composite sample is greater than or equal to 0.160 mg/L, then the
system must take and analyze a follow-up sample at each sampling site
used in the composite within 14 days; however, if duplicates of, or
sufficient quantities from, the original samples from each sampling
point used in the composite are available, the system may use these
instead of resampling.
b. Reduced source water monitoring for systems without State-
designated maximum permissible source water levels.
(i) Proposed revision and background. In 1996, EPA proposed to add
provisions to the source water monitoring requirements that would allow
the same reduction in the frequency of source water monitoring for
systems that exceed an action level if the source water lead and copper
levels are low and the State has determined that source water treatment
is not required. This change would allow such systems to reduce the
frequency of source water monitoring on the same schedule as systems
that are treating their source water and complying with the State-
specified maximum permissible source water levels. EPA proposed that
the systems exceeding an action level after the State has determined
that source water treatment is not required be allowed to reduce the
frequency of source water monitoring if the source water lead
concentrations are less than 0.005 mg/L and the source water copper
concentrations are less than 0.8 mg/L. EPA proposed these levels since
Agency guidance suggests these are the levels above which source water
treatment may be appropriate (EPA, 1992c).
(ii) Comments and analysis. Several commenters suggested
refinements to the rule language to make it more consistent with other
parts of the rule. One of these commenters suggested that reduced
source water monitoring be allowed if source water levels are ``less
than or equal to'' (instead of ``less than'') 0.005 mg/L lead and 0.8
mg/L copper. EPA agrees that the lead and copper concentrations should
be ``less than or equal to'' the source water threshold levels and has
made this change in today's action.
A second commenter suggested that EPA set the same lead and copper
concentrations for reduced source water monitoring as for accelerated
reduced lead and copper monitoring at the tap. The Agency agrees that
it is less confusing to use the same lead and copper thresholds for
both accelerated reduced tap water monitoring and reduced source water
monitoring where the State has determined that source water treatment
is not required. Today's action therefore establishes 0.65 mg/L as the
copper threshold for reduced source water monitoring where the State
has determined that no source water treatment is required. The Agency
estimates that less than one percent of water systems have source water
copper levels between 0.65 mg/L and 0.8 mg/L (EPA, 1988). EPA thus
believes that very few, if any, systems will be precluded from reducing
source water monitoring as a consequence of establishing this slightly
more stringent threshold than the Agency proposed in 1996.
Another commenter criticized the Agency for not proposing to revise
the reduced source water monitoring frequency consistent with a 5/10/15
year monitoring framework for chemical contaminants regulated by the
Phase II/V rules that the Agency was considering. In 1997, EPA
published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that requested
comment on possible Chemical Monitoring Reform
[[Page 1986]]
and Permanent Monitoring Relief provisions for the chemicals regulated
under the Phase II/V rules (62 FR 36100, Jul. 3, 1997). EPA has since
decided not to move forward with Chemical Monitoring Reform. However,
the Agency has published Alternative Monitoring Guidance (formerly
known as the Permanent Monitoring Relief) that permit States meeting
specified conditions to issue five-year monitoring waivers for
contaminants to which the State has determined the system is not
vulnerable (EPA, 1997b). Unless a waiver has been issued, the system
must continue to monitor for the Phase II/V chemicals within the 3/6/9
year framework.
The Agency agrees that a consistent framework for chemical
contaminants is desirable to the extent that it does not jeopardize
public health protection or the environment. EPA does not believe it
would be appropriate to revise the monitoring frequency for lead and
copper in source water along the lines being considered for the
Chemical Monitoring Reform/Permanent Monitoring Relief, however. Other
regulated chemical contaminants address chemicals where existing
contamination and vulnerability to future contamination can be
identified relatively easily and where the public health concern is
overall lifetime exposure. The issues pertaining to the control of lead
and copper are significantly different. The health effect of primary
concern is exposure to lead for children. Since systems triggered into
source water monitoring exceed one or both action levels, EPA does not
believe it appropriate to reduce the monitoring frequency for source
water lead and copper beyond the schedule in today's action. While the
Agency is sensitive to the implementation complications arising from
different frequencies, it does not believe that adequate public health
protection should be sacrificed merely for the sake of consistency.
One commenter pointed out a discrepancy in the proposed language at
Sec. 141.88(e) regarding whether systems are required to monitor for
both lead and copper. The language in Sec. 141.88(e)(1) has been
revised to clarify that systems subject to source water monitoring
requirements must sample for both lead and copper.
Finally, one commenter stated that in making these revisions, EPA
was setting source water treatment levels by default. EPA does not
intend to set specific levels requiring source water treatment. EPA's
intent is to specify the levels of lead and copper in source water
which will determine whether a system can reduce source water
monitoring.
(iii) Today's action. EPA has therefore finalized the revision as
proposed, incorporating the clarification discussed above. Sections
141.88(e)(1) and (2) have been revised to allow water systems that
exceed the action level, but for which the State has determined that
source water treatment is not needed, to reduce the frequency of source
water monitoring if the system maintains source water lead levels at or
below 0.005 mg/L and source water copper levels at or below 0.65 mg/L
for three consecutive monitoring periods, if using an exclusively
ground water source, or three consecutive years, if using a surface
water or combined surface and ground water source.
8. Revisions to Laboratory Certification Requirements in Sec. 141.89
a. Proposed revision and background. EPA noted in the April 1996
Proposal that the proposed changes to the composite source water
resampling triggers for lead and copper at Sec. 141.88(a)(1)(iii)
necessitate revisions to the laboratory certification procedures
pertaining to composite source water samples at Sec. 141.89(a)(1)(iii).
EPA therefore proposed to delete the requirement for a laboratory to
achieve the MDL for copper. It is no longer necessary to specify that
laboratories be capable of achieving the copper MDL in order to accept
composite source water samples. With the copper resampling trigger set
at 0.160 mg/L, the laboratory will be sufficiently tested on its
capabilities under Sec. 141.89(a)(1)(ii)(B) where it is required to
achieve a quantitative acceptance limit of 10 percent of
the actual amount of the performance evaluation sample when the actual
amount is greater than or equal to 0.050 mg/L.
b. Comments and analysis. EPA did not receive any comments
objecting to this revision.
c. Today's action. The Agency has revised Sec. 141.89(a)(1)(iii) to
delete the requirement for laboratories to achieve the copper MDL in
order to accept composite samples. Sections 141.89(a)(1)(iii)(A) and
(B) have been eliminated since they no longer are necessary.
9. Revisions to System Reporting Requirements in Sec. 141.90
EPA is promulgating a number of changes to water system reporting
requirements at Sec. 141.90. The following chart summarizes these
changes.
Table 4.--Summary of Changes to System Reporting Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph Revision Preamble discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
141.90(a)(1), introductory text.............. Remove reference to Sec. C.9.a.
141.88 and revise examples
of ``applicable monitoring
periods'' to include a 9-
year monitoring period.
141.90(a)(1)(ii)............................. Remove requirement for C.9.b.
certification of first-
draw samples collected by
the system.
Replace with new C.5.k.
requirement for
documentation to accompany
sample invalidation
requests.
141.90(a)(1)(iii)............................ Remove requirement for C.9.b.
certification pertaining
to first-draw samples
collected by residents and
reserve paragraph.
141.90(a)(1)(iv)............................. Modify to address reporting C.9.c.
requirement for those
systems for which the
State will be calculating
the system's 90th
percentile lead and copper
levels.
141.90(a)(1)(viii)........................... Add requirement for C.2.b.
reporting WQP monitoring
results collected under
Secs. 141.87(c)-(f).
141.90(a)(2)................................. Remove requirement for CWSs C.5.b.
to send letter to State
demonstrating why a
sufficient number of Tier
1 sites cannot be located.
Replace with a new C.5.c.
requirement for NTNCWSs
that cannot find enough
first-draw sampling sites
to identify non-first-draw
sample times and locations.
141.90(a)(3)................................. Remove requirement for C.5.b.
NTNCWSs to send letter to
State demonstrating why a
sufficient number of Tier
1 sites cannot be located.
[[Page 1987]]
Replace with a new C.5.j. & C.5.l.
requirement for systems
monitoring at the tap less
frequently than once every
6 months to notify the
State within 60 days if
there are any changes in
treatment or addition of a
new source water.
141.90(a)(4)................................. Remove requirement to send C.5.b.
letter to State
demonstrating why 50% of
sampling sites are not
served by lead service
lines.
Replace with new reporting C.5.l.
requirement for small
systems requesting a
monitoring waiver.
141.90(a)(5)................................. Remove reporting C.5.f.
requirements associated
with requesting reduced
monitoring.
Replace with new reporting C.6.b.
requirement demonstrating
representative locations
for biweekly entry point
water quality parameter
monitoring after the
installation of corrosion
control treatment.
141.90(e)(2)................................. Revise all references to C.3.b.
``Sec. 141.84(f)'' to
read ``Sec. 141.84(e)''.
141.90(e)(4)................................. Remove reporting C.3.b.
requirements associated
with rebutting presumption
of control of entire
length of LSL.
Add new requirement for C.3.b.
systems collecting LSL
samples after partial lead
service line replacement
to report results to the
State.
141.90(f).................................... Revise deadline for C.4.c.
reporting completion of
public education tasks.
141.90(h).................................... Add new requirement for C.9.c.
reporting lead and copper
concentrations where the
State calculates a
system's 90th percentile
levels.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of these changes are described in more detail in other
sections of the preamble, as indicated in the table above. The
remaining changes to system reporting requirements are described below.
a. Timing of reporting of tap water monitoring for lead and copper
and water quality parameter monitoring.
(i) Proposed revision and background. The introductory text of
Sec. 141.90(a)(1) of the 1991 LCR requires a water system to report
monitoring data to the State for all tap water samples within the first
10 days following the end of each applicable monitoring period
specified in Secs. 141.86, 141.87, and 141.88. The applicable
monitoring periods listed in the original rule were ``every six-
months'', ``annually'', and ``every 3 years.'' Because the proposed
revisions included a provision that would allow certain small water
systems to conduct tap water monitoring once every nine years (see
Sec. 141.86(g)), EPA also proposed a revision to the introductory text
of Sec. 141.90(a)(1) to include ``every 9 years'' as one of the
applicable monitoring periods. In the August 1998 Notice, the Agency
proposed to add ``quarterly'' to this list to reflect the proposed
requirement that water systems subject to the WQP monitoring
requirements of Secs. 141.87(d) and (e) report these results quarterly.
Because EPA was also proposing to give States explicit discretion to
require more frequent reporting of WQP results, the Agency also
proposed to add a qualifier to the introductory text of
Sec. 141.90(a)(1) to make clear that the specific WQP reporting
requirements took precedence over the general reporting requirements
wherever the two appeared to be in conflict.
(ii) Comments and analysis. One commenter pointed out that EPA had
apparently omitted the phrase, ``below for,'' in the first sentence of
the proposed rewording in the April 1996 Proposal. EPA agrees that the
phrase was inadvertently omitted from the April 1996 Proposal and has
corrected the error in today's action. No commenter took issue with the
proposed changes to the introductory text of Sec. 141.90(a)(1) in
response to either the April 1996 Proposal or the August 1998 Notice.
(iii) Today's action. The introductory text of Sec. 141.90(a)(1)
has been revised to reflect ``every 9 years'' as one of the applicable
reporting frequencies. Today's action also revises the introductory
text of Sec. 141.90(a)(1) to include the qualifying phrase, ``except as
provided in paragraph (a)(1)(viii) of this section.'' Since today's
action retains the requirement for a six-month monitoring period for
WQPs after the State designates OWQPs under Sec. 141.82(f), instead of
revising this to a quarterly period, EPA has omitted ``quarterly'' from
the list of applicable monitoring periods referenced in the
introductory text of Sec. 141.90(a)(1). The Agency believes that the
language of Sec. 141.90(a)(1)(viii), added by today's language, makes
clear that systems must report these WQP monitoring results to the
State no less frequently than every six months.
Today's action also makes one technical correction to the
introductory text of Sec. 141.90(a)(1). This language, as promulgated
in 1991, referenced tap water samples collected in accordance with
Sec. 141.86, WQP samples collected in accordance with Sec. 141.87, and
source water samples collected in accordance with Sec. 141.88. Because
the reporting requirements for source water monitoring are specified in
Sec. 141.90(b) and not in Sec. 141.90(a)(1), the reference to
Sec. 141.88 has been deleted from the introductory text of
Sec. 141.90(a)(1).
b. Elimination of certification requirements pertaining to first-
draw samples.
(i) Proposed revision and background. Section 141.90(a)(1)(ii) of
the LCR, as promulgated in 1991, required water systems to certify that
each sample collected by the system pursuant to Sec. 141.86(d) was one-
liter in volume and, to the best of the system's knowledge, had stood
motionless in the service line or in the interior plumbing of a
sampling site for at least six hours. Section 141.90(a)(1)(iii)
required water systems to certify that each tap sample collected by
residents was taken after the water system informed the residents of
the proper sampling procedures. EPA included these requirements to help
ensure use of the proper sampling protocol contained in Sec. 141.86.
Most water systems have now completed at least two rounds of monitoring
for lead and copper and have experience in collecting first-draw
samples. Because the Agency believes that continuing to require systems
to provide these certifications every monitoring period imposes a
burden that can no longer be justified, EPA proposed eliminating these
two certification requirements in the April 1996 Proposal.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Most commenters supported the proposal
to eliminate the requirement for written certification of first-draw
sample collection. However, concern was expressed that improper sample
collection might occur due to: new
[[Page 1988]]
homeowners who are not aware of collection requirements; staff
turnover, particularly at NTNCWSs; and customers who forget proper
sample collection procedures over time.
EPA acknowledges that requiring written certification provides an
extra level of assurance that samples have been collected correctly.
However, EPA also believes that the reduced burden resulting from the
elimination of these requirements outweighs the benefits of maintaining
the certification requirements, especially since Sec. 141.86(b)(2)
still requires water systems to instruct residents regarding first-draw
sample procedures. EPA also believes it is prudent to provide technical
assistance, when necessary, to new water system staff, water system
customers sampling for the first time, and customers who have
previously sampled, to ensure proper sample collection. EPA has
therefore eliminated these certification requirements.
One commenter favored elimination of the certification requirement
but suggested that public water systems should require a certification
from the homeowner. In addition, the commenter also suggested adding a
requirement that a chain of custody be maintained until the laboratory
has finished analyzing the sample. The LCR will continue to require (at
Sec. 141.86(b)(2)) that water systems provide sampling instructions to
residents who will be collecting first-draw samples. However, because
EPA can only regulate water systems, the Rule cannot incorporate
language that would require homeowners to provide a certification that
they sampled correctly. Water systems are responsible for ensuring that
reported results accurately reflect the samples collected. The absence
of a Federal requirement for chain of custody does not preclude the
State or the system from establishing these controls. EPA encourages
States and systems to establish the necessary controls; however, the
Agency has no plans to add a chain of custody requirement to the lead
and copper regulations.
(iii) Today's action. The certification requirements pertaining to
first-draw lead and copper tap water samples, previously codified at
Secs. 141.90(a)(1)(ii) and (iii), have been deleted. New requirements
have been added at Sec. 141.90(a)(1)(ii) associated with requesting
sample invalidation (see section C.5.k. of this preamble).
c. State calculation/reporting of 90th percentile levels.
(i) Proposed revision and background. Although no specific
regulatory language changes were proposed, the preamble to the April
1996 Proposal requested comment on a burden reduction measure that
would give States the flexibility to eliminate the requirement that
systems calculate and report 90th percentile lead and copper values,
provided that the State performs the calculation. A number of water
systems, especially small water systems, find it difficult to calculate
these 90th percentile values. Some States have found that the 90th
percentile lead and copper values submitted by such systems are
incorrect. Consequently, a number of these States routinely recalculate
the 90th percentile values based on the individual tap sample data that
systems are required to submit. Granting States the option to calculate
the 90th percentile values in lieu of the water system would result in
a burden reduction for those water systems who are finding it difficult
and time consuming to do the calculation on their own and would not
increase the burden for those States who have already opted to
recalculate the systems' 90th percentile values.
(ii) Comments and analysis. Many commenters supported this measure.
A few commenters, however, did not support such a change. One commenter
suggested that rather than eliminating the requirement for systems to
calculate and report 90th percentile values, the Rule should stipulate
that it is up to the State to determine whether systems should report
the results of all tap samples, the 90th percentile values, or both.
The commenter maintained that this change would be appropriate in their
State since the certified laboratories are already required to
calculate and report the 90th percentile values based on the results of
the lead and copper tap samples that they have just analyzed.
Because it is difficult to ensure that a certified lab will report
results to the State within the reporting time frame required of public
water systems, today's action does not include language that allows
States the flexibility to rely on information reported to the State by
certified laboratories in lieu of system reporting of the lead and
copper tap water results and 90th percentile calculations. EPA cannot
impose reporting requirements on certified labs through the LCR and EPA
does not have authority to take enforcement action against certified
labs that do not report data within the reporting time frame required
of public water systems.
A few commenters suggested that the 90th percentile reporting
requirements be eliminated for small systems only; another commenter
opposed the proposed measure due to the belief that requiring States to
perform these calculations would increase the data manipulation load on
already overburdened State regulatory staff. Some commenters suggested
that eliminating the requirement for systems to calculate the 90th
percentile lead and copper values would result in systems not having
time to take appropriate follow-up actions (such as collecting WQP
samples) within the required time frame if the State reported the 90th
percentile values back to the system later in the monitoring period, or
after it had ended. Finally, several commenters opposed allowing the
States to calculate systems' 90th percentile levels because they felt
that water system owner/operators need to take responsibility for what
is occurring in their systems.
EPA shares the concerns raised by these commenters. Nevertheless,
the Agency believes that there may be instances where it is least
burdensome overall for the State to perform the calculations, as long
as systems are notified of the results sufficiently early in the
monitoring period to take any required follow-up action. EPA therefore
has included provisions providing States some flexibility to eliminate
the 90th percentile reporting requirements for all systems, no systems,
or some subset (e.g., small systems). Water systems for which the State
will calculate the 90th percentile lead and copper levels must submit
the results of all lead and copper tap samples to the State by a date
designated by the State. The State will then calculate the system's
90th percentile lead and copper concentrations and will provide the
results of the calculations, in writing, to the system prior to the end
of the applicable monitoring period.
EPA agrees that if the State calculates the 90th percentile lead
and copper levels, it is possible that a water system would not have
sufficient time to collect water quality parameter samples during the
same monitoring period that an action level is exceeded. To avoid this
situation, EPA strongly encourages States to provide the results of the
90th percentile calculations to each system well in advance of the end
of the monitoring period. States will need to advise systems when they
must submit lead and copper tap water sample results to the State so
that the State can do these calculations in a timely manner. While
determining when the systems must submit their lead and copper tap
results, the State should: (1) Consider the length of time it will need
to review the lead and copper tap results provided by all affected
water
[[Page 1989]]
systems; and (2) consider the length of time needed by water systems
exceeding the lead and/or copper action level(s) to collect water
quality parameter samples. If lead and copper tap results are not
provided by the date required by the State, it becomes the system's
responsibility to calculate their 90th percentile values.
The Agency agrees that all systems should take responsibility for
the quality of water delivered to their customers. However, it appears
that some systems still find it difficult to calculate 90th percentile
lead and copper levels correctly. Today's action allows States that are
concerned with the accuracy of the systems' calculations to perform the
calculations and then provide the results to the system before the end
of the monitoring period so that the system can take appropriate
action. EPA strongly encourages all water systems to calculate their
90th percentile lead and copper levels on their own using the
``instructions'' found in Sec. 141.80(c)(3) even if the State has
committed to performing these calculations and providing the results of
the calculations to the water system. Systems that determine that they
have exceeded an action level may proceed with the appropriate follow-
up requirements, such as WQP monitoring or lead public education. If,
based on the same lead and copper tap results submitted by the system,
the State determines that the system's 90th percentile lead and copper
levels actually do not exceed either the lead or copper action levels,
the system may discontinue with any follow-up actions it has begun.
(iii) Today's action. EPA has therefore revised the requirement at
Sec. 141.90(a)(1)(iv), requiring system reporting of the 90th
percentile lead and copper level calculations, to omit the requirement
in those instances where the State will be performing the calculations
in accordance with the provisions specified in a new Sec. 141.90(h).
Section 141.90(h) contains the following requirements.
The State must have previously notified the system that
the State will calculate the 90th percentile lead and copper levels and
have provided the system with a date, earlier than the end of the
monitoring period, by which the system must provide the results of all
lead and copper tap water samples collected during the monitoring
period.
The system must provide the following information to the
State by the date specified: The results of all lead and copper tap
water samples, including the location of each site and the criteria
under which the site was selected for the sampling pool, and an
identification of sampling sites utilized during the current monitoring
period that were not sampled during previous monitoring periods along
with an explanation why sampling sites have changed.
The State must provide the results of the 90th percentile
lead and copper calculations, in writing, to the water system before
the end of the monitoring period.
EPA is also revising Sec. 142.14(d)(9) to make clear that States
must maintain records pertaining to any State-calculated 90th
percentile levels along with records of data submitted pursuant to
Sec. 141.90.
10. Revisions to Sec. 141.43
Paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) of Sec. 141.43 contain a one-time
requirement for public water systems to identify and notify persons
that may be affected by lead contamination of their drinking water.
This requirement is obsolete. Notification pursuant to Sec. 141.43 was
to have occurred no later than June 1988. Moreover, the requirement for
a water system to conduct public education pursuant to Sec. 141.85 as
long as the water system exceeds the lead action level is much more
comprehensive and accomplishes the same goal of informing the public
about the possibility of lead contamination. EPA has therefore deleted
and reserved Secs. 141.43(a)(2) and (b)(2). EPA believes this revision
is appropriate to avoid confusion and redundancy.
EPA also is revising Sec. 141.43 to amend the definition of ``lead
free'' to reflect the provisions of Sections 1417(d) and (e) of the
1996 SDWA Amendments. Section 1417(a)(1) of the SDWA states that ``no
person may use any pipe, any pipe or plumbing fitting or fixture, any
solder, or any flux, in the installation or repair of any public water
system or any plumbing in a residential or nonresidential facility
providing water for human consumption that is not lead free.'' Under
section 1417(d), ``lead free'' means that solders and flux may not
contain more than 0.2 percent lead; pipes, pipe fittings, and well
pumps may not contain more than 8.0 percent lead; and plumbing fittings
and fixtures must meet standards established under section 1417(e) (42
U.S.C. 300g-6(e)). Section 1417(e) of the SDWA states that ``lead
free'' with regard to plumbing fittings and fixtures intended to
dispense water for human consumption means those fittings and fixtures
that are in compliance with a standard established under that section.
Today's action adds a paragraph (d)(3) to Sec. 141.43 to incorporate
into the definition of ``lead free'' the following: ``When used with
respect to plumbing fittings and fixtures intended by the manufacturer
to dispense water for human ingestion refers to fittings and fixtures
that are in compliance with voluntary standards and testing protocols
for the leaching of lead in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 300g-6(e).'' As
discussed previously (see section C.5.l.(ii)(A) of this preamble), EPA
has recognized NSF International's Standard 61, Section 9, as meeting
the requirements for a voluntary lead-leaching standard under Section
1417(e) (62 FR 44686, Aug. 22, 1997). If other standards that meet the
requirements of SDWA sections 1417(d) and (e) are established in the
future, EPA will publish appropriate notification in the Federal
Register.
D. Revisions to Requirements for States
As discussed earlier in this preamble, primacy States must adopt
and submit to EPA for approval a primacy program revision to
incorporate the provisions of today's rule into their approved primacy
program. In addition to the revised system requirements in Part 141,
today's rule amends the State recordkeeping requirements of
Sec. 142.14, the LCR-specific State reporting requirements in
Sec. 142.15(c)(4), and the special primacy requirements unique to
specific regulations in Sec. 142.16. These revisions are discussed
below.
1. Records kept by States. As discussed in C. of this preamble,
today's action contains several conforming changes to the State
recordkeeping requirements associated with the LCR. These requirements
are codified at Sec. 142.14(d)(8). The following summarizes these
revisions.
Section 142.14(d)(8)(vii) has been eliminated.
Sections 142.14(d)(8)(i) through (vi) has been
redesignated as Secs. 142.14(d)(8)(ii) through (vii), respectively.
A new Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(i) has been added to require
States to maintain records of any system-specific requirements for
(b)(1) and (b)(3) systems that have corrosion control treatment
installed.
The newly designated Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(vi) has been
revised to eliminate the word ``and'' at the end of the paragraph.
The newly designated Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(vii) has been
revised to correct the punctuation at the end of the paragraph.
Section Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(viii) has been revised to change
the reference to ``Section 141.84(f) to read ``Section 141.84(e).''
[[Page 1990]]
Section 142.14(d)(8)(ix) has been added to require States
to maintain records of any determinations of monitoring or other
requirements for systems monitoring for lead and copper at the tap less
frequently than every six months that change treatment or add a new
source of water.
Section Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(x) has been added to require
States to maintain records of system-specific decisions regarding the
content of written public education materials and/or distribution of
these materials.
Section Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(xi) has been added to require
States to maintain records of any system-specific determinations
regarding use of non-first-draw samples under Sec. 141.86(b)(5).
Section Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(xii) has been added to require
States to maintain records of any system-specific or case-by-case
designations of sampling locations for systems subject to reduced
monitoring.
Section Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(xiii) has been added to require
States to maintain records of system-specific determinations pertaining
to alternative sample collection periods for systems subject to reduced
monitoring.
Section Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(xiv) has been added to require
States to maintain records of any determinations, including waiver
renewals and revocations.
Section Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(xv) has been added to require
States to maintain records of any determinations made regarding
representative entry point monitoring locations at ground water
systems.
Section Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(xvi) has been added to require
States to maintain records of any system-specific determinations made
regarding the submission of information to demonstrate compliance with
partial lead service line replacement requirements.
Section Sec. 142.14(d)(8)(xvii) has been added to require
States to maintain records of any system-specific decisions regarding
the resubmission of detailed documentation demonstrating completion of
public education requirements.
Section Sec. 142.14(d)(9) has been revised to include any
State-calculated 90th percentile values among records States must
maintain relative to data submitted pursuant to Sec. 141.90.
Section Sec. 142.14(d)(10) has been revised to include
records of State activities, and the results thereof, to determine
compliance with the requirements related to partial lead service line
replacement and to include records of sample invalidation
determinations.
Section Sec. 142.14(d)(11) has been revised to change the
reference to ``Secs. 142.14(d)(8)(i) through (d)(8)(viii)'' to read
``Secs. 142.14(d)(8)(i) through (d)(8)(xvii).''
2. Reporting requirements for States.
a. Proposed revision and background. Under the 1991 Rule, States
were required to report up to eleven LCR implementation milestones for
each water system. These milestones were:
Lead action level exceedance and date of the exceedance;
Copper action level exceedance and date of the exceedance;
Corrosion control study required;
Corrosion control study completed and date State received
the results of the study;
State designation of CCT and date of the determination;
State designation of source water treatment and date of
the determination;
CCT installed;
Source water treatment installed;
State designation of optimal water quality control
parameters and date of the determination;
State designation of maximum permissible source water
levels; and
Lead service line replacement required, accelerated
replacement schedule (if any), and annual compliance with the
replacement schedule.
Through implementation guidance, EPA had also requested that States
report 90th percentile lead and copper values in conjunction with lead
action level exceedance and copper action level exceedance milestones,
respectively, and requested States to provide all 90th percentile lead
levels for large systems and for any medium-size and small size system
once they had exceeded the lead action level (EPA, 1992b).
In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA requested comment on several
revisions to these milestones. These changes included a requirement to
report all 90th percentile lead values for large and medium-size
systems, elimination of the two corrosion control study milestones, the
CCT installed milestone, and the State designation of maximum
permissible source water levels milestone. The proposed revisions also
would have added a date to the source water treatment installed
milestone and streamlined the lead service line replacement required
milestone. In addition, the Agency requested public comment on whether
it should require the reporting of the optimal water quality control
parameter limits designated by the State under Sec. 141.82(f), require
the reporting of the maximum permissible source water levels designated
by the State under Sec. 141.83(b)(4), and retain the requirement for
States to report any accelerated lead service line replacement schedule
established pursuant to Sec. 141.84(f).
In light of the public comments received and other, concurrent
internal Agency discussions, EPA requested public comment in the April
1998 Notice on another regulatory option pertaining to State reporting
requirements. Under the April 1998 option, EPA would require the
following:
All lead 90th percentile values for large and medium-size
systems;
90th percentile values that exceed the lead action level
for small systems;
90th percentile copper values that exceed the copper
action level for all systems;
A new ``deemed'' milestone, indicating the system has
optimized corrosion control and the basis for that determination, and
the date of the determination;
The streamlined lead service line replacement required
milestone proposed in 1996; and
A new ``done'' milestone, indicating the system had
optimized corrosion control and completed any required source water
treatment steps and lead service line replacement requirements, and the
date of the determination.
The ``deemed'' and ``done'' milestones would be reported for all
systems. The lead service line replacement required milestone would
continue to be reported only for those systems triggered into the
requirement.
b. Comments and analysis.
EPA received mixed comments in response to the April 1996 Proposal.
While some commenters agreed with the proposed revisions, others took
issue with some, or all, of the milestones that EPA proposed to retain.
In particular, several commenters took issue with the need to report
many of the interim milestones, arguing that it is inconsistent with
the concept of performance partnerships for EPA to track LCR
implementation at the level suggested by the milestones. Two commenters
objected to reporting all 90th percentile lead values for large and
medium-size systems. One of these commenters thought the information
would be confusing to the public; the other commenter raised concern
about the burden implications. A third commenter recommended that EPA
require the reporting of all 90th percentile values for all systems.
None of the commenters supported reporting
[[Page 1991]]
of the additional items (i.e., State-specified optimal water quality
control parameters, State-specified maximum permissible source water
levels, and accelerated lead service line replacement schedules) on
which EPA requested comment. The reasons for opposing such requirements
were similar to those expressed, in general, about State reporting
requirements--lack of clear justification on the part of EPA, burden
implications, and inconsistency with the concept of performance
partnerships.
In light of these comments, the Agency thoroughly re-examined its
need for, and planned use of, system-specific LCR implementation data.
EPA concluded that the Agency needs more information for this Rule than
is generally true for other NPDWRs. The Agency's rationale is explained
in the April 1998 Notice and is based on the fact that lead is a
priority contaminant as well as the nature of the rule that provides
States broad discretion in specifying precisely what constitutes
compliance for each water system. The Agency also concluded, however,
that the use of exception-based reporting 15 for this Rule
has resulted in unanticipated data anomalies that make the use of the
reported milestones problematic. EPA therefore requested public comment
on a revised option that would eliminate all but one of the original
treatment milestones and replace the others with two newly defined
milestones that would need to be reported for all systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Under the 1991 requirements, States only report a milestone
if it is appropriate to a water system. Thus, for example, there is
no requirement to report the CCT installed milestone for a small/
medium-size system that is deemed to be optimized after
demonstrating for two consecutive six-month monitoring periods that
it does not exceed either the lead or the copper action level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters were more supportive of the April 1998 option than they
were of the 1996 option. Several commenters continued to have concerns,
however. A few commenters believe EPA still has not provided adequate
justification for this reporting. In particular, several commenters
opposed the requirement to report the ``done'' milestone for every
system and suggested that it be required only for those systems that
continue to exceed an action level after optimizing CCT. One commenter
questioned whether a system would ever really be done, since new
requirements and/or other changes at the system could necessitate
adjustments in CCT or trigger a system [back] into lead service line
replacement requirements at some time in the future.16 While
the Agency believes that most systems not triggered into lead service
line replacement requirements should be ``done'' at the time they are
considered to have optimized corrosion control, the potential exists
that this may not be true, especially since there is no way to
discontinue source water treatment requirements once a State has
determined that source water treatment is required. The Agency has
eliminated all milestones that might otherwise indicate that a water
system has been triggered into source water treatment. EPA therefore
believes it is important for States to explicitly indicate that a
system is ``done,'' rather than for EPA to infer this based on the
``deemed'' milestone and the available 90th percentile level
information. The Agency believes the additional burden of reporting
this milestone will be minimal in those cases when the ``deemed'' and
the ``done'' milestones occur at the same time. EPA acknowledges that
future events may necessitate some ``done'' systems to revisit specific
LCR treatment technique requirements. The Agency will address how these
situations are to be reported in implementation guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Systems may cease lead service line replacement before they
have replaced all the lead service lines they own if the 90th
percentile lead levels from routine tap water monitoring do not
exceed 0.015 mg/L for two consecutive monitoring periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few commenters objected to reporting 90th percentile lead levels
other than those reflecting action level exceedances. EPA would like to
receive all 90th percentile values and encourages States to provide
them. In light of the reporting burden involved, however, the Agency is
not requiring the reporting of either non-exceedance lead values for
small systems or non-exceedance copper values for any size system. EPA
plans to use the 90th percentile lead values to show how levels of lead
at the tap have changed over time for large and medium-size systems
and, by extrapolation, for small systems. In terms of routine
reporting, this is the only measure that the Agency has for showing the
Rule's effectiveness. The goal of the LCR is to get lead levels at the
tap to as close to zero as possible. Without any 90th percentile lead
data below the action level, EPA would have no way to measure progress
toward the goal.
Several commenters who supported the revisions to the reporting
requirements noted that States would need a long lead time to implement
the changes. One commenter, for example, mentioned that his State was
in the process of developing an automated information system and that
it would not be possible to incorporate the proposed revisions until
some time after the new system was online. Other commenters questioned
whether requisite resources would be available to make necessary
changes to State information systems. EPA recognizes that a relatively
long lead time is needed to give States time to make changes to
automated data systems. EPA also needs time to make the necessary
revisions to the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS).
Beginning May 15, 2000, States may report in accordance with the new
requirements; however, States have until January 14, 2002 to complete
the transition to the new reporting requirements. States will not be
required to report in accordance with the revised requirements until
January 14, 2002. Between May 15, 2000, and January 14, 2002, States
have the option to report compliance with either the 1991 reporting
requirements or the revised requirements in today's action. Because of
this compliance schedule, EPA has separately codified the new
requirements at Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(iii). The requirements, codified in
the 1991 Rule at Secs. 142.15(c)(4)(i) through (vii) have been
redesignated as Secs. 142.15(c)(4)(i)(A) through (G), respectively, and
introductory text added at Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(i) to identify the period
during which they are to be reported.
Finally, the Agency received a few comments in response to EPA's
request for comment on the need for the rule language to explicitly
state that the Administrator of EPA would specify the format of
reporting. No commenter objected to this revision, however, two
commenters suggested that EPA adopt a consistent format for reporting
drinking water data and adhere to it to minimize State burden. EPA
agrees that the reporting format for the LCR should be consistent with
other drinking water data reporting and will publish specific
formatting instructions as a part of implementation guidance.
c. Today's action. After considering the public comments received,
EPA has revised Sec. 142.15(c)(4) along the lines of the regulatory
option discussed in the April 1998 Notice. Specifically, the Agency has
made the following revisions.
EPA has made two substantive changes to the introductory
text of Sec. 142.15(c)(4). (1) EPA has changed the schedule of
reporting from ``May 15, August 15, November 15, and February 15 of
each year'' to ``quarterly.'' Although the Agency has no plans to
change the actual due dates at the
[[Page 1992]]
current time, this revision provides flexibility to make such a change
through guidance, rather than requiring another rulemaking, should it
be appropriate to alter the schedule in the future. (2) The Rule now
states that the Administrator [of EPA] will prescribe the format of
reporting. As discussed above, this will be done through implementation
guidance.
Sections 142.15(c)(4)(i) through (vii) have been
redesignated as Secs. 142.15(c)(4)(i)(A) through (G), respectively.
Introductory text has been added at Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(i) to indicate
that the requirements in that paragraph are effective through May 14,
2000.
A new paragraph had been added at Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(ii) to
indicate that States have the option to report in accordance with the
requirements in either Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(i) or Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(iii)
during the time period of May 15, 2000 through January 14, 2002.
A new set of reporting requirements, described below, has
been added at Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(iii). State must begin complying with
these requirements on January 14, 2002. Under these revised reporting
requirements, States no longer are required to submit the system name,
as well as the system identification number. EPA deleted the
requirement for the system name as a part of LCR reporting since this
information already is contained in EPA's information system through
inventory data submitted under Sec. 142.15(b).
The other revised State reporting requirements are as follows.
The requirement to report lead and copper action level
exceedances (Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(i)(A), as redesignated, of the 1991
Rule) has been eliminated. In its place, today's action requires the
reporting of 90th percentile values and the first and last date of the
monitoring period for which the 90th percentile value was calculated as
follows:
--All 90th percentile lead values, regardless of whether the lead
action level is exceeded, for all large and medium-size systems,
pursuant to Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(A);
--90th percentile lead values for each small system for each monitoring
period in which the system exceeds the lead action level, pursuant to
Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(B); and
--90th percentile copper values for each system for each monitoring
period in which the system exceeds the copper action level, pursuant to
Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(C).
The reporting of interim treatment milestones
(Secs. 142.15(c)(4)(i)(B) through (G), as redesignated, of the 1991
Rule) has been eliminated. In their place, today's action requires the
reporting of the following three milestones.
--A ``deemed'' milestone to be reported for each public water system
for which the State has designated optimal water quality control
parameters under Sec. 141.82(f), or which the State has deemed to have
optimized corrosion control under Sec. 141.81(b)(1) or (b)(3), and the
date and basis of the determination. This milestone is to be reported
for all systems, pursuant to Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(D). The Agency will
provide instructions on how to report different scenarios (e.g., the
system adjusted existing treatment rather than installing new CCT) in
the implementation guidance.
--Each public water system required to begin replacing lead service
lines as specified in Sec. 141.84 and the date the system is to begin
replacement, pursuant to Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(E).
--A ``done'' milestone to be reported for each public water system that
has completed all of the following requirements, as appropriate:
Optimization of corrosion control; any applicable source water
treatment requirements under Sec. 141.83; and any applicable lead
service line replacement requirements under Sec. 141.84. States also
are required to report the date of the State's determination that these
requirements have been completed. This milestone is to be reported for
all systems, pursuant to Sec. 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(F).
3. Special primacy considerations. As discussed in C of this
preamble, today's action contains several changes to the language of
Sec. 142.16(d). These changes are summarized below:
EPA has added provisions at Sec. 142.16(d)(1) for States
to use an alternative method of aggregating multiple measurements taken
during a single day for a water quality parameter at a sample location.
States need not submit anything under this paragraph if they elect to
use the formula for aggregating these results specified in
Sec. 141.82(g).
Section 142.16(d)(3) has been revised to eliminate the
requirement for States to specify in their primacy applications how
they plan to verify PWS demonstrations of limited control over lead
service lines.
A new Sec. 142.16(d)(4) has been added to require States
to specify in their primacy applications how they plan to determine
periods when lead levels are likely to be the highest for community
water systems subject to reduced monitoring that collect tap water lead
and copper samples in months other than June, July, August, and/or
September.
E. Burden Reduction Suggestions Not Adopted
In the preamble to the April 1996 Proposal, EPA requested public
comment on seven burden reduction suggestions that the Agency had
received in the Summer of 1995 but which EPA had not evaluated
thoroughly. EPA did not propose specific provisions in the April 1996
Proposal, but indicated that the comments might be considered for
further rulemaking after they had been fully evaluated. The Agency
invited comments to provide suggestions as to how these suggestions
might be implemented.
After considering the comments received and other factors, EPA has
decided to adopt two of the suggestions--flexibility for States to
eliminate system reporting/calculation of 90th percentile levels and
elimination of the public service announcement task under public
education for small systems. These revisions are included in today's
action and discussed in sections C.9.c. and C.4.b.(i), respectively of
this preamble. The Agency has no plans to implement the other five
suggestions. A summary of the comments received on these suggestions
and EPA's rationale for not adopting them follows.
1. Reduced Frequency of Water Quality Parameter Monitoring at Entry
Points for Systems Subject to Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
Requirements
a. Burden reduction suggestion and background. The regulations
require all large water systems (except (b)(3) systems), and many small
and medium-size water systems that install OCCT to collect one sample
at each entry point to the distribution system, at least every two
weeks (biweekly), for pH, and, if alkalinity or a corrosion inhibitor
is adjusted as part of OCCT, a reading of the dosage rate of the
chemical used to adjust alkalinity or the inhibitor used, and the
alkalinity concentration or concentration of orthophosphate or silica
(whichever is applicable). In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA asked for
comment on whether the frequency of this monitoring should be reduced
from biweekly to monthly.
b. Comments and analysis. EPA received a number of comments on this
issue. Over half the commenters favored revising the rule to allow less
frequent monitoring, at least for ground water systems not under the
influence of surface water. These commenters expressed the opinion that
monthly, or
[[Page 1993]]
even quarterly, entry point WQP monitoring should provide sufficient
information for systems and States to ensure maintenance of optimal
corrosion control. Several commenters noted that biweekly monitoring
represents a major burden for many ground water systems, especially
those which tend to have relatively stable water chemistry and many
entry points. One commenter suggested that EPA should give States the
discretion to determine monitoring frequency on a case-by-case basis.
The remaining commenters urged the Agency to retain the current
requirement for biweekly monitoring; a few suggested that systems be
required to collect samples daily to ensure proper operational control.
Several of the commenters who opposed reducing the frequency of
monitoring thought that it would be appropriate to reduce the frequency
of reporting the monitoring results to the State, however, and
suggested that the reporting frequency be reduced to monthly or
quarterly.
EPA disagrees with those commenters who believe that monthly, or
quarterly, WQP monitoring at entry points will provide sufficient
information to ensure the maintenance of optimal corrosion control at
most systems. The Agency believes there are a number of variables, such
as pH and inhibitor concentration that may affect levels of lead and
copper at the tap within a matter of days. Frequent monitoring is
required so that appropriate measures can be taken to adjust for these
variables in a timely manner. EPA therefore is retaining the
requirement for biweekly monitoring for WQPs at entry points to the
distribution system and encourages water systems to conduct even more
frequent monitoring for process control purposes. EPA has revised the
language at Sec. 141.87(c)(2) regarding the frequency of WQP monitoring
at the entry points to allow States the flexibility to require more
frequent entry point monitoring. The new language states that systems
must conduct entry point monitoring for WQPs ``no less frequently than
every two weeks (biweekly).''
EPA is sensitive to the burden biweekly entry point monitoring may
pose for some systems and is making a change to help alleviate this
burden. As discussed in section C.6.b., EPA is revising the LCR, as
proposed, to allow some ground water systems to collect WQP samples at
representative points instead of requiring samples to be collected at
every entry point.
As discussed in section C.2.b., today's action also revises the
definition of what constitutes compliance with State-designated OWQPs.
For entry point WQP monitoring, the system will be deemed to be in
compliance with the OWQPs so long as it has excursions from the State-
specified values/limits on no more than 9 days in a six-month period.
A few commenters raised related issues. One commenter, for example,
suggested that the frequency of WQP monitoring be reduced to quarterly
both at entry points and within the distribution system. This commenter
also noted that it was important that States be able to adjust
monitoring frequencies to address seasonal variability. EPA does not
believe that further rule changes are required to address these
concerns. The Agency notes that nothing in the regulations precludes a
water system from collecting routine distribution system WQP samples on
a quarterly basis. Likewise, nothing in the rule prevents a State from
setting seasonal ranges, if appropriate, to reflect seasonal
differences that might affect water quality.
2. Use of Flushing/Bottled Water at NTNCWSs in Lieu of Corrosion
Control Treatment
a. Burden reduction suggestion and background. EPA requested
comments on whether to allow NTNCWSs to use flushing and/or bottled
water in lieu of installing CCT to ease the burden of installing and
operating CCT at these systems.
b. Comments and analysis. In general, commenters supported the use
of flushing and/or bottled water, with some commenters suggesting
certain restrictions. A few commenters suggested allowing flushing and/
or bottled water for small CWSs as well.
Commenters expressed many reasons for supporting the use of
flushing and/or bottled water in lieu of CCT. The main reasons for
favoring flushing and/or bottled water were the cost of installing CCT,
the lack of trained personnel to operate and maintain the treatment
system, and lack of facilities to house treatment apparatus. Some
commenters believe that flushing and/or bottled water is a more
affordable, practical solution, and may be more protective of public
health since it eliminates the addition of chemicals into the water
supply by untrained personnel. Commenters suggested that automatic
flushing devices are readily available and inexpensive, and one
commenter suggested that public education could be part of regular
mandatory safety meetings.
Other commenters favored the use of flushing and/or bottled water
for operational reasons. One commenter explained that almost all of the
water used at their facility is for industrial processes, but is
conveyed in the same piping as water used for non-potable purposes.
Bottled water is used for drinking, but the piped water is still used
for hand-washing and the flushing of toilets. The commenter notes that
it is not ingested and should therefore pose no health risk from lead
or copper. Another system commented that bottled water is already
provided to employees for aesthetic purposes. The commenters felt that
in these cases, the entire volumes of water would need to be treated at
considerable cost, with no additional health protection, and the
systems would still be paying for bottled water.
After considering all comments received, EPA has concluded that, in
general, for the purposes of this nationally-applicable rulemaking, the
use of flushing and/or bottled water for NTNCWSs may not be as
protective of human health, may not provide any significant relief to
systems, and could be a burden increase on States.
EPA believes that in order for a flushing and/or bottled water
program to be effective, and as protective of human health as the
installation of CCT, the following criteria would have to be met, at a
minimum. A water system using bottled water would need to ensure that
the bottled water meets the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lead and
copper standards (either via a State-approved monitoring program or via
certification from the bottled water purveyor on an annual basis) and
that only the bottled water will be used for human consumption at all
times. A system relying on flushing would need to utilize an automatic
flushing device that flushes all faucets used for consumptive purposes
at a State-approved frequency identified through a State-approved
monitoring program.
The flushing and/or bottled water program would need to include
additional monitoring and reporting, well beyond what is presently
included in the LCR, and would also require more State oversight.
States would be required to review and approve system proposals, and
review periodic submittals by the system to determine compliance with
the flushing and/or bottled water program. Systems would have to
prepare and submit proposals to the States, perform plumbing
inspections and in most cases, install automatic flushing devices or
make other plumbing modifications, which could be costly. In addition,
the State would need to include provisions for inspection of the
automatic flushing devices to ensure proper operation.
[[Page 1994]]
Additional tap monitoring would need to be conducted by the systems
before and after flushing, to determine how quickly lead and/or copper
levels rise after flushing, and to determine an appropriate flushing
frequency. Systems utilizing flushing could waste a significant amount
of water on a daily basis which adds to cost and may be counter to
conservation measures needed during periods when the water supply is
low. These additional monitoring, reporting and program activities
could increase the cost and burden on States and systems, which is the
opposite of what States and systems desire and EPA intended.
EPA recognizes that there are some systems that may already be
providing bottled water for aesthetic or other reasons, and the only
piped water in use is utilized for washing hands and flushing toilets.
These systems feel that the installation of CCT provides no added
health protection from lead and copper. EPA also recognizes that there
are systems which have unique circumstances which make compliance with
some requirements seem unnecessary or very difficult. This is
especially the case for small systems. In the SDWA Amendments of 1996,
EPA was directed to develop alternative compliance technologies to help
systems comply with the drinking water regulations. EPA has published a
list of compliance technologies for certain system sizes that allows
the use of point-of-use devices for compliance with the LCR (63 FR
42032, August 6, 1998). EPA feels that these changes will offer systems
a wider range of compliance options, and should eliminate the problems
that systems have expressed regarding the installation of CCT. EPA also
notes that there are numerous burden reduction features already
incorporated in this rule. For the reasons stated, EPA has decided not
to incorporate the use of flushing and/or bottled water as an option
for NTNCWSs under the LCR.
3. Requirement for Water Systems to Justify Corrosion Control Methods
Not Recommended
a. Burden reduction suggestion and background. The LCR requires the
State to designate OCCT for each system that reaches the applicable
step as outlined in Secs. 141.81(d) and (e). Prior to this designation,
most large systems must perform corrosion control studies, and small
and medium systems exceeding the lead or copper action level must
perform corrosion control studies if the State specifically requires
them to do so. The studies must fulfill the requirements in
Sec. 141.82(c). The reporting requirements imposed on these water
systems by Sec. 141.90(c)(3) are that the systems must report the
information required by Sec. 141.82(c). This means that a water system
must report on its evaluation of each of the three treatment categories
specified and then make a recommendation to the State regarding which
treatment it thinks will provide optimal corrosion control for that
system. In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA requested comment on a burden
reduction suggestion to eliminate the requirement that the system
report on those treatment technologies which it does not identify as
providing OCCT. The effect of such a change would mean that a system
would only need to provide the justification for its recommended
treatment to the State.
b. Comments and analysis. EPA received comments on both sides of
this issue. States overwhelmingly opposed the suggestion, pointing out
that it would greatly increase the burden on them in designating OCCT
and in dealing with problems that might arise later with some systems'
corrosion control. EPA agrees and believes that those supporting the
suggestion generally overlooked the requirement that CCT be optimal
treatment, not just any treatment that might reduce corrosion in the
distribution system.
The State is responsible for designating OCCT for the system. In
order to determine what is optimal for a given water system, the State
needs the complete picture in the form of all the information developed
by the water system in the course of its evaluation of the three
treatment categories. The suggestion, if implemented, would not relieve
the water system of the effort to evaluate the alternative treatments.
It would only have relieved the system of the need to provide the
results of that evaluation to the State. The burden on water systems to
report the results of their evaluations to the State is more than
offset by the States' need to make informed decisions regarding OCCT
for those systems. Having all the information from a water system up
front allows the State to make the right decision the first time (which
is actually a form of burden reduction) and ensures better public
health protection. Therefore, EPA has decided not to implement the
suggestion.
4. Use of Alternatives to Tap Samples to Assess Corrosion Control
Effectiveness
a. Burden reduction suggestion and background. In the April 1996
Proposal, EPA requested comment on a burden reduction suggestion to
allow alternatives to tap water testing for lead and copper to assess
the effectiveness of corrosion control. The Agency noted that it did
not have data to develop alternative sampling methods that would
provide information with as much certainty as direct sampling at taps.
EPA invited the public to submit suggestions, and especially technical
data, that could be used in developing reliable monitoring methods that
do not involve household tap water sampling, that could be used to
measure and predict actual and/or relative exposures of the public to
lead and copper, and that could measure compliance with, and the
efficacy of, CCT requirements.
b. Comments and analysis. Many States, water utilities,
municipalities, and water industry associations provided comments on
this issue in 1996; several of these reiterated their comments on the
need for an alternative to tap lead/copper monitoring in response to
the April 1998 Notice. Most commenters favor an alternative to
residential sampling. Commenters cited major problems with the current
monitoring requirements such as lack of control over sample collection,
accessibility problems, insufficient sites, and disagreement with the
appropriateness of triggering CCT requirements based on residential
monitoring. Although EPA agrees that many of the problems cited are
valid issues for some systems, the Agency has not been able to identify
an acceptable alternative to tap water monitoring.
While many commenters suggested conceptual alternative approaches
to assess the effectiveness of corrosion control in lieu of residential
lead and copper tap water monitoring, none provided specific technical
data that would assist the Agency to develop acceptable alternative(s)
to residential sampling. Some commenters, for example, felt that when
pipe rigs, pipe loops, or corrosion test coupons were used, many of
these ``surrogate'' systems could be set up and operated in locations
where there would be easy and controllable access to utility personnel.
Other commenters suggested that pipe loops placed in easily-accessible
and controllable public buildings or other structures could be directly
substituted for the residential sampling sites. None of these
commenters provided any new data or proposals on exactly how the
alternatives would be employed, and how the standards for performance
of such systems would be developed and implemented to determine OCCT.
EPA's basic rationale for tap monitoring is simply that no
surrogate technique has been identified that can allow extrapolation to
tap results with
[[Page 1995]]
either accuracy, precision, or both. The Agency agrees that pipe loops,
corrosion coupons, electrochemical rate measurements, and other kinds
of test systems may be useful for many utilities to screen CCT
strategies. In some studies for individual water systems, tap water
concentrations were also predicted reasonably well, especially for
copper. Establishing a regulatory standard based on corrosion rate or
loop testing, however, would introduce additional complexity to the
regulations. The concentrations or values obtained from these surrogate
systems cannot be precisely and accurately related to the lead and
copper levels at the tap since tap water levels also may be affected
significantly by building-specific factors.
After carefully evaluating information from many sources, EPA
believes that the published research data at this point indicate that
predicting tap water 90th percentile levels using surrogate systems (as
described above) would be inherently imprecise on a national basis, and
implementation of such an approach would be an expensive and
impractical regulatory burden imposed on States, who would have to
oversee the establishment and justification of surrogate systems on
virtually a utility-by-utility basis. Additionally, EPA believes that
the frequency and extent of sampling and analyses required to use the
surrogate systems would not substantively reduce monitoring burden but
would introduce greater uncertainty about the extent to which systems
were reducing the lead and copper levels at consumers' taps.
Several commenters, including some of the trade organizations and
States, suggested a different approach which EPA considers to be more
promising because it should be easier to implement and should still
provide sufficient public health protection. Although expressed
slightly differently in each comment, the common theme is that once the
physical and chemical nature of a distribution system is well-
characterized through the current monitoring requirements, reliance
could be placed on the continued maintenance of the optimized CCT.
EPA believes that this might represent a scientifically-valid and
feasible approach. However, to make this a viable regulatory option,
additional research and several rule changes would be needed. For
example, such an approach would require additional WQP monitoring both
at the treatment plant and within the distribution system. It might
also be necessary to make changes in the site targeting for copper and
in the analytical methods used. In addition, EPA believes such an
approach could result in an overall burden increase, especially for
those small and medium-size systems that currently are not required to
perform this type of process control monitoring and for the States who
would need to designate OWQPs and determine compliance for these
systems.
Such changes are outside the scope of the current rulemaking. While
EPA has no immediate plans to pursue this alternative, the Agency may
choose to evaluate it at some point in the future if new data become
available that suggest that a reliable and cost-effective approach
could be developed and implemented effectively through a national
regulation.
5. Reduced Frequency for State Reporting of 90th Percentile and
Milestone Data
a. Burden reduction suggestion and background. In addition to
reporting violations and follow-up enforcement actions to EPA
quarterly, States are required to report exceedances of lead and copper
action levels and other LCR implementation milestones quarterly.
Through guidance, the Agency also has requested that 90th percentile
values for lead be reported for all large and medium-size systems. In
the April 1996 Proposal, EPA requested comment on a burden reduction
suggestion to reduce the frequency of reporting 90th percentile data
(including action level exceedances where appropriate) and LCR
implementation milestone data to once or twice a year.
b. Comments and analysis. The Agency received mixed comments on
this suggestion. While some commenters supported it, a number of States
noted that it does not matter what the frequency of reporting is--
quarterly or less frequent--as long as they could continue to submit
their data to EPA quarterly. Finally, one State wanted to retain the
current requirement.
After considering the comments received and the changes to the
State reporting requirements discussed in section D.2. of this
preamble, EPA has decided to retain the requirement to report 90th
percentile and milestone data quarterly. In the Drinking Water Program,
EPA reviews violations quarterly to ensure that timely and appropriate
follow-up action is occurring. The Agency considers a water system's
most recently reported 90th percentile lead value in assessing the
severity of many LCR violations. Moreover, as discussed in section
D.2., EPA has eliminated the reporting requirements for all but three
implementation milestones. As explained in the April 1998 Notice, the
Agency needs to have available in the national data base sufficient up-
to-date information to provide a degree of oversight and to answer some
basic questions. The Agency therefore believes it is appropriate for
States to report quarterly information for those water systems that
have achieved one or more of the three milestones.
F. Simultaneous Compliance Comments
1. Request for comments and background. The April 1998 Notice
referenced comments that had been received on the Notice of Data
Availability pertaining to the proposed rule for Disinfection/
Disinfection By-Products (DDBP) (62 FR 59388, November 3, 1997).
Commenters to the DDBP Notice had suggested that compliance with the
proposed enhanced coagulation requirements could have an adverse effect
on a water system's ability to maintain compliance with State-
designated optimal water quality parameters under the LCR. In light of
these concerns, in the April 1998 Notice, EPA requested further public
comment on the following issues:
How lowering pH and alkalinity during enhanced coagulation
may cause LCR compliance problems, given that both pH and alkalinity
levels can be adjusted to meet OWQPs prior to entry to the distribution
system.
Whether decreasing the pH and alkalinity during enhanced
coagulation and then increasing them prior to distribution system entry
may increase exceedances of lead and copper action levels.
What issues should be addressed in guidance that EPA is
developing to mitigate concerns about simultaneous compliance with
enhanced coagulation and LCR requirements.
Whether additional regulatory provisions are necessary to
address the simultaneous compliance issues pertaining to enhanced
coagulation and LCR requirements, or whether guidance would be
sufficient to mitigate potential compliance problems.
2. Comments and analysis. Although a few commenters indicated that
they did not anticipate simultaneous compliance problems, several
others expressed concern about the ability of water systems to
simultaneously comply with the enhanced coagulation requirements of the
DDBP rule and the LCR. Commenters also were mixed as to whether the
issue of simultaneous compliance could be addressed adequately in
guidance or whether additional regulatory language was needed.
[[Page 1996]]
Several commenters recommended that EPA establish a hierarchy of
regulatory concerns. EPA does not believe that a hierarchy of
regulatory concerns needs to be developed to deal with simultaneous
compliance issues. EPA believes that the LCR is flexible enough that
systems can comply with other rules that have conflicting treatment
objectives without violating the LCR.
EPA also received comments about providing flexibility to deal with
regulatory conflicts related to different treatment objectives. The
structure of the LCR provides flexibility to deal with the issue of
simultaneous compliance with multiple rules. Section 141.2 defines
optimal corrosion control treatment, for purposes of complying with the
LCR, as ``the corrosion control treatment that minimizes the lead and
copper concentration at users' taps while insuring that the treatment
does not cause the water system to violate any national primary
drinking water regulations.'' Section 141.82(c)(5) states that ``The
water system shall evaluate the effect of the chemicals used for
corrosion control treatment on other water quality treatment
processes.'' Section 141.82(d)(1) states that ``When designating
optimal treatment the State shall consider the effects that additional
corrosion control treatment will have on water quality parameters and
on other water quality treatment processes.'' Treatment changes to
comply with another rule can affect the performance of corrosion
control processes.
As discussed previously, today's action adds provisions to the LCR
requiring systems monitoring for lead and copper at the tap annually or
less frequently to notify the State when treatment changes occur. EPA
added this requirement because of concerns that changes in treatment
may impact CCT. While the LCR does not require that this notification
occur before the treatment change is implemented (unless required by
the State or other Federal drinking water regulations), the Agency
encourages water systems to consult with the State before implementing
a treatment change so as to minimize the risk that the treatment change
will have unanticipated adverse impacts on corrosion control. The State
can require additional monitoring or the State can require the system
to re-evaluate its CCT given the potentially different water quality
considerations. One option may be to readjust the water quality to
produce a finished water that meets the existing OWQPs. For example, pH
and alkalinity can be raised to counter the effect of enhanced
coagulation. Another option is that different WQPs may need to be set
to define optimal corrosion control depending upon the type of
treatment change. For example, a lower pH and the addition of
inhibitors may be the solution to resolving the conflict between pH and
disinfection by-product formation. Systems may change their corrosion
control approach from a high pH passivation to an inhibitor passivation
process. A new set of optimal corrosion control parameters would need
to be established by the State under this scenario. The system would
then need to meet those OWQPs.
EPA received several comments that a comprehensive corrosion/
corrosion by-product regulation should be developed that addresses
other substances that come into contact with drinking water that could
have a corrosive and/or dissolving effect. EPA agrees that control of
corrosion of various materials not directly related to health effects
can be a concern of water suppliers. EPA believes that the corrosion
control treatment considerations discussed above provide sufficient
flexibility for water systems to address water quality aesthetic
considerations. EPA is also very conscious of the regulatory burden
imposed by the current SDWA regulations, and believes that promulgating
corrosion-related regulations to require utilities to meet aesthetic
performance standards is not warranted. EPA does not have exposure or
health effects data that show that the other corrosion by-products
merit a NPDWR. Thus, EPA does not believe that the scope of the
corrosion control regulations should be expanded beyond lead, copper
and asbestos. Asbestos was included in the Phase II rulemaking (56 FR
3526, Jan. 30, 1991).
EPA also received comments related to the cost of simultaneous
compliance. EPA recognizes that water chemistry changes might result
from either optimization of corrosion control or coagulation (or other
treatment processes). In order to meet all finished water quality
objectives, systems may need to modify an existing process or install
additional process equipment. EPA considers these to be necessary
changes and costs to achieve the best overall treatment and risk
reduction. EPA does not consider the cost of chemical feed equipment to
be significant, especially when compared to other types of drinking
water treatment technology.
3. Today's action. After considering the comments received, EPA has
concluded that the LCR, as modified by the revisions previously
discussed in today's action, provides water systems sufficient
flexibility to address issues arising from the need to simultaneously
comply with other drinking water regulations. The Agency, therefore,
does not plan to further revise the LCR to address these issues. The
Agency has developed guidance that addresses the issue of simultaneous
compliance with enhanced coagulation and LCR requirements (EPA, 1999c).
G. Administrative Requirements
1. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities;
Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the right and obligations of the
recipients thereof; or
Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
government jurisdictions.
The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity.
It also authorizes an agency to use alternative definitions for each
category of small entity, ``which are appropriate to the activities of
the agency'' after proposing
[[Page 1997]]
the alternative definition(s) in the Federal Register and taking
comment. 5 U.S.C secs. 601 (3)-(5). In addition to the above, to
establish an alternative small business definition, agencies must
consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for advocacy.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, EPA considered small entities to be those public water
systems serving 10,000 or fewer customers. Public water systems include
both publicly and privately owned water systems. In accordance with the
RFA requirements, EPA proposed using this alternative definition for
governmental jurisdictions, small businesses and small not-for-profit
enterprises in the Federal Register (63 FR 7620-7621, February 13,
1998), requested public comment, consulted with small Business
administration (SBA) on the alternative definition as it relates to
small businesses, and finalized the alternative definition in the final
Consumer Confidence Report regulation (63 FR 44512, Aug 19, 1998). As
stated in that Final Rule, the alternative definition would be applied
to all future drinking water regulations.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Lead and
Copper Rule affects each water system in the the defined universe of
small entities (drinking water systems serving 10,000 or fewer
customers) in a different way. For many small entities, the rule will
result in a reduced economic impact. It will have a positive effect on
the revenues of all systems but the very smallest systems--those
serving fewer then 500 customers. Even for these systems, however, the
economic impact will not exceed one percent of their revenues during
the first three years; beyond the first three years these systems also
will experience burden and cost savings. In these circumstances, EPA
has concluded that the Rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. EPA estimates of the impacts of
this rule on small entities are contained in Chapter 5 of the
Information Collection Request (EPA, 1999a).
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. Today's rule
amends EPA's 1991 Lead and Copper Rule to reduce the burden on PWSs,
especially smaller systems. These revisions make a number of changes
including the establishment of differing compliance or reporting
requirements for smaller systems that take into account the resources
available to smaller water systems. In addition, the final regulation
clarifies and simplifies the current compliance and reporting
requirements and eliminates unnecessary or redundant requirements. The
Agency has incorporated provisions into the rule that specifically
benefit many small entities. These include monitoring waiver provisions
where the risk of high levels of lead or copper at the tap are low and
greater flexibility in the delivery of required public education
materials. In addition, other provisions, while not specifically
targeted for small entities, should further reduce burden for many
small entities. These provisions include accelerated reduced
monitoring, sample invalidation, elimination of sample site
justifications and sample collection certifications, and flexibility
for the State to calculate 90th percentile levels for the system.
3. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and
has assigned OMB control number 2040-0210.
This rule changes recordkeeping and reporting requirements for some
water systems and the States in the following categories: lead and
copper tap water monitoring; WQP monitoring; changes in treatment and
addition of a new source; and LSL replacement. This rule also requires
more frequent reporting of the completion of public education tasks for
CWSs serving more than 3,300. This information collection is necessary
to evaluate system-specific needs, including determining compliance,
examining treatment effectiveness; adjusting monitoring frequencies and
schedules to address possible public health concerns; and determining
whether the public is receiving timely notification of possible health
risks associated with high levels of lead at the tap.
In addition, this rule includes requirements for States to report
to EPA 90th percentile lead and copper values for specified water
systems; all systems that have optimized, or are deemed to have
optimized CCT, and the basis of that optimization determination; all
systems that are triggered into LSL replacement; and all systems that
have completed the applicable CCT, source water treatment, and LSL
replacement requirements. This information will be used to develop
national trends and to help evaluate whether changes in national policy
or regulations are necessary to protect public health. Reporting of all
other LCR-related milestones has been eliminated.
The information collection in this rule is mandatory and is
authorized under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The information collected
is not confidential and is considered public information. Many of the
additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this rule are
offset by other provisions of the rule that will reduce monitoring
burden and eliminate some system and State reporting requirements.
EPA is required to estimate the burden on water systems and States
for complying with the final rule. Burden means the total time, effort,
or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.
This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
For the first three years of implementation of this rule, EPA
estimates that the annual burden on systems for reporting and
recordkeeping will be 225,419 hours. This is based on an estimate that
there are 75,945 respondents per year who will each, on average, need
to provide 58,813 responses and that the average time per response will
be 3.8 hours. The total annual cost burden for systems is estimated to
be $3,380,500. This includes total annual labor costs of $3,349,000 and
non-labor costs of $31,500 for the purchase of laboratory supplies,
pre-printed public education materials, and postage. EPA also estimates
that the annual burden on States for reporting and recordkeeping will
be 69,296 hours. The total annual average cost for States is estimated
to be $2,655,900. This is based on an estimate that each of 56 State
respondents will, on average, need to provide 77,523 responses and that
the average response will take 0.9 hours. This includes total annual
labor costs of $1,755,900 and non-labor costs of $900,000 for
contractor support for the modification of State data systems.
[[Page 1998]]
This action also contains a number of provisions intended to reduce
burden and costs associated with implementing the 1991 requirements.
These savings offset much of the burden and cost associated with
today's action. Table 5 shows the estimated average annual burden and
cost savings and the net effect on burden and cost for the first three
years of implementation.
Table 5.--Net Effect of LCRMR on Average Annual Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden and Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New/revised requirements Reductions Net impact of LCRMR
Number of -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
respondents Burden Total cost Burden Total cost Burden Total cost
hours ($M) hours ($M) hours ($M)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems...................................................... 75,945 225,419 3,380.5 -262,192 -6,204.4 -36,773 -2,823.9
States....................................................... 56 69,296 2,655.9 -19,241 -487.5 50,055 2,168.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the first three years, systems and States are expected to
complete such activities as training, reading the regulations, and
regulatory adoption. EPA estimates that the average annual burden and
cost associated with today's action will decrease significantly at that
time.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. EPA is
amending the table in 40 CFR Part 9 of currently approved ICR control
numbers issued by OMB for various regulations to list the information
requirements contained in this final rule.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal Mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates and informing, educating and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector, in any one year. The overall effect of this rule is estimated
to decrease overall expenditures to public water systems (which include
State, local, and tribal governments as well as the private sector) to
comply with the NPDWRs for lead and copper. Thus, today's rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
This rule will establish requirements that affect small water
systems. EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because the regulation requires minimal expenditure of
resources and applies to all owners/operators of public water systems,
and not uniquely to those owners/operators that are small entities.
Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA.
5. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132, because the rule is consistent
with, and only makes minor changes to, the requirements under the
current national primary drinking water regulations for lead and
copper. The existing rule imposes requirements on public water systems
to ensure that water delivered to users is minimally corrosive, to
treat source water, remove lead service lines and deliver public
education where necessary to ensure public health protection. Today's
rule does not make any significant changes to these treatment
requirements but, as explained elsewhere in today's notice,
[[Page 1999]]
makes minor adjustments to the rule's requirements to enhance the
efficiency and effectiveness of current requirements. In general, these
changes should result in slight burden reductions for public water
systems (some of which are owned and operated by local governmental
entities). States may, if they choose, maintain primary enforcement
authority for this rule by adopting the revisions that are more
stringent than the existing rule (see Table 2 in the section, ``Primacy
State Program Revisions,'' in the beginning of the preamble). EPA
projects that States choosing to maintain primacy for this rule may
incur a slight increase in administrative costs due to the adoption of
these revisions, additional training, and the modifications to the
State reporting requirements. However, the actual burdens incurred will
vary from State to State and, EPA projects that the increased burden
will not be significant (see discussion of State impacts in section
G.3. of this preamble). In addition, these revisions provide States
increased flexibility to make system-specific decisions in some
instances (e.g., sample invalidation [Section C.5.k.], small system
waivers [Section C.5.l.], alternative timing of sample collection under
reduced monitoring [Section C.5.g.] and representative locations for
entry point water quality parameter monitoring at ground water systems
[Section C.6.b.]). Accordingly, this rule will not have a substantial
direct effect on the States or on intergovernmental relationships or
responsibilities. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive
Order do not apply to this rule.
Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule, EPA consulted with State and local governments to enable them to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of this rule.
Prior to the April 1996 Proposal, EPA initiated a number of activities
to gain meaningful input from State and local governments. These
activities included: Distribution of a strawman proposal in August
1993; State involvement in the development of the April 1996 Proposal;
and distribution of newsletter articles highlighting upcoming Federal
Register notices to organizations representing these governments. These
activities are discussed in greater detail in the preamble to the April
1996 Proposal (61 FR 16364, middle column, Apr. 12, 1996). In addition
to continuing these efforts, EPA has conducted the following efforts to
actively coordinate with these groups.
In 1997, in response to the comments received to the April 1996
proposed changes in State reporting requirements, EPA worked with
States through the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water's Data
Sharing Committee (DSC) to substantially revise these requirements.
Several States and the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators (ASDWA) participated actively in this effort. The DSC
recommended the elimination of most of the milestones required by the
1991 Rule, modifications to remaining milestones including the
reporting of 90th percentile data, and the addition of two new
milestones that the DSC believes will provide more meaningful data
regarding the implementation status of the LCR (EPA, 1997c). The DSC's
recommendations have been incorporated into today's rule.17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Section D.2 of this preamble for a detailed discussion
of the State reporting requirement changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 1998 and August 1998, prior to publishing additional
Notices for comment, EPA again provided national, local, and tribal
organizations with brief articles for inclusion in their newsletters
announcing upcoming plans to publish the Notices and encouraging
readers to provide EPA comment on the additional regulatory options
described in those notices. In addition, EPA coordinated closely with
several national organizations and the States to provide copies of the
August 18, 1998 Notice directly to those water systems most likely to
be affected by the regulatory option discussed in that notice,
including all water systems serving more than 50,000 people and any
smaller-size water system that is likely to continue to exceed an
action level after the installation of CCT. EPA also requested review
by a panel of State Drinking Water Program Directors of the Agency's
estimated impacts on water systems and States.
In February 1999, EPA requested a panel of six State Directors
18 to review the EPA's revised estimate of Paperwork
Reduction Act-related burden and costs associated with the LCR and the
LCRMR. EPA incorporated the comments received from that review (EPA,
1999d) in the final estimates (EPA, 1999a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The panel consisted of the Directors of the Drinking Water
program from Iowa, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
and Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, State and local governments support the provisions of
today's rule although many wanted EPA to adopt more burden reduction
than is included in today's action. Many of the suggestions made by
these commenters have been incorporated into the final rule. In
particular, as described in section C.2.b. in this preamble, EPA has
revised the way in which compliance with OWQPs is determined and
substantially revised State reporting requirements primarily as a
result of these comments. Another concern raised by these commenters,
the continuing requirement to collect tap water lead and copper
samples, is not revised by today's rule because the goal of the rule is
to reduce the levels of lead and copper at the tap to as close to the
MCLGs as possible and the Agency does not know of any alternatives that
will predict tap water lead and copper levels with accuracy, precision,
or both.19 Although the burden reductions are not as
extensive as some State and local governments would like, EPA believes
that today's rule is necessary to effect as many burden reductions as
possible, without jeopardizing the level of public health protection,
and to address a number of implementation issues, including lead
service line replacement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Section E.4 of this preamble for a more detailed
discussion of EPA's rationale for not adopting an alternative to tap
water monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Consultation With Indian Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments, nor does it impose
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities. The
provisions of today's rule apply to all community and non-transient
non-
[[Page 2000]]
community water systems. Tribal governments may be the owners or
operators of such systems, however, nothing in today's provisions
uniquely affects them. The overall effect of today's rule should be to
reduce water system operational costs slightly, depending on system-
specific circumstances, with no change in the level of public health
protection. EPA therefore concludes that today's rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive
Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
7. Risk to Children Analysis
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health
or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This Lead
and Copper Rule Minor Revisions final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045
because it is not ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
12866.
8. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub L. No. 104-113, Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
9. Likely Effect of Compliance With the LCRMR on the Technical,
Financial, and Managerial Capacity of Public Water Systems
Section 1420(d)(3) of the SDWA as amended requires that, in
promulgating a NPDWR, the Administrator shall include an analysis of
the likely effect of compliance with the regulation on the technical,
financial, and managerial capacity of public water systems. The
following analysis has been performed to fulfill this statutory
obligation.
Overall water system capacity is defined in guidance (EPA, 1998a)
as the ability to plan for, achieve, and maintain compliance with
applicable drinking water standards. Capacity has three components:
technical, managerial, and financial.
Technical capacity is the physical and operational ability of a
water system to meet SDWA requirements. Technical capacity refers to
the physical infrastructure of the water system, including the adequacy
of source water and the adequacy of treatment, storage, and
distribution infrastructure. It also refers to the ability of system
personnel to adequately operate and maintain the system and to
otherwise implement requisite technical knowledge.
Managerial capacity is the ability of a water system to conduct its
affairs in a manner enabling the system to achieve and maintain
compliance with SDWA requirements. Managerial capacity refers to the
system's institutional and administrative capabilities.
Financial capacity is a water system's ability to acquire and
manage sufficient financial resources to allow the system to achieve
and maintain compliance with SDWA requirements.
Key Points
There are 75,945 water systems affected by this rule. Overall,
these systems are not expected to require significantly increased
technical, financial, or managerial capacity as a result of the LCRMR,
as most of the revisions reduce or clarify existing LCR requirements.
The few exceptions are highlighted below.
There are an estimated 171 systems deemed to have
optimized corrosion control treatment after demonstrating that little
or no lead corrosion is occurring in the distribution system. A few of
these systems may be triggered into the LCR's corrosion control
treatment requirements because they exceed the copper action level. The
171 systems also will be required to conduct monitoring for lead and
copper at the tap, and in source water, at least once every three
years. Some of these systems already are conducting such monitoring
but, for a few systems, this LCRMR provision represents a new
requirement. The affected systems predominantly serve more than 50,000
persons and are not expected to require significantly increased
technical, financial, or managerial capacity to comply with these
requirements. Certainly some individual facilities may have weaknesses
in one or more of these areas but overall these systems with minimal
corrosion in the distribution system should have or be able to easily
obtain the capacity needed for these actions.
There are an estimated 762 systems, 592 of which serve
3,300 or fewer persons, subject to the LCR's lead service line
replacement requirements. The LCRMR do not alter these basic
requirements, and so do not affect the number of systems triggered into
these requirements or significantly affect the amount of lead pipe to
be replaced; however, the LCRMR do require additional consumer
notification and modify post-replacement sampling and reporting
requirements when the water system replaces less than the entire length
of the lead service line. These systems now will be required to provide
consumers served by the partially-replaced lead service line(s) 45-day
advance notification of the replacement, guidance about possible short-
term increases of lead levels at the tap, and steps consumers can take
to minimize exposure. These systems also must take a post-replacement
sample within three days of completing the replacement and provide the
results to all affected consumers within three business days of
receiving the results from the laboratory. These requirements
strengthen the notification and post-partial replacement monitoring and
reporting requirements of the 1991 LCR. The notification requirements
may require an enhancement of technical, managerial, and financial
capacity. EPA anticipates, however, that the post partial-replacement
monitoring will require less capacity than the 1991 LCR because systems
may now limit this monitoring to one sample per line (compared to one
sample per household served by the line) to comply with these
requirements. The net effect should result in an overall decrease of
technical, managerial, and financial capacity required to comply with
these requirements.
All 75,945 water systems potentially are affected by new
LCRMR provisions requiring any water system subject to reduced
monitoring for lead and copper at the tap to notify the State no later
than 60 days after any change
[[Page 2001]]
in treatment or the addition of a new source. The State, in response,
may require the system to conduct some additional monitoring and/or to
take other appropriate action to ensure that optimal corrosion control
is maintained. Many States already impose comparable requirements as a
condition of the operating permit and, thus, this provision will not
represent a new requirement for many systems. Consequently, systems
generally are not expected to require significantly increased
technical, managerial, or financial capacity to deal with this
requirement. Certainly some individual facilities may have weaknesses
in one or more of these areas but overall, water systems should have or
be able to easily obtain the capacity needed for these activities.
There are an estimated 6,116 systems, 5,552 of which serve
50,000 or fewer persons, required to monitor for water quality
parameters after the installation of corrosion control treatment under
the 1991 LCR. The LCRMR do not affect the monitoring requirement but
makes changes in the way the results are to be evaluated to determine
compliance with State-designated optimal water quality parameters. For
some systems this revised approach for determining compliance is
expected to require additional analysis to assess compliance, but to
result in fewer systems incurring violations due to temporary short-
term fluctuations in water quality. Some of these systems may need to
enhance their technical, managerial, and financial capacity to comply
with these requirements; however, most of the affected systems should
have or easily be able to obtain the needed capacity because fewer
resources will be required to address violations that likely would have
occurred under the 1991 regulations. These violations, in turn, would
have triggered activities including public notification and loss of
eligibility for reduced monitoring that would have required technical,
managerial, and financial capacity to address.
There are 4,649 CWSs and NTNCWSs that are estimated to
continue to be required to conduct public education programs after the
installation of treatment. 387 of these systems are CWSs that serve
more than 3,300 persons. Under the LCRMR, these 387 systems will need
to report completion of public education tasks to the State twice a
year, instead of once per year as required by the 1991 LCR. The
required supporting documentation for this second submission is
minimal, since it need only include a list of the broadcast stations to
which the system provided bi-annual public service announcements.
Moreover, States have the discretion to waive submission of the
supporting documentation in some cases. The remaining 2,983 CWSs are no
longer required to provide public service announcements and will
continue to report completion of public education tasks on an annual
basis. Therefore, water systems are not expected to require increased
technical, financial, or managerial capacity to comply with this
increased reporting requirement.
Some of the LCRMR provisions clarify 1991 LCR requirements. These
clarifications include:
The requirement to properly operate and maintain optimal
corrosion control;
The requirement that water systems deemed to have
optimized corrosion control under Sec. 141.81(b)(2) conduct routine
water quality parameter monitoring;
The requirements pertaining to the number and location of
tap water lead and copper sampling sites;
The requirements specifying the conditions under which a
system must resume monitoring at the tap every six months; and
The resampling triggers for composite source water
samples.
Certainly, there may be some individual facilities that need to
enhance technical, financial, and managerial capacity to comply with
these pre-existing requirements; however, most systems are expected to
have or be able to easily obtain the capacity necessary for these
activities.
All 75,945 systems may benefit from one or more of the LCRMR
provisions intended to reduce regulatory burden. There are an estimated
4,554 systems that are eligible to reduce the frequency of tap water
monitoring to once every three years without first conducting several
rounds of annual monitoring. An estimated 6,809 systems serving 3,300
or fewer persons may be eligible for waivers that will reduce the
frequency of monitoring for lead and/or copper at the tap to once every
nine years. An estimated 397 of the 4,923 ground water systems subject
to routine water quality parameter monitoring will be able to reduce
the number of samples by using representative locations instead of
sampling at every entry point. Some systems also will be able to reduce
the frequency of source water monitoring. An estimated 6,116 systems
subject to routine water quality monitoring requirements will be able
to reduce paperwork seeking approval for reduced monitoring. All
systems will be able to reduce the amount of supporting documentation
that must accompany tap water monitoring results and an estimated
34,046 systems will be able to eliminate 90th percentile calculations.
The 4,256 systems required to conduct public education will be able to
take advantage of the LCRMR provisions allowing greater flexibility in
the delivery of materials to homeowners and others in the community.
Generally, it is expected that the reductions in regulatory burden
will offset any enhanced technical, financial, and managerial capacity
requirements resulting from the LCRMR. Certainly, some individual
facilities may have weaknesses in one or more of these areas with
respect to the basic LCR requirements, but overall, it is expected that
the LCRMR will not exacerbate any weaknesses that already may exist.
10. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
This rule will be effective on April 11, 2000.
H. References
American Water Works Association, et al. v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 D.C.
Cir. (1994). [AWWA v. EPA]
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Aug. 1997.
Toxicological Profile for Lead. Draft for Public Comment. Prepared
by Research Triangle Institute for U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA. Pages 27, 104, 132-
133, 166 [ATSDR, 1997]
Britton, A. and Richards, W.N. November 1981. Factors Influencing
Plumbosolvency in Scotland. Originally presented as: A potpourri on
plumbosolvency. At a Scientific Section Symposium on Plumbosolvency.
[Britton and Richards, 1981]
Colling, J.H., Croll, B.T., Whincup, P.A.E., and Harward, G. June
1992. Plumbosolvency Effects and Control in Hard Waters. J IWEM,
6:259-268. [Colling, et al., 1992]
[[Page 2002]]
Cools, A., Salle, H.J.A., Verbeck, M.M., Zielhuis, R.L. 1976.
Biochemical Response of Male Volunteers Ingesting Inorganic Lead for
49 Days. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health, 38:129-139. [Cools, et
al., 1976]
Dodrill, D.M. and Edwards, M. July 1995. Corrosion Control on the
Basis of Utility Experience. Journal AWWA, 74-85. [Dodrill and
Edwards, 1995]
Edwards, M., Schock, M.R., and Meyer, T.E. March 1996. Alkalinity,
pH, and Copper Corrosion By-Products Release. Journal AWWA, 81-94.
[Edwards, et al., 1996]
Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 130. National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations--Synthetic Organic Chemicals; Monitoring for Unregulated
Contaminants; Final Rule. (Wed., Jul. 8, 1987), 25690-25717. [52 FR
25690]
Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 30. National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations--Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic Chemicals;
Monitoring for Unregulated Contaminants; National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations Implementation; National Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations; Final Rule. (Wed., Jan. 30, 1991), 3526-3614. [56 FR
3526]
Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 110. Drinking Water Regulations--
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Rule. (Fri., Jun. 7, 1991),
26460-26564. [56 FR 26460]
Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 135. Drinking Water Regulations;
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Rule; Correction. (Mon., Jul.
15, 1991), 32113. [56 FR 32113]
Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 125. Drinking Water Regulations;
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Rule; Correcting Amendments.
(Mon., Jun. 29, 1992), 28785-28789. [57 FR 28785]
Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 138. National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations; Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic Chemicals;
Final Rule. (Fri., Jul. 17, 1992), 31776-31849. [57 FR 31776]
Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 125. Drinking Water; Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Rule; Technical Corrections.
(Thu., Jun. 30, 1994), 33860-33864. [59 FR 33860]
Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 232. Analytical Methods for Regulated
Drinking Water Contaminants; Final Rule. (Mon., Dec. 5, 1994),
62456-62471. [59 FR 62456]
Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 125. National Primary and Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations; Analytical Methods for Regulated
Drinking Water Contaminants; Final Rule. (Thu., Jun. 29, 1995),
34084-34086. [60 FR 34084]
Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 72. Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper;
Proposed Rule. (Fri., Apr. 12, 1996), 16348-16371. [60 FR 16348]
Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 128. Drinking Water Monitoring
Requirements for Certain Chemical Contaminants--Chemical Monitoring
Reform (CMR) and Permanent Monitoring Relief (PMR); Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking. (Thur., Jul. 3, 1997), 36100-36136. [62 FR
36100]
Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 163. Interpretation of New Drinking
Water Requirements Relating to Lead Free Plumbing Fittings and
Fixtures; Notice. (Fri., Aug. 22, 1997), 44684-44685. [62 FR 44684]
Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 212. National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts; Notice of
Data Availability; Proposed Rule. (Mon., Nov. 3, 1997), 59388-58484.
[62 FR 59388]
Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 30. National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Consumer Confidence; Proposed Rule. (Fri., Feb. 13,
1998), 7605-7633. [63 FR 7605]
Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 77. Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper;
Proposed Rule. (Wed., Apr. 22, 1998), 20038-20047. [63 FR 20038]
Federal Register, Vol. 63, No 81. Revisions to State Primary
Requirements to Implement Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments; Final
Rule. (Tue., Apr. 28, 1998), 23361-23368. [63 FR 23361]
Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 151. Announcement of Small System
Compliance Technology Lists for Existing National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations and Findings Concerning Variance Technologies.
(Thur., Aug. 6, 1998), 42032-42048. [63 FR 42032]
Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 159. Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper;
Proposed Rule. (Tue., Aug. 18, 1998), 44214-44218. [63 FR 44214]
Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 241. National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations--Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts; Final Rule.
(Tue., Dec. 16, 1998), 69388-69476. [62 FR 69388]
Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 241. National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations--Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; Final
Rule. (Tue., Dec. 16, 1998), 69477-69521. [63 FR 69521]
Gittelman, T.S., Luitweiler, P., and Yohe, T.L. 1992. Evaluation of
Lead Corrosion Control Measures for a Multi-source Water Utility.
American Water Works Association, 1992 Water Quality Technology
Conference Proceedings. Part I: 777-797. [Gittelman, et al., 1992]
Hindmarsh, J.T. 1986. The Porphrias: Recent Advances. Clinical
Chemistry, 32(7)a; 1255-1263. [Hindmarsh, 1986]
Kuch, A. and Wagner, I. 1983. A mass transfer model to describe lead
concentrations in drinking water. Water Research, 17(10): 1301.
[Kuch and Wagner, 1983]
Mahaffey, K.R. 1977. Relation Between Quantities of Lead Ingested
and Health Effects of Lead in Humans. Pediatrics, 59(3): 448-456.
[Mahaffey, 1977]
Montgomery, R., Convoy, T.W, and Spector, A.A. 1990. Biochemistry: A
Case-Oriented Approach. C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis. [Montgomery, et
al., 1990]
Nakhoul, F., Kayne, L.E., Brantbar, N., Hu, N., McDonough, A.,
Eggena, P., Golut, M.S., Berger, M., Cheng, C., Jangotchian, N., and
Lee, D.B.N. 1992. Rapid Hypertensiveogenic Effect of Lead Studies in
Hypertensive Rat. Toxical. In. Health, 8(1-2): 89-102. [Nakhoul, et
al., 1992]
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1982. Drinking Water and Health.
Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 4, pp. 179-183.
[NAS, 1982]
Pocock, S.J. 1980. Factors Influencing Household Water Lead: A
British National Survey. Arch. of Env. Health, 35(1): 45-51.
[Pocock, 1980]
Rezania, L.W. and Anderl, W.H. 1996. Copper Corrosion and Iron
Removal Plants. Conference Paper. Section of Drinking Water
Protection, Minnesota Department of Health. [Rezania and Anderl,
1996]
Schlegel, H., Kufner, G. 1979. Long-term observation of biochemical
effects of lead in human experiments. J Clin. Chem. Clin. Biochem.,
17: 225-233. [Schlegel and Kufner, 1979]
Shannon, M.W. and Graef, J.W. 1992. Lead Intoxication in Infancy.
Pediatrics, 89: 87-90. [Shannon and Graef, 1992]
Struik, E.J. 1974. Biochemical response of male and female
volunteers to inorganic lead. Int. Arch. Arbeitsmed. 33: 83-97.
[Struik, 1974]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Undated. An Evaluation of the
Secondary Effects of Enhanced Coagulation, With Emphasis on
Corrosion Control. Conference Paper prepared by D.A. Lytle, M.R.
Schock, and R.J. Miltner, Treatment and Technology Evaluation
Branch, Water Supply and Water Resources Division, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory. [EPA, undated]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Feb. 23, 1988. Memorandum to
Arthur Perler, Science and Technology Branch from Jon Longtin, Water
Supply Technology Branch, regarding Distribution Tables for NIRS
Results. [EPA, 1988]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 1991. Regulatory Impact
Analysis of Proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
Lead and Copper. Prepared by Wade Miller Associates, Inc. [EPA,
1991a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 1991. Summary: Peach
Orchard Monitoring; Lead Service Line Replacement Study. Prepared by
Barbara Wysock, Office of Drinking Water Technical Support Division.
[EPA, 1991b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep. 1991. Lead and Copper
Rule Guidance Manual; Volume 1: Monitoring. Prepared by Black &
Veatch, ECOS, Inc., and Malcolm Pirnie Inc. (NTIS PB 92-112101).
[EPA, 1991c]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Jan. 10, 1992. Memo from Jeff
Cohen, Chief Lead Task Force, Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water, to Regional Drinking Water Branch Chiefs. Consecutive Systems
Regulated Under the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
Lead and Copper. [EPA 1992a]
[[Page 2003]]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 1992. Lead and Copper
Rule; Definitions and Federal Reporting for Milestones, Violations
and SNCs. (ERIC G405, NTIS PB-93-156-131). [EPA, 1992b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep. 1992. Lead and Copper
Rule Guidance Manual; Volume II: Corrosion Control Treatment.
Prepared by Black & Veatch and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (NTIS PB-93-
101583). [EPA, 1992c]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 1994. Methods for
Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples--Supplement 1.
(NTIS PB-94-184942). [EPA, 1994]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Apr. 4, 1995. Memo from Robert
J. Blanco, Director, Drinking Water Implementation Division, to O.
Thomas Love, Chief, Water Supply Branch, Region 6. All Plastic
Systems--Compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule. [EPA, 1995a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Oct. 1995. National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Analysis of
Occurrence of Very Low 90th Percentile Lead Levels. (EPA 812-X-95-
001; NTIS PB 96-129077). [EPA, 1995b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dec. 1995. A Survey Study of
Lead in Drinking Water Supplied by Transient Water Systems. Prepared
by R.P. Maas, S.C. Patch, D.M. Morgan, and G.M. Brown, Environmental
Quality Institute, The University of North Carolina at Ashville.
Technical Report #95-019. [EPA, 1995c]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mar. 20, 1996. Memo from Jeff
Cohen to Connie [Bosma] and Judy [Lebowich]. Lead Rule for Transient
Systems. [EPA, 1996a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dec. 19. 1996. Memorandum to
Jeffrey B. Kempic, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water from
Michael R. Shock, Treatment and Technology Branch, Water Supply and
Water Resources Division, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory. Seasonal Monitoring Revision. (Note: References 5, 6,
and 7 cited in the memorandum are not publically available data and
the data contained in these studies have not been factored into
EPA's decision making.) [EPA, 1996b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 1997. Manual for the
Certification of Laboratories in Analyzing Drinking Water--Criteria
and Procedures Quality Assurance. Fourth Edition. EPA 815-B-97-001.
[EPA 1997a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 1997. Alternative
Monitoring Guidelines. [EPA-816-R-97-011]. [EPA, 1997b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep. 26, 1997. The Data
Sharing Committee's Recommendations for the Lead and Copper Rule.
Draft Report. Prepared for the Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water by the PWSS Data Sharing Committee. [EPA, 1997c]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 1998. Guidance on
Implementing the Capacity Development Provisions of the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. EPA 816-R-98-006. [EPA 1998a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep. 22, 1998. Health Effects
from Short-Term Lead Exposure. Health and Ecological Criteria
Division, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water. [EPA,
1998b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dec. 28, 1998. Memo to the
Record from Jeffrey B. Kempic. Analysis of Partial Lead Service Line
Replacement Data. [EPA, 1998c]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 1999. Information
Collection Request for the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper. Prepared by the Cadmus Group, Inc.
[EPA, 1999a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 19, 1999. Memo from Anne
Jaffe Murray, the Cadmus Group, Inc. to Judith Lebowich. Review of
Data for Large Community Water Systems (CWSs) that Continue to
Exceed the Action Level After Treatment is Installed. [EPA, 1999b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 1999. Microbial
Disinfection Byproducts Simultaneous Compliance Manual. EPA 815-R-
99-015. [EPA, 1999c]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Aug. 2, 1999. Memo to the
Record by Judith Lebowich. Summary of State Panel Review of
Estimated Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions Burden and Costs
under the Paperwork Reduction Act. [EPA, 1999d]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 30, 1999. Response
to Comment Document for The Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions.
[EPA, 1999e]
Wagner, I. Jun. 18-22, 1988. Effects of Inhibitors on Corrosion Rate
and Metal Uptake. Proceedings of American Water Works Conference.
[Wagner, 1988]
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indians--lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 142
Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Indians--lands,
Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water
supply.
Dated: December 20, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40 chapter 1,
parts 141 and 142 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as
follows:
PART 9--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542,
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
2. In Sec. 9.1 the table is amended under the indicated heading by
revising entry ``141.80-141.91,'' by removing entries ``142.10-
142.15,'' and by adding new entries in numerical order to read as
follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control
40 CFR citation No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations................
* * * * *
141.80-141.91.............................................. 2040-0210
* * * * *
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation.
* * * * *
142.10-142.14.............................................. 2040-0090
142.14(d)(8)-(11).......................................... 2040-0210
142.15..................................................... 2040-0090
142.15(c)(4)............................................... 2040-0210
* * * * *
142.16(d).................................................. 2040-0210
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
3. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
4. Section 141.43 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(2), removing the undesignatted paragraph immediately following
paragraph (a)(2)(ii), and removing and reserving (b)(2), and by
revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.43 Prohibition on use of lead pipes, solder, and flux.
* * * * *
(d) Definition of lead free. For purposes of this section, the term
lead free:
(1) When used with respect to solders and flux refers to solders
and flux containing not more than 0.2 percent lead;
[[Page 2004]]
(2) When used with respect to pipes and pipe fittings refers to
pipes and pipe fittings containing not more than 8.0 percent lead; and
(3) When used with respect to plumbing fittings and fixtures
intended by the manufacturer to dispense water for human ingestion
refers to fittings and fixtures that are in compliance with standards
established in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 300g-6(e).
5. Section 141.81 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory
text, paragraph (b)(2) introductory text, and paragraph (b)(3) to read
as follows:
Sec. 141.81 Applicability of corrosion control treatment steps to
small, medium-size and large water systems.
* * * * *
(b) A system is deemed to have optimized corrosion control and is
not required to complete the applicable corrosion control treatment
steps identified in this section if the system satisfies one of the
criteria specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section.
Any such system deemed to have optimized corrosion control under this
paragraph, and which has treatment in place, shall continue to operate
and maintain optimal corrosion control treatment and meet any
requirements that the State determines appropriate to ensure optimal
corrosion control treatment is maintained.
(1) * * *
(2) Any water system may be deemed by the State to have optimized
corrosion control treatment if the system demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the State that it has conducted activities equivalent
to the corrosion control steps applicable to such system under this
section. If the State makes this determination, it shall provide the
system with written notice explaining the basis for its decision and
shall specify the water quality control parameters representing optimal
corrosion control in accordance with Sec. 141.82(f). Water systems
deemed to have optimized corrosion control under this paragraph shall
operate in compliance with the State-designated optimal water quality
control parameters in accordance with Sec. 141.82(g) and continue to
conduct lead and copper tap and water quality parameter sampling in
accordance with Sec. 141.86(d)(3) and Sec. 141.87(d), respectively. A
system shall provide the State with the following information in order
to support a determination under this paragraph:
* * * * *
(3) Any water system is deemed to have optimized corrosion control
if it submits results of tap water monitoring conducted in accordance
with Sec. 141.86 and source water monitoring conducted in accordance
with Sec. 141.88 that demonstrates for two consecutive 6-month
monitoring periods that the difference between the 90th percentile tap
water lead level computed under Sec. 141.80(c)(3), and the highest
source water lead concentration is less than the Practical Quantitation
Level for lead specified in Sec. 141.89(a)(1)(ii).
(i) Those systems whose highest source water lead level is below
the Method Detection Limit may also be deemed to have optimized
corrosion control under this paragraph if the 90th percentile tap water
lead level is less than or equal to the Practical Quantitation Level
for lead for two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods.
(ii) Any water system deemed to have optimized corrosion control in
accordance with this paragraph shall continue monitoring for lead and
copper at the tap no less frequently than once every three calendar
years using the reduced number of sites specified in Sec. 141.86(c) and
collecting the samples at times and locations specified in
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(iv). Any such system that has not conducted a round
of monitoring pursuant to Sec. 141.86(d) since September 30, 1997,
shall complete a round of monitoring pursuant to this paragraph no
later than September 30, 2000.
(iii) Any water system deemed to have optimized corrosion control
pursuant to this paragraph shall notify the State in writing pursuant
to Sec. 141.90(a)(3) of any change in treatment or the addition of a
new source. The State may require any such system to conduct additional
monitoring or to take other action the State deems appropriate to
ensure that such systems maintain minimal levels of corrosion in the
distribution system.
(iv) As of July 12, 2001, a system is not deemed to have optimized
corrosion control under this paragraph, and shall implement corrosion
control treatment pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this section
unless it meets the copper action level.
(v) Any system triggered into corrosion control because it is no
longer deemed to have optimized corrosion control under this paragraph
shall implement corrosion control treatment in accordance with the
deadlines in paragraph (e) of this section. Any such large system shall
adhere to the schedule specified in that paragraph for medium-size
systems, with the time periods for completing each step being triggered
by the date the system is no longer deemed to have optimized corrosion
control under this paragraph.
* * * * *
6. Section 141.82 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 141.82 Description of corrosion control treatment requirements.
* * * * *
(g) Continued operation and monitoring. All systems optimizing
corrosion control shall continue to operate and maintain optimal
corrosion control treatment, including maintaining water quality
parameters at or above minimum values or within ranges designated by
the State under paragraph (f) of this section, in accordance with this
paragraph for all samples collected under Sec. 141.87(d) through (f).
Compliance with the requirements of this paragraph shall be determined
every six months, as specified under Sec. 141.87(d). A water system is
out of compliance with the requirements of this paragraph for a six-
month period if it has excursions for any State-specified parameter on
more than nine days during the period. An excursion occurs whenever the
daily value for one or more of the water quality parameters measured at
a sampling location is below the minimum value or outside the range
designated by the State. Daily values are calculated as follows. States
have discretion to delete results of obvious sampling errors from this
calculation.
(1) On days when more than one measurement for the water quality
parameter is collected at the sampling location, the daily value shall
be the average of all results collected during the day regardless of
whether they are collected through continuous monitoring, grab
sampling, or a combination of both. If EPA has approved an alternative
formula under Sec. 142.16 of this chapter in the State's application
for a program revision submitted pursuant to Sec. 142.12 of this
chapter, the State's formula shall be used to aggregate multiple
measurements taken at a sampling point for the water quality parameter
in lieu of the formula in this paragraph.
(2) On days when only one measurement for the water quality
parameter is collected at the sampling location, the daily value shall
be the result of that measurement.
(3) On days when no measurement is collected for the water quality
parameter at the sampling location, the daily value shall be the daily
value calculated on the most recent day on which the water quality
parameter was measured at the sample site.
* * * * *
[[Page 2005]]
7. Section 141.84 is amended by removing paragraph (e),
redesignating paragraphs (f) through (h) as (e) through (g), and by
revising paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.84 Lead service line replacement requirements.
* * * * *
(b) A water system shall replace annually at least 7 percent of the
initial number of lead service lines in its distribution system. The
initial number of lead service lines is the number of lead lines in
place at the time the replacement program begins. The system shall
identify the initial number of lead service lines in its distribution
system, including an identification of the portion(s) owned by the
system, based on a materials evaluation, including the evaluation
required under Sec. 141.86(a) and relevant legal authorities (e.g.,
contracts, local ordinances) regarding the portion owned by the system.
The first year of lead service line replacement shall begin on the date
the action level was exceeded in tap sampling referenced in paragraph
(a) of this section.
* * * * *
(d) A water system shall replace that portion of the lead service
line that it owns. In cases where the system does not own the entire
lead service line, the system shall notify the owner of the line, or
the owner's authorized agent, that the system will replace the portion
of the service line that it owns and shall offer to replace the owner's
portion of the line. A system is not required to bear the cost of
replacing the privately-owned portion of the line, nor is it required
to replace the privately-owned portion where the owner chooses not to
pay the cost of replacing the privately-owned portion of the line, or
where replacing the privately-owned portion would be precluded by
State, local or common law. A water system that does not replace the
entire length of the service line also shall complete the following
tasks.
(1) At least 45 days prior to commencing with the partial
replacement of a lead service line, the water system shall provide
notice to the resident(s) of all buildings served by the line
explaining that they may experience a temporary increase of lead levels
in their drinking water, along with guidance on measures consumers can
take to minimize their exposure to lead. The State may allow the water
system to provide notice under the previous sentence less than 45 days
prior to commencing partial lead service line replacement where such
replacement is in conjunction with emergency repairs. In addition, the
water system shall inform the resident(s) served by the line that the
system will, at the system's expense, collect a sample from each
partially-replaced lead service line that is representative of the
water in the service line for analysis of lead content, as prescribed
under Sec. 141.86(b)(3), within 72 hours after the completion of the
partial replacement of the service line. The system shall collect the
sample and report the results of the analysis to the owner and the
resident(s) served by the line within three business days of receiving
the results. Mailed notices post-marked within three business days of
receiving the results shall be considered ``on time.''
(2) The water system shall provide the information required by
paragraph (d)(1) of this section to the residents of individual
dwellings by mail or by other methods approved by the State. In
instances where multi-family dwellings are served by the line, the
water system shall have the option to post the information at a
conspicuous location.
* * * * *
8. Section 141.85 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(4)(v) as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old paragraph New paragraph
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Introductory text..................... (a)(1).
(a)(1) Introductory text.................. (a)(1)(i).
(a)(2).................................... (a)(1)(ii).
(a)(3).................................... (a)(1)(iii).
(a)(3)(i)................................. (a)(1)(iii)(A).
(a)(3)(ii)................................ (a)(1)(iii)(B).
(a)(3)(iii)............................... (a)(1)(iii)(C).
(a)(4).................................... (a)(1)(iv).
(a)(4)(i)................................. (a)(1)(iv)(A).
(a)(4)(ii)................................ (a)(1)(iv)(B).
(a)(4)(ii)(A)............................. (a)(1)(iv)(B)(1).
(a)(4)(ii)(B)............................. (a)(1)(iv)(B)(2).
(a)(4)(ii)(C)............................. (a)(1)(iv)(B)(3).
(a)(4)(ii)(D)............................. (a)(1)(iv)(B)(4).
(a)(4)(ii)(E)............................. (a)(1)(iv)(B)(5).
(a)(4)(ii)(F)............................. (a)(1)(iv)(B)(6).
(a)(4)(iii)............................... (a)(1)(iv)(C).
(a)(4)(iii)(A)............................ (a)(1)(iv)(C)(1).
(a)(4)(iii)(B)............................ (a)(1)(iv)(C)(2).
(a)(4)(iv)................................ (a)(1)(iv)(D).
(a)(4)(iv)(A)............................. (a)(1)(iv)(D)(1).
(a)(4)(iv)(B)............................. (a)(1)(iv)(D)(2).
(a)(4)(iv)(C)............................. (a)(1)(iv)(D)(3).
(a)(4)(v)................................. (a)(1)(iv)(E).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.a. Section 141.85 is further amended by adding paragraphs (a)
introductory text, (a)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), by revising all
references to ``each lead service line that we control'' in
redesignated paragraph (a)(1)(i) to read ``the portion of each lead
service line that we own'' and by revising newly designated paragraphs
(a)(1), (a)(1)(iv)(B)(5), and by revising paragraphs (c)(2)
introductory text and (c)(2)(i) through (iii), (c)(4) introductory
text, and (c)(4)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.85 Public education and supplemental monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(a) Content of written public education materials. (1) Community
water systems. A community water system shall include the following
text in all of the printed materials it distributes through its lead
public education program. Systems may delete information pertaining to
lead service lines, upon approval by the State, if no lead service
lines exist anywhere in the water system service area. Public education
language at paragraphs (a)(1)(iv)(B)(5) and (a)(1)(iv)(D)(2) of this
section may be modified regarding building permit record availability
and consumer access to these records, if approved by the State. Systems
may also continue to utilize pre-printed materials that meet the public
education language requirements in 40 CFR 141.85, effective November 6,
1991, and contained in the 40 CFR, parts 100 to 149, edition revised as
of July 1, 1991. Any additional information presented by a system shall
be consistent with the information below and be in plain English that
can be understood by lay people.
* * * * *
(iv) * * *
(B) * * *
(5) Determine whether or not the service line that connects your
home or apartment to the water main is made of lead. The best way to
determine if your service line is made of lead is by either hiring a
licensed plumber to inspect the line or by contacting the plumbing
contractor who installed the line. You can identify the plumbing
contractor by checking the city's record of building permits which
should be maintained in the files of the [insert name of department
that issues building permits]. A licensed plumber can at the same time
check to see if your home's plumbing contains lead solder, lead pipes,
or pipe fittings that contain lead. The public water system that
delivers water to your home should also maintain records of the
materials located in the distribution system. If the service line that
connects your dwelling to the water main contributes more than 15 ppb
to drinking water, after our comprehensive treatment program is in
place, we are required to replace the portion of the line we own. If
the line is only partially owned by the [insert the name of the city,
county, or water system that owns the line], we are required to provide
the owner of the privately-owned portion of the line with
[[Page 2006]]
information on how to replace the privately-owned portion of the
service line, and offer to replace that portion of the line at the
owner's expense. If we replace only the portion of the line that we
own, we also are required to notify you in advance and provide you with
information on the steps you can take to minimize exposure to any
temporary increase in lead levels that may result from the partial
replacement, to take a follow-up sample at our expense from the line
within 72 hours after the partial replacement, and to mail or otherwise
provide you with the results of that sample within three business days
of receiving the results. Acceptable replacement alternatives include
copper, steel, iron, and plastic pipes.
* * * * *
(2) Non-transient non-community water systems. A non-transient non-
community water system shall either include the text specified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section or shall include the following text in
all of the printed materials it distributes through its lead public
education program. Water systems may delete information pertaining to
lead service lines upon approval by the State if no lead service lines
exist anywhere in the water system service area. Any additional
information presented by a system shall be consistent with the
information below and be in plain English that can be understood by lay
people.
(i) Introduction. The United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and [insert name of water supplier] are concerned about lead in
your drinking water. Some drinking water samples taken from this
facility have lead levels above the EPA action level of 15 parts per
billion (ppb), or 0.015 milligrams of lead per liter of water (mg/L).
Under Federal law we are required to have a program in place to
minimize lead in your drinking water by [insert date when corrosion
control will be completed for your system]. This program includes
corrosion control treatment, source water treatment, and public
education. We are also required to replace the portion of each lead
service line that we own if the line contributes lead concentrations of
more than 15 ppb after we have completed the comprehensive treatment
program. If you have any questions about how we are carrying out the
requirements of the lead regulation please give us a call at [insert
water system's phone number]. This brochure explains the simple steps
you can take to protect yourself by reducing your exposure to lead in
drinking water.
(ii) Health effects of lead. Lead is found throughout the
environment in lead-based paint, air, soil, household dust, food,
certain types of pottery porcelain and pewter, and water. Lead can pose
a significant risk to your health if too much of it enters your body.
Lead builds up in the body over many years and can cause damage to the
brain, red blood cells and kidneys. The greatest risk is to young
children and pregnant women. Amounts of lead that won't hurt adults can
slow down normal mental and physical development of growing bodies. In
addition, a child at play often comes into contact with sources of lead
contamination--like dirt and dust--that rarely affect an adult. It is
important to wash children's hands and toys often, and to try to make
sure they only put food in their mouths.
(iii) Lead in drinking water. (A) Lead in drinking water, although
rarely the sole cause of lead poisoning, can significantly increase a
person's total lead exposure, particularly the exposure of infants who
drink baby formulas and concentrated juices that are mixed with water.
The EPA estimates that drinking water can make up 20 percent or more of
a person's total exposure to lead.
(B) Lead is unusual among drinking water contaminants in that it
seldom occurs naturally in water supplies like rivers and lakes. Lead
enters drinking water primarily as a result of the corrosion, or
wearing away, of materials containing lead in the water distribution
system and household plumbing. These materials include lead-based
solder used to join copper pipe, brass and chrome-plated brass faucets,
and in some cases, pipes made of lead that connect houses and buildings
to water mains (service lines). In 1986, Congress banned the use of
lead solder containing greater than 0.2% lead, and restricted the lead
content of faucets, pipes and other plumbing materials to 8.0%.
(C) When water stands in lead pipes or plumbing systems containing
lead for several hours or more, the lead may dissolve into your
drinking water. This means the first water drawn from the tap in the
morning, or later in the afternoon if the water has not been used all
day, can contain fairly high levels of lead.
(iv) Steps you can take to reduce exposure to lead in drinking
water. (A) Let the water run from the tap before using it for drinking
or cooking any time the water in a faucet has gone unused for more than
six hours. The longer water resides in plumbing the more lead it may
contain. Flushing the tap means running the cold water faucet for about
15-30 seconds. Although toilet flushing or showering flushes water
through a portion of the plumbing system, you still need to flush the
water in each faucet before using it for drinking or cooking. Flushing
tap water is a simple and inexpensive measure you can take to protect
your health. It usually uses less than one gallon of water.
(B) Do not cook with, or drink water from the hot water tap. Hot
water can dissolve more lead more quickly than cold water. If you need
hot water, draw water from the cold tap and then heat it.
(C) The steps described above will reduce the lead concentrations
in your drinking water. However, if you are still concerned, you may
wish to use bottled water for drinking and cooking.
(D) You can consult a variety of sources for additional
information. Your family doctor or pediatrician can perform a blood
test for lead and provide you with information about the health effects
of lead. State and local government agencies that can be contacted
include:
(1) [insert the name or title of facility official if appropriate]
at [insert phone number] can provide you with information about your
facility's water supply; and
(2) [insert the name or title of the State Department of Public
Health] at [insert phone number] or the [insert the name of the city or
county health department] at [insert phone number] can provide you with
information about the health effects of lead.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) A community water system that exceeds the lead action level on
the basis of tap water samples collected in accordance with
Sec. 141.86, and that is not already repeating public education tasks
pursuant to paragraph (c)(3), (c)(7), or (c)(8), of this section,
shall, within 60 days:
(i) Insert notices in each customer's water utility bill containing
the information in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, along with the
following alert on the water bill itself in large print: ``SOME HOMES
IN THIS COMMUNITY HAVE ELEVATED LEAD LEVELS IN THEIR DRINKING WATER.
LEAD CAN POSE A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO YOUR HEALTH. PLEASE READ THE
ENCLOSED NOTICE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.'' A community water system
having a billing cycle that does not include a billing within 60 days
of exceeding the action level, or that cannot insert information in the
water utility bill without making major changes to its billing system,
may use a separate mailing to deliver the information in paragraph
(a)(1) of this
[[Page 2007]]
section as long as the information is delivered to each customer within
60 days of exceeding the action level. Such water systems shall also
include the ``alert'' language specified in this paragraph.
(ii) Submit the information in paragraph (a)(1) of this section to
the editorial departments of the major daily and weekly newspapers
circulated throughout the community.
(iii) Deliver pamphlets and/or brochures that contain the public
education materials in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(1)(iv) of this
section to facilities and organizations, including the following:
* * * * *
(4) Within 60 days after it exceeds the lead action level (unless
it already is repeating public education tasks pursuant to paragraph
(c)(5) of this section), a non-transient non-community water system
shall deliver the public education materials specified by paragraph
(a)(1) of this section or the public education materials specified by
paragraph (a)(2) of this section as follows:
(i) * * *
(ii) Distribute informational pamphlets and/or brochures on lead in
drinking water to each person served by the non-transient non-community
water system. The State may allow the system to utilize electronic
transmission in lieu of or combined with printed materials as long as
it achieves at least the same coverage.
* * * * *
(7) A community water system may apply to the State, in writing,
(unless the State has waived the requirement for prior State approval)
to use the text specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section in lieu
of the text in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and to perform the
tasks listed in paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) of this section in lieu of
the tasks in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section if:
(i) The system is a facility, such as a prison or a hospital, where
the population served is not capable of or is prevented from making
improvements to plumbing or installing point of use treatment devices;
and
(ii) The system provides water as part of the cost of services
provided and does not separately charge for water consumption.
(8)(i) A community water system serving 3,300 or fewer people may
omit the task contained in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section. As
long as it distributes notices containing the information contained in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section to every household served by the
system, such systems may further limit their public education programs
as follows:
(A) Systems serving 500 or fewer people may forego the task
contained in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section. Such a system may
limit the distribution of the public education materials required under
paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section to facilities and organizations
served by the system that are most likely to be visited regularly by
pregnant women and children, unless it is notified by the State in
writing that it must make a broader distribution.
(B) If approved by the State in writing, a system serving 501 to
3,300 people may omit the task in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section
and/or limit the distribution of the public education materials
required under paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section to facilities and
organizations served by the system that are most likely to be visited
regularly by pregnant women and children.
(ii) A community water system serving 3,300 or fewer people that
delivers public education in accordance with paragraph (c)(8)(i) of
this section shall repeat the required public education tasks at least
once during each calendar year in which the system exceeds the lead
action level.
* * * * *
9. Section 141.86 is amended by removing paragraph (a)(8), by
redesignating paragraph (a)(9) as paragraph (a)(8) and revising it, by
redesignating paragraph (d)(4)(v) as paragraph (d)(4)(vi) and revising
it, by adding paragraphs (b)(5), (d)(4)(v), (d)(4)(vii), (f) and (g),
and by revising paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(7), (b)(1), (b)(2), (c), and
(d)(4)(ii) through (d)(4)(iv), to read as follows:
Sec. 141.86 Monitoring requirements for lead and copper in tap water.
(a) * * *
(5) Any community water system with insufficient tier 1 and tier 2
sampling sites shall complete its sampling pool with ``tier 3 sampling
sites'', consisting of single family structures that contain copper
pipes with lead solder installed before 1983. A community water system
with insufficient tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 sampling sites shall
complete its sampling pool with representative sites throughout the
distribution system. For the purpose of this paragraph, a
representative site is a site in which the plumbing materials used at
that site would be commonly found at other sites served by the water
system.
* * * * *
(7) A non-transient non-community water system with insufficient
tier 1 sites that meet the targeting criteria in paragraph (a)(6) of
this section shall complete its sampling pool with sampling sites that
contain copper pipes with lead solder installed before 1983. If
additional sites are needed to complete the sampling pool, the non-
transient non-community water system shall use representative sites
throughout the distribution system. For the purpose of this paragraph,
a representative site is a site in which the plumbing materials used at
that site would be commonly found at other sites served by the water
system.
(8) Any water system whose distribution system contains lead
service lines shall draw 50 percent of the samples it collects during
each monitoring period from sites that contain lead pipes, or copper
pipes with lead solder, and 50 percent of the samples from sites served
by a lead service line. A water system that cannot identify a
sufficient number of sampling sites served by a lead service line shall
collect first-draw samples from all of the sites identified as being
served by such lines.
(b) Sample collection methods. (1) All tap samples for lead and
copper collected in accordance with this subpart, with the exception of
lead service line samples collected under Sec. 141.84(c) and samples
collected under paragraph (b)(5) of this section, shall be first-draw
samples.
(2) Each first-draw tap sample for lead and copper shall be one
liter in volume and have stood motionless in the plumbing system of
each sampling site for at least six hours. First-draw samples from
residential housing shall be collected from the cold water kitchen tap
or bathroom sink tap. First-draw samples from a nonresidential building
shall be one liter in volume and shall be collected at an interior tap
from which water is typically drawn for consumption. Non-first-draw
samples collected in lieu of first-draw samples pursuant to paragraph
(b)(5) of this section shall be one liter in volume and shall be
collected at an interior tap from which water is typically drawn for
consumption. First-draw samples may be collected by the system or the
system may allow residents to collect first-draw samples after
instructing the residents of the sampling procedures specified in this
paragraph. To avoid problems of residents handling nitric acid,
acidification of first-draw samples may be done up to 14 days after the
sample is collected. After acidification to resolubilize the metals,
the sample must stand in the original container for the time specified
in the approved EPA method before the sample can be analyzed. If a
system allows residents to
[[Page 2008]]
perform sampling, the system may not challenge, based on alleged errors
in sample collection, the accuracy of sampling results.
* * * * *
(5) A non-transient non-community water system, or a community
water system that meets the criteria of Secs. 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii),
that does not have enough taps that can supply first-draw samples, as
defined in Sec. 141.2, may apply to the State in writing to substitute
non-first-draw samples. Such systems must collect as many first-draw
samples from appropriate taps as possible and identify sampling times
and locations that would likely result in the longest standing time for
the remaining sites. The State has the discretion to waive the
requirement for prior State approval of non-first-draw sample sites
selected by the system, either through State regulation or written
notification to the system.
(c) Number of samples. Water systems shall collect at least one
sample during each monitoring period specified in paragraph (d) of this
section from the number of sites listed in the first column (``standard
monitoring'') of the table in this paragraph. A system conducting
reduced monitoring under paragraph (d)(4) of this section shall collect
at least one sample from the number of sites specified in the second
column (``reduced monitoring'') of the table in this paragraph during
each monitoring period specified in paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
Such reduced monitoring sites shall be representative of the sites
required for standard monitoring. States may specify sampling locations
when a system is conducting reduced monitoring. The table is as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
sites sites
System size (number of people served) (standard (reduced
monitoring) monitoring)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>100,000...................................... 100 50
10,001 to 100,000............................. 60 30
3,301 to 10,000............................... 40 20
501 to 3,300.................................. 20 10
101 to 500.................................... 10 5
100................................ 5 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Any water system that maintains the range of values for the
water quality control parameters reflecting optimal corrosion control
treatment specified by the State under Sec. 141.82(f) during each of
two consecutive six-month monitoring periods may reduce the frequency
of monitoring to once per year and reduce the number of lead and copper
samples in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section if it receives
written approval from the State. The State shall review monitoring,
treatment, and other relevant information submitted by the water system
in accordance with Sec. 141.90, and shall notify the system in writing
when it determines the system is eligible to commence reduced
monitoring pursuant to this paragraph. The State shall review, and
where appropriate, revise its determination when the system submits new
monitoring or treatment data, or when other data relevant to the number
and frequency of tap sampling becomes available.
(iii) A small or medium-size water system that meets the lead and
copper action levels during three consecutive years of monitoring may
reduce the frequency of monitoring for lead and copper from annually to
once every three years. Any water system that maintains the range of
values for the water quality control parameters reflecting optimal
corrosion control treatment specified by the State under Sec. 141.82(f)
during three consecutive years of monitoring may reduce the frequency
of monitoring from annually to once every three years if it receives
written approval from the State. The State shall review monitoring,
treatment, and other relevant information submitted by the water system
in accordance with Sec. 141.90, and shall notify the system in writing
when it determines the system is eligible to reduce the frequency of
monitoring to once every three years. The State shall review, and where
appropriate, revise its determination when the system submits new
monitoring or treatment data, or when other data relevant to the number
and frequency of tap sampling becomes available.
(iv) A water system that reduces the number and frequency of
sampling shall collect these samples from representative sites included
in the pool of targeted sampling sites identified in paragraph (a) of
this section. Systems sampling annually or less frequently shall
conduct the lead and copper tap sampling during the months of June,
July, August, or September unless the State has approved a different
sampling period in accordance with paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this
section.
(A) The State, at its discretion, may approve a different period
for conducting the lead and copper tap sampling for systems collecting
a reduced number of samples. Such a period shall be no longer than four
consecutive months and must represent a time of normal operation where
the highest levels of lead are most likely to occur. For a non-
transient non-community water system that does not operate during the
months of June through September, and for which the period of normal
operation where the highest levels of lead are most likely to occur is
not known, the State shall designate a period that represents a time of
normal operation for the system.
(B) Systems monitoring annually, that have been collecting samples
during the months of June through September and that receive State
approval to alter their sample collection period under paragraph
(d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section, must collect their next round of samples
during a time period that ends no later than 21 months after the
previous round of sampling. Systems monitoring triennially that have
been collecting samples during the months of June through September,
and receive State approval to alter the sampling collection period as
per paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section, must collect their next
round of samples during a time period that ends no later than 45 months
after the previous round of sampling. Subsequent rounds of sampling
must be collected annually or triennially, as required by this section.
Small systems with waivers, granted pursuant to paragraph (g) of this
section, that have been collecting samples during the months of June
through September and receive State approval to alter their sample
collection period under paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section must
collect their next round of samples before the end of the 9-year
period.
(v) Any water system that demonstrates for two consecutive 6-month
monitoring periods that the tap water lead level computed under
Sec. 141.80(c)(3) is less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L and the tap water
copper level computed under Sec. 141.80(c)(3) is less than or equal to
0.65 mg/L may reduce the number of samples in accordance with paragraph
(c) of this section and reduce the frequency of sampling to once every
three calendar years.
(vi)(A) A small or medium-size water system subject to reduced
monitoring that exceeds the lead or copper action level shall resume
sampling in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section and
collect the number of samples specified for standard monitoring under
paragraph (c) of this section. Such a system shall also conduct water
quality parameter monitoring in accordance with Sec. 141.87(b), (c) or
(d) (as appropriate) during the monitoring period in which it exceeded
the action level. Any such system may resume annual monitoring
[[Page 2009]]
for lead and copper at the tap at the reduced number of sites specified
in paragraph (c) of this section after it has completed two subsequent
consecutive six-month rounds of monitoring that meet the criteria of
paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section and/or may resume triennial
monitoring for lead and copper at the reduced number of sites after it
demonstrates through subsequent rounds of monitoring that it meets the
criteria of either paragraph (d)(4)(iii) or (d)(4)(v) of this section.
(B) Any water system subject to the reduced monitoring frequency
that fails to operate at or above the minimum value or within the range
of values for the water quality parameters specified by the State under
Sec. 141.82(f) for more than nine days in any six-month period
specified in Sec. 141.87(d) shall conduct tap water sampling for lead
and copper at the frequency specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this
section, collect the number of samples specified for standard
monitoring under paragraph (c) of this section, and shall resume
monitoring for water quality parameters within the distribution system
in accordance with Sec. 141.87(d). Such a system may resume reduced
monitoring for lead and copper at the tap and for water quality
parameters within the distribution system under the following
conditions:
(1) The system may resume annual monitoring for lead and copper at
the tap at the reduced number of sites specified in paragraph (c) of
this section after it has completed two subsequent six-month rounds of
monitoring that meet the criteria of paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this
section and the system has received written approval from the State
that it is appropriate to resume reduced monitoring on an annual
frequency.
(2) The system may resume triennial monitoring for lead and copper
at the tap at the reduced number of sites after it demonstrates through
subsequent rounds of monitoring that it meets the criteria of either
paragraph (d)(4)(iii) or (d)(4)(v) of this section and the system has
received written approval from the State that it is appropriate to
resume triennial monitoring.
(3) The system may reduce the number of water quality parameter tap
water samples required in accordance with Sec. 141.87(e)(1) and the
frequency with which it collects such samples in accordance with
Sec. 141.87(e)(2). Such a system may not resume triennial monitoring
for water quality parameters at the tap until it demonstrates, in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 141.87(e)(2), that it has re-
qualified for triennial monitoring.
(vii) Any water system subject to a reduced monitoring frequency
under paragraph (d)(4) of this section that either adds a new source of
water or changes any water treatment shall inform the State in writing
in accordance with Sec. 141.90(a)(3). The State may require the system
to resume sampling in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section
and collect the number of samples specified for standard monitoring
under paragraph (c) of this section or take other appropriate steps
such as increased water quality parameter monitoring or re-evaluation
of its corrosion control treatment given the potentially different
water quality considerations.
* * * * *
(f) Invalidation of lead or copper tap water samples. A sample
invalidated under this paragraph does not count toward determining lead
or copper 90th percentile levels under Sec. 141.80(c)(3) or toward
meeting the minimum monitoring requirements of paragraph (c) of this
section.
(1) The State may invalidate a lead or copper tap water sample at
least if one of the following conditions is met.
(i) The laboratory establishes that improper sample analysis caused
erroneous results.
(ii) The State determines that the sample was taken from a site
that did not meet the site selection criteria of this section.
(iii) The sample container was damaged in transit.
(iv) There is substantial reason to believe that the sample was
subject to tampering.
(2) The system must report the results of all samples to the State
and all supporting documentation for samples the system believes should
be invalidated.
(3) To invalidate a sample under paragraph (f)(1) of this section,
the decision and the rationale for the decision must be documented in
writing. States may not invalidate a sample solely on the grounds that
a follow-up sample result is higher or lower than that of the original
sample.
(4) The water system must collect replacement samples for any
samples invalidated under this section if, after the invalidation of
one or more samples, the system has too few samples to meet the minimum
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section. Any such replacement
samples must be taken as soon as possible, but no later than 20 days
after the date the State invalidates the sample or by the end of the
applicable monitoring period, whichever occurs later. Replacement
samples taken after the end of the applicable monitoring period shall
not also be used to meet the monitoring requirements of a subsequent
monitoring period. The replacement samples shall be taken at the same
locations as the invalidated samples or, if that is not possible, at
locations other than those already used for sampling during the
monitoring period.
(g) Monitoring waivers for small systems. Any small system that
meets the criteria of this paragraph may apply to the State to reduce
the frequency of monitoring for lead and copper under this section to
once every nine years (i.e., a ``full waiver'') if it meets all of the
materials criteria specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section and
all of the monitoring criteria specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this
section. If State regulations permit, any small system that meets the
criteria in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section only for lead, or
only for copper, may apply to the State for a waiver to reduce the
frequency of tap water monitoring to once every nine years for that
contaminant only (i.e., a ``partial waiver'').
(1) Materials criteria. The system must demonstrate that its
distribution system and service lines and all drinking water supply
plumbing, including plumbing conveying drinking water within all
residences and buildings connected to the system, are free of lead-
containing materials and/or copper-containing materials, as those terms
are defined in this paragraph, as follows:
(i) Lead. To qualify for a full waiver, or a waiver of the tap
water monitoring requirements for lead (i.e., a ``lead waiver''), the
water system must provide certification and supporting documentation to
the State that the system is free of all lead-containing materials, as
follows:
(A) It contains no plastic pipes which contain lead plasticizers,
or plastic service lines which contain lead plasticizers; and
(B) It is free of lead service lines, lead pipes, lead soldered
pipe joints, and leaded brass or bronze alloy fittings and fixtures,
unless such fittings and fixtures meet the specifications of any
standard established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 300g-6(e) (SDWA section
1417(e)).
(ii) Copper. To qualify for a full waiver, or a waiver of the tap
water monitoring requirements for copper (i.e., a ``copper waiver''),
the water system must provide certification and supporting
documentation to the State that the system contains no copper pipes or
copper service lines.
(2) Monitoring criteria for waiver issuance. The system must have
[[Page 2010]]
completed at least one 6-month round of standard tap water monitoring
for lead and copper at sites approved by the State and from the number
of sites required by paragraph (c) of this section and demonstrate that
the 90th percentile levels for any and all rounds of monitoring
conducted since the system became free of all lead-containing and/or
copper-containing materials, as appropriate, meet the following
criteria.
(i) Lead levels. To qualify for a full waiver, or a lead waiver,
the system must demonstrate that the 90th percentile lead level does
not exceed 0.005 mg/L.
(ii) Copper levels. To qualify for a full waiver, or a copper
waiver, the system must demonstrate that the 90th percentile copper
level does not exceed 0.65 mg/L.
(3) State approval of waiver application. The State shall notify
the system of its waiver determination, in writing, setting forth the
basis of its decision and any condition of the waiver. As a condition
of the waiver, the State may require the system to perform specific
activities (e.g., limited monitoring, periodic outreach to customers to
remind them to avoid installation of materials that might void the
waiver) to avoid the risk of lead or copper concentration of concern in
tap water. The small system must continue monitoring for lead and
copper at the tap as required by paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(4) of
this section, as appropriate, until it receives written notification
from the State that the waiver has been approved.
(4) Monitoring frequency for systems with waivers. (i) A system
with a full waiver must conduct tap water monitoring for lead and
copper in accordance with paragraph (d)(4)(iv) of this section at the
reduced number of sampling sites identified in paragraph (c) of this
section at least once every nine years and provide the materials
certification specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section for both
lead and copper to the State along with the monitoring results.
(ii) A system with a partial waiver must conduct tap water
monitoring for the waived contaminant in accordance with paragraph
(d)(4)(iv) of this section at the reduced number of sampling sites
specified in paragraph (c) of this section at least once every nine
years and provide the materials certification specified in paragraph
(g)(1) of this section pertaining to the waived contaminant along with
the monitoring results. Such a system also must continue to monitor for
the non-waived contaminant in accordance with requirements of paragraph
(d)(1) through (d)(4) of this section, as appropriate.
(iii) If a system with a full or partial waiver adds a new source
of water or changes any water treatment, the system must notify the
State in writing in accordance with Sec. 141.90(a)(3). The State has
the authority to require the system to add or modify waiver conditions
(e.g., require recertification that the system is free of lead-
containing and/or copper-containing materials, require additional
round(s) of monitoring), if it deems such modifications are necessary
to address treatment or source water changes at the system.
(iv) If a system with a full or partial waiver becomes aware that
it is no longer free of lead-containing or copper-containing materials,
as appropriate, (e.g., as a result of new construction or repairs), the
system shall notify the State in writing no later than 60 days after
becoming aware of such a change.
(5) Continued eligibility. If the system continues to satisfy the
requirements of paragraph (g)(4) of this section, the waiver will be
renewed automatically, unless any of the conditions listed in paragraph
(g)(5)(i) through (g)(5)(iii) of this section occurs. A system whose
waiver has been revoked may re-apply for a waiver at such time as it
again meets the appropriate materials and monitoring criteria of
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section.
(i) A system with a full waiver or a lead waiver no longer
satisfies the materials criteria of paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section
or has a 90th percentile lead level greater than 0.005 mg/L.
(ii) A system with a full waiver or a copper waiver no longer
satisfies the materials criteria of paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this
section or has a 90th percentile copper level greater than 0.65 mg/L.
(iii) The State notifies the system, in writing, that the waiver
has been revoked, setting forth the basis of its decision.
(6) Requirements following waiver revocation. A system whose full
or partial waiver has been revoked by the State is subject to the
corrosion control treatment and lead and copper tap water monitoring
requirements, as follows:
(i) If the system exceeds the lead and/or copper action level, the
system must implement corrosion control treatment in accordance with
the deadlines specified in Sec. 141.81(e), and any other applicable
requirements of this subpart.
(ii) If the system meets both the lead and the copper action level,
the system must monitor for lead and copper at the tap no less
frequently than once every three years using the reduced number of
sample sites specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(7) Pre-existing waivers. Small system waivers approved by the
State in writing prior to April 11, 2000 shall remain in effect under
the following conditions:
(i) If the system has demonstrated that it is both free of lead-
containing and copper-containing materials, as required by paragraph
(g)(1) of this section and that its 90th percentile lead levels and
90th percentile copper levels meet the criteria of paragraph (g)(2) of
this section, the waiver remains in effect so long as the system
continues to meet the waiver eligibility criteria of paragraph (g)(5)
of this section. The first round of tap water monitoring conducted
pursuant to paragraph (g)(4) of this section shall be completed no
later than nine years after the last time the system has monitored for
lead and copper at the tap.
(ii) If the system has met the materials criteria of paragraph
(g)(1) of this section but has not met the monitoring criteria of
paragraph (g)(2) of this section, the system shall conduct a round of
monitoring for lead and copper at the tap demonstrating that it meets
the criteria of paragraph (g)(2) of this section no later than
September 30, 2000. Thereafter, the waiver shall remain in effect as
long as the system meets the continued eligibility criteria of
paragraph (g)(5) of this section. The first round of tap water
monitoring conducted pursuant to paragraph (g)(4) of this section shall
be completed no later than nine years after the round of monitoring
conducted pursuant to paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
10. Section 141.87 is amended by redesignating paragraph (e)(2) as
(e)(2)(i), by adding paragraphs (c)(3) and (e)(2)(ii), and by revising
the first sentence of paragraph (a)(2)(ii), and by revising paragraphs
(c)(2) introductory text, (d), (e)(4), and the table at the end of
Sec. 141.87 following paragraph (f), to read as follows:
Sec. 141.87 Monitoring requirements for water quality parameters.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section,
systems shall collect two samples for each applicable water quality
parameter at each entry point to the distribution system during each
monitoring period specified in paragraph (b) of this section. * * *
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, at each
entry point
[[Page 2011]]
to the distribution system, at least one sample no less frequently than
every two weeks (biweekly) for: * * *
(3) Any ground water system can limit entry point sampling
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section to those entry points
that are representative of water quality and treatment conditions
throughout the system. If water from untreated ground water sources
mixes with water from treated ground water sources, the system must
monitor for water quality parameters both at representative entry
points receiving treatment and representative entry points receiving no
treatment. Prior to the start of any monitoring under this paragraph,
the system shall provide to the State written information identifying
the selected entry points and documentation, including information on
seasonal variability, sufficient to demonstrate that the sites are
representative of water quality and treatment conditions throughout the
system.
(d) Monitoring after State specifies water quality parameter values
for optimal corrosion control. After the State specifies the values for
applicable water quality control parameters reflecting optimal
corrosion control treatment under Sec. 141.82(f), all large systems
shall measure the applicable water quality parameters in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section and determine compliance with the
requirements of Sec. 141.82(g) every six months with the first six-
month period to begin on the date the State specifies the optimal
values under Sec. 141.82(f). Any small or medium-size system shall
conduct such monitoring during each six-month period specified in this
paragraph in which the system exceeds the lead or copper action level.
For any such small and medium-size system that is subject to a reduced
monitoring frequency pursuant to Sec. 141.86(d)(4) at the time of the
action level exceedance, the end of the applicable six-month period
under this paragraph shall coincide with the end of the applicable
monitoring period under Sec. 141.86(d)(4). Compliance with State-
designated optimal water quality parameter values shall be determined
as specified under Sec. 141.82(g).
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) A water system may reduce the frequency with which it collects
tap samples for applicable water quality parameters specified in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section to every three years if it
demonstrates during two consecutive monitoring periods that its tap
water lead level at the 90th percentile is less than or equal to the
PQL for lead specified in Sec. 141.89 (a)(1)(ii), that its tap water
copper level at the 90th percentile is less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L
for copper in Sec. 141.80(c)(2), and that it also has maintained the
range of values for the water quality parameters reflecting optimal
corrosion control treatment specified by the State under
Sec. 141.82(f).
* * * * *
(4) Any water system subject to the reduced monitoring frequency
that fails to operate at or above the minimum value or within the range
of values for the water quality parameters specified by the State in
Sec. 141.82(f) for more than nine days in any six-month period
specified in Sec. 141.82(g) shall resume distribution system tap water
sampling in accordance with the number and frequency requirements in
paragraph (d) of this section. Such a system may resume annual
monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap at the reduced
number of sites specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section after it
has completed two subsequent consecutive six-month rounds of monitoring
that meet the criteria of that paragraph and/or may resume triennial
monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap at the reduced
number of sites after it demonstrates through subsequent rounds of
monitoring that it meets the criteria of either paragraph (e)(2)(i) or
(e)(2)(ii) of this section.
* * * * *
Summary of Monitoring Requirements for Water Quality Parameters \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring period Parameters \2\ Location Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial monitoring................ pH, alkalinity, Taps and at entry point(s) Every 6 months.
orthophosphate or silica to distribution system.
\3\, calcium,
conductivity, temperature.
After installation of corrosion pH, alkalinity, Taps...................... Every 6 months.
control. orthophosphate or silica
\3\, calcium \4\.
pH, alkalinity, dosage Entry point(s) to No less frequently
rate and concentration distribution system \6\. than every two
(if alkalinity adjusted weeks.
as part of corrosion
control), inhibitor
dosage rate and inhibitor
residual \5\.
After State specifies parameter pH, alkalinity, Taps...................... Every 6 months.
values for optimal corrosion orthophosphate or silica
control. \3\, calcium \4\.
pH, alkalinity dosage rate Entry point(s) to No less frequently
and concentration (if distribution system \6\. than every two
alkalinity adjusted as weeks.
part of corrosion
control), inhibitor
dosage rate and inhibitor
residual \5\.
Reduced monitoring................ pH, alkalinity, Taps...................... Every 6 months,
orthophosphate or silica annually \7\ or
\3\, calcium \4\. every 3 years \8\;
reduced number of
sites.
pH, alkalinity dosage rate Entry point(s) to No less frequently
and concentration (if distribution system \6\. than every two
alkalinity adjusted as weeks.
part of corrosion
control), inhibitor
dosage rate and inhibitor
residual \5\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table is for illustrative purposes; consult the text of this section for precise regulatory requirements.
\2\ Small and medium-size systems have to monitor for water quality parameters only during monitoring periods in
which the system exceeds the lead or copper action level.
\3\ Orthophosphate must be measured only when an inhibitor containing a phosphate compound is used. Silica must
be measured only when an inhibitor containing silicate compound is used.
\4\ Calcium must be measured only when calcium carbonate stabilization is used as part of corrosion control.
[[Page 2012]]
\5\ Inhibitor dosage rates and inhibitor residual concentrations (orthophosphate or silica) must be measured
only when an inhibitor is used.
\6\ Ground water systems may limit monitoring to representative locations throughout the system.
\7\ Water systems may reduce frequency of monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap from every six
months to annually if they have maintained the range of values for water quality parameters reflecting optimal
corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of monitoring.
\8\ Water systems may further reduce the frequency of monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap from
annually to once every 3 years if they have maintained the range of values for water quality parameters
reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of annual monitoring. Water systems may
accelerate to triennial monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap if they have maintained 90th
percentile lead levels less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L, 90th percentile copper levels less than or equal to
0.65 mg/L, and the range of water quality parameters designated by the State under Sec. 141.82(f) as
representing optimal corrosion control during two consecutive six-month monitoring periods.
11. Section 141.88 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1),
(e)(1), and (e)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.88 Monitoring requirements for lead and copper in source
water.
(a) * * *
(1) A water system that fails to meet the lead or copper action
level on the basis of tap samples collected in accordance with
Sec. 141.86 shall collect lead and copper source water samples in
accordance with the following requirements regarding sample location,
number of samples, and collection methods:
(i) Groundwater systems shall take a minimum of one sample at every
entry point to the distribution system which is representative of each
well after treatment (hereafter called a sampling point). The system
shall take one sample at the same sampling point unless conditions make
another sampling point more representative of each source or treatment
plant.
(ii) Surface water systems shall take a minimum of one sample at
every entry point to the distribution system after any application of
treatment or in the distribution system at a point which is
representative of each source after treatment (hereafter called a
sampling point). The system shall take each sample at the same sampling
point unless conditions make another sampling point more representative
of each source or treatment plant.
Note to paragraph (a)(1)(ii): For the purposes of this
paragraph, surface water systems include systems with a combination
of surface and ground sources.
(iii) If a system draws water from more than one source and the
sources are combined before distribution, the system must sample at an
entry point to the distribution system during periods of normal
operating conditions (i.e., when water is representative of all sources
being used).
(iv) The State may reduce the total number of samples which must be
analyzed by allowing the use of compositing. Compositing of samples
must be done by certified laboratory personnel. Composite samples from
a maximum of five samples are allowed, provided that if the lead
concentration in the composite sample is greater than or equal to 0.001
mg/L or the copper concentration is greater than or equal to 0.160 mg/
L, then either:
(A) A follow-up sample shall be taken and analyzed within 14 days
at each sampling point included in the composite; or
(B) If duplicates of or sufficient quantities from the original
samples from each sampling point used in the composite are available,
the system may use these instead of resampling.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) A water system using only ground water may reduce the
monitoring frequency for lead and copper in source water to once during
each nine-year compliance cycle (as that term is defined in Sec. 141.2)
if the system meets one of the following criteria:
(i) The system demonstrates that finished drinking water entering
the distribution system has been maintained below the maximum
permissible lead and copper concentrations specified by the State in
Sec. 141.83(b)(4) during at least three consecutive compliance periods
under paragraph (d)(1) of this section; or
(ii) The State has determined that source water treatment is not
needed and the system demonstrates that, during at least three
consecutive compliance periods in which sampling was conducted under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the concentration of lead in source
water was less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L and the concentration of
copper in source water was less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L.
(2) A water system using surface water (or a combination of surface
water and ground water) may reduce the monitoring frequency in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section to once during each nine-year
compliance cycle (as that term is defined in Sec. 141.2) if the system
meets one of the following criteria:
(i) The system demonstrates that finished drinking water entering
the distribution system has been maintained below the maximum
permissible lead and copper concentrations specified by the State in
Sec. 141.83(b)(4) for at least three consecutive years; or
(ii) The State has determined that source water treatment is not
needed and the system demonstrates that, during at least three
consecutive years, the concentration of lead in source water was less
than or equal to 0.005 mg/L and the concentration of copper in source
water was less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L.
* * * * *
12. Section 141.89 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 141.89 Analytical methods.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Achieve the method detection limit for lead of 0.001 mg/L
according to the procedures in appendix B of part 136 of this title.
This need only be accomplished if the laboratory will be processing
source water composite samples under Sec. 141.88(a)(1)(iii).
* * * * *
13. Section 141.90 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(1)(iii), by revising all references to ``Sec. 141.84(f)'' in
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) to read ``Sec. 141.84(e)'', by revising
paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text, (a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)
through (a)(5), (e)(4) and (f), by removing a period from (a)(1)(vii)
and adding a semicolon, and by adding paragraphs (a)(1)(viii) and (h)
to read as follows:
Sec. 141.90 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(viii) of this section, a
water system shall report the information specified below for all tap
water samples specified in Sec. 141.86 and for all water quality
parameter samples specified in Sec. 141.87 within the first 10 days
following the end of each applicable monitoring period specified in
Sec. 141.86 and Sec. 141.87 (i.e., every six months, annually, every 3
years, or every 9 years):
* * * * *
(ii) Documentation for each tap water lead or copper sample for
which the water system requests invalidation pursuant to
Sec. 141.86(f)(2);
(iii) [Reserved];
(iv) The 90th percentile lead and copper concentrations measured
from among all lead and copper tap water samples collected during each
monitoring period (calculated in accordance with Sec. 141.80(c)(3)),
unless
[[Page 2013]]
the State calculates the system's 90th percentile lead and copper
levels under paragraph (h) of this section;
* * * * *
(viii) A water system shall report the results of all water quality
parameter samples collected under Sec. 141.87(c) through (f) during
each six-month monitoring period specified in Sec. 141.87(d) within the
first 10 days following the end of the monitoring period unless the
State has specified a more frequent reporting requirement.
* * * * *
(2) For a non-transient non-community water system, or a community
water system meeting the criteria of Secs. 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii),
that does not have enough taps that can provide first-draw samples, the
system must either:
(i) Provide written documentation to the State identifying standing
times and locations for enough non-first-draw samples to make up its
sampling pool under Sec. 141.86(b)(5) by the start of the first
applicable monitoring period under Sec. 141.86(d) that commences after
April 11, 2000, unless the State has waived prior State approval of
non-first-draw sample sites selected by the system pursuant to
Sec. 141.86(b)(5); or
(ii) If the State has waived prior approval of non-first-draw
sample sites selected by the system, identify, in writing, each site
that did not meet the six-hour minimum standing time and the length of
standing time for that particular substitute sample collected pursuant
to Sec. 141.86(b)(5) and include this information with the lead and
copper tap sample results required to be submitted pursuant to
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
(3) No later than 60 days after the addition of a new source or any
change in water treatment, unless the State requires earlier
notification, a water system deemed to have optimized corrosion control
under Sec. 141.81(b)(3), a water system subject to reduced monitoring
pursuant to Sec. 141.86(d)(4), or a water system subject to a
monitoring waiver pursuant to Sec. 141.86(g), shall send written
documentation to the State describing the change. In those instances
where prior State approval of the treatment change or new source is not
required, water systems are encouraged to provide the notification to
the State beforehand to minimize the risk the treatment change or new
source will adversely affect optimal corrosion control.
(4) Any small system applying for a monitoring waiver under
Sec. 141.86(g), or subject to a waiver granted pursuant to
Sec. 141.86(g)(3), shall provide the following information to the State
in writing by the specified deadline:
(i) By the start of the first applicable monitoring period in
Sec. 141.86(d), any small water system applying for a monitoring waiver
shall provide the documentation required to demonstrate that it meets
the waiver criteria of Secs. 141.86(g)(1) and (2).
(ii) No later than nine years after the monitoring previously
conducted pursuant to Sec. 141.86(g)(2) or Sec. 141.86(g)(4)(i), each
small system desiring to maintain its monitoring waiver shall provide
the information required by Secs. 141.86(g)(4)(i) and (ii).
(iii) No later than 60 days after it becomes aware that it is no
longer free of lead-containing and/or copper-containing material, as
appropriate, each small system with a monitoring waiver shall provide
written notification to the State, setting forth the circumstances
resulting in the lead-containing and/or copper-containing materials
being introduced into the system and what corrective action, if any,
the system plans to remove these materials.
(iv) By October 10, 2000, any small system with a waiver granted
prior to April 11, 2000 and that has not previously met the
requirements of Sec. 141.86(g)(2) shall provide the information
required by that paragraph.
(5) Each ground water system that limits water quality parameter
monitoring to a subset of entry points under Sec. 141.87(c)(3) shall
provide, by the commencement of such monitoring, written correspondence
to the State that identifies the selected entry points and includes
information sufficient to demonstrate that the sites are representative
of water quality and treatment conditions throughout the system.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(4) Any system which collects lead service line samples following
partial lead service line replacement required by Sec. 141.84 shall
report the results to the State within the first ten days of the month
following the month in which the system receives the laboratory
results, or as specified by the State. States, at their discretion may
eliminate this requirement to report these monitoring results. Systems
shall also report any additional information as specified by the State,
and in a time and manner prescribed by the State, to verify that all
partial lead service line replacement activities have taken place.
(f) Public education program reporting requirements. (1) Any water
system that is subject to the public education requirements in
Sec. 141.85 shall, within ten days after the end of each period in
which the system is required to perform public education tasks in
accordance with Sec. 141.85(c), send written documentation to the State
that contains:
(i) A demonstration that the system has delivered the public
education materials that meet the content requirements in
Sec. 141.85(a) and (b) and the delivery requirements in Sec. 141.85(c);
and
(ii) A list of all the newspapers, radio stations, television
stations, and facilities and organizations to which the system
delivered public education materials during the period in which the
system was required to perform public education tasks.
(2) Unless required by the State, a system that previously has
submitted the information required by paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this
section need not resubmit the information required by paragraph
(f)(1)(ii) of this section, as long as there have been no changes in
the distribution list and the system certifies that the public
education materials were distributed to the same list submitted
previously.
* * * * *
(h) Reporting of 90th percentile lead and copper concentrations
where the State calculates a system's 90th percentile concentrations. A
water system is not required to report the 90th percentile lead and
copper concentrations measured from among all lead and copper tap water
samples collected during each monitoring period, as required by
paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section if:
(1) The State has previously notified the water system that it will
calculate the water system's 90th percentile lead and copper
concentrations, based on the lead and copper tap results submitted
pursuant to paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section, and has specified a
date before the end of the applicable monitoring period by which the
system must provide the results of lead and copper tap water samples;
(2) The system has provided the following information to the State
by the date specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section:
(i) The results of all tap samples for lead and copper including
the location of each site and the criteria under Sec. 141.86(a)(3),
(4), (5), (6), and/or (7) under which the site was selected for the
system's sampling pool, pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this
section; and
(ii) An identification of sampling sites utilized during the
current monitoring period that were not sampled during
[[Page 2014]]
previous monitoring periods, and an explanation why sampling sites have
changed; and
(3) The State has provided the results of the 90th percentile lead
and copper calculations, in writing, to the water system before the end
of the monitoring period.
PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
14. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
15. Section 142.14 is amended by removing paragraph (d)(8)(vii), by
redesignating paragraphs (d)(8)(i) through (d)(8)(vi) as (d)(8)(ii)
through (d)(8)(vii), respectively, by adding new paragraphs (d)(8)(i),
and (d)(8)(ix) through (d)(8)(xvii), and by revising newly designated
paragraphs (d)(8)(vi) and (d)(8)(vii) and paragraphs (d)(8)(viii),
(d)(9), (d)(10), and (d)(11) to read as follows:
Sec. 142.14 Records kept by States.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(8) * * *
(i) Section 141.81(b)--for any water system deemed to be optimized
under Sec. 141.81(b)(1) or (b)(3) of this chapter, any conditions
imposed by the State on specific water systems to ensure the continued
operation and maintenance of corrosion control treatment in place;
* * * * *
(vi) Section 141.83(b)(2)--determinations of source water
treatment;
(vii) Section 141.83(b)(4)--designations of maximum permissible
concentrations of lead and copper in source water;
(viii) Section 141.84(e)--determinations establishing shorter lead
service line service line replacement schedules under Sec. 141.84;
(ix) Sections 141.81(b)(3)(iii), 141.86(d)(4)(vii), and
141.86(g)(4)(iii)--determinations of additional monitoring requirements
and/or other actions required to maintain optimal corrosion control by
systems monitoring for lead and copper at the tap less frequently than
once every six months that change treatment or add a new source of
water;
(x) Section 141.85--system-specific decisions regarding the content
of written public education materials and/or the distribution of these
materials;
(xi) Section 141.86(b)(5)--system-specific determinations regarding
use of non-first-draw samples at non-transient non-community water
systems, and community water systems meeting the criteria of
Secs. 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii) of this chapter, that operate 24 hours a
day;
(xii) Section 141.86(c)--system-specific designations of sampling
locations for systems subject to reduced monitoring;
(xiii) Section 141.86(d)(iv)(A)--system-specific determinations
pertaining to alternative sample collection periods for systems subject
to reduced monitoring;
(xiv) Section 141.86(g)--determinations of small system monitoring
waivers, waiver recertifications, and waiver revocations;
(xv) Section 141.87(c)(3)--determinations regarding representative
entry point locations at ground water systems;
(xvi) Section 141.90(e)(4)--system-specific determinations
regarding the submission of information to demonstrate compliance with
partial lead service line replacement requirements; and
(xvii) Section 141.90(f)--system-specific decisions regarding the
resubmission of detailed documentation demonstrating completion of
public education requirements.
(9) Records of reports and any other information submitted by PWSs
under Sec. 141.90 of this chapter, including records of any 90th
percentile values calculated by the State under Sec. 141.90(h) of this
chapter.
(10) Records of State activities, and the results thereof, to:
(i) Verify compliance with State determinations issued under
Secs. 141.82(f) of this chapter, 141.82(h) of this chapter,
141.83(b)(2) of this chapter, and 141.83(b)(4) of this chapter;
(ii) Verify compliance with the requirements related to partial
lead service line replacement under Sec. 141.84(d) of this chapter and
compliance with lead service line replacement schedules under
Sec. 141.84(e) of this chapter; and
(iii) Invalidate tap water lead and copper samples under
Sec. 141.86(f) of this chapter.
(11) Records of each system's currently applicable or most recently
designated monitoring requirements. If, for the records identified in
paragraphs (d)(8)(i) through (d)(8)(xvii) of this section, no change is
made to State determinations during a 12-year retention period, the
State shall retain the record until a new decision, determination, or
designation has been issued.
* * * * *
16. Section 142.15 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (c)(4)(i)
through (c)(4)(vii) as (c)(4)(i)(A) through (c)(4)(i)(G) respectively,
by adding paragraphs (c)(4)(i) introductory text, (c)(4)(ii), and
(c)(4)(iii), and by revising paragraph (c)(4) introductory text to read
as follows:
Sec. 142.15 Reports by States.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) States shall report quarterly, in a format and on a schedule
prescribed by the Administrator, the following information related to
each system's compliance with the treatment techniques for lead and
copper under 40 CFR part 141, subpart I during the preceding calendar
quarter. Specifically, States shall report as follows:
(i) For any reports provided prior to May 15, 2000, States shall
report the name and PWS identification number:
* * * * *
(ii) For any reports provided after May 14, 2000 and before January
14, 2002, States may report in accordance with either paragraph
(c)(4)(i) or (c)(4)(iii) of this section.
(iii) For all reports submitted on or after January 14, 2002,
States shall report the PWS identification number of each public water
system identified in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (F) of this
section.
(A) For each large and medium-size public water system, all 90th
percentile lead levels calculated during each monitoring period
specified in Sec. 141.86 of this chapter, and the first and last day of
the monitoring period for which the 90th percentile lead level was
calculated;
(B) For each small public water system, the 90th percentile lead
level calculated during each monitoring period in which the system
exceeds the lead action level, and the first and last day of each
monitoring period in which an exceedance occurred;
(C) For each public water system (regardless of size), the 90th
percentile copper level calculated during each monitoring period in
which the system exceeds the copper action level, and the first and
last day of each monitoring period in which an exceedance occurred;
(D) For each public water system for which the State has designated
optimal water quality parameters under Sec. 141.82(f) of this chapter,
or which the State has deemed to have optimized corrosion control under
Sec. 141.81(b)(1) or (b)(3) of this chapter, the date of the
determination and the paragraph(s) under which the State made its
determination;
[[Page 2015]]
(E) For each public water system required to begin replacing lead
service lines as specified in Sec. 141.84 of this chapter and the date
each system must begin replacement; and
(F) For each public water system that has implemented optimal
corrosion control, completed applicable source water treatment
requirements pursuant to Sec. 141.83 of this chapter and/or completed
lead service line replacement requirements pursuant to Sec. 141.84 of
this chapter, and the date of the State's determination that these
requirements have been met. The date reported shall be the latest of
the following events:
(1) The date the State designates optimal water quality parameters
under Sec. 141.82(f) of this chapter or deems the system to have
optimized corrosion control pursuant to Sec. 141.81(b)(1) or (b)(3) of
this chapter;
(2) For systems triggered into source water treatment, the date the
State designates maximum permissible source water levels under
Sec. 141.83(b)(4) of this chapter or determines pursuant to
Sec. 141.83(b)(2) of this chapter that source water treatment is not
required; or
(3) For systems triggered into lead service line replacement, the
date the system completes lead service line replacement or becomes
eligible to cease lead service line replacement pursuant to
Sec. 141.84(f) of this chapter.
* * * * *
17. Section 142.16 is amended by adding a paragraph (d)(4) and by
revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 142.16 Special primacy requirements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Section 141.82--State designation of optimal corrosion control.
(i) Sections 141.82(d), 141.82(f), and 141.82(h)--Designating
optimal corrosion control treatment methods, optimal water quality
parameters, and modifications thereto.
(ii) Section 141.82(g)--Designating an alternative approach for
aggregating multiple measurements collected during the same day for a
water quality parameter at a sampling location, if the State elects to
adopt a formula other than the one specified in Sec. 141.82(g)(1) of
this chapter.
* * * * *
(3) Section 141.90(e)--Verifying compliance with lead service line
replacement schedules and completion of all partial lead service line
replacement activities.
(4) Section 141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A)--Designating an alternative period
for sample collection for community water systems subject to reduced
monitoring.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-3 Filed 1-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081011052242im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}