National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper:
Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications
[Federal Register: July 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 137)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40827-40863]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18jy06-17]
[[Page 40828]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 141
[EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0034; FRL-8196-5]
RIN 2040-AE83
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper:
Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing seven targeted regulatory changes to the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) for lead and
copper. This proposal strengthens the implementation of the Lead and
Copper Rule (LCR) in the following areas: monitoring, treatment
processes, customer awareness, and lead service line replacement. These
changes will provide more effective protection of public health by
reducing exposure to lead in drinking water. The proposed changes do
not affect the basic requirements of the LCR, the lead or copper
maximum contaminant level goals, or the lead and copper action levels.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2006. Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions must be received by OMB on or before August 17, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2005-0034, by one of the following methods:
? Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov 
.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
? E-mail: OW-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. OW-
2005-0034.
? Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET,
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
? Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. OW-2005-0034. Please include a total of three
copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk
Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
? Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-
0034. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through http://www.regulations.gov , or e-mail. The
http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://
www.regulations.gov , your e-mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section 1.B
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials
are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water
Docket is (202) 566-2426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical inquiries, contact
Jeffrey Kempic, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC 4607M),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4880. For regulatory
inquiries, contact Eric Burneson at the same address; telephone number:
(202) 564-5250.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
Entities potentially affected by the Lead and Copper Rule Short-
term Regulatory Revisions proposed 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 this action. This
table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your
facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the
definition of ``public water system'' in Sec. 141.2, the section
entitled ``coverage'' of Sec. 141.3, and the applicability criteria in
Sec. Sec. 141.3 and 141.80(a) of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult one of the persons listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
EDOCKET,
[[Page 40829]]
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to submitting
one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed
as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
Abbreviations Used in This Document
ALE: Action Level Exceedance
ANSI: American National Standards Institute
CCR: Consumer Confidence Report
CCT: Corrosion Control Treatment
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
CWS: Community Water System
CWSS: Community Water System Survey
DDBP: Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
FTE: Full-Time Equivalents
ICR: Information Collection Request
LCR: Lead and Copper Rule
LCRMR: Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions
LSL: Lead Service Line
LSLR: Lead Service Line Replacement
LT2: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
MCLG: Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
NDWAC: National Drinking Water Advisory Council
NPDWR: National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NSF: NSF International
NTNCWS: Non-Transient Non-Community Water System
O&M: Operation and Maintenance costs
OMB: Office of Management and Budget
PE: Public Education
POE: Point-of-Entry devices
POU: Point-of-Use devices
RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA: Regulatory Impact Analysis
SBA: Small Business Administration
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS/FED: Safe Drinking Water Information System, Federal Version
UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
WQP: Water Quality Parameter monitoring
Table of Contents
I. Summary
II. Background
A. Reason for This Rulemaking
B. Regulatory History
C. Impacts of This Proposal
III. Proposed Regulatory Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule
A. Minimum Number of Samples Required
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this clarification?
3. How does the proposed change differ from the current requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed change does EPA request
comment on?
B. Definitions For Compliance And Monitoring Periods
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
3. How does the proposed change differ from the current requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed change does EPA request
comment on?
C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
3. How does the proposed change differ from the current requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed change does EPA request
comment on?
D. Advanced Notification and Approval Requirement for Water Systems
That Intend To Make Any Change in Water Treatment or Add A New Source of
Water That Could Affect the System's Optimal Corrosion Control
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
3. How does the proposed change differ from the current requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed change does EPA request
comment on?
E. Requirement To Provide a Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water
Monitoring Results to Consumers Who Occupy Homes or Buildings That
Are Tested for Lead
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
3. How does the proposed change differ from the current requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed change does EPA request
comment on?
F. Public Education Requirements
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
3. How does the proposed change differ from the current requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed change does EPA request
comment on?
G. Reevaluation Of Lead Service Lines Deemed Replaced Through Testing
1. What is EPA proposing?
2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
3. How does the proposed change differ from the current requirement?
4. What issues related to this proposed change does EPA request
comment on?
H. Request For Comment On Other Issues Related To The LCR
1. Plumbing component replacement
2. Point of use and point of entry treatment
3. Site selection in areas with water softeners and POU treatment units
4. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
I. State Implementation
1. How Do These Regulatory Revisions Affect A State's Primacy Program?
2. What does a State have to do to apply?
3. How are Tribes affected?
J. Limitations To Public Comment on the Lead and Copper Rule
K. Proposed Effective Dates
IV. Economic Analysis
A. Direct Costs
B. Overall Cost Methodologies and Assumptions
C. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.A
D. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.B
E. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.C
F. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.D
G. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.E
H. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.F
I. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.G
J. Summary of National Average Annual Direct Costs
K. Total Upfront Costs to Review and Implement Regulatory Changes
L. Indirect Costs
M. Benefits
V. Statutory and Executive Orders
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
VI. References
[[Page 40830]]
II. Background
A. Reason for This Rulemaking
The purpose of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) is to protect
populations from exposure to lead and copper in drinking water and
reduce potential health risks. Recent high profile incidences of
elevated drinking water lead levels in the District of Columbia
prompted EPA to initiate a comprehensive national review of the LCR to
evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the rule. EPA began
the review to determine the following: were drinking water lead levels
elevated nationally; did a large percentage of the population receive
water that exceeded the Lead Action Level; did a significant number of
systems fail to meet the action level; how well has the existing LCR
worked to reduce drinking water lead levels; and has the rule
implementation been effective especially with respect to monitoring and
public education requirements. EPA gathered the information for the
review through a series of stakeholder workshops in late 2004; an
evaluation of monitoring data; and an evaluation of LCR implementation
by States and water utilities.
As a result of the national review and workshops, EPA released a
Drinking Water Lead Reduction Plan in March 2005 which identified nine
actions to improve implementation of the rule. EPA has consolidated
several of the Plan's actions into the seven proposed changes described
in section III of this proposal. These changes to the rule are intended
to strengthen in the short-term the implementation of the LCR in the
areas of monitoring, treatment processes, customer awareness, and lead
service line replacement. Some of the regulatory changes identified in
EPA's review clarify the intent of the original LCR for provisions that
may not have been sufficiently clear, while others revise LCR
requirements in light of the recent experiences in the District of
Columbia and elsewhere. The changes proposed are expected to enhance
protection of public health through a reduction in lead exposure.
EPA has also identified a number of issues that will be considered
for future revisions to the rule. These issues require additional data
collection, research, analysis and/or stakeholder involvement to
support decisions. The issues include, but are not limited to,
requirements for consecutive systems, monitoring, and lead service line
replacement requirements. This proposal does not amend the portion of
the regulations related to copper, however provisions addressing copper
will be considered for future revisions to the rule. EPA will propose
any future regulatory changes under a separate regulatory action.
B. Regulatory History
EPA promulgated maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and NPDWRs
for lead and copper in 1991 (56 FR 26460, June 7, 1991d). 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
community water systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-community water
systems (NTNCWSs) to optimize corrosion control in their distribution
systems and conduct periodic monitoring.
The rule requires systems to optimize corrosion control to prevent
lead and copper from leaching into drinking water. Large systems
serving more than 50,000 people were required to conduct studies of
corrosion control and install state-approved optimal corrosion control
treatment by January 1, 1997. Small and medium systems are required to
optimize corrosion control when monitoring at the consumer taps shows
action is necessary.
To assure corrosion control treatment technique requirements are
effective in protecting public health, the rule also established an
Action Level (AL) of 15 ppb for lead and 1300 ppb for copper in
drinking water. Systems are required to monitor a specific number of
customer taps, based on the size of the system. If lead concentrations
exceed 15 ppb in more than 10% of the taps sampled, the system must
undertake a number of additional actions to control corrosion and
inform the public about steps they should take to protect their health.
The LCR has four main functions: (1) Require water suppliers to
optimize their treatment system to control corrosion in customers'
plumbing; (2) determine tap water levels of lead and copper for
customers who have lead service lines or lead-based solder in their
plumbing system; (3) rule out the source water as a source of
significant lead levels; and (4) if action levels are exceeded, require
the suppliers to educate their customers about lead and suggest actions
they can take to reduce their exposure to lead through public notices
and public education programs. If a water system, after installing and
optimizing corrosion control treatment, fails to meet the Lead Action
Level, it must begin replacing the lead service lines under its ownership.
EPA proposed minor revisions to the LCR (LCRMR) in 1996 (60 FR
16348, U.S. EPA, 1996b) and finalized these minor revisions on January
12, 2000 (65 FR 1950, U.S. EPA, 2000a). These minor revisions
streamlined the requirements of the LCR to promote consistent national
implementation and reduce the reporting burden on affected entities.
These minor revisions also addressed the areas of optimal corrosion
control demonstrations, lead service line replacement requirements,
public education requirements, monitoring requirements, analytical
methods, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and special primacy
considerations. The LCRMR did not change the action levels, MCLGs, or
the rule's basic requirements.
C. Impacts of This Proposal
This proposal will further strengthen protection of the public from
exposure to lead and copper via drinking water by enhancing the
implementation of the LCR in the areas of monitoring, customer
awareness, and lead service line replacement. This action also
clarifies the intent of some unclear provisions in the LCR. The
regulatory revisions proposed today impose costs associated with State
and system review of the regulatory changes, State review of system-
level changes to treatment plans, system reporting and monitoring, and
public education. EPA has estimated the economic impacts for each of
the regulatory changes, which will have direct and indirect costs
associated with them. A detailed description of these impacts is
provided in Section IV, Economic Analysis, of this proposal and in the
Economic Analysis support document.
III. Proposed Regulatory Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule
This section describes the proposed clarifications and revisions to
the Lead and Copper Rule. This section also describes issues and
potential changes the Agency is requesting comment upon. Sections A
through G describe changes proposed and alternatives for which the
Agency is requesting comment. Section H describes several potential
changes for which the Agency is soliciting comment.
A. Minimum Number of Samples Required
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA proposes to clarify the number and location of samples required
for the smallest systems in Sec. 141.86(c) of the LCR. The 1991 LCR
established a minimum number of sites required for
[[Page 40831]]
lead and copper tap monitoring based on system population size. EPA's
proposal maintains five samples per monitoring period as the minimum
number of samples required for systems serving fewer than 100 people.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Clarification?
EPA is proposing this clarification to reduce confusion with
respect to this provision of the rule. EPA considered the issue of
sample size extensively in the 1991 rule. EPA considered all concerns
regarding the number of samples that should be taken and explained the
rationale for the number of samples in the Preamble to the 1991 Final
Rule. Due to the high variability in lead and copper levels, EPA
explained that it was necessary to take more samples than required in
other rules in which the variability is not as high. In the 1991
preamble, EPA also recognized the fact that sampling all households was
not feasible and sought to balance this concern with the need for more
samples to capture variability among lead levels. Specifically, the
preamble stated: ``EPA believes that the number of samples required in
the final rule sufficiently accounts for the variability in lead and
copper levels, and reflects system-wide contaminant level
distributions.'' (56 FR 26460 at 26523, U.S. EPA, 1991b); ``The
requirements of the final rule seek to strike a balance between the
competing needs of ensuring the representativeness of sampling results
and ensuring that the sampling requirements are reasonable and
implementable by public water systems.'' (56 FR 26460 at 26524, U.S.
EPA, 1991b).
In the preamble to the 1991 Rule, EPA also addressed concerns about
the high costs to small systems of implementing the minimum number of
samples requirement as follows: ``EPA understands commenter's concerns
with the potentially high costs of sampling for small systems but
believes the increased number of samples is necessary to ensure that
lead and copper levels are reasonably well represented.'' (56 FR 26460
at 26524, U.S. EPA, 1991d); ``For most systems, collecting more samples
will be far less expensive than undertaking corrosion control or source
water treatment, which they could otherwise be required to install
based on an inappropriately small sample size.'' (56 FR 26460 at 26524,
U.S. EPA, 1991d).
In the preamble to the 2000 minor revisions, EPA revisited the
question of the appropriate number of samples. The 2000 preamble
clarified that even if a system did not have enough high-risk sites to
meet the minimum number of samples, the system must take the required
minimum number of samples. The 2000 Preamble again explains EPA's
rationale for choosing the minimum number of samples, stated as
follows: ``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.'' (65 FR
1950 at 1970, U.S. EPA, 2000a).
Even with the explanations in the 1991 and 2000 preamble, there
continues to be some confusion about the minimum number of samples
required. EPA hopes to clarify this issue further with these revisions.
In the 1991 rule, the term ``site'' is used to refer to the number of
samples collected. However, there has been confusion as to whether site
refers to taps or samples. EPA is proposing additional regulatory
language to clarify that water systems with fewer than five taps must
sample all taps at least once and repeat sampling at some taps in order
to collect the minimum number of samples required. EPA believes this
approach will provide an accurate representation of the lead level.
Because lead levels may change over time, EPA believes this sampling
approach will give a system the most accurate picture of its water
quality. EPA further defines the taps in this clarification to be
``taps used for human consumption'' in order to ensure that samples are
taken from taps which would pose the highest risk for exposure to lead,
rather than from a tap which is not used for drinking, such as an
outside hose bib or utility sink.
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ From the Current Requirement?
The proposal does not alter current requirements. This is a
clarification of the minimum number of samples requirement and does not
represent a change in rule requirements or EPA policy.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed Change Does EPA Request Comment On?
While EPA is proposing to retain the five-sample minimum, EPA is
also soliciting comment on an alternative which would specify that
NTNCWSs with fewer than five taps used for human consumption would only
be required to collect one sample per available tap used for human
consumption. Under this alternative, the highest sample value would be
compared to the action level, rather than an average of the two highest
results. EPA is requesting comment: (1) On whether this alternative
provides equal or greater protection than the proposed change, (2) on
whether the alternative sampling requirement should be allowed only
when the State determines that the system's historical monitoring data
demonstrate the system is reliably and consistently below the action level.
EPA consulted with representatives of five State drinking water
programs in the development of this proposal. The representatives of
the State drinking water programs disagreed with the proposed
clarification to the regulations described in Section III.A2 above. The
State representatives proposed this alternative change to the
regulatory language. State drinking water program representatives have
argued that, while it may make sense to collect a minimum number of
samples for larger community water systems (CWSs) so that there would
be relative confidence in the results being representative of the
system as a whole (due to variability), this does not apply to a system
where 100 percent of the available taps are being tested. These State
drinking water program representatives provided the following four
reasons for their support of the alternative approach in lieu of this
proposed clarification.
First, sampling at 100 percent of available taps will provide a
high level of confidence that the sample results are representative of
levels in the system, since the whole universe of available sampling
sites is being sampled during each monitoring period.
Second, in the event that a system with fewer than five taps has
only one single tap that exceeds the action level, taking a total of
five samples can easily result in the system not having an Action Level
(AL) exceedance (and therefore not needing to solve a lead problem),
because the 90th percentile is calculated by averaging the two highest
samples when there are five samples. When a system takes fewer than
five samples, a single sample above the AL would be considered an AL
exceedance under the alternative to this proposal.
Third, sampling each tap at systems that have fewer than five
better represents variation over time in these systems than does the
sampling for larger systems, since the same sites are sampled
repeatedly (every monitoring period). Larger CWSs frequently have to
change monitoring locations because consumers do not allow the system
employees access to their homes on a repeated basis. Monitoring at 100
percent of the same sites over time (at NTNCWSs) would catch any
changes in plumbing materials introduced over
[[Page 40832]]
time, as well as account for any variability at these sites over time.
Fourth, the alternative option would continue to provide robust
protection for the most vulnerable populations, such as schools and
childcare facilities, since all taps would be sampled. For example, if
a preschool has a tap that exceeds the Lead Action Level, teachers
would know not to use that tap to provide water to children for consumption,
and the system would be required to address that issue immediately.
EPA requests comment upon the alternative option including the four
reasons described above and any other information that should be
considered in evaluating this alternative to the proposed change.
B. Definitions for Compliance and Monitoring Periods
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing a number of clarifications throughout the LCR to
clearly explain when compliance and monitoring periods begin and end.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?
EPA is proposing clarifications regarding monitoring and compliance
periods in order to clarify the meaning of these terms and to address
two issues. The term ``compliance period'' is defined in Sec. 141.2 as
a three-year calendar year period within a nine-year compliance cycle.
The term ``monitoring period'' refers to the specific period within the
compliance period in which a water system must perform the required
monitoring (e.g., June-September).
The first issue concerns the timing of actions following a lead or
copper action level exceedance. For systems on reduced monitoring, they
must monitor either once during each calendar year or once during each
three-year compliance period. The monitoring period is from June to
September or some other four-month period during normal operation when
the highest lead levels are most likely to occur. Under the current
regulations, some systems have been uncertain about when a system is
determined to have exceeded the action level and the corresponding
deadlines for completing corrosion control studies, lead service line
replacement and public education (e.g., end of December or the end of
September for systems monitoring June to September). This change would
clarify that the system would be determined to be exceeding the action
level as of the date on which the monitoring period ended (e.g., on
September 30). This clarification is intended to ensure that the system
and the State begin actions to reduce exposure, such as corrosion
control, public education for lead and/or lead service line
replacement, as soon as possible. The deadlines for completing these
follow-up activities would be calculated from the date the system is
determined to be exceeding the action level (end of the monitoring period).
The second issue concerns the timing of samples that should be
taken during the three-year compliance period for systems on triennial
monitoring. This proposal would require samples to be taken during four
consecutive months within the compliance period, not over multiple
years. This requirement would assure that States and systems have an
accurate assessment of the effectiveness of corrosion control. Under
this requirement, samples will need to be taken during four consecutive
months, during the three-year period. For most systems, this will mean
monitoring during June to September during one of the three years in
the three-year compliance period. For systems where the State has
approved some other four-month period, all samples must be taken during
that four-month period. Sampling during a short, fixed time period will
allow the system to more accurately evaluate the effectiveness of the
corrosion control treatment than would collecting the same number of
samples over a three year period.
We are also proposing that systems on triennial monitoring be
required to conduct their monitoring every three years. Systems would
therefore not be allowed to monitor during Year 1 of the first
compliance period and during Year 3 of the second compliance period
because that would mean five years would have passed between monitoring
rounds. A similar change is also proposed for small systems with
monitoring waivers to ensure that they monitor every nine years.
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ From the Current Requirement?
EPA is proposing clarifications of the terms, ``monitoring period''
and ``compliance period.'' EPA also proposes to revise a number of
sections in the LCR to more precisely specify when the ``start date''
for the compliance calendar occurs. These changes clarify existing
language rather than changing any requirements of the rule. These
clarifications will ensure that corrosion control, public education,
and/or lead service line replacement are started in a timely fashion in
order to reduce exposure to lead. EPA also proposes revisions that will
make it clear when systems may begin reduced monitoring as well as when
they need to resume more frequent monitoring. Again, EPA is not
changing requirements but rather making sure the current requirements
are clear and are consistently implemented.
EPA is also proposing that systems on triennial monitoring must
monitor during one four-month period (called the ``monitoring
period''). EPA is further proposing that systems on triennial
monitoring monitor every three years, so that the start of the next
round of monitoring is based on the previous round of monitoring.
Systems would not be allowed to monitor in Year 1 of one round of one
three-year compliance period and Year 3 of the next three-year period,
since that would allow five years between rounds of monitoring. This
same approach would also be applied to the nine-year cycles for systems
with a monitoring waiver.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed Change Does EPA Request Comment On?
EPA is requesting comment on the clarifications throughout the rule
regarding the terms monitoring period and compliance period. EPA also
requests comments on other sections of the LCR that may need
modification to clarify when actions are required to begin or be
completed. In addition, EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of
requiring systems on reduced monitoring to take all of their required
samples during one four-month period in order to evaluate the
effectiveness of the corrosion control treatment.
C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to disallow water systems that exceed the Lead
Action Level from initiating or remaining on a reduced lead and copper
monitoring schedule based solely on the results of their water quality
parameter monitoring. This proposed change would modify the reduced
monitoring provisions in Sec. 141.86(d)(4), specifically subsections
(ii) , (iii) and (iv). These sections discuss when small and large
water systems may reduce the required number of lead and copper samples
in accordance with paragraph (c) of Sec. 141.86.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?
EPA is proposing this change because the Agency believes that
reduced monitoring should only be permitted in instances in which it
has been demonstrated that corrosion control
[[Page 40833]]
treatment is both effective and reliable. Compliance with water quality
parameters alone may not always indicate that corrosion control is
effective.
Monitoring lead levels is particularly critical for systems that
are exceeding the Lead Action Level for several reasons. One reason is
that it will assist systems in evaluating the effectiveness of
corrosion control treatment. The 1991 LCR intended to allow systems
eligibility for reduced monitoring even if they exceeded the lead or
copper action level if they could demonstrate their corrosion control
treatment was effective by meeting the State-designated water quality
parameters. However, as shown by the events in the District of Columbia
and as stated above, compliance with water quality parameters alone may
not always indicate that corrosion control is effective, especially
after a treatment or source change. Continued exceedance of the Lead
Action Level may indicate that a particular method of corrosion control
treatment is not effective for a particular system and this data may
assist this system in finding a better alternative treatment. In
addition, a system must know if it continues to exceed the Lead Action
Level after installing corrosion control treatment in order to
determine how long its lead service line replacement requirements
remain in effect. Continued understanding of the range of lead levels
detected within the system can also help the system implement an
effective public education program.
Secondly, primacy agencies may gain a more accurate picture of what
lead levels in drinking water currently exist in their States. Many
systems within States share water sources, have similar treatment
technologies, and have similar materials in their distribution systems.
States and other primacy agencies with knowledge of effective corrosion
control for one system may be able to aid other systems within their
jurisdiction in lowering lead levels in water. Having a more accurate
characterization of lead levels in drinking water that exceeds action
levels will also allow States and systems to better inform consumers
and, thereby, create greater confidence in their efforts to reduce lead
levels.
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ From the Current Requirement?
In addition to monitoring lead and copper levels at households,
systems that exceed the lead and copper action level are required to
monitor for water quality parameters established by the State. These
water quality parameters include pH, alkalinity, and other parameters
that reflect the method used to control the corrosivity of the water
(e.g., phosphate levels). States establish acceptable ranges for these
parameters for individual systems that must be maintained to assure
compliance with the rule. Currently a system that meets the water
quality parameter requirements is eligible to reduce the frequency of
its lead and copper monitoring even if the system is currently
exceeding the action levels. The proposed revision would limit the
eligibility of reduced monitoring to only those systems meeting the
Lead Action Level.
Currently, paragraph (4) of Sec. 141.86(d) contains provisions for
when water systems may reduce the monitoring frequency and the number
of required lead and copper samples for systems of various sizes under
both standard and reduced monitoring. Under subparagraph (ii) of this
section, any water system that meets the water quality parameters
specified by the State under Sec. 141.82(f) for two consecutive six-
month monitoring periods may reduce their monitoring to once per year
and reduce the number of samples in accordance with paragraph (c) of
Sec. 141.86 with written approval from the State. Under subparagraph
(iii) of this section, any water system that meets these water quality
parameters for three consecutive years of annual monitoring may reduce
the monitoring frequency to once every three years with written
approval from the State. The Agency is proposing to require that these
systems must also meet the Lead Action Level over the specified time
period as a criterion for reduced monitoring. For example, under
subparagraph (ii) a system would have to meet the Lead Action Level and
the State water quality parameters for two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods in order to be eligible, with written approval from
the State, to reduce its monitoring frequency to once per year and
reduce the number of samples required in accordance with Sec.
141.86(c). This proposed change will also require systems currently on
reduced monitoring schedules that exceed the Lead Action Level during
any four consecutive month monitoring period to resume sampling the
standard monitoring number of sites under Sec. 141.86(c) each
consecutive six-month monitoring period.
It should be noted that subparagraph (i) of Sec. 141.86(d)(4)
allows small- or medium-size water systems to reduce monitoring to once
per year after meeting both the lead and copper action levels for two
consecutive six-month monitoring periods. Subparagraph (iii) of the
same section allows small- and medium-size systems to reduce monitoring
from annually to once every three years after meeting both the lead and
copper action levels for three consecutive years. The Agency is not
proposing to change either of these requirements. Small- and medium-
size systems that meet both the lead and copper action levels may still
reduce monitoring in the manner described in these sections without
State approval.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed Change Does EPA Request Comment on?
EPA requests comment on the proposal to disallow water systems that
are above the Lead Action Level from initiating or maintaining a
reduced monitoring schedule based solely on the results of their water
quality parameter monitoring.
EPA did consider requiring that all systems meet both the lead and
the copper action levels as criteria for eligibility for reduced
monitoring. However, the Agency determined that copper issues should be
considered as part of longer term revisions to the rule. EPA also
believes that adding the copper action level requirement could impose a
large monitoring increase on some small and medium systems that are
currently limited in their ability to reduce copper below the action
level (i.e., high alkalinity ground waters). For these systems, the
States currently have flexibility in the existing rule to limit systems
from proceeding to reduced lead and copper tap monitoring. Under
subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of Sec. 141.86(d)(4), a State may review
and revise its determination to allow a system to proceed with reduced
monitoring when the system submits new monitoring or treatment data, or
when other data relevant to the number and frequency of tap sampling
becomes available.
D. Advanced Notification and Approval Requirement for Water Systems
That Intend To Make Any Change in Water Treatment or Add a New Source
of Water That Could Affect the System's Optimal Corrosion Control
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to amend Sec. 141.81(b)(3)(iii), Sec.
141.86(d)(4)(vii), Sec. 141.86(g)(4)(iii), and Sec. 141.90(a)(3) to
require water systems to obtain prior approval by the State primacy
agency to add a new source of water or change a treatment process prior
to implementation. The proposed regulatory language allows as much time
as needed for water systems and States to consult before making those
[[Page 40834]]
changes. In addition to allowing this type of State discretion, EPA is
currently developing a revised simultaneous compliance guidance
document that can be used by the State to identify those situations
where optimal corrosion control can be affected by changes in treatment
or source water.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?
In the 2000 revisions to the LCR, EPA published in the Federal
Register a requirement that water systems notify the State primacy
agency of the addition of a new source or treatment change no later
than 60 days after implementing the change (65 FR 1950 at 1977, U.S.
EPA, 2000a). When water systems make changes in their source water or
treatment processes there could be unintentional effects on the water
system's optimal corrosion control. The goal of this provision was to
ensure that a water system maintained optimal corrosion control
following changes in water quality resulting from a change in source or
treatment process by providing the primacy authority an opportunity to
review the change and its possible impacts on corrosion control. An
example of change in treatment would be a switch in disinfectant.
EPA now believes that this provision may not be adequate to ensure
continued optimal corrosion control because the primacy agency review
comes too late in the process. If a water system notifies the State
primacy agency of changes that have already been made that could result
in leaching of lead from plumbing components such as service lines,
there may be little opportunity to minimize any anticipated problems
with corrosion or prevent leaching from occurring. For this reason, EPA
believes that such changes in treatment should be reviewed and approved
by the State before they are implemented. Also, EPA believes that this
proposed requirement would fit well into the existing State program
plan review and approval requirements that are part of the State's
primary enforcement responsibilities described in Sec.
142.11(a)(2)(v).
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ From the Current Requirement?
Under the current requirement, water systems must simply provide
written notification to the State within 60 days after the change in
treatment or source has been made. This proposed regulatory revision
requires that the notice of change be given in advance, and the State
must approve the change. This gives water systems the opportunity to
consult with their States and identify any measures that may be
necessary to avoid or minimize potential problems with corrosion
control. It also allows the State to design a monitoring program
upfront, for those situations where it is necessary to ensure that
corrosion control is being maintained adequately after the change has
been made.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed Change Does EPA Request Comment on?
Although EPA believes the proposed regulatory revision is the best
approach to address potential problems with corrosion control when
treatment/source changes are made, EPA requests comment on a number of
issues related to the proposal. First, EPA also considered the
alternative of simply requiring advance notification to the State at
least 60 days before the change. However, EPA decided to propose both
prior notice and approval for two reasons. The first reason is that EPA
could not determine a period for advance notice that would be
appropriate for all changes; in some cases 60 days would be unnecessary
(e.g., emergency changes to chemical feed systems) and in some cases it
would be grossly insufficient (e.g., major system improvements such as
installation of ion-exchange treatment). The second reason is that
several States pointed out that they already require approval of such
changes and thought such approval was necessary to ensure that optimal
corrosion control would be maintained. EPA requests comment on the
advanced notice (without approval) alternative and if commenters favor
the alternative, EPA requests that commenters address the issue of how
much time to provide (e.g., 60 days or another time period).
The second issue on which the Agency would like public comment is
what the phrase ``addition of a new source'' should mean for systems
that mix water sources. For example, a water system can mix source
water by going from 100% surface water to 50% ground water and 50%
surface water on either a permanent or temporary (e.g., seasonal)
basis. In this case, the mixing of source waters might or might not be
considered an addition of a new source under the regulation. Similarly,
a system may change the proportion of two sources such as moving from
75% ground water and 25% surface water to 25% ground water and 75%
surface water. These changes could also affect the water chemistry in a
way that could impact corrosion control. From time to time, water
systems may switch entirely from one source to another, such as going
from 100% surface water to 100% ground water. EPA requests comment on
(1) whether and when such changes should require prior approval and,
(2) if approval should not be required for all such changes, what
criteria should be used to distinguish these kinds of changes in source
water from the source water changes that might affect corrosion control
and need prior approval. Specifically, EPA requests public comment on
whether the words ``source change'' should replace ``addition of a new
source'' to describe a broader range of scenarios where source waters
are changed in some way (e.g., mixing of source waters in different
proportions) or if EPA should describe in more detail in rule or
preamble language or guidance which types of changes require prior
State approval.
E. Requirement To Provide a Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water
Monitoring Results to Consumers Who Occupy Homes or Buildings That Are
Tested for Lead
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to amend the public education requirements
described in Sec. 141.80 (g) and add a new notification requirement at
Sec. 141.85(d) that will require water systems to provide consumers
who occupy homes or buildings that are part of the utility's monitoring
program with testing results when their drinking water is tested for lead.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?
Although some utilities may provide customers with the results of
analyses conducted to meet requirements of the regulations, utilities
are not currently required by EPA to notify occupants of the lead
levels found in their drinking water. While samples are primarily
collected to evaluate the effectiveness of corrosion control or to
evaluate the corrosivity of the utility's water across the entire
service area, the results of lead monitoring can provide useful
information to the occupants of the household from which the samples
were taken. Occupants can evaluate the results of lead tests for their
drinking water and use that information to inform any decisions they might
make to take action to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water.
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ From the Current Requirement?
There are currently no provisions in the regulation that require
water utilities to notify occupants of results of routine monitoring
conducted to comply with the LCR. Community water systems
[[Page 40835]]
must collect samples from between five and 100 households to evaluate
lead and copper concentrations. Non-transient, non-community water
systems (including some schools that operate their own water system)
must also collect samples. This proposed rule change would require
systems to provide written notification to occupants of the households
no later than 30 days after the utility learns the results for the
samples collected from that household and to post or otherwise notify
occupants of non-residential buildings of the results of the lead
testing. This would include staff and parents of students for schools
that are tested as non-transient non-community water systems.
While there are no current requirements associated with
notification of results of routine monitoring in the LCR, there are
requirements for utilities to provide notice to homeowners when their
water is tested in carrying out partial lead service line replacement.
Section 141.84(d)(1) requires that utilities test water within 72 hours
after the completion of partial replacement of a lead service line. The
utility must 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. Utilities must provide the information by mail or by other
methods approved by the State. In instances where multi-family
dwellings are served by the line, the water system has the option to
post the information at a conspicuous location. This provision is not
affected by the proposed rule change.
The proposed language would require utilities to provide consumers
(owners or occupants) at locations that were tested during routine tap
monitoring pursuant to Sec. 141.86 with a consumer notice of the tap
monitoring results as soon as practical, but no later than 30 days
after the utility learns of the results. The notice must contain an
explanation of the health effects of lead, list steps consumers can
take to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water, provide contact
information for the utility, include the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
(0 ([mu]g/L), the action level (15 ([mu]g/L) and an explanation of what
these values mean. The results must be provided by mail or other
methods approved by the State.
EPA selected thirty days as the timeframe for notifying consumers
of results because it is consistent with the notification time frame
for a Tier 2 Public Notice and because it would better allow utilities
sufficient time to generate a large number of notices for mailing at
one time. The purpose for including the MCLG and the action level is to
give consumers context as to their level of exposure in comparison to
the goal and standard established for lead in drinking water. The MCLG
is the level at which no known adverse health effects occur (with an
adequate margin of safety) and the action level is the concentration of
lead that States and systems use to determine if systems must install
corrosion control treatment if they have not already done so, or if
they must begin public education and lead service line replacement.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed Change Does EPA Request Comment On?
EPA seeks comment on several specific elements associated with the
proposed requirements. Is 30 days sufficient time to provide
notification, or is a shorter or longer time frame appropriate? Is it
appropriate to include the MCLG and the action level and a brief
explanation of their significance, or is there some other information
that systems should or could be asked to provide that would be more
useful to consumers in determining whether their tap monitoring results
warrant further action to protect household members, especially
children, from lead exposure through drinking water?
Additionally, during development of the proposal, it was suggested
that this provision would cause an undue burden on non-transient non-
community water systems. EPA believes it is important to include non-
transient non-community systems because many of them are schools or
childcare facilities, which provide water to the population more
susceptible to lead exposure. Given the flexibilities included in the
proposal related to means of delivery, EPA seeks comment on whether
this provision would cause an undue burden to non-transient non-
community water systems.
F. Public Education Requirements
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to change the public education requirements of the
Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) in the Code of Federal Regulations at Sec.
141.85. The proposal would still require water systems to deliver
public education materials after a Lead Action Level exceedance. EPA is
proposing to change, however, the content of the message to be provided
to consumers, how the materials are delivered to consumers, and the
timeframe in which materials must be delivered. The changes to the
delivery requirements include additional organizations that systems
must partner with to disseminate the message to at-risk populations as
well as changes to the media used to disseminate information to ensure
that it reaches consumers when there is an action level exceedance.
In addition to the changes to Sec. 141.85 for the LCR, EPA is also
proposing a change to Sec. 141.154(d) for the Consumer Confidence
Report (CCR) rule, which requires community water systems to send an
annual report to billed customers containing information relevant to
the quality of the drinking water provided by the system (63 FR 44512,
August 19, 1998, U.S. EPA 1998a). EPA is proposing to change the CCR
rule to require all community water systems that detect lead in their
compliance monitoring samples to include information about the risks of
lead in drinking water in the report on a regular basis.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?
EPA is proposing to change the public education requirements of the
LCR in order to improve compliance and ensure that consumers receive
the information they need to appropriately limit their exposure to lead
in drinking water. Because the sources of lead are frequently within
the home and reduction of lead in drinking water is the responsibility
of both the public water systems and the consumer, EPA wants to ensure
that information is delivered and that it is meaningful and useful to
the consumer.
EPA identified compliance as an important issue during its review
of LCR implementation. Based on EPA's review of state files, over 40
percent of water utilities did not conduct the required public
education; therefore the at-risk population did not get information
they needed to reduce their exposure from lead in drinking water (Lead
and Copper Rule State File Review: National Report, EPA, March 2006a)
EPA believes the changes in this proposal better ensure that at-risk
populations receive information quickly and are able to act to reduce
their exposure. EPA also believes water systems will be better able to
comply with these proposed requirements.
During EPA's national review of the LCR, many stakeholders stated
that the public education requirements needed improvement. In September
2004, EPA held an expert workshop to discuss the public education
requirements of the rule. A number of concerns were raised at this
workshop about the effectiveness of the existing public education
language and requirements. Workshop
[[Page 40836]]
participants stated that the mandatory language in the rule is too
long, cumbersome, and complex to convey to the general public an
understanding of the risk posed by lead in drinking water and an
appropriate course of action. Public education must put the risk in
context and convey to the public the appropriate sense of urgency for
consumers to act to reduce exposure. In addition, workshop members
called for public education messages to be tailored to those who are at
highest risk for lead exposure. Many participants stated that the
mandatory language and delivery requirements in the current rule were
ineffective in providing useful and timely information to the public.
(Summary from Public Education Workshop, U.S. EPA, 2004a).
In order to address these concerns, the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council (NDWAC), EPA's advisory body on the Safe Drinking
Water Act, formed a working group to consider possible revisions to the
public education requirements. The charge for the NDWAC Working Group
was to (1) review the current public education requirements for lead in
drinking water to make recommendations for improvements; (2) develop
recommended revised language for communicating to the public the risk
of lead in drinking water and how affected persons should respond; and
(3) review and make recommendations for changes to the means of
delivery of lead information to the public (70 FR 54375, U.S. EPA, 2005).
The NDWAC Working Group met in person four times between October
2005 and April 2006. The Working Group was comprised of 16 individuals
representing an array of backgrounds and perspectives. Collectively,
these individuals brought into the discussion the perspectives of State
drinking water agencies, environmental and consumer groups, drinking
water utilities, small system advocates, State health officials, and
risk communication experts.
The NDWAC Working Group raised a number of concerns with the public
education requirements of the LCR that are consistent with the concerns
expressed at the 2004 workshop. The NDWAC Working Group recommended
that the rule be modified to better ensure that information reaches the
most vulnerable populations (e.g., pregnant women, infants and young
children) or their caregivers. They also recommended changes to ensure
that these consumers received information in a more timely manner and
continued to receive information throughout any exceedance. They also
recommended changes to ensure that the information is easy to
understand and effective in informing affected consumers and
encouraging parents or other caregivers to take actions to reduce
exposure of infants and children to lead. In addition, the NDWAC
Working Group recommended changes to make sure critical information
reaches not only bill paying customers, but those consumers who live in
apartments and other housing where residents do not receive bills.
Finally, the NDWAC Working group was also concerned about the
amount of time it may take to test water, get back the results,
calculate the 90th percentile, and finally send out public education
materials. They were concerned that an individual could be drinking
water with high lead levels for months before knowing of the problem.
As a result, they recommended changes to increase the timeliness of
public education on lead in drinking water.
The NDWAC recommendations are, in part, modeled after the public
education information under two existing EPA rules, the CCR rule and
the Public Notification Rule (65 FR 25982, U.S. EPA, 2000b). The NDWAC
recommendations form the basis for the changes to Sec. 141.85 proposed
in this rulemaking.
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ From the Current Requirement?
The public education requirements in this proposal differ in a
number of ways from the current requirements of the LCR. This proposal
still requires water systems to complete the public education
requirement after a Lead Action Level exceedance, but changes the
mandatory content of written materials, delivery requirements, and
timing of when systems must complete all required activities. This
proposal also changes the requirements for the language or content of
written materials, giving water systems more flexibility to tailor the
public education message to their community and situation. EPA believes
these changes will make the public education program more effective. In
addition, this proposal changes the delivery requirements in a number
of ways. Water systems will be required to send written materials to
additional organizations in an attempt to better reach at-risk
populations. This proposal also requires the systems to do several
additional activities but allows them to pick from a list of activities
in order to do what is most effective for their community. This
proposal requires that water systems maintain communication with
consumers throughout the Lead Action Level exceedance by including
information with every water bill; provide two press releases a year;
and for larger systems, include information on their Web site. This
proposal allows primacy agencies to give water systems more time to
complete the additional activities and deliver water bills. Finally,
this proposal includes changes to the Consumer Confidence Report to
ensure consumers are aware of concerns about lead in drinking water.
a. Changes to the Mandatory Text of the Written Materials
This proposal requires the system to continue to deliver written
materials to all customers as well as a number of key organizations.
However, EPA is proposing to change the content of the required written
materials. Currently, Sec. 141.85 requires written materials to
include mandatory language consisting of over 1,800 words describing
health effects, lead in drinking water, steps to reduce exposure, and
how to obtain additional information. Under this proposal, the
mandatory language would be much shorter and easier to understand. The
mandatory language would address essential topics such as the opening
statement and health effects language. Community Water Systems and Non-
Transient Non-Community Water Systems would still be required to
provide information on other topics, but the system may either use
EPA's suggested language or their own words to explain these topics.
EPA believes that this format will result in more effective public
education materials.
EPA does recognize that small systems do not have the resources to
create their own language for the required topics, so EPA will provide
language in guidance that systems can use to explain all of the
required topics in the regulation. For example, EPA is giving systems
more flexibility in the language they use for flushing instructions,
yet for systems that do not have data to identify clear flushing
instructions, EPA will suggest flushing times to share with customers.
b. Changes To Better Reach At-Risk Populations
EPA is proposing to add organizations to the list of recipients of
the public education materials in order to increase the likelihood that
the most vulnerable populations or their caregivers will receive the
information they need to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking
water. EPA is proposing to add licensed childcare centers, preschools,
Obstetricians-Gynecologists and Midwives to the current list of
organizations to which a system must deliver information. In addition,
EPA is
[[Page 40837]]
proposing a new requirement that systems include a cover letter with
the printed materials that they send to these organizations to explain
the importance of sharing this information with their customers/
patients. This proposal is designed to help ensure that the information
reaches non-bill paying customers; these customers may be reached
through these organizations if the organizations are provided with the
necessary information and encouraged to share the task of improving
public awareness.
While it is important for this information to get to all of these
organizations, EPA believes that the local health agencies play an
important role in making sure consumers who are most vulnerable receive
the information they need to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking
water. In order to make sure the local health agencies know about the
Lead Action Level exceedance, EPA is proposing to require systems to
directly contact (e.g., phone, in person, etc.) the local health agency
rather than simply delivering brochures to this organization. By
directly contacting the local health agency, utilities can enlist the
health agency's support in disseminating information on lead in
drinking water and the steps that vulnerable populations can take to
reduce their exposure.
In addition to using organizations to disseminate information to
at-risk populations, EPA is also proposing that systems complete
additional activities from a list of options. The list of additional
activities that systems can choose from includes:
? Public Service Announcements
? Paid advertisements such as newspaper or transit ads
? Information displays in public areas such as grocery stores
? Using the internet or email to disseminate information
? Public meetings
? Delivery to every household (not just bill paying customers)
? Individual contact with customers such as door hangers
? Provide materials directly to multi-family homes and institutions
? Other methods approved by the primacy agency
This proposal requires that systems serving 3,300 people or above
be required to do three additional public education activities from the
list of possible items and systems serving 3,300 or fewer individuals
must do one additional activity from this list. The system must work in
consultation with the primacy agency to ensure the content of each of
these additional activities is appropriate. EPA is proposing that a
system can choose three items from one, two, or three of these general
categories. For instance, a system can do a series of paid
advertisements if that is the most effective way to reach the target
populations in their community.
System, State and consumer representatives on the NDWAC Working
Group all agreed that what works in one community does not always work
best in another community. In order to make the public education as
effective as possible, EPA is proposing to give systems some
flexibility in how they deliver their public education materials. They
are still required to disseminate information to people served by their
system, but they have some flexibility in how they complete their
program. For instance, a large system in an urban area may choose to
use a public service announcement and paid advertisements to reach
consumers, while a system in a rural area may find the best way to
reach customers is through displaying information in frequently visited
public areas or public meetings.
In the current regulation, small systems are able to limit their
distribution to only those facilities and organizations frequented by
the most vulnerable populations. While systems serving less than 500
people may do this without approval from the state, systems serving
501-3,300 may limit their distribution if they receive written approval
from the state. This proposal changes this so that all small systems
serving 3,300 or fewer people may limit their distribution to only
those places frequented by the most vulnerable populations without
written approval from the state.
c. Changes To Help Systems Maintain Communication With Consumers
Throughout the Exceedance
In order to ensure continued contact with consumers, EPA is also
proposing that systems include information in or on the water bill as
long as there is an exceedance of the Lead Action Level. EPA recognizes
that this requirement can be difficult for some systems that are unable
to print messages on their bills, so there is a provision to allow
systems to work with their primacy agency to deliver this information
in a different way.
Another way that this proposal encourages continuous communication
with consumers is by requiring systems with a population greater than
100,000 to put the public education information on their Web site.
Under the proposal, this information must remain on the Web site until
the system tests below the Lead Action Level.
Currently, systems that exceed the Lead Action Level must issue a
press release. EPA is proposing to require that systems distribute two
press releases per year in order to ensure systems are maintaining
communication with their customers. The systems must send the press
releases to the major newspapers and TV and radio stations which serve
the population served by the water system. This is another way to reach
consumers who do not receive water bills. In response to concerns about
small systems' ability to complete this requirement, in this proposal,
primacy agencies can waive the press release requirement if there are
no media outlets that specifically target the population served by the
system. In addition, this proposal removes the requirement for medium and
large systems to provide two Public Service Announcements (PSA) per year.
d. Changes to the Required Timing of Completion of Public Education
Requirements
While this proposal would still require systems to complete most of
their public education in 60 days, there is increased flexibility for
the primacy agency to allow longer periods of time for completion of
water bill delivery and the additional activities from the list of
options. This proposal would allow more time so that a system could
align its billing cycle with the public education requirements. EPA
understands that many systems have a billing cycle which may begin
within the 60 days time frame but not all customers would be billed at
the same time. The primacy agency may allow the system to include
information with their regular billing cycle even if this means some
customers receive this part of the public education program a bit later
than the 60-day window. In addition, EPA is proposing to allow the
system to work with the primacy agency on a schedule to complete the
additional items such as PSAs or advertisements. This is intended to
encourage systems to pick the items from this list that will be most
effective and will reach the most vulnerable populations rather than
the items that are easiest and quickest to complete. In order to make
sure that the public education program is effective, the primacy agency
may allow the system to take a bit longer to complete these more
complicated items. The system must still complete all other aspects of
the public education program, such as delivering materials to
organizations that work with at-risk populations, posting information
on their Web site and submitting press releases within the 60 days.
This will
[[Page 40838]]
ensure that customers receive some information as quickly as possible.
e. Changes to Consumer Confidence Reports
The NDWAC suggested changes to the CCR rule to address the concern
that materials may not be delivered immediately and therefore
vulnerable populations may drink water with high levels of lead for
months before knowing of the risk. Under current regulations, all water
systems that detect lead above the action level in more than five
percent of the homes sampled must include a short informational
statement about lead in drinking water in their CCR. In this action,
EPA is proposing that all Community Water Systems who detect lead above
the method detection limit of 0.001 mg/L in their compliance monitoring
samples provide information in their annual CCR on lead in drinking
water. This approach is consistent with the CCR rule requirements for
the other inorganic contaminants in Sec. 141.151, which is also based
on the method detection limit. This short statement will help to ensure
that all vulnerable populations or their caregivers receive information
on how to reduce their risk to lead in drinking water at least once a
year. In addition, the NDWAC recommended changes to the language in the
informational statement to make the risk of lead in drinking water
clear as well as to include basic steps on how to reduce exposure to
lead in drinking water and where to go for more information. EPA is
proposing these changes in this rule.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed Change Does EPA Request Comment on?
EPA is asking for comment on the proposed revisions to the public
education requirements under the Lead and Copper Rule. In particular,
EPA requests comment upon revisions to the mandatory language for
written materials. EPA requests comment on the flexibility provided in
the requirements for the content of written public education materials.
EPA also requests comment on the shortened mandatory language and
suggested language for other required topics. Do commenters believe
this revised language is clearer and will be easier for consumers to
understand? Is the proposed health effects language and information on
steps consumers can take to reduce lead exposure useful to consumers?
Should the language also indicate that exceedence of the action level
at the 90th percentile tap reading does not mean that all consumers are
exposed to elevated levels of lead? Do commenters have any concerns
about compliance with the proposed content requirements? Should EPA
require systems to submit their written materials to primacy agencies
before distributing them? EPA also requests comment on whether or not
systems should be required to modify their public education materials
if the primacy agency determines it is not consistent with the
mandatory language.
The mandatory language includes a section on contacts for more
information. This section includes a requirement for the system to
include how to contact both the system and EPA. EPA requests comment on
whether there should be a mandatory requirement to include the contact
information for the State drinking water primacy agency. EPA is aware
that a number of States adopt EPA drinking water regulations by
reference and these States would not be able to insert a requirement
for systems to provide State contact information. Would States who
adopt by reference face a challenge encouraging customers to contact
their office under the current proposal?
EPA also seeks comment on the delivery requirements for the public
education message. Will the changes to the delivery requirements make
the public education program more effective at reaching the most
vulnerable populations? Are there other delivery mechanisms EPA should
consider? EPA is also interested in any studies or information
commenters have on ways to reach the populations of concern.
The delivery requirements in this proposal expand on the
requirement that systems deliver public education materials to certain
organizations such as schools, pediatricians, childcare centers, etc.
EPA requests comment as to how a system that exceeds the Lead Action
Level should determine to which of these organizations it must deliver
materials. Should the system deliver materials to only organizations
that are served by that system, all organizations in the county or
other local government jurisdiction, or all organizations that provide
service to the population served by the water system?
EPA is proposing that Community Water Systems consult with the
primacy agency to ensure the information they disseminate as part of
the additional activities under Sec. 141.85(b)(2)(vi) is appropriate.
EPA is interested in whether commenters believe this is too great a
burden on the primacy agency. Should EPA determine the required content
for these additional activities? If EPA should make this determination,
do commenters have suggestions for what the content should be?
EPA is interested in whether commenters agree that some water
systems will need more than 60 days to complete delivery of water bills
which include the public education information and the additional
activities from the list (e.g., PSAs, paid advertisements, etc.)
EPA also requests comment on whether this proposal adequately
addresses the concerns of small systems. Many small systems have
limited resources and limited technical capabilities. Will these
systems be able to complete the requirements, and if so, will this make
for an effective public education program in their communities?
EPA also requests comment on the proposed modifications to the CCR
rule requirements for lead. First, EPA requests comment on requiring
systems that detect any lead to include language in their consumer
confidence report. This requirement would be triggered for systems
detecting lead above the method detection limit of 0.001 mg/L. EPA is
interested in whether commenters think the criterion should be
detecting lead above the practical quantitation level of 0.005 mg/L, or
above some other level that may be more relevant for consumers in
determining whether they should take any further action?
Second, EPA requests comment as to whether the CCR is an effective
way to reach the targeted populations before there is a major problem
in a water system. Are there other vehicles for reaching these
individuals that EPA should consider?
Third, EPA requests comment upon the content of the informational
statement to be included in the CCR for systems that detect lead or
exceed the Lead Action Level. EPA requests comment on whether this
language would be effective in raising the targeted populations'
awareness of the effects of lead in drinking water and steps they can
take to minimize exposure to lead. In particular, EPA notes that the
proposed language is essentially the same whether the system has
exceeded the action level or not. Should EPA develop language that
communicates a greater urgency about taking further action in
situations where the action level has been exceeded than in situations
where it has not? EPA also notes that the language focuses on the
household plumbing as the potential sources of lead in drinking water.
EPA requests comment as to whether other potential sources of lead
(e.g., service lines) should be identified for the consumer.
[[Page 40839]]
G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines Deemed Replaced Through Testing
1. What Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to require water systems to reevaluate lead
service lines classified as ``replaced'' through testing if they resume
lead service line replacement programs. This would only apply to a
system that had (1) initiated a lead service line replacement program,
then (2) discontinued the program, and then (3) subsequently resumed
the program. When resuming the program, this system would have to
reconsider for replacement any lead service lines previously deemed
replaced through the testing provisions in Sec. 141.84(c) during the
initial program. This proposed change would add a subsection to the
lead service line replacement requirements in Sec. 141.84(b) to include
provisions for systems resuming lead service line replacement programs.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing This Change?
Lead service line replacement is intended as an additional step to
reduce lead exposure when corrosion control treatment is unsuccessful.
The provision in Sec. 141.84(c), which allows systems to leave in
place an individual lead service line if the lead concentration in all
service line samples from that line is less than or equal to 0.015 mg/
L, is intended to maximize the exposure reduction achieved per service
line replaced by avoiding the disruption and cost of replacing lines
that are not leaching high levels of lead. However, samples taken from
a lead service line pursuant to Sec. 141.84(c) cannot predict future
conditions of the system or of the service line. Systems can
discontinue a lead service line replacement program by meeting the Lead
Action Level for two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods. Therefore,
EPA is proposing that these systems reconsider any lines previously
determined to not require replacement if they exceed the action level
again in the future and resume the lead service line replacement program.
3. How Does the Proposed Change Differ From the Current Requirement?
A system that exceeds the action level must replace at least seven
percent of its lead service lines each year until it is under the
action level for two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods. Currently,
a system is not required to replace an individual lead service line if
the lead concentration in all service line samples from that line are
less than or equal to 0.015 mg/L. The proposed revision would continue
to allow systems to determine if a lead service line does not require
replacement in this manner. However, the proposal would not allow
systems to consider such lines as permanently removed from the
replacement program. This rule change would apply to a system that (1)
exceeds the action level, (2) tests out one or more service lines, (3)
brings lead levels below the action level for two consecutive 6-month
monitoring periods and discontinues replacing lead service lines, and
(4) later exceeds the action level again. That system would have to
reinitiate lead service line replacement considering all lead service
lines including those that had previously tested out of the replacement
program under Sec. 141.84 (c). The system would divide the updated
number of remaining lead service lines by the number of remaining years
in the initial lead service line replacement program to determine the
number of lines that must be replaced per year. Systems resuming lead
service line replacement programs as detailed above would not have 15
years from the date of recommencement and, thus, would not be able to
restart the ``clock'' for their lead service line replacement program.
Such systems would have to consider the number of years remaining as 15
minus the number of years they had completed in their initial
replacement program (i.e., a system resuming after conducting two years
of replacement has 13 years in which to complete the program). In 1991,
EPA established the maximum replacement schedule of 15 years for all
systems. This was because the Agency believed that if systems were
allowed to replace lead service lines as part of normal maintenance, it
may take as long as 50 years before all of the problematic lead lines
were replaced in some systems. EPA believed that it was necessary to
accelerate the rate at which systems would otherwise replace lead
service lines in order to ensure that public health is adequately
protected (56 FR 26460 at 26507-26508, U.S. EPA, 1991d). Therefore, the
Agency believes that systems that are exceeding the action level should
have no more than 15 years to replace all of their lead service lines,
as intended by the current rule.
4. What Issues Related to This Proposed Change Does EPA Request Comment on?
EPA requests comment on the proposal to require water systems to
reevaluate lead service lines classified as ``replaced'' through
testing if they resume lead service line replacement programs.
H. Request for Comment on Other Issues Related to the Lead and Copper Rule
The following subsection describes additional issues related to the
Lead and Copper Rule for which the Agency is considering changes to
regulations.
1. Plumbing Component Replacement
Some water systems may choose to replace plumbing fixtures, pipes,
and components to greatly reduce the amount of lead or copper in tap
water to a level below the action level. Generally this approach only
applies to water systems that have 100% ownership over the plumbing
infrastructure; some schools and other institutions can fall into this
category. The Agency believes that this type of strategy can be cost-
efficient and a more effective way to address corrosion of lead and
copper. EPA is requesting comment as to whether plumbing replacement
should be specifically defined as a corrosion control technique, or
explicitly identified as an alternative to corrosion control
optimization for small and medium systems.
Small water systems can use fixture replacement with existing
provisions of the lead and copper rule to become optimized. Under Sec.
141.81(b)(1), a small or medium-size system is deemed to have optimized
corrosion control if the system meets the lead and copper action levels
during each of two consecutive six-month monitoring periods conducted
in accordance with Sec. 141.86. Thus, non-transient, non-community
water systems, where 100% of the plumbing fixtures and components are
directly controlled by the system, could replace them and be optimized
once the system met the action level for two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods.
Although water systems (typically non-transient non-community water
systems) can replace pipes, fixtures and plumbing components to meet
the lead or copper action level, this method of compliance is not
specified in the LCR as a corrosion control technique. When a system
exceeds the action level, it must initiate the treatment steps under
Sec. 141.81(e) that require the evaluation of corrosion control
options and the recommendation of optimal corrosion control treatment.
The current regulations could be read to require a small or medium
system to perform evaluations of the corrosion control techniques
listed in Sec. 141.82(c)(1), even when the system is planning to
replace plumbing components and is thus unlikely to install such
corrosion control treatment. However, EPA
[[Page 40840]]
believes that there is sufficient flexibility under the current rule
for systems that replace plumbing to qualify as optimized under Sec.
141.81(b)(1) without having to undertake an unnecessary evaluation of
corrosion control options. Under Section 141.81(e)(2), after an initial
action level exceedance, the system has 12 months (or two monitoring
periods) before the State makes a determination about requiring a
corrosion control study. The plumbing replacement option, as a
practical matter, is limited to small or medium non-transient, non-
community water systems; under Section 141.81(e)(2)(ii), where the
State does not require a system to conduct a corrosion control study, a
system has 24 months after the action level exceedance (or four
monitoring periods) before the State specifies optimal corrosion
control treatment. As a result, very small water systems could replace
the plumbing and conduct monitoring to demonstrate that the system is
below the action level for two consecutive six-month monitoring periods
within this 24-month period, although to do this, they would have to
complete the plumbing replacement within 12 months of exceeding the
action level. The Agency is requesting comment on whether there is
enough existing flexibility under the current rule for very small
systems to optimize using plumbing replacement or whether EPA should
consider defining plumbing replacement as a corrosion control technique
or as an alternative to corrosion control for small and medium systems.
In particular, the Agency requests comment on whether 12 months is
sufficient time for a small or medium system to replace plumbing
components. If EPA were to allow States to specify plumbing replacement
as a treatment option for small and medium systems, the systems would
then have 24 months to complete the replacement, rather than the 12
months that they effectively have under the current rules.
EPA believes that there are a number of questions that would need
to be resolved before listing plumbing component replacement as a
corrosion control technique or an alternative to corrosion control.
What materials should be used for replacement materials, since ``lead-
free'' products still contain lead? What components would be replaced--
just end-point devices such as faucets or would it also include in-line
devices, such as valves and water meters? What would be the enforceable
water quality parameters for this alternative to corrosion control? How
would excursions from the optimal water quality parameters be measured?
If these techniques are listed under Sec. 141.81(c)(1) as corrosion
control techniques, would all systems need to evaluate them as part of
the corrosion control study? For systems that fail to meet the action
level, would the State still need to specify the minimum pH values,
even though the system may not be adjusting pH?
2. Point of Use and Point of Entry Treatment
Another strategy for reducing the lead or copper levels below the
action level would be the use of point of use (POU) or point of entry
(POE) devices. As with plumbing replacement, EPA is requesting comment
as to whether use of POU or POE devices should be specifically defined
as a corrosion control technique, or explicitly identified as an
alternative to corrosion control optimization for small systems.
Both POU and POE devices are identified in the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) as potential compliance technologies for small systems. In
addition, the SDWA also lists a number of requirements for POU and POE
devices if they are used as compliance technologies. These include: (1)
POU and POE devices shall be owned, controlled and maintained by the
public water system or by a person under contract to a public water
system to ensure proper operation and maintenance and compliance with
the treatment technique; (2) POU and POE devices must be equipped with
mechanical warnings to ensure that customers are automatically notified
of operational problems; and (3) if the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) has issued product standards applicable to a specific
type of POU or POE treatment unit, individual units of that type shall
not be accepted for compliance with a treatment technique requirement
unless they are independently certified in accordance with such
standards. The NSF/ANSI drinking water treatment unit standards do
cover lead removal, so devices would need to be certified against one
of the following standards: NSF/ANSI 53 Reduction Claims for Drinking
Water Treatment Units--Health Effects, NSF/ANSI 58 Reduction Claims for
Reverse Osmosis Drinking Water Treatment Systems, or NSF/ANSI 62
Reduction Claims for Drinking Water Distillation Systems.
One limitation with POE devices is that there can still be lead-
containing plumbing after the POE device. Faucets, solder joints, etc.
could still contribute high lead levels, so this approach may not be
successful if the water is corrosive.
EPA believes that small systems can use POU devices, if they meet
the SDWA requirements discussed above for their use, to comply with the
lead and copper rule under existing provisions of the rule. Under Sec.
141.81(b)(1), a small or medium-size system is deemed to have optimized
corrosion control if the system meets the lead and copper action levels
during each of two consecutive six-month monitoring periods conducted
in accordance with Sec. 141.86. Thus, small water systems where POU
devices are installed and meet the SDWA requirements could be optimized
once the system met the action level for two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods after their installation at all sites.
Although small water systems can use POU devices to meet the lead
or copper action level, this method of compliance is not specified in
the current LCR as a corrosion control technique. As a result, the same
issue arises as discussed above with respect to plumbing replacement.
The current regulations could be read to require a small system to
perform evaluations of the corrosion control techniques listed in Sec.
141.82(c)(1) even when the system is planning to install POU devices
(in accordance with all applicable requirements of the SDWA) and is
thus unlikely to install such corrosion control treatment.
EPA believes that there may be sufficient flexibility under the
current rule for systems that use POU devices to qualify as optimized
under Sec. 141.81(b)(1) without having to undertake an unnecessary
evaluation of corrosion control options. However, EPA recognizes that
the same timing issue as discussed above for plumbing replacement may
be a concern. Specifically, systems would effectively have only 12
months to install the POU devices at all required taps in order to be
able to demonstrate two consecutive six-month monitoring periods where
the action level was not exceeded, before the end of the 24-month
deadline for installing corrosion control treatment. The Agency is
requesting comment on whether there is enough existing flexibility
under the current rule for small systems to optimize using POU devices
or whether EPA should define POU devices as a corrosion control
technique, or as an acceptable alternative to corrosion control for
small systems, which would have the effect of giving systems 24 months
rather than 12 months to install such treatment.
EPA believes that there are a number of questions that would need
to be resolved before listing POU as an alternative to corrosion
control. What
[[Page 40841]]
would be the enforceable water quality parameters for this alternative
to corrosion control? How would excursions from the optimal water
quality parameters be measured? If these techniques are listed under
Sec. 141.81(c)(1) as corrosion control techniques, would all systems
need to evaluate them as part of the corrosion control study? For
systems that fail to meet the action level, would the State still need
to specify the minimum pH values, even though the system may not be
adjusting pH?
3. Site Selection in Areas With Water Softeners and POU Treatment Units
The previous section discussed the use of POU or POE devices on a
system-wide basis to remove lead and/or copper. However, many homes
have whole house (point-of-entry) water softeners or treatment units at
the kitchen tap (point-of-use), even though the system is not
installing and maintaining these units. Section 141.86(a)(1) states
that sampling sites may not include faucets that have point-of-use or
point-of-entry treatment devices designated to remove inorganic
contaminants. EPA requests comment upon whether the LCR should be
amended to allow lead and copper tap samples to be collected at taps
that have POU/POE devices under certain conditions.
Households may have reverse osmosis POU units that are capable of
removing a number of contaminants, including lead and copper. These
devices are typically installed with a separate tap at the kitchen
sink. In systems where POU devices are not owned, controlled and
maintained by the water systems, these sites could be included and
still meet the requirements of Sec. 141.86(a)(1) because samples could
be taken from the regular untreated tap at the kitchen or a sample
could be taken from an untreated bathroom tap. Since POU devices have
not been installed system-wide, samples should not be taken from a POU
treated tap at these sites.
Some areas of the country may find that the prevalence of POE water
softeners restricts the ability of the water system to find homes where
these units are not installed. This scenario is discussed in EPA's
``Lead and Copper Rule Guidance Manual Volume 1: Monitoring'' that was
published in September 1991. Figure 3-2 in that manual described
preferred sampling pool categories for targeted sampling sites.
Category F.2 was listed as an exception case for water systems that
only have sites where water softeners have been installed. This
situation has been observed in the mid-western United States. The
guidance states that these systems should select the highest risk sites
(newest lead solder or lead service lines) and monitor at those
locations even though the water softener is present.
The Agency is requesting public comment on whether the Lead and
Copper Rule should be amended to allow sampling at locations with POU/
POE devices used to remove inorganic contaminants in exceptional cases
(such as systems with high prevalence of water softeners), and if so,
how high risk sites in these locations should be identified. EPA
specifically requests comment on whether the Agency should codify the
guidance provision discussed above.
4. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
The Agency requests comment on requiring systems to synchronize
required water quality parameter sampling with lead and copper tap
sampling. This would allow systems the ability to associate changes in
water quality parameter levels with lead and copper levels and help
systems monitor the effectiveness of their corrosion control program.
EPA is aware of one State that has been instructing water systems with
corrosion control treatment programs to collect water quality parameter
samples during the same week the systems collect lead and copper tap
samples. This State has observed that elevated lead levels have been
frequently associated with low corrosion inhibitor or orthophosphate
residuals in the distribution systems, and occasionally with low pH.
Under the current rule, systems that have installed and operate
corrosion control treatment per Section 141.82(c)(1) and 141.82(g) must
monitor water quality parameters per Section 141.87(d). The number of
water quality parameter tap samples depends on the population size
served by the water system as detailed in 141.87(a)(2) and
141.87(e)(1). The frequency of water quality parameter monitoring at
taps in the distribution system ranges from twice every six months to
twice every three years as described in 141.87(e). Systems required to
monitor for water quality parameters must also collect one sample for
each applicable water quality parameter at each entry point to the
distribution system every two weeks.
Water quality parameters are designated by the State primacy agency
under 141.82(d). They typically include pH, alkalinity, and corrosion
inhibitor residual. These parameters will vary based on the type of
corrosion control a system installs and the State may designate
additional parameters.
EPA is requesting comment upon a modification that would not
increase the number of samples a system would be required to take, but
would synchronize sampling they are required to do under the current
rule. Large systems would be required to take their required lead and
copper samples at the same time they take their required water quality
parameter samples. Small and medium systems would be required to take
their water quality parameter samples at the same time as their lead
and copper samples required by Section 141.81(c) during the compliance
period following the monitoring period in which they exceeded the lead
or copper action level and all subsequent monitoring periods in which
they are scheduled to take both water quality parameter and lead and
copper tap samples.
Currently, if a small or medium system has an action level
exceedance, they are required to take water quality parameter samples
within the same six-month period according to Section 141.87(d). EPA is
not requesting comment on whether to require these systems synchronize
water quality monitoring with lead and copper monitoring under this
circumstance. The Agency is only requesting comment on whether to
require these small and medium systems to synchronize water quality
monitoring and lead and copper monitoring during the compliance period
following the circumstance described in Section 141.87(d) and all
subsequent monitoring periods in which they are scheduled to take both
water quality parameter and lead and copper tap samples.
The Agency requests comment on including this potential
modification in the final rule. EPA requests comment on what, if any,
added burden it may present to water systems. The Agency also requests
comment on the appropriate time frame for synchronizing water quality
parameter monitoring with lead and copper monitoring. Should systems be
required to take water quality parameter and lead and copper samples on
the same day or within the same week within a monitoring period? What
are the practical constraints associated with different time frames?
I. State Implementation
States with approved primacy programs under 40 CFR part 142 subpart
B must revise their programs to adopt any changes to the Lead and
Copper Rule that are more stringent than their approved program. The
primacy revision crosswalk table issued after the rule is final will
list all the provisions
[[Page 40842]]
that States must adopt to retain primacy. Table III.1 summarizes the
revisions being proposed today and identifies those that the Agency
believes to be more stringent requirements.
Table III.1.--Revisions in This Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the requirement
CFR citation more stringent? Revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 141.80 (a)(2)......... No................. Technical correction
that deletes
effective dates of
the LCR which no
longer apply.
Sec. 141.80(g)............. Yes................ PWSs will be
required to provide
consumers with the
results of lead
testing who are
located at sites
that are part of
the utility's
monitoring program.
Sec. 141.81(b)(3)(iii), Yes................ States must approve
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(vii), new sources or
Sec. 141.86(g)(4)(iii), changes in water
Sec. 141.90(a)(3). treatment before
PWS implementation.
Sec. 141.81(e)(1).......... Yes................ Clarifies end of the
tap sampling and
timing for PWS
recommending
optimum corrosion
treatment.
Sec. 141.81(e)(2).......... Yes................ Clarifies end of the
monitoring period
and timing for
State requiring
corrosion control
studies.
Sec. 141.81(e)(2)(i), Sec. Yes................ Clarifies end of the
141.81(e)(2)(ii). monitoring period
and timing for
State specifying
optimum corrosion
control treatment.
Sec. 141.83(a)(1).......... Yes................ Clarifies end of the
source water
monitoring period
and timing for
recommending source
water treatment to
the State.
Sec. 141.84(b)(1).......... Yes................ Clarifies beginning
of the first year
for lead service
line replacement.
Sec. 141.84(b)(2).......... Yes................ Requires updating
inventory and
yearly replacement
of lead lines when
resuming lead
service line
replacement
program.
Sec. 141.90(e)(2)(ii)...... Yes................ Clarifies resumption
of line
replacement.
Sec. 141.85................ Yes................ New public education
requirements that
replace the ones
that exist in the
current rule. New
requirement that
allows PWS to use
alternative
flushing time
language in public
education material.
New requirement for
PWS to target
specific audiences
for increased
awareness. New
requirement for PWS
to provide a notice
to consumers who
are part of the
utility's lead
testing program
with sampling
results.
Sec. 141.88 (b), Sec. Yes................ Clarifies end of the
141.90(a)(1), Sec. monitoring period.
141.90(e)(1), Sec. 141.90
(e)(2).
Sec. 141.86(c)............. No................. Requires NTNCWS to
collect a specified
number of samples.
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(i), (ii), Yes................ Clarifies sample
(iii), Sec. collection periods
141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B)(1), Sec. for reduced
141.86(g)(4)(i), Sec. monitoring.
141.87(e)(2)(ii), Sec.
141.88(d)(1)(i), Sec.
141.88(d)(1)(ii).
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(vi)(A)... Yes................ Specifies time
period to resume
standard tap water
monitoring.
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B)... Yes................ Specifies time
period to resume
water quality
parameter
monitoring.
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(ii)...... Yes................ Clarifies monitoring
frequency.
Sec. 141.81(b)(3)(iii), Yes................ Requires systems to
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(vii), notify State prior
Sec. 141.86(g)(4)(iii), to making changes
Sec. 141.90(a)(3). in treatment or
adding new sources.
Sec. 141.87(d), Sec. Yes................ Clarifies time
141.87(e)(2)(i). period for water
quality parameter
monitoring.
Sec. 141.154 (d)(1)-(3).... Yes................ PWS must include a
statement about
lead, health
effects language
and ways to reduce
exposure in CCRs,
if the water system
detects any level
of lead above the
method detection
limit of 0.001 mg/L
in their drinking
water. Flexibility
is given to PWS to
write its own
educational
statement, but only
in consultation
with the Primacy
Agency.
Sec. 141.90 (f)(1), Sec. Yes................ Revised public
141.90 (f)(1)(i). education program
reporting
requirements based
on amendments to
Sec. 141.85.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How Do These Regulatory Revisions Affect a State's Primacy Program?
States must revise their programs to adopt any part of the proposal
which is more stringent than the approved State program. Primacy
revisions must be completed in accordance with 40 CFR 142.12 and
142.16. States must submit their revised primacy application to the
Administrator for approval. State requests for final approval must be
submitted to the Administrator no later than two years after
promulgation of a new standard unless the State requests and is granted
an additional two-year extension.
For revisions of State programs, Sec. 142.12 requires States to
submit, among other things, ``[a]ny additional materials that are
listed in Sec. 142.16 of this part for a specific EPA regulation, as
appropriate (Sec. 142.12(c)(1)(ii)).'' For the proposed revisions to
the lead and copper rule, EPA believes that requirements in Sec.
142.12(c) will provide sufficient information for EPA review of the
State revision. The side-by-side comparison of requirements required in
Sec. 142.12(c)(1)(i) will consist of sections revised to adopt the
changes required for the revised lead and copper rule and any other
revisions requested by the State. Because the rule consists of changes
to an already approved federal NPDWR in primacy States, EPA believes
that the State's existing statutes and regulations will already have
received extensive legal review. Under Sec. 142.12 (c)(3), EPA can
request supplemental
[[Page 40843]]
information as necessary for a specific State submittal on a case-by-
case basis. Therefore, the Agency plans to waive the Attorney General's
statement required in Sec. 142.12(c)(1)(iii), as allowed by Sec.
141.12(c)(2). The Agency requests comment on whether the Attorney
General's statement or any other documentation is necessary to approve
revisions to State programs resulting from the rule.
2. What Does a State Have To Do to Apply?
To maintain primacy for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
program and to be eligible for interim primacy enforcement authority
for future regulations, States must adopt this proposal, when final. A
State must submit a request for approval of program revisions that
adopt the regulations and implement those regulations within two years
of promulgation unless EPA approves an extension under Sec. 142.12(b).
Interim primacy enforcement authority allows States to implement and
enforce drinking water regulations once State regulations are effective
and the State has submitted a complete and final primacy revision
application. To obtain interim primacy, a State must have primacy with
respect to each existing NPDWR. Under interim primacy enforcement
authority, States are effectively considered to have primacy during the
period that EPA is reviewing their primacy revision application.
3. How Are Tribes Affected?
At this time the Navajo Nation has primacy to enforce the PWSS
program. EPA Regions implement the rules for all the other Tribes under
section 1451(a)(1) of SDWA.
J. Limitations to Public Comment on the Lead and Copper Rule
EPA requests comment on the seven specific regulatory changes
proposed today to revise the national primary drinking water
regulations for lead and copper, as well as several related issues.
Please note that the Agency is not proposing to revise the Lead Action
Level or any major component of lead drinking water regulations. EPA is
not reopening the entire Lead and Copper Rule, but rather is requesting
comment on the rule changes and related issues specifically discussed
in this proposal. In this rulemaking, the Agency will not consider
comments that address other aspects of drinking water regulations for
lead and copper.
K. Proposed Effective Dates
Section 1412 (b)(10) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, requires that
a proposed national primary drinking water regulation (and any
amendments) take effect on the date that is three years after the date
of promulgation, unless the Administrator determines that an earlier
date is practicable. EPA is proposing that the revisions take effect
three years after the promulgation of the final rule. Because several
of the provisions in this rule would likely not require three years for
implementation the Agency is considering whether to make some of these
regulatory changes effective in less than three years after the date of
publication of the final rule. Specifically, EPA requests comment on
whether it would be practicable to implement the following changes and
clarifications in this proposal to the Lead and Copper Rule within 60
days of the date of publication of the final rule:
? Section III.A. Minimum Number Of Samples Required
? Section III.B. Definitions For Compliance And Monitoring Periods
? Section III.E. Requirement To Provide A Consumer Notice Of
Lead Tap Water Monitoring Results To Consumers Who Occupy Homes Or
Buildings That Are Tested For Lead
? Section III.F. Public Education Requirements
The requirements described in Section III.A (minimum number of
samples clarification) is merely a clarification of existing regulatory
text and does not change the stringency of the rule. In Section III.B
(compliance and monitoring period clarification) there are changes that
clarify existing text of the rule as well. The requirements described
in Section III.E (the consumer notice) and Section III.F (public
education requirements) are some of the most important in this
proposal. Those requirements are critical to the explanation of lead
exposure from drinking water and communication of health effects to the
public; and while they add requirements to the rule, systems are not
likely to need three full years to implement the new requirements.
The Agency requests comment on whether these regulatory revisions
should have effective dates of sixty days after the publication of the
final rule and if not, what timeframes are practicable. The Agency also
requests comment on whether any of the other proposed revisions in this
rule should have an effective date earlier than three years after
publication of the final rule.
IV. Economic Analysis
This section describes the estimates of annual costs for the seven
proposed regulatory changes to utilities and States, including costs
associated with administrative, monitoring, sampling, reporting, and
notification activities. One-time, upfront costs of rule review and
rule implementation are also described. There are two types of annual
costs that may result from the rule changes--direct and indirect.
Direct costs are from those activities that are specified by the rule
change, such as costs for additional monitoring or distribution of
consumer notices. A second type of cost may also result when systems
and States use the information generated by directly-related rule
activities to modify or enhance practices to reduce lead levels. These
indirect costs, and related health risk reductions, are not quantified
for the purposes of this analysis, but are described qualitatively in
Section IV.K of this proposal and in Chapter 5 of the Economic Analysis
(Economic and Supporting Analysis Short Term Regulatory Changes to the
Lead and Copper Rule, U.S. EPA, 2006b). Table IV.1 summarizes the
expected direct and indirect cost impacts for the seven regulatory changes.
Table IV.1.--Summary of Direct and Indirect Implications of the LCR Short Term Rule Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indirect cost and health risk
Rule change Direct cost implications implications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Change III.A (Number of Minimal, unquantified................ Yes.
samples).
Regulatory Change III.B (Monitoring Minimal, unquantified................ None.
Period).
Regulatory Change III.C (Reduced Yes.................................. Yes.
Monitoring Criteria).
Regulatory Change III.D (Advanced Yes.................................. Yes.
Notification and Approval).
Regulatory Change III.E (Consumer Notice Yes.................................. Yes.
of Lead Results).
Regulatory Change III.F (Public Yes.................................. Yes.
Education).
Regulatory Change III.G (Reevaluation of Yes.................................. Yes.
Lead Service Lines).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40844]]
A. Direct Costs
The proposed revisions will result in direct costs to utilities and
States from activities that are specified by the rule change, including
administrative, monitoring, sampling, reporting, and notification
activities. These costs will result in an increase in the overall costs
associated with the LCR.
The most recent cost estimates to utilities and States of the LCR
can be found in the 2004 Information Collection Request for
Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides
Rules (Information Collection Request for Disinfectants/ Disinfection
Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides Rules, U.S. EPA 2004b). The
2004 ICR estimates administrative burden and costs associated with the
LCR for systems and States. System costs are estimated for community
water systems and non-transient non-community water systems to perform
the following activities: monitoring for water quality parameters, tap
sampling of lead levels for action level compliance, review of sample
data, including the calculation of lead and copper 90th percentile
levels, submission to the State of monitoring data and any other
documents or reports, and recording and maintaining information. In
addition, some systems must submit corrosion control studies, recommend
and submit information regarding the completion of corrosion control
treatment (CCT) or source water treatment installation, conduct public
education, or conduct LSL monitoring, notification, and replacement. In
the 2004 ICR, for the LCR requirements to CWSs and NTNCWSs, the average
annual respondent cost was estimated to be $57.9 million and the burden
was estimated to be 1.72 million hours for reporting (including lead
service line replacement reporting), recordkeeping, and public
education activities of the LCR. For States, the annual cost and burden
incurred by primacy agencies for activities associated with the lead
and copper regulation were estimated to be $6.8 million and 0.21
million hours, respectively.
B. Overall Cost Methodologies and Assumptions
As part of its comprehensive review of the Lead and Copper Rule,
EPA collected and analyzed new data on various aspects of LCR
implementation. When available and appropriate, this new information is
used in estimating costs. If new information was not available about a
cost item or assumption, previous analyses of LCR requirements were
reviewed to determine if a suitable estimate was available. The 1991
RIA, the 1996 RIA Addendum, and the various Information Collection
Requests were all used as sources of information and assumptions.
For the rule revisions that clarify rule language, if the costs
associated with those activities were included in the original LCR cost
estimates as presented in the 1991 RIA, those costs are not included in
this analysis.
C. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.A
Regulatory change III.A clarifies EPA's intent that a minimum of 5
samples must be taken when conducting compliance monitoring. If a
system has fewer than the minimum number of sites required for
sampling, then those systems will have to collect multiple samples on
different days from the same site so that the total number of samples
per monitoring period is 5.
Although some systems may have to increase the number of samples
taken in response to this clarification, there is very limited
available data on the number of these systems and on the frequency with
which they conduct lead and copper monitoring. Because of lack of data,
EPA has not quantified the costs associated with Regulatory Change
III.A. In EPA's best judgment, these costs would be minimal.
D. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.B
Regulatory Change III.B clarifies the meaning of ``monitoring
period'' and ``compliance period,'' addressing in particular the date
on which actions are triggered by an exceedance and the timing of
samples under triennial monitoring. Based on the rule change, if a
system exceeds the action level during a monitoring period, non-
compliance starts at the end of the monitoring period (for most systems
on September 30). Under the previous language, it was not clear whether
non-compliance began at the end of the calendar year (December 31) or
at the end of the monitoring period (September 30).
As a result of the rule change, activities triggered by an action
level exceedance could begin three months earlier (i.e., at the end of
September versus the end of December), but the duration of these
activities would not likely be longer. The net result is a change in
the timing of activities, with a difference of three months having a
negligible, if any, impact on costs.
Regulatory Change III.B also requires that systems on reduced
monitoring, such as triennially or once every nine years, must take all
compliance samples within the same calendar year during the June-
September monitoring period. Under previous LCR regulatory language, a
system could collect compliance samples over multiple calendar years,
as long as they were taken during the June-September time frame and
during the three-year compliance period. Since this rule change does
not alter the number of samples to be taken, but the timing of samples,
the direct cost impact is expected to be minimal.
E. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.C
1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory Change
As a result of Regulatory Change III.C, utilities that have 90th
percentile LCR monitoring samples that exceed the Lead Action Level,
and are currently on reduced monitoring, will be required to resume
standard monitoring schedules for monitoring lead at taps. In addition
to monitoring activities, utilities will have to meet reporting
requirements to the State/Primacy agency. State/Primacy agencies will
be required to review utility monitoring reports.
2. Costs to Utilities
The direct costs to utilities, summarized in Table IV.3, are
estimated to be $2.4 million annually including $2.2 million in labor
costs and $0.2 million in materials costs. Detailed estimates are
provided in the Economic Analysis, Appendix C (Economic and Supporting
Analysis Short Term Regulatory Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule,
Appendix C, U.S. EPA 2006b).
The systems that will incur costs under this regulatory change are
those systems that exceed the Lead Action Level and that had been on
reduced monitoring. The number of systems EPA estimates to exceed the
Lead Action Level each year is 995 as shown in Table IV.2. This
estimate is based upon 2003 Lead Action Level exceedances reported by
States to EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System for systems
serving more than 3300 people. EPA used this data to estimate that 1.4
percent of systems (including system serving fewer than 3300 people)
will exceed the action level each year.
[[Page 40845]]
Table IV.2.--Systems Over the Action Level Since 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\<3,300 3,300<50,000 >50,000 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of systems above Action Level since 884 97 14 995
2003.......................................
Total number of systems..................... 64,382 7,388 819 72,589
Percent of systems with monitoring results 1.4 1.3 1.7 1.4
since 2003 over AL.........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Estimate for systems <3,300 is based upon data from systems >3,300.
Source: For medium and large systems, January 2005 Summary of Lead
Action Level, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lcrmr/lead_data.html; for
small systems, Summary, Lead Action Level exceedances for public water
systems subject to the Lead and Copper Rule (For data through September
13, 2004).
The number of systems on reduced monitoring was estimated using
state responses to the EPA survey on LCR implementation (State
Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule. U.S. EPA 2004d). States
provided estimates of the percent of systems on reduced LCR monitoring.
Based on this data, 91 percent of systems are on reduced lead and
copper monitoring. This analysis assumes that systems that are likely
to exceed the action level, and are on reduced monitoring, are likely
to exceed at the same rate as all systems. Therefore, we assume that 91
percent of the systems estimated as likely to exceed the action level
are on reduced monitoring, and will therefore incur costs due to
regulatory change III.C. This assumption is conservative, because
systems that are likely to have exceedances are less likely to be on
reduced monitoring in the first place.
For the number of additional monitoring events, it is assumed that
each utility will conduct 5 additional monitoring events in each three
year period by switching from a reduced monitoring schedule (triennial)
to standard tap monitoring (semi-annual). While reduced monitoring
could refer to either monitoring once every year or once every three
years, it is not possible to distinguish, from the state responses to
the EPA survey, between systems monitoring once every year and systems
monitoring once every three years. This analysis assumes that all
systems on reduced monitoring are on a one sample every three years
schedule, a conservative assumption that might slightly over-estimate
costs. Likewise, the number of samples collected in each monitoring
period will change when the utility switches from reduced monitoring to
standard monitoring. Thus, a system that was on reduced monitoring, but
is placed on regular monitoring after an Action Level exceedance under
regulatory change III.C, will incur an additional 5 monitoring events
over a 3 year period (6 monitoring events in three years under regular
monitoring instead of 1 monitoring event in three years under reduced
monitoring), with an increased number of samples collected in each
event. The required number of samples varies by system size, with the
smallest systems (serving less than or equal to 100 people) required to
take 5 samples per monitoring event under both standard and reduced
monitoring, and the largest systems (serving > 100,000 people) required
to take 100 samples per monitoring event under standard monitoring, and
50 samples per monitoring event under reduced monitoring.
3. Costs to States
Regulatory Change III.C will require State/Primacy agencies to
review utility monitoring reports as a result of resuming standard
monitoring schedules. The direct costs to State/Primacy agencies is
estimated to be $77,000 annually including $76,000 in labor costs and
$1000 in materials costs, as summarized in Table IV.3. Detailed
estimates are included in the Economic Analysis, Appendix C (Economic
and Supporting Analysis Short Term Regulatory Changes to the Lead and
Copper Rule, Appendix C, U.S. EPA, 2006b).
Table IV.3.--Summary of Estimated Direct Costs to Systems and State/Primacy Agencies Associated With Regulatory
Change III.C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
Annual labor materials Total annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Systems:
Reporting................................................... $56,000 $1000 $57,000
Tap Monitoring.............................................. 2,157,000 214,000 2,371,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total System Costs...................................... 2,213,000 215,000 2,428,000
-----------------------------------------------
Costs to State/Primacy Agencies:
Review Costs................................................ 76,000 1000 77,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total State Costs....................................... 76,000 1000 77,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.D
1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory Change
Regulatory Change III.D requires water systems to obtain prior
approval by the State primacy agency to add a new source of water or
change a treatment process prior to implementation. The current
requirement is that systems notify States about changes in treatment or
additions of new sources within 60 days of a change or addition. The
proposed regulatory language allows as much time as needed for water
systems and States to consult before a proposed change is approved.
New system activities will include the preparation of the
corrosiveness implications of treatment or source changes prior to the
change and a letter to the state. New State/Primacy agency activities
will include review of the system data on the corrosiveness
[[Page 40846]]
implications of a treatment or source change prior to a change,
preparation of conclusions and coordination with utilities. The
estimated costs to the affected systems and State/primacy agencies are
summarized in Table IV.4.
2. Costs to Utilities
The direct costs to utilities range from $474,000 to $733,000
annually. These direct costs are strictly labor costs; materials costs
are expected to be negligible. Estimates are summarized in Table IV.4.
Detailed estimates are provided in Appendix D (Table 6.1) of the
Economic Analysis (Economic and Supporting Analysis Short Term Regulatory
Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule, Appendix D, U.S. EPA, 2006b).
In order to estimate the cost of this provision to utilities,
information is needed on the number of systems that will change a
treatment or add a source annually, as well as the number of systems
that are located in States that already have a review and approval
requirement. Systems located in these States will not incur additional
costs under this provision.
Many States already have a review and approval process for
treatment or source changes. In 2004, as part of a review of the
implementation of LCR requirements by States, EPA asked State programs
a number of questions about how they implement different aspects of the
LCR. Included were the following questions: ``How do systems notify the
State of treatment changes? Does the State require that systems provide
information about potential effects of treatment changes on corrosion
control?''
14 States indicated that they currently have a review and approval
process for treatment changes. Another nine States have a process that
requires a permit for treatment changes and an additional eight States
review submissions of engineering plans for proposed changes. Although
not a review and approval process focused specifically on the impact of
a change on corrosion control, the permitting and plan review processes
are comprehensive enough that they should include corrosion issues. For
the purposes of this analysis, two estimates were used of the number of
States that already have a review and approval process that would
include information on corrosion issues: 14 States for a high end of
the cost range and 31 States for a low end. Under the alternative in
which only the 14 States with explicit review and approval are excluded
from the count, 53,372 systems (of 72,213 CWSs and NTNCWSs) may incur
costs for the regulatory change. Under the alternative in which States
with permitting and plan review are also excluded from the count,
27,615 systems may incur costs for this regulatory provision.
An estimate is also needed of the number of systems that will
change a treatment or add a source annually, in order to estimate the
cost of this provision to utilities. Treatment changes over the next
several years are likely, as systems will be faced with new regulatory
requirements, including changes to comply with the already promulgated
Arsenic Rule and the upcoming Long Term 2 Surface Water Treatment Rule
and the Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule. EPA
estimated the number of systems that would undertake treatment changes
for the following new regulatory requirements:
? Arsenic--4,100 systems (Data source: Arsenic in Drinking
Water EA, pp. 6-25, 6-27;
? LT2--2,968 systems (Data source: June 2003 draft EA, pp. 6-23, 4-23);
? Stage 2 D/DBP--1,824 systems (Data source: July 2003 draft
EA, pp. 6-35, 6-30).
Together, these regulatory requirements are estimated to cause
8,892 systems to institute a treatment change, although not all of
these treatment changes will affect corrosion control. Also the
compliance periods for these regulations varies. For example, the Stage
2 and LT2 treatment changes are projected to take place within a 6 year
compliance period for large systems (with the possibility of 2-year
extension) and 8 years for small systems (with the possibility of 2-
year extension). To account for these expected treatment changes, and
to account for treatment changes unrelated to the arsenic, LT2, and
Stage 2 rules, EPA assumed (based on the projected rule-related
treatment changes and expert judgment) that approximately 20% of the
systems affected by the LCR will institute a treatment change in the
next ten years. It is assumed that these changes occur uniformly over
that 10-year period, so that approximately one-tenth of these systems
(or 2 percent of the total) institute a treatment change each year.
Using the 2 percent estimate, 1,067 (53,372 x .02) systems each
year would report a treatment change or source addition and incur costs
in that year in States currently not covered by an explicit review and
approval program. The estimate for the number of systems is 552 if
States with a permitting or plan approval process are also excluded.
EPA anticipates that systems will incur additional costs under this
rule change as systems and States more carefully review and consider
possible corrosion impacts of treatment changes or source additions.
The activities and burden associated with the review and approval
process are expected to vary based on the size and complexity of a
system, and the nature of the change or source addition. In the absence
of information on the current prevalence of these activities, EPA has
used the best professional judgment to estimate the range of potential
activities and associated costs resulting from the review and approval
process. All systems, regardless of size or complexity, are assumed to
undertake additional activities related to data collection and
evaluation, preparation of a submittal to the State, and coordination
with the State. For small systems or systems making relatively simple
changes, considering the corrosion impacts of the change may be a
rather basic process of reviewing water quality data and previous lead
monitoring results. For these systems, additional effort will be
incurred by system staff in coordination with State personnel to
assemble water quality parameter and lead data and evaluate the
potential impacts. EPA estimates the burden for this additional effort
at 7.5 hours per system, at an average cost of $201 per system. For
larger or more complex systems making major treatment changes,
activities would be more extensive, including conducting engineering
studies to evaluate impacts on corrosion control. Based on best
professional judgment, EPA estimates that between 10 percent and 20
percent of medium and large systems may need to conduct additional
engineering studies on corrosion impacts at a cost of $20,000. To some
extent, systems may already evaluate the impacts of treatment or source
changes on corrosion. EPA has considered these current activities in
estimating the portion of systems that would require an engineering study.
3. Costs to States
The direct costs to State/Primacy agencies are estimated to range
from $153,000 to $328,000 annually. These direct costs are strictly
labor costs; materials costs are expected to be negligible. Estimates
are summarized in Table IV.4. Activities that States will undertake
include review of system data, preparation of conclusions and letter to
systems, and coordination with utilities. Because the level of effort
associated with these activities is expected to vary based on the
complexity of the change and the type of submittal (amount and type of
[[Page 40847]]
information), EPA included a range on State review from 4 to 8 hours.
Those States incurring additional costs due to regulatory change
III.D are those that do not already have a review and approval process
which considers the corrosion control implications of treatment
changes. All States currently review treatment or source changes within
60 days after the change. However, some States are already reviewing
and issuing approval before such changes are made. Based on the State
program responses to the EPA questions on the implementation of LCR
requirements (on existing review and approval processes), the analysis
assumes either that 14 States have existing explicit review and
approval processes or that 31 States have existing review and approval
processes (if permit and plan review processes are also counted). The
remaining States under each alternative will incur costs under this
regulatory change as they review and approve changes before they are
made, rather than simple review after the change has been made.
For the States that will incur new costs, new State/Primacy agency
activities will include review of the system data on the corrosiveness
implications of a treatment or source change prior to a change,
preparation of conclusions and coordination with utilities.
Table IV.4.--Estimated Direct Costs to Systems and State/Primacy
Agencies Associated With Regulatory Change III.D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual cost-- Annual cost--
low estimate high estimate
\1\ \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Systems:
Reporting........................... $474,000 $733,000
-------------------------------
Total System Costs.............. 474,000 733,000
-------------------------------
Costs to State/Primacy Agencies:
Review Costs........................ 153,000 328,000
-------------------------------
Total State Costs............... 153,000 328,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 10 percent medium and large systems conduct engineering study and 4
hours for State review.
\2\ 20 percent medium and large systems conduct engineering study and 8
hours for State review.
G. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.E
1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory Change
Regulatory Change III.E will require CWSs to provide written
notification to each owner/occupant of the lead level found in the tap
sample collected for LCR compliance monitoring. Compliance for NTNCWSs
will be determined by their circumstances, and may consist of posting a
notice on community bulletin boards or web sites. While State primacy
agencies may review sample customer letters/notices from each utility
for each monitoring period, such a review is not required by the
regulatory change and thus is not considered a direct cost of the
regulatory change. Supporting calculations and information regarding
costs to utilities and States associated with this regulatory change
are included in the Economic Analyses, Appendix E (Economic and
Supporting Analysis Short Term Regulatory Changes to the Lead and
Copper Rule, Appendix E, U.S. EPA, 2006b).
2. Costs to Utilities
The direct costs to utilities for compliance with Regulatory Change
III.E are summarized in Exhibit 4 and estimated to be $1,028,000
annually including $894,000 in labor costs and $134,000 in materials
costs for envelopes and postage. This is based on 310,510 notices being
provided to customers each year, with estimated associated labor.
Detailed estimates are provided in the Economic Analysis, Appendix E-2
(Economic and Supporting Analysis Short Term Regulatory Changes to the
Lead and Copper Rule, Appendix E, U.S. EPA, 2006b).
In order to estimate the additional costs associated with
regulatory change III.E, an estimate is needed of the number of systems
that already notify customers of tap monitoring results. Based on
feedback from participants in workshops and interactions with States,
some systems already notify customers of monitoring results. These
systems would not incur costs under the proposed regulatory change.
This analysis uses information from the State survey (State
Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule. U.S. EPA, 2004) to develop
an estimate of the number of systems that currently notify customers of
tap sampling results. Of 72,213 CWS and NTNCWSs (per 2004 SDWIS/Fed
data) subject to the LCR, approximately 11 percent of these systems are
estimated to already notify owner/occupants of tap sample results.
Therefore, this regulatory change will apply to the remaining 89
percent of systems.
3. Costs to States
No new costs to States are assumed. States are not required to
review the notification letter or notice.
Table IV.5.--Summary of Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.E
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
Annual labor materials Total annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Systems:
Customer Notice of Lead Results Costs....................... $894,000 $134,000 $1,028,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total System Costs...................................... 894,000 134,000 1,028,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40848]]
H. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.F
Regulatory Change III.F changes the public education requirements
of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) in Sec. 141.85. Water systems would
still be required to deliver public education materials after a Lead
Action Level exceedance, but the text of the message to be provided to
consumers, how the materials are delivered to consumers, and the
timeframe in which materials must be delivered would change. The
changes to the delivery requirements include additions to the list of
organizations systems must partner with to disseminate the message to
at-risk populations as well as changes to the media used to ensure
water systems reach consumers when there is an action level exceedance.
In addition to the changes to Sec. 141.85 of the LCR, revisions
will be made to Sec. 141.154(d) of the CCR rule (40 CFR 141, Subpart
O) which requires community water systems to send an annual report to
billed customers containing information relevant to the quality of the
drinking water provided by the system. EPA is proposing to change the
CCR rule to require all community water systems that detect lead to
include information about the risks of lead in drinking water on a
regular basis.
1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory Change
(a) Changes to the mandatory text of the written materials.
(a)(1) Customer Notification: Deliver brochures to all bill-paying
customers within 60 days.
The brochure will include a section on ``What happened? What is
being done?'' to be developed by each water system. Mandatory language
will address essential topics such as the opening statement and health
effects language. The mandatory language will be shorter and easier to
understand than the language that is currently used. EPA will develop
suggested language.
(b) Changes to better reach at-risk populations.
(b)(1) Brochures will be delivered to additional organizations,
with a cover letter.
The organizations to be added to the list of required recipients of
the brochures will increase the likelihood that the most vulnerable
populations or their caregivers will receive the information they need
to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water. These organizations
will include licensed childcare centers, preschools and Obstetricians-
Gynecologists and Midwives. Also, local public health agencies will be
contacted by phone.
(b)(2) Systems will perform additional activities.
Systems serving more than 3,300 will be required to implement three
or more activities from a list of possible activities. Systems serving
fewer than 3,300 will be required to implement one activity from the
list. A list of nine possible activities follows (including a general
``other methods'' because the primacy agency may also approve other
methods). An estimate of the annual cost of each identified activity is
given in Table IV.6.
(i) Public Service Announcement: Production of a radio PSA includes
developing a script for the spot and then producing an audio of the spot.
(ii) Paid advertisement.
(iii) Information display in public areas: Posting a notice at a
local grocery store or laundromat.
(iv) Internet: Email contact with all customers.
(v) Public Meetings: For systems serving fewer than 3,300, system
representatives would bring up the issue for discussion at an existing
town meeting. For systems serving over 3,300, a separate public meeting
would be held. This activity includes making logistical arrangements,
preparing a 30-45 minute presentation, attending the meeting, and doing
follow-up activities such as meeting notes.
(vi) Delivery to every household: Delivery to every postal address,
either through mail or distribution of flyers.
(vii) Targeted individual contact with customers: Especially
vulnerable customers, such as pregnant women and children, would be
individually contacted.
(viii) Materials to be provided directly to multi-family homes and
institutions.
(ix) Other methods approved by the primacy agency.
Table IV.6.--Annual Cost Per System Estimate for Additional Activities to Better Reach At-Risk Populations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
viii.
i. Public iii. Display vi. vii. Materials Average
System size category service ii. Paid in public iv. Internet v. Public Delivery Targeted directly to per system
announcements advertisements areas notification meetings to every contact multi-family & all
household institutions activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25-100........................ $95 $105 $23 $23 $45 $7 $34 $12 $43
101-500....................... 95 105 25 24 45 30 34 14 47
501-3,300..................... 95 180 106 26 45 166 36 26 85
3.3K-10K...................... 95 180 108 384 800 435 42 66 264
10K-50K....................... 1,400 850 556 526 2,200 1,114 64 247 870
50K-100K...................... 1,400 5,000 1,111 526 2,900 2,448 135 771 1,786
>100K......................... 1,400 5,000 3,330 912 5,000 3,874 548 4,311 3,047
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Details of how these unit costs were calculated are provided in
Appendices H-6 through H-20 of the Economic Analysis for the rule.
(b)(3) Review activities for States.
States will review the language in the utility's notice to
consumers to make sure the utility is including the required
information. States will also consult with each system with an action
level exceedance. States will no longer be required to approve a waiver
for notifications for each system that exceeds the Lead Action Level
that serves a population of 501-3,300.
(c) Changes to help systems maintain communication with consumers
throughout the exceedance.
(c)(1) Every water bill will contain a message about lead while a
system is exceeding the action level.
(c)(2) Post brochure on Web site if system serves >100,000 people.
(c)(3) Public service announcements and press releases.
The requirement to send public service announcements (PSAs) to TV
stations and radio stations every six months while a system has an Lead
Action Level exceedance will be cut to once every year. The PSA must be
sent to five TV stations and five radio stations. A press release will
still have to be submitted to newspapers, TV stations and radio stations.
(d) Changes to the required timing.
No cost impact.
[[Page 40849]]
(e) Changes to Consumer Confidence Report.
(e)(1) Inclusion of an informational statement on CCR for all systems.
Systems that detect lead in their drinking water will have to
include an informational statement about lead in their CCR. Currently,
only those systems with more than five percent of their sites above the
Lead Action Level must include an informational statement in their CCR.
2. Costs to Utilities
The direct costs to utilities as a result of Regulatory Change
III.F are estimated to be $780,500. The annual system labor cost is
estimated to be $759,500, with the annual system materials cost
$21,000. Estimates of costs associated with each activity are given in
Table IV.7. Detailed estimates of costs to utilities are provided in
the Economic Analysis, Appendix F (Economic and Supporting Analysis
Short Term Regulatory Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule, Appendix F,
U.S. EPA, 2006b). The costs for the CCR component may be overstated
because EPA does not have specific data to determine the percentage of
systems that will not detect lead. Thus, we have assumed that all
systems will detect lead in their water, which may lead to an
overstatement of the cost estimates shown in Table IV.7. In addition,
the requirement to provide information about lead in the CCR would be
new only for systems that currently detect lead below the action level
in 95% or more of their sites, since systems in which the 95th
percentile result is above the action level are already required to
provide such information. However, EPA does not have data on such
systems. Rather, EPA has data on the (smaller) number of systems that
currently detect lead below the action level in 90% of their sites, and
has subtracted this value from the universe of systems to estimate the
number of systems that would incur new costs under this requirement.
Thus, there are two factors contributing to a possible overestimate in
the national cost for the CCR statement. The first factor is that
assuming all systems will detect lead overestimates the number of
systems that will actually detect lead, because some systems do not
detect any lead. The second factor is that underestimating the current
baseline of systems that currently detect lead at the 95th percentile
level, by using data on systems that detect lead at the 90th percentile
level (a smaller number of systems), overestimates the remaining number
of systems that do not currently report lead information in their CCR.
EPA's estimate assumes that 52,257 additional systems would have to
provide information about lead in their CCR each year, with additional
associated labor of 0.25 hours per system per year.
Table IV.7.--Summary of Preliminary Costs to Systems Due to LCR Public Education Proposed Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Total system
Activity Requirement Annual labor materials cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Changes to the Mandatory Text of the Written Materials
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F(a)(1)....................... Customer Notification....... $84,900 $0 $84,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Changes to Better Reach At-Risk Populations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F(b)(1)....................... Notify Additional 18,700 21,400 40,100
Organizations.
III.F(b)(2)....................... Additional Activities i-viii 275,100 0 275,100
III.F(b)(2)....................... Consult with State on 14,400 0 14,400
Activities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Changes to Help Systems Maintain Communication With Consumers Throughout the Exceedance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F(c)(1)....................... Customer Bills.............. 43,300 0 43,300
III.F(c)(2)....................... Post on Web site............ 100 0 100
III.F(c)(3)....................... PSAs and Press Releases..... -3,000 -500 -3,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Changes to the Required Timing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No cost impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Changes to Consumer Confidence Report
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F(e)(1)....................... CCR Statement............... 325,900 0 325,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs to Systems for PE Requirements (III.F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... ............................ 759,500 $21,000 780,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
3. Costs to States
The direct costs to States as a result of Regulatory Change III.F
are estimated to be $50,600. These costs are the annual state labor
costs; no materials cost is expected. These costs are given in Table
IV.8. Detailed estimates of costs to States are provided in the
Economic Analysis, Appendix F (Economic and Supporting Analysis Short
Term Regulatory Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule, Appendix F, U.S.
EPA, 2006b).
[[Page 40850]]
Table IV.8.--Summary of Preliminary Costs to States Due to LCR Public Education Proposed Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
Annual labor materials Total annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F Costs to States:
Review and consultation..................................... $50,600 $0 $50,600
-----------------------------------------------
III.F Total State Costs................................. 50,600 0 50,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.G
1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory Cchange
Under this proposed change, utilities that have 90th percentile LCR
samples that exceed the Lead Action Level will need to identify all
lead service lines (LSL) that had previously been determined to be
replaced via sampling. If a LSL was previously ``tested out'' or
determined to be replaced by sampling, the sample previously collected
from the LSL had a lead level less than the Lead Action Level. These
utilities would be affected by Regulatory Change III.G if they exceed
the action level again and renew a LSL replacement program. These
utilities must put these ``tested out'' LSLs back into their inventory
of lead service lines that could be considered for replacement. To
estimate the impact of this change, we assume these formerly ``tested
out'' LSLs will be retested, and that some of them will exceed the Lead
Action Level. The primary activities as a result of this regulatory
change include collecting and analyzing samples from these LSLs.
Replacement of lines that were previously tested out may also occur as
a result of this change.
2. Costs to Utilities
The direct costs to utilities as a result of Regulatory Change
III.G are estimated to be $97,000 annually, which includes $87,000 in
labor costs and $10,000 in materials costs. Detailed estimates of costs
to utilities are provided in the Economic Analysis, Appendix F
(Economic and Supporting Analysis Short Term Regulatory Changes to the
Lead and Copper Rule, Appendix F, U.S. EPA, 2006b). Estimating the
costs to utilities requires an estimate of the number of systems who
have been involved in a lead service line replacement program, the
number of systems likely to discontinue such a program due to low
tested lead levels, and the fraction of those systems likely to
subsequently exceed the action level and restart their lead service
line replacement program.
In the responses to the 50 state survey on lead implementation
(State Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule U.S. EPA, 2004), 11
States responded that at least one system in their state has been
involved in a lead service line replacement program. Six States
provided sufficient information to derive a number of systems within
that State required to perform lead service line replacement--a total
of 28 systems. Based on an average of five systems per State for the
six States that provided data, we assume that the remaining five States
have five systems, plus one system for DC (which did not respond to the
survey) for a total of 54 systems that have been required to perform
lead service line replacement.
Because there is not sufficient information to determine how many
of 54 systems suspended their lead replacement programs, and later
restarted the programs due to an exceedance, we assumed the worst case
scenario that all of these systems suspended their lead replacement
programs and that the rate of subsequent exceedance was the same as for
the universe of systems subject to the LCR, as shown in Table IV.2.
Thus, we assume that 1.4 percent of the 54 systems or 1 system will
exceed the Action Level and be triggered back into lead service line
replacement each year.
EPA does not have information on the number of systems using the
test out provisions rather than physically replacing lines, so this
approach is conservative because it assumes that all systems in a lead
service line replacement program are using the test out provisions.
Systems removing lead service lines are not impacted by this change.
While the rate at which systems are triggered back into lead service
line replacement might be higher than the initial rate, it is offset by
the conservative assumptions regarding systems using the test out
provisions and the universe of systems that would stop their lead service
line replacement program and later resume it because of this change.
Replacement of lines that were previously tested out may also occur
as a result of this change. EPA cannot quantify the costs associated
with this change for a number of reasons. As noted above, EPA does not
have information on the number of systems and the number of lines that
have been previously tested out and could be impacted by this change.
This difficulty is further compounded by the fact that some lines may
have been replaced as part of the ongoing utility replacement programs.
In the 1991 final regulatory impact analysis, EPA cited an AWWA survey
that produced an estimate of 1 percent of lead service lines being
replaced per year as part of ongoing utility replacement programs.
After promulgation of the rule, many systems modified their ongoing
utility replacement programs to replace lead lines at a higher rate.
Where lines would have to be replaced, the unit cost of replacement
is measured in $ per foot of line being replaced. The 1991 final
regulatory impact analysis provided a range of $26 to $51 per foot,
depending upon system size, as the unit cost for lead service line
replacement. Using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index,
updated estimates would range from $41 per foot for small systems to
$80 per foot for large systems. The length of the lead service line
owned by systems will also vary, which will affect costs.
The derivation of the number of lead service lines per system and
the number of lines to be retested are based on several assumptions.
Since EPA does not know the number of years that the system was on the
lead service line replacement program before meeting the AL, a
conservative assumption was made that all lines were either tested or
physically replaced. EPA estimated that the one system impacted by this
change is a large system with 21,467 lead service lines. The percent of
lead service lines tested out rather than replaced is estimated at 76
percent based on one year of data from DC WASA. It is likely that the
estimates of the proportion of lines that are tested out rather than
replaced is high because the 76 percent test out was during an initial
year of replacement when a system is more likely to be able to test out
lines rather than replace them. The time required to physically replace
lines also leads to a higher percentage of test outs in the first year
at DC WASA. We do not know the remaining years in the lead service line
[[Page 40851]]
replacement program, therefore, we assumed that 76 percent of lead
service lines will need to be retested over a 15 year period. The
resulting number of lead service lines that are assumed to be retested
each year is 1,088.
3. Costs to States
No direct costs are expected for State/Primacy agencies as a result
of Regulatory Change III.G. The State/Primacy Agencies will review
utility Lead Service Line replacement program annual reports but these
costs were captured previously in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper,
April 1991 (Final Regulatory Impact Analysis of National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper, U.S. EPA, 1991b).
J. Summary of National Average Annual Direct Costs
The estimates of annual direct costs for the proposed regulatory
changes are presented in Table IV.9.
Table IV.9.--Summary of Annual Direct Costs to Systems and States From All Proposed Regulatory Changes \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual direct costs to systems
---------------------------------------------------------------- Annual direct Total annual
Regulatory change Consumer costs to direct costs
Reporting Monitoring notice Total states
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.A................................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
III.B................................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
III.C................................................... $56,000 $2,371,000 .............. $2,428,000 $77,000 $2,505,000
III.D Low............................................... 474,000 .............. .............. 474,000 153,000 627,000
III.D High.............................................. 733,000 .............. .............. 733,000 328,000 1,061,000
III.E................................................... .............. .............. $1,027,000 1,027,000 .............. 1,027,000
III.F................................................... .............. .............. 780,000 780,000 51,000 831,000
III.G................................................... .............. 97,000 .............. 97,000 .............. 97,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Low........................................... 530,000 .............. .............. 4,805,000 281,000 5,086,000
.............. 2,468,000 1,807,000 ..............
Total High.......................................... 789,000 .............. .............. 5,064,000 456,000 5,520,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: 1. Totals may not add due to rounding.
K. Total Upfront Costs to Review and Implement Regulatory Changes
1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory Change
Systems and State/Primacy Agencies will incur one-time upfront
costs associated with reviewing and implementing the overall LCR
regulatory changes. For systems, activities include reviewing the rule
changes and training staff. For States/Primacy Agencies, activities include
regulation adoption, program development, and miscellaneous training.
2. Total Costs to Utilities
Direct costs to utilities are estimated to be $8.1 million as
summarized in Table IV.8. Detailed estimates of costs to utilities are
provided in the Economic Analysis Appendix G (Economic and Supporting
Analysis Short-Term Regulatory Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule,
Appendix G, U.S. EPA, 2006b). Direct costs to utilities are based
solely on labor; no materials costs are expected for these one-time
upfront costs.
3. Total Costs to States
Direct costs to the States are estimated to be $0.7 million as
summarized in Table IV.10 and detailed in Appendix G of the Economic
Analysis (Economic and Supporting Analysis Short-Term Regulatory
Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule, U.S. EPA, 2005b, Appendix A).
Similar to one-time costs for utilities, these direct costs are based
solely on upfront labor costs. Fifty-seven state primacy agencies will
review and implement these LCR revisions.
Table IV.10.--Summary of One-Time Direct Costs Associated With Rule
Review and Implementation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One time labor
costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Systems:
Review & Communication.............................. $8,076,000
---------------
Total System Costs...................................... 8,076,000
Costs to State/Primacy Agencies:
Regulation Adoption................................... 730,000
---------------
Total State Costs............................... 730,000
Total Rule Implementation Costs................. 8,806,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
L. Indirect Costs
Previous sections focused on the direct costs of the proposed
rulemaking, costs resulting from activities specified by the rule
change, such as costs for additional monitoring or distribution of
consumer notices. A second type of cost, an indirect cost, may also
result when systems and States use the information generated by the
rule-required activities to modify or enhance practices to reduce lead
levels. Indirect costs may also result if systems or States decide to
undertake additional
[[Page 40852]]
information-gathering activities not required by the rule.
The proposed revisions will require some systems to generate new
information which, in some cases, may be provided to States and
customers. The information that is generated may suggest lead and
copper risks that would not otherwise have been discovered (or such
risks might be discovered sooner than otherwise). Upon obtaining this
information, a system itself, the State, or some of the system's
customers may take actions to address these risks, incurring the costs
of those actions. For example, a system may redesign a planned
treatment change following State review of the planned change. Or a
system may replace a lead service line that was previously ``tested
out.'' System customers, upon receiving notification of the lead
content of their tap samples, may take some action, and in the process,
incur a cost.
It is both difficult to project what the content will be of the
information generated pursuant to the regulation, and difficult to
predict how systems and individuals might act in response to the new
information generated as a result of these regulatory changes. Because
of the uncertainty in tracing the linkages from the regulation to new
information to exposure prevention measures, EPA is unable to quantify
the indirect costs that might ensue from these regulatory changes.
It is also possible that some additional information-gathering
activities may result from the rule. For example, a system may decide
to undertake a new study of the corrosion implications of a rule
change. Or a state may decide to review sample system customer letters
of notification to owner/occupants about the lead levels found in their
collected tap samples. These activities would also result in indirect
costs associated with the rule.
M. Benefits
The intent of this proposed rulemaking is to improve implementation
of the lead and copper regulations by clarifying monitoring
requirements, improving customer awareness, and modifying the lead
service line test out procedure. The proposed revisions do not affect
the action levels, corrosion control requirements, line replacement
requirements, or other provisions in the existing rule that directly
determine the degree to which the rule reduces risks from lead and copper.
However, the increase in administrative activities that will result
from the revisions will result in the generation of new information
(e.g., more monitoring data, some of which may show exceedances), and
may prompt some systems or individuals to respond to this new
information by taking measures to abate lead and copper exposures and
thus reduce the associated risk. Also, the requirement that treatment
changes be approved by the primacy agency prior to implementation will
provide an additional opportunity to identify possible adverse impacts
due to treatment changes, which may lower the risk to consumers.
Because the precise impact of these proposed revisions on the behavior
of individuals and systems is not known, EPA has not quantified the
changes in health benefits associated with these proposed revisions.
EPA does expect that overall benefits from the LCR will increase, as a
result of the indirect effect of the revisions on the actions of
individual consumers and systems.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, [58 Federal Register 51735 (October 4,
1993)]
the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to 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:
(1) 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; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
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, OMB has notified
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action to
OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations are documented in the public record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number XXXX.XX.
1. Need for the Information Collection
EPA requires current information on lead and copper contamination
to be provided to consumers and States. Recent highly publicized
incidences of elevated drinking water lead levels prompted EPA to
review and evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the LCR on
a national basis. As a result of this multi-part review, EPA identified
seven targeted rule changes that clarify the intent of the LCR and
enhance protection of public health through additional information
gathering and public education. Consumers and States will use the
information collected as a result of the short-term revisions to the
LCR to determine the appropriate action they should undertake. The rule
revisions described in Section III of this proposal are intended to
improve the implementation of the LCR, and do not alter the original
maximum contaminant level goals or the fundamental approach to
controlling lead and copper in drinking water.
Section 1401(1)(D) of the SDWA requires that regulations contain
``criteria and procedures to assure a supply of drinking water which
dependably complies with such maximum contaminant levels, including
accepted methods for quality control and testing procedures to insure
compliance with such levels and to insure proper operation and
maintenance of the system * * * .'' Furthermore, Section 1445(a)(1) of
the SDWA requires that every person who is a supplier of water ``shall
establish and maintain such records, make such reports, conduct such
monitoring, and provide such information as the Administrator may
reasonably require by regulation to assist the Administrator in
establishing regulations * * *, in determining whether such person has
acted or is acting in compliance. * * *'' In addition, Section
1413(a)(3) of the SDWA requires States to ``keep such records and make
such reports * * * as the Administrator may require by regulation.''
Section 1412(b) of the SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires the
Agency to publish maximum contaminant level goals and promulgate NPDWRs for
[[Page 40853]]
contaminants that may have an adverse effect on the health of persons,
are known to or anticipated to occur in PWSs, and, in the opinion of
the Administrator, present an opportunity for health risk reduction.
The NPDWRs specify maximum contaminant levels or treatment techniques
for drinking water contaminants (42 U.S.C. 300g-1). Section 1412(b)(9)
requires that EPA no less than every 6 years review, and if
appropriate, revise existing drinking water standards. Promulgation of
the LCR implements these statutory requirements.
2. Burden Estimate
The universe of respondents for this ICR is comprised of the 52,838
CWSs and 19,375 NTNCWSs, for a total of 72,213 systems, and 57 State
primacy agencies. Table V.1 presents a summary of total burden and
costs for the ICR period of 2006-2008.
The annual system burden is estimated at 107,924 hours in 2006,
107,924 hours in 2007, and 107,924 hours in 2008. The annual system
costs are projected at $2.7 million in 2006, $2.7 million in 2007, and
$2.7 million in 2008.
The annual State burden is estimated at 5,928 hours in 2006, 5,928
hours in 2007, and 5,928 hours in 2008. The annual State costs are
projected at $243,226 in 2006, $243,226 in 2007, and $243,226 in 2008.
These annual costs reflect the costs to systems and States for the
first three years after rule promulgation and consist of the one-time
direct costs for rule review and implementation. Upon the effective
date of the rule, three years after rule promulgation, EPA estimates
annual costs to systems for all proposed regulatory revisions ranging
from $4.8 to $5.1 million and annual costs to States for all proposed
regulatory revisions ranging from $281,000 to $456,000. A detailed
discussion of these costs is presented in Section IV of this notice.
3. Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs
The total burden and costs for the three year compliance period of
2006 to 2008 is summarized in Table V.1. The total burden and costs for
each regulatory change is explained in the ICR document for this
proposed action.
Table V.1.--Summary of the Burden and Costs From 2006-2008 for the Proposed Regulatory Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden Cost (in
Respondent Number of (hours) 2006- $millions)
respondents 2008 2006-2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PWSs............................................................ 72,213 323,772 $8.1
State........................................................... 57 17,784 0.73
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 72,270 341,556 8.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimates of the annual burden and costs from 2006 to 2008 are
summarized in Table V.2.
Table V.2.-- A Summary of the Annual Burden and Costs from 2006-2008 for the Proposed Regulatory Changes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 2007 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondent Burden Cost (in Burden Cost (in Burden Cost (in
(hours) $millions) (hours) $millions) (hours) $millions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PWSs............................................................. 107,924 2.7 107,924 2.7 107,924 2.7
State............................................................ 5,928 0.24 5,928 0.24 5,928 0.24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ 113,852 2.94 113,852 2.94 113,852 2.94
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden and costs are the same in all three years as it is assumed
that the one-time costs to prepare for rule implementation will be
spread over the three year period prior to compliance with the
regulatory changes.
4. Burden Statement
For the ICR period of 2006 through 2008 associated with the short-
term revisions to the LCR, the average burden for systems to implement
the proposed requirements of the short-term LCR revisions is estimated
to be 1.49 hours per system per year. The average annual cost to
systems is expected to be $37.28 per system per year. System burden
includes time to read and understand the rule requirements and
communicate those requirements to system personnel and management. The
average burden for State agencies is estimated to be 104 hours per
State per year. This burden includes the time to inform systems of the
requirements, and perform primacy related activities. The estimated
annual State cost is estimated to be $4,267 per State per year.
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 purposes 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.
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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. To comment on the
Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the
[[Page 40854]]
provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which
includes this ICR, under Docket ID number 2005-0034. Submit any
comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this proposal for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after July 18, 2006, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by August 17, 2006. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of 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 governmental jurisdictions.
The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity.
Small entities are defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the
Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any ``not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.'' However, the RFA 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 the
alternative definition(s) in the Federal Register and taking comment. 5
U.S.C. 601(3)-(5). In addition, to establish an alternative small business
definition, agencies must consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for Advocacy.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposal on small
entities, EPA considered small entities to be public water systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed
using this alternative definition in the Federal Register (63 FR 7620,
February 13, 1998), requested public comment, consulted with the Small
Business Administration (SBA), and finalized the alternative definition
in the Consumer Confidence Reports regulation (63 FR 44511, August 19,
1998). As stated in that Final Rule, the alternative definition is
applied to this regulation as well.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, EPA certifies that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The small entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are small
public water systems serving 10,000 or fewer people on an annual basis.
We have determined that 68,286 small systems will experience an impact
from .004 percent to .13 percent of their revenues (see section
V.C.10). Table V.4 provides a summary of these small systems, by size
category and system type.
Table V.4.--The Number of Small Systems Affected by the Proposed Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size CWS NTNCWS Total small
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 100............................................................ 13,766 9,548 23,314
101-500......................................................... 16,240 6,997 23,237
501-1,000....................................................... 5,914 1,925 7,839
1,001-3,300..................................................... 8,298 795 9,093
3,301-10,000.................................................... 4,707 96 4,803
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 48,925 19,361 68,286
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, not all of these small entities will be affected and incur
direct costs for all of the proposed rule changes. In many cases, only
a relatively small subset of these systems will have to change
practices to comply with the rule changes. Table V.5 provides an
estimate of the number of small systems that will incur direct costs
for each of the proposed rule changes.
Table V.5.--The Number of Small Systems Affected by Each Regulatory
Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory change Small systems impacted per year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Change # III.A...... Not Quantified.
Regulatory Change # III.B...... None--Clarifications of
definitions with no direct
cost impact.
Regulatory Change # III.C...... 854.
Regulatory Change # III.D...... 1,009.
Regulatory Change # III.E...... 60,735.
Regulatory Change # III.F...... 49,337.
Regulatory Change # III.G...... 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Activities and Costs Associated With Rule Changes for Small Systems
EPA has estimated the burden and costs associated with the proposed
rule changes as described in the Economic Analysis support document.
The basis for many of these input values and assumptions are described
in detail in the Economic Analysis, Section 4. The following summarizes
the costs estimated for small systems.
[[Page 40855]]
2. One-Time Activities
All small systems subject to the Lead and Copper Rule will be
expected to incur some costs to read the proposed rule changes and
communicate requirements as necessary. The level of effort associated
with these activities could range from 4-8 hours for all small systems.
The average cost per system for these activities is estimated at $105,
for a total cost of $7,193,000 for all 68,286 small systems. This
assumes an hourly fully loaded labor cost for small system employees
ranging from $22.70 to $26.83 (see Appendix B of the Economic Analysis
for derivation).
3. Activities for Regulatory Change III.C
Under Regulatory Change III.C, all systems that exceed the Lead
Action Level are triggered into regularly scheduled lead tap
monitoring. Additional costs are associated with taking lead samples
more frequently and reporting the results to States. EPA estimates that
854 small systems exceed the Action Level each year. Changing from
reduced tap monitoring to a regular tap monitoring schedule would
result in an average cost increase of $2,092 per year per system. Total
costs for all small systems are estimated at $1,786,000 per year.
4. Activities for Regulatory Change III.D
Small systems that are changing treatment or adding a source would
incur additional costs under Regulatory Change III.D to prepare data in
support of proposed treatment changes or source addition, submit the
data to the State for review, and coordinate with the State during the
review. These activities are estimated to take an additional 7.5 hours
per system for each treatment change or source addition. The cost for
each small system that is changing treatment or adding a source is
estimated at $201. The total cost for small systems is estimated at
$203,000 per year.
5. Activities for Regulatory Change III.E
Most small systems are expected to incur additional costs under
Regulatory Change III.E when they are required to notify consumers of
tap monitoring results. The activities associated with notifying
customers vary based on the type and size of the system. The average
cost for small systems to notify customers is estimated at
approximately $14 annually. This estimate assumes one labor hour to
prepare a customer notification letter per system and $0.43 in material
costs per sample for CWSs. EPA assumed one labor hour for NTNCWSs, with
negligible material costs. It is important to note that the majority of
small systems are assumed to meet the Lead Action Level and are assumed
to be on triennial monitoring. Therefore, this requirement will only
affect them once every three years. The total cost to small systems is
estimated at $878,000.
6. Activities for Regulatory Change III.F
Different provisions of Regulatory Change III.F apply to different
subsets of systems. Most small Community Water Systems will incur costs
to include a statement on lead on the CCR, at an average cost of $6 per
system, based on the assumption of 0.25 hours to add an informational
statement on lead to the CCR. Small Non-Transient Non-Community Water
Systems that exceed the Lead Action Level will incur costs to modify
their public notification language, at an average cost per system of
$83. Small Community Water Systems that exceed the Lead Action Level
will incur costs from a variety of public education activities, at an
average cost per system of $348. The total cost for small systems is
estimated at $517,000.
7. Activities for Regulatory Change III.G
Regulatory Change III.G applies to systems that have ``tested out''
lead service lines as part of a lead service line replacement program
and then re-exceed the Action Level. For the purposes of subsequent
lead service line replacement efforts, the previously ``tested out''
lines would go back into the inventory for possible re-testing and/or
replacement. Only a handful of systems are expected to be in this
situation, estimated at one system per year. There is no evidence that
small systems would be triggered into this regulatory change cost any
more frequently than other systems. If this system were a small system,
a lower number of lead service lines would be replaced or tested out
than was assumed in the Economic Analysis. The average number of
service connections per system for systems serving fewer than 10,000 is
289. For the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis we assume
that all 289 of these service connections are lead service lines. The
resulting cost per system for the retesting is estimated at $1,311 per
year for a small system based on the approach described earlier in the
Economic Analysis for Regulatory Change III.G. The percent assumed to
be tested out rather than replaced is estimated at 76 percent based on
one year of data from DC WASA. This means that 76 percent of the 289
service connection lines would need to be retested over a 15 year period.
8. Total Small System Costs
Table V.6 summarizes the estimated annual costs associated with all
proposed regulatory changes after those changes have been implemented.
An additional $7,193,000 in one-time rule implementation costs will
also be incurred during the three year period prior to implementation
of the changes.
Table V.6.--Total Small System Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
Annual labor materials Total annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Change #III.A................................ .............. .............. ..............
Regulatory Change #III.B................................ .............. .............. ..............
Regulatory Change #III.C................................ $1,625,000 $162,000 $1,787,000
Regulatory Change #III.D................................ 203,000 .............. 203,000
Regulatory Change #III.E................................ 779,000 99,000 878,000
Regulatory Change #III.F................................ 513,000 4,000 517,000
Regulatory Change #III.G................................ 1,178 133 1,311
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 3,121,000 265,000 3,386,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40856]]
9. Average Costs Per Small System
The average compliance cost for all small systems covered by the
LCR for the proposed rule change is minimal: $50 per system in annual
costs. However, there is a fairly wide range in the costs that a system
could face. All systems will incur a $105 one-time cost, but the
additional annual costs could be as low as $0 for small systems that
already notify customers of tap monitoring results and who do not
detect lead in their compliance sampling. Systems that do not already
notify customers of results will incur a cost of $14 per year. Systems
that detect any level of lead above the method detection limit of 0.001
mg/L in their compliance sample will incur a cost of $6 per year to
include a statement in their CCR. The roughly 1.5 percent of systems
that are making a treatment change or source addition would incur an
additional $201 in the year they make the change.
At the high end, the roughly 1.4 percent of small systems that
exceed the Action Level would incur an additional $2,440 per year.
Under the assumptions in the Economic Analysis, only .0015 percent of
systems (1 per year) could possibly incur both the additional tap
monitoring costs and lead service line testing costs after an Action
Level exceedance, at a total cost of $1,311 per year. If a system
incurred all annual costs, the total would be $3,972 per year.
10. Measuring Significant Impact of Rule Costs
The costs to small systems are first compared against average
revenues for small systems from all revenue sources. Small systems can
be one of three types of small entities--small businesses, small
governments, or small non-profits. In the Economic Analysis for the
final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, EPA
calculates the average revenues from all revenue sources for small
systems serving fewer than 10,000 for each of the small entity types
and then estimates a weighted average revenue from all revenue sources
based on the proportion of small systems in each type of entity (U.S.
EPA 2005c). The weighted average revenue from all revenue sources for
small systems is estimated at $3 million per year.
Using the average cost of the regulatory changes for small systems,
the one-time implementation costs represent roughly 0.004 percent of
annual revenues from all revenue sources. The $50 average annual costs
represent 0.002 percent of average annual revenues from all revenue
sources. Roughly 1.4 percent of the systems would incur annual costs of
$2,440, which is approximately .082 percent of revenues from all
sources. Only 1 system could face the maximum annual costs of $3,972.
This maximum cost is approximately 0.13 percent of annual revenues from
all sources.
In summary, the costs for the average small system due to the
regulatory changes are estimated to be less than 1 percent of revenues
(0.002 percent). In addition, fewer than 100 systems (1 system per
year) are expected to experience economic impacts of approximately 0.13
percent of the revenue.
Based on this analysis, EPA has concluded that the proposed rule
changes will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Although this proposed 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 by
considering several alternatives to the proposed regulatory changes
that could minimize impact to small systems while still meeting the
objectives of the rule.
11. Regulatory Changes III.A
These changes clarify the original intent of the LCR that very
small NTNCWSs serving 100 persons or fewer take a minimum of five
samples for each sampling period, even if the system has fewer than
five sampling locations. EPA is requesting comment on an option
suggested by a work group comprised of representatives from EPA's
regional offices and several States that would limit the number of
samples these systems would have to take to one for each location
(i.e., tap). Taking fewer than five samples for each monitoring event
would reduce the monitoring burden for small systems. However, as
explained in the preamble to the proposed regulatory changes, EPA
believes that taking fewer than five samples for a system would likely
compromise the statistical objectives of monitoring for lead and copper.
12. Regulatory Change III.C
Regulatory Change III.C requires systems that have exceeded the
Lead Action Level to resume tap monitoring for lead on a regular,
rather than reduced, schedule. Originally, EPA had considered extending
this requirement to both lead and copper monitoring. Based on
suggestions from the work group to minimize impacts on small systems,
EPA limited the requirement to only Lead Action Level exceedances.
13. Regulatory Change III.E
Regulatory Change III.E requires systems to provide lead monitoring
results to consumers. The work group discussed including copper
monitoring results in the notification, but deferred that suggestion
for future consideration, thereby limiting the increase in burden for
small systems. Section H of this proposal also provides some important
clarifications of alternatives to corrosion control for small systems.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
D. 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.
[[Page 40857]]
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 total upfront costs of this action to
States and public water systems are estimated at $8.8 million, with
estimated annual costs to States and public water systems ranging from
approximately $5.1 to $5.5 million. Systems and State/Primacy agencies
will incur one-time upfront costs associated with reviewing and
implementing the overall LCR regulatory changes. For systems,
activities include reviewing the rule changes and training staff. For
States/Primacy agencies, activities include regulation adoption,
program development, and miscellaneous training. Systems and States
will also incur annual costs consisting of the costs to implement the
regulation. Annual costs to systems include the costs of reporting,
monitoring, and public education. Annual costs to States consist of the
costs of reviewing water system information. Thus, this proposal is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The regulation applies to all owners/operators of public
water systems, not uniquely to those owners/operators that are small
entities, and, for most systems, requires minimal expenditure of
resources. Since these regulatory revisions affect all system sizes and
the impact on the average small system will be 0.13 percent of
revenues, the regulatory revisions to the LCR are not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA.
Nevertheless, in developing this rule, EPA consulted with State and
local officials (including small entity representatives) early in the
process of developing the proposed regulation to permit them to have
meaningful and timely input into its development. EPA held five
workshops in 2004-2005 to elicit concerns and suggestions from
stakeholders on various issues related to lead in drinking water. These
workshops covered the topic areas of simultaneous compliance, sampling
protocols, public education, lead service line replacement, and lead in
plumbing. Expert participants from utilities, academia, state
governments, consumer and environmental groups, and other stakeholder
groups participated in these workshops to identify issues, propose
solutions, and offer suggestions for modifications and improvements to
the LCR. These workshops are described in greater detail in the
Economic Analysis for this proposed rule.
The Agency has developed fact sheets that describe requirements of
the short-term regulatory revisions and clarifications to the LCR.
These fact sheets are available by calling the Safe Drinking Water
Hotline at 800-426-4791.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
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'' are 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.''
This proposed 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. The rule is consistent with, and
only makes revisions 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, remove lead service lines
and provide public education where necessary to ensure public health
protection. This proposed rule does not make any significant changes to
these requirements but makes revisions and clarifications to the rule's
requirements to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of current
requirements.
Nevertheless, EPA did consult with State and local officials early
in the process of developing the proposed regulation as described in
section V.D, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Several States also
participated in EPA's workgroup that developed this proposal.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified
in Executive Order 13175. It 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 the proposed rule apply to all community and non-
transient non-community water systems. tribal governments may be the
owners or operators of such systems, however, nothing in this
proposal's provisions uniquely affects them. EPA therefore concludes
that this proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional
comment on this proposed rule from Tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
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 Executive Order 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 proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule does not change the core LCR requirements in place
to assure the protection of children from the effects of lead in
drinking water, rather the proposed changes will improve the
implementation of these provisions. Moreover, EPA believes that this
[[Page 40858]]
proposal is consistent with Executive Order 13045 because it will
further strengthen protection to children from exposure to lead and
copper via drinking water, as this proposal enhances the implementation
of the LCR in the areas of monitoring, customer awareness, and lead
service line replacement. This proposal also clarifies the intent of
some unclear provisions in the LCR. These changes are expected to
ensure and enhance more effective protection of public health through
the reduction in lead exposure.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The rule provides
clarifications and modifications to the existing LCR rule language only.
This proposed rule does not affect the supply of energy as it does
not regulate power generation. The public and private utilities that
will be affected by this proposed regulation do not, as a rule,
generate power. The proposed revisions to the LCR do not regulate any
aspect of energy distribution as the utilities that are regulated by
the LCR already have electrical service. Finally, these regulatory
revisions do not adversely affect the use of energy as EPA does not
anticipate that a significant number of drinking water utilities will
add treatment technologies that use electrical power to comply with
these regulatory revisions. As such, EPA does not anticipate that this
rule will adversely affect the use of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 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, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The proposed rule may involve voluntary consensus standards in that
it requires additional monitoring for lead and copper in certain
situations, and monitoring and sample analysis methodologies are often
based on voluntary consensus standards. However, the proposed rule does
not change any methodological requirements for monitoring or sample
analysis, only, in some cases, the required frequency and number of
samples. Also, EPA's approved monitoring and sampling protocols
generally include voluntary consensus standards developed by agencies
such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and other such
bodies wherever EPA deems these methodologies appropriate for
compliance monitoring.
VI. References
The public docket is available as described at the beginning of
this document. The following references are referred to in this
document and are included in the public docket:
U.S. EPA. 1988. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Proposed National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper (Draft).
Prepared by Wade Miller Associates, Inc. (June 1, 1988).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Variability of Household Water Lead Levels In
American Cities.
U.S. EPA 1991a. Final Information Collection Request for National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. April, 1991.
U.S. EPA 1991b. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis of National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. April, 1991.
U.S. EPA. 1991c. Memorandum from Jeff Cohen to the Record on
Required Number of Samples (May 6, 1991).
U.S. EPA. 1991d. Federal Register. Vol 56, No. 110. 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].
U.S. EPA. 1996a. Regulatory Impact Analysis Addendum EPA 812-B-96-
002, January 1996.
U.S. EPA. 1996b. Federal Register. Vol 60, No. 72 Maximum Contaminant
Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and
Copper (Apr. 12, 1996), 16348-16371. [72 FR 16348].
U.S. EPA. 1998a. Federal Register. Vol 63, No. 160 National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer Confidence Reports (Aug. 19,
1998), 44512-44536. [63 FR 44512].
U.S. EPA. 1999a. Information Collection Request: National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. June 1999. EPA ICR
Number: 1912.01.
U.S. EPA. 2000a. Federal Register. Vol 65, No. 8 National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Rule (Wed.
Jan. 12, 2000), 1950-2015. [65 FR 1950].
U.S. EPA. 2000b. Federal Register. Vol 65 No. 87 National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations: Public Notification Rule (Thurs. May 4,
2000), 25982-26049. [65 FR 25982].
U.S. EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance
for Public Water Systems. February, 2002.
U.S. EPA. 2004a. Expert Panel Workshop Public Education Under the
Lead and Copper Rule and Drinking Water Risk Communication Summary.
September 14-15, 2004. Hilton Philadelphia Airport, Philadelphia, PA
(http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lcrmr/lead_review.html).
U.S. EPA. 2004b. Information Collection Request for Disinfectants/
Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides Rules, OMB
Control Number: 2040-0204, EPA Tracking Number: 1896.03. September, 2004.
U.S. EPA. 2004c. Information Collection Request for Disinfection
Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides Rules, OMB Control Number:
2040-0204, EPA Tracking Number: 1896.03. Appendix H, page H-43,
table entitled ``Tap Monitoring for Lead & Copper-Monitoring,
Burden, and Cost Assumptions.'' September, 2004.
U.S. EPA. 2004d. State Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule.
July, 2004.
U.S. EPA. 2004e. Summary Lead Action Level Exceedances for Public
Water Systems Subject to the Lead and Copper Rule. September 13, 2004.
U.S. EPA. 2005. Federal Register. Vol. 70, No. 177 National Drinking
Water Advisory Council's Working Group on Public Education
Requirements of the Lead and Copper Rule Meeting Announcement (Wed.
Sept. 14, 2005), 54375. [70 FR 54375].
U.S. EPA. 2006a. Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National
Report. March, 2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006b. Economic and Supporting Analysis Short Term
Regulatory Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule. May, 2006.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indians--lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
Dated: July 6, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I,
part 141 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 40859]]
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.
2. Section 141.80 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(2) and by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.80 General Requirements
* * * * *
(g) Public education requirements. Any system exceeding the Lead
Action Level shall implement the public education requirements.
Pursuant to Sec. 141.85, all water systems must provide a consumer
notice of lead tap water monitoring results to persons served at the
sites that are tested.
* * * * *
3. Section 141.81 is amended as follows by:
a. Removing the first sentence in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) and adding
in its place the following two sentences,
b. Revising the last sentence in paragraph (e)(1);
c. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (e)(2);
d. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(i); and
e. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii).
Sec. 141.81 Applicability of corrosion control treatment steps to
small, medium-size and large water systems.
* * * * *
(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 upcoming change in treatment or addition
of a new source. The State must review and approve the addition of a
new source or change in water treatment before it is implemented by the
water system.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * * A system exceeding the lead or copper action level shall
recommend optimal corrosion control treatment (Sec. 141.82(a)) within
six months after the end of the monitoring period during which it
exceeds one of the action levels.
(2) Step 2: Within 12 months after the end of the monitoring period
during which a system exceeds the lead or copper action level, the
State may require the system to perform corrosion control studies
(Sec. 141.82(b)). * * *
(i) For medium-size systems, within 18 months after the end of the
monitoring period during which such system exceeds the lead or copper
action level.
(ii) ``For small systems, within 24 months after the end of the
monitoring period during which such system exceeds the lead or copper
action level.''
* * * * *
4. Section 141.83(a)(1) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 141.83 Source water treatment requirements.
* * * * *
(a) * * * (1) Step 1: A system exceeding the lead or copper action
level shall complete lead and copper source water monitoring (Sec.
141.88(b)) and make a treatment recommendation to the State (Sec.
141.83(b)(1)) no later than 6 months after the end of the monitoring
period during which the lead or copper action level was exceeded.
* * * * *
5. Section 141.84 is amended as follows by:
a. Redesignating paragraph (b) as (b)(1);
b. Revising the last sentence in the newly designated (b)(1) and
adding two sentences to the end of the paragraph;
c. Adding paragraph (b)(2); and
d. In paragraph (f), revise ``(b)'' to read ``(b)(2)''.
Sec. 141.84 Lead service line replacement requirements.
* * * * *
(b)(1) * * * The first year of lead service line replacement shall
begin on the date after the monitoring period in which the action level
was exceeded under paragraph (a) of this section. If monitoring is
required annually or less frequently, the end of the monitoring period
is September 30 of the calendar year in which the sampling occurs. If
the State has established an alternate monitoring period, then the end
of the monitoring period will be the last day of that period.
(2) Any water system resuming a lead service line replacement
program shall update its inventory of lead service lines to include
those sites that were previously determined not to require replacement
through the sampling provision under paragraph (c) of this section. The
system will then divide the updated number of remaining lead service
lines by the number of remaining years in the program to determine the
number of lines that must be replaced per year (7 percent replacement
is based on a 15-year replacement program, so, for example, systems
resuming after conducting two years of replacement would divide the
updated inventory by 13).
* * * * *
6. Section 141.85 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 141.85 Public education and supplemental monitoring requirements.
A water system that exceeds the Lead Action Level based on tap
water samples collected in accordance with Sec. 141.86 shall deliver
the public education materials contained in paragraph (a) of this
section in accordance with the requirements in paragraph (b) of this
section. Water systems that exceed the Lead Action Level must sample
the tap water of any customer who requests it in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section. All water systems must provide a
consumer notice of lead tap water monitoring results to persons served
by the water system at sites that are tested, as specified in paragraph
(d) of this section.
(a) Content of written public education materials.--(1) Community
water systems and Non-transient non-community water systems. Water
systems must include the following elements in printed materials (such
as brochures and pamphlets) in the same order as listed below. In
addition, paragraphs (a)(1)(i)-(ii) and (a)(1)(vi) must be included
exactly as written except for the text in brackets in these paragraphs
for which the water system must include system-specific information.
Any additional information presented by a water system must be
consistent with the information below and be in plain language that can
be understood by lay people.
(i) Opening Statement. IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT LEAD IN YOUR
DRINKING WATER. [INSERT NAME OF WATER SYSTEM]
found high levels of lead
in drinking water in some homes/buildings. Lead can cause serious
health problems, especially for pregnant women and children 6 years and
under. Please read this notice closely to see what you can do to reduce
lead in your drinking water.
(ii) Health effects of lead. Lead can cause serious health problems
if too much enters your body. It can cause damage to the brain and
kidneys and can decrease the number of red blood cells (a risk factor
for anemia). The greatest risk is to infants, young children, and
pregnant women. Small amounts slow down normal mental development in
growing children and alter the development of other organs and systems.
The effects of lead on the brain are associated with lowered IQ in
children. Adults with kidney problems and high blood pressure are more
likely to be affected by low levels of lead than the general
population. Lead is stored in the bones allowing it to be released even
after exposure stops. The presence in
[[Page 40860]]
bone increases the concern for exposure at all points of the life cycle.
(iii) Sources of Lead. (A) Explain what lead is.
(B) Explain possible sources of lead and how lead enters drinking
water. Include information on home/building plumbing and service lines
that may contain lead.
(C) Discuss other important sources of lead exposure in addition to
drinking water (e.g., paint).
(iv) Steps you can take to reduce your exposure to lead in drinking
water. (A) Encourage running the water to flush out the lead.
(B) Explain concerns with using hot water and specifically caution
against the use of hot water for baby formula.
(C) Explain that boiling water does not reduce lead levels.
(D) Discuss other options consumers can take to reduce exposure to
lead in drinking water, such as alternative sources or treatment of water.
(v) What happened and What is being done?
(A) Explain why there are high levels of lead in the system's
drinking water (if known).
(B) Discuss what the water system is doing to reduce the lead
levels in homes/buildings in this area.
(vi) For More Information. Call us at [INSERT YOUR NUMBER], or
visit our web site at [INSERT YOUR WEB SITE HERE IF APPLICABLE]. For
more information on reducing lead exposure around your home/building
and the health effects of lead, visit EPA's Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/lead, call the National Lead Information Center
at 1-800-424-LEAD, or contact your health care provider.
(2) Community water systems. In addition to including the elements
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, community water systems must:
(A) Tell consumers how to get their water tested.
(B) Discuss lead in plumbing components and the difference between
low lead and lead free.
(b) Delivery of public education materials. (1) In communities
where a significant proportion of the population speaks a language
other than English the system must also provide the public education
materials in the appropriate language(s).
(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 conducting public education tasks under
this section, must, within 60 days after the end of the monitoring
period in which the exceedance occurred:
(i) Deliver printed materials meeting the content requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section to all bill paying customers.
(ii) Make a good faith effort to contact all customers who are most
at risk by delivering materials that meet the content requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section to the following organizations along with
a cover letter that encourages distribution by the organization to all
its potentially affected customers or users.
(A) Local Public Health Agencies--The water system must deliver
materials that meet the content requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section to the local public health agencies and must directly contact
(by phone or in person) the local public health agencies. The local
public health agencies may provide a specific contact list of
additional community based organizations serving targeted populations.
(B) Public and private schools or school boards.
(C) Licensed childcare centers.
(D) Public and private pre-schools.
(E) Women Infants and Children (WIC) and Head Start programs.
(F) Public and private hospitals and medical clinics.
(G) Pediatricians.
(H) Obstetricians-Gynecologists and Midwives.
(I) Family planning clinics.
(J) Local welfare agencies.
(iii) Provide information on or in each water bill as long as the
system exceeds the action level for lead. The message on the water bill
must include the following statement exactly as written with the
addition of the system's name and Web site: [INSERT NAME OF WATER SYSTEM]
found high levels of lead in drinking water in some homes. Lead
can cause serious health problems. For more information please call
[INSERT NAME OF WATER SYSTEM] [or visit (INSERT YOUR WEB SITE HERE)].
The message or delivery mechanism can be modified in consultation with
the State.
(iv) Post material meeting the content requirements of paragraph
(a) on the water system's Web site if the system serves a population
greater than 100,000.
(v) Submit press release to newspaper, television and radio
stations.
(vi) In addition to paragraphs (b)(2)(i)-(v) of this section,
systems must implement at least 3 activities from one or more
categories listed below. The content of these activities must be
determined in consultation with the State.
(A) Public Service Announcements.
(B) Paid advertisements.
(C) Display Information in Public Areas.
(D) Internet such as emails to customers.
(E) Public Meetings.
(F) Delivery to every household.
(G) Individual contact with customers (targeted contact).
(H) Provide materials directly to all multi-family homes and
institutions.
(I) Other methods approved by the State.
(vii) For systems that are required to conduct monitoring annually
or less frequently, the end of the monitoring period is September 30 of
the calendar year in which the sampling occurs, or, if the State has
established an alternate monitoring period, the last day of that period.
(3) As long as a system exceeds the action level, it must repeat
the activities described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section as
described in (b)(3)(i)-(iv) of this section.
(i) A community water system shall repeat the tasks contained in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(ii) and (vi) of this section every 12 months.
(ii) A community water system shall repeat tasks contained in
paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section with each billing cycle.
(iii) A community water system serving a population greater than
100,000 shall post material on a publicly accessible internet site
pursuant to (b)(2)(iv) of this section.
(iv) The community water system shall repeat the task in (b)(2)(v)
of this section twice every 12 months on a schedule agreed upon with
the state. The State can allow activities in (b)(2)(iii) and (b)(2)(vi)
of this section to extend beyond the 60-day requirement if needed for
implementation purposes; however, this extension must be approved in
writing by the State in advance of the 60-day deadline.
(4) Within 60 days after the end of the monitoring period in which
the exceedance occurred (unless it already is repeating public
education tasks pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this section), a non-
transient non-community water system shall deliver the public education
materials specified by paragraph (a) of this section as follows:
(i) Post informational posters on lead in drinking water in a
public place or common area in each of the buildings served by the
system; and
(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
[[Page 40861]]
of or combined with printed materials as long as it achieves at least
the same coverage.
(iii) For systems that are required to conduct monitoring annually
or less frequently, the end of the monitoring period is September 30 of
the calendar year in which the sampling occurs, or, if the State has
established an alternate monitoring period, the last day of that period.
(5) A non-transient non-community water system shall repeat the
tasks contained in paragraph (b)(4) of this section at least once during
each calendar year in which the system exceeds the Lead Action Level.
(6) A water system may discontinue delivery of public education
materials if the system has met the Lead Action Level during the most
recent six-month monitoring period conducted pursuant to Sec. 141.86.
Such a system shall recommence public education in accordance with this
section if it subsequently exceeds the Lead Action Level during any
monitoring period.
(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 only the text specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section in
lieu of the text in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section and to
perform the tasks listed in paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) of this
section in lieu of the tasks in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(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) A community water system serving 3,300 or fewer people may
limit certain aspects of their public education programs as follows:
(i) With respect to the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of
this section, a system serving 3300 or fewer must implement at least
one of the activities listed in that paragraph.
(ii) With respect to the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of
this section, a system serving 3300 or fewer people may limit the
distribution of the public education materials required under that
paragraph to facilities and organizations served by the system that are
most likely to be visited regularly by pregnant women and children.
(iii) With respect to the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(v) of
this section, the State may waive this requirement for systems serving
3300 or fewer persons as long as system distributes notices to every
household served by the system.
(c) Supplemental monitoring and notification of results. A water
system that fails to meet the Lead Action Level on the basis of tap
samples collected in accordance with Sec. 141.86 shall offer to sample
the tap water of any customer who requests it. The system is not
required to pay for collecting or analyzing the sample, nor is the
system required to collect and analyze the sample itself.
(d) Notification of results--(1) Reporting requirement. All water
systems must provide a consumer notice of lead tap water monitoring
results carried out to meet requirements under Sec. 141.86 to all
persons served by the water system at the sampling sites in Sec. 141.86(c).
(2) Timing of notification. A water system must provide the
consumer notice as soon as practical, but no later than 30 days after
the system learns of the tap monitoring results.
(3) Content. The consumer notice must include the results of lead
tap water monitoring for the tap that was tested, an explanation of the
health effects of lead, list steps consumers can take to reduce
exposure to lead in drinking water and contact information for the
water utility. The notice must also provide the maximum contaminant
level goal and the action level for lead and the definitions for these
two terms from Sec. 141.153(c)(1).
(4) Delivery. The consumer notice must be provided to all persons
served at the site by mail or other methods approved by the State. The
system must provide the notice to all customers, including consumers
who do not get water bills.
7. Section 141.86 is amended as follows:
a. In the introductory paragraph of (c), adding a sentence after
the third sentence;
b. In paragraph (d)(4)(i) add as the last sentence;
c. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(ii);
d. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iii);
e. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A);
f. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(vi)(B);
g. In paragraph (d)(4)(vi)(B)(1) adding as the last sentence;
h. Removing the first sentence in paragraph (d)(4)(vii), and adding
in its place the following two sentences;
i. In paragraph (g)(4)(i) adding as the last sentence; and
j. Revising paragraph (g)(4)(iii).
Sec. 141.86 Monitoring requirements for lead and copper in tap water.
* * * * *
(c) * * * A non-transient non-community public water system that
serves 100 people or less and that does not have enough drinking water
taps meeting the sample site criteria of Sec. 141.86(a) to reach the
required number of sample sites listed in Sec. 141.86(c) must collect
at least one sample from each tap and then must collect additional
samples from those taps on different days during the monitoring period
to meet the required number of sites. * * *
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * * This sampling shall begin during the calendar year
immediately following the end of the second consecutive six-month
monitoring period.
(ii) Any water system that meets the Lead Action Level and
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. This sampling shall begin during the calendar year
immediately following the end of the second consecutive six-month
monitoring period. 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 meets the Lead Action
Level and 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
[[Page 40862]]
written approval from the State. Samples collected once every three
years shall be collected no later than every third calendar year. 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) The State, at its discretion, may approve different period for
conducting the lead and copper tap sampling for systems collecting a
reduced number of samples. This sampling shall begin no later than the
six-month period beginning January 1 of the calendar year following the
reduced monitoring exceedance. 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 tare most likely to occur is
not known, the State shall designate a period that represents a time of
normal operation for the system. This sampling shall begin during the
calendar year immediately following the end of the second consecutive
six-month monitoring period for systems resuming annual monitoring and
during the three-year period following the end of the third consecutive
calendar year of annual monitoring for systems resuming triennial
monitoring.
(B) Any water system subject to the reduced monitoring frequency
that fails to meet the Lead Action Level during any four-month
monitoring period or 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 and collect the number of samples
specified for standard monitoring for water quality parameters within
the distribution system in accordance with Sec. 141.87(d). This
standard tap water sampling shall begin no later than the six-month
period beginning January 1 of the calendar year following the water
quality parameter excursion. 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) * * * This sampling shall begin during the calendar year
immediately following the end of the second consecutive six-month
monitoring period.
* * * * *
(vii) Any water system subject to reduced monitoring frequency
under paragraph (d)(4) of this section shall notify the State in
writing in accordance with Sec. 141.90(a)(3) of any upcoming change in
treatment or addition of a new source. The State must review and
approve the addition of a new source or change in water treatment
before it is implemented by the water system. * * *
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * * Samples collected every nine years shall be collected no
later than every ninth calendar year.
* * * * *
(iii) Any water system with a full or partial waiver shall notify
the State in writing in accordance with Sec. 141.90(a)(3) of any
upcoming change in treatment or addition of a new source. The State
must review and approve the addition of a new source or change in water
treatment before it is implemented by the water system. 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
rounds(s) of monitoring), if it deems such modifications are necessary
to address treatment or source water changes at the system. * * *
8. Section 141.87 is amended as follows by:
a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (d);
b. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(i); and
c. Adding as the last sentence of (e)(2)(ii).
Sec. 141.87 Monitoring requirements for water quality parameters.
* * * * *
(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 either January 1 or July 1, whichever comes
first, after the State specifies the optimal values under Sec.
141.82(f). * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Any water system that maintains the range of values for the
water quality 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 with which it collects the
number of tap samples for applicable water quality parameters specified
in this paragraph (e)(1) of this section from every six months to
annually. This sampling begins during the calendar year immediately
following the end of the monitoring period in which the third
consecutive year of six-month monitoring occurs. Any water system that
maintains the range of values for the water quality parameters
reflecting optimal corrosion control treatment specified by the State
under Sec. 141.82(f), during three consecutive years of annual
monitoring under this paragraph may reduce the frequency with which it
collects the number of tap samples for applicable water quality
parameters specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section from annually
to every three years. This sampling begins no later than the third
calendar year following the end of the monitoring period in which the
third consecutive year of monitoring occurs.
(ii) * * * Monitoring conducted every three years shall be done no
later than every third calendar year.
* * * * *
9. Section 141.88 is amended as follows by:
a. Revising paragraph (b);
b. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (d)(1)(i);
c. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii);
d. Revising paragraph (e)(1) introductory text; and
e. Revising paragraph (e)(2) introductory text.
Sec. 141.88 Monitoring requirements for lead and copper in source water.
* * * * *
(b) Monitoring frequency after system exceeds tap water action
level. Any system which exceeds the lead or copper action level at the
tap shall collect one source water sample from each entry point to the
distribution
[[Page 40863]]
system no later than six months after the end of the monitoring period
during which the lead or copper action level was exceeded. For
monitoring periods that are annual or less frequent, the end of the
monitoring period is September 30 of the calendar year in which the
sampling occurs, or if the State has established an alternate
monitoring period, the last day of that period.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * * Triennial samples shall be collected every third calendar
year.
(ii) A water system using surface water (or a combination of
surface and groundwater) shall collect samples once during each
calendar year, the first annual monitoring period to begin during the
year in which the applicable State determination is made under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
(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) provided that the samples are collected no later than every
ninth calendar year and if the system meets one of the following criteria:
* * * * *
(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) provided that
the samples are collected no later than every ninth calendar year and
if the system meets one of the following criteria:
* * * * *
10. Section 141.90 is amended as follows by:
a. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (a)(1);
b. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
c. Revising paragraph (e)(1);
d. Revising paragraph (e)(2) introductory text;
e. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (e)(2)(ii);
f. Revising paragraph (f)(1) introductory text; and
g. Revising paragraph (f)(1)(i).
Sec. 141.90 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(a) * * * (1) For monitoring periods with a duration less than six
months, the end of the monitoring period is the last date samples can
be collected during that period as specified in Sec. Sec. 141.86 and
141.87.
* * * * *
(3) At a time specified by the State, or if no specific time is
designated by the State, then as early as possible prior to the
addition of a new source or any change in water treatment, 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. The State must review and approve the
addition of a new source or change in water treatment before it is
implemented by the water system.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) No later than 12 months after the end of a monitoring period in
which a system exceeds the Lead Action Level in sampling referred to in
Sec. 141.84(a), the system must submit written documentation to the
State of the material evaluation conducted as required in Sec.
141.86(a), identify the initial number of lead service lines in its
distribution system at the time the system exceeds the Lead Action
Level, and provide the system's schedule for annually replacing at
least 7 percent of the initial number of lead service lines in its
distribution system.
(2) No later than 12 months after the end of a monitoring period in
which a system exceeds the Lead Action Level in sampling referred to in
Sec. 141.84(a), and every 12 months thereafter, the system shall
demonstrate to the State in writing that the system has either:
(i) * * *
(ii) * * * In such cases, the total number of lines replaced and/or
which meet the criteria in Sec. 141.84(c) shall equal at least 7
percent of the initial number of lead lines identified under paragraph
(1) of this section (or the percentage specified by the State under
Sec. 141.84(e)).
* * * * *
(f) * * * (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 in accordance with Sec. 141.85(b), 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 the delivery requirements in Sec. 141.85(b); and
* * * * *
11. Section 141.154 is amended by revising paragraph (d)
introductory text, paragraph (d)(1) and (d)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.154 Required additional health information.
* * * * *
(d) Systems that detect any level of lead above the method
detection limit of 0.001 mg/L in their drinking water pursuant to
monitoring under Sec. 141.86 must do one of the following:
(1) Include a short informational statement about the special
effects of lead on children if the system's 90th percentile level is at
or below the Lead Action Level. The statement must include the
following information: ``While our system did not exceed the Lead
Action Level as shown in the table, it is possible that there may be
high lead levels in your home as a result of materials in your home
plumbing. Lead can cause serious health problems, especially for
pregnant women and children 6 and under. If you are concerned about
high lead levels in your home's water, run your water for 30 seconds to
2 minutes before using tap water and have your water tested. Additional
information is available from the National Lead Information Center at
1-800-424-LEAD.'' The system may write its own educational statement,
but only in consultation with the Primacy Agency.
(2) Include a short informational statement about the special
effects of lead on children if the 90th percentile sample is above the
Lead Action Level. The statement must include the following
information: ``Our system exceeded the Lead Action Level. It is
possible that there may be high lead levels in your home as a result of
materials in your home plumbing. Lead can cause serious health
problems, especially for pregnant women and children 6 and under. If
you are concerned about high lead levels in your home's water, run your
water for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using tap water and have your
water tested. Additional information is available from the National
Lead Information Center at 1-800-424-LEAD.'' The system may write its own
educational statement, but only in consultation with the Primacy Agency.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-6250 Filed 7-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081011052741im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}