National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications
[Federal Register: October 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 195)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57781-57820]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10oc07-13]
[[Page 57782]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
[EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0034; FRL-8476-5]
RIN 2040-AE83
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper:
Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing seven targeted regulatory changes to the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) for lead and
copper. This final rule strengthens the implementation of the Lead and
Copper Rule (LCR) in the following areas: monitoring, treatment
processes, public education, customer awareness, and lead service line
replacement. These changes provide more effective protection of public
health by reducing exposure to lead in drinking water.
DATES: This final rule is effective on December 10, 2007.
The compliance date for all of this final rule's provisions is 180
days after promulgation except if by that date, the primacy State has
not adopted this rule, in which case compliance with this final rule is
required the earlier of either the State's adoption of the rule, or two
years after December 10, 2007. For purposes of judicial review, this
rule is promulgated as of October 10, 2007 as provided in 40 CFR 23.7.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0034. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
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; e-mail address:
kempic.jeffrey@epa.gov. For regulatory inquiries, contact Eric
Burneson, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC 4607M),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-5250; e-mail address:
burneson.eric@epa.gov.
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 final 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 likely to be 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. 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. Abbreviations Used in This Document
AL: Action Level
CCR: Consumer Confidence Report
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
CWS: Community Water System
CWSS: Community Water System Survey
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
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
MDL: Method Detection Limit
NDWAC: National Drinking Water Advisory Council
NPDWR: National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
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
C. Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What Is the Statutory Authority for the Lead and Copper Rule?
B. What Is the Regulatory History of the Lead and Copper Rule?
C. Why Is EPA Promulgating the LCR Short-Term Regulatory Revisions?
II. What Do the LCR Short-Term Regulatory Revisions Require?
A. Minimum Number of Samples Required
B. Definitions for Compliance and Monitoring Periods
C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria
D. Advanced Notification and Approval Requirements for Water
Systems That Intend to Make Any Long-Term Change in Water Treatment
or Add a New Source of Water
E. Requirements to Provide a Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water
Monitoring Results to Consumers Who Occupy Homes or Buildings That
Are Tested for Lead
F. Public Education Requirements
G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines Deemed Replaced Through Testing
III. Discussion of the Lead and Copper Rule Short-Term Regulatory
Revisions and Clarifications
A. Minimum Number of Samples Required
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Minimum Number of Samples
Required Revisions?
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Minimum
Number of Samples Required Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
B. Definitions for Compliance and Monitoring Periods
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Compliance and Monitoring
Period Definition Revisions?
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the
Compliance and
[[Page 57783]]
Monitoring Period Definition Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Reduced Monitoring Revisions?
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters on the Reduced
Monitoring Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
D. Advanced Notification and Approval Requirement for Water
Systems That Intend to Make Any Long-Term Changes in Water Treatment
or Add a New Source of Water
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for Advanced Notification and Approval
of Long-Term Treatment Changes or Addition of New Source Revisions?
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Advanced
Notification and Approval of Long-Term Treatment Changes or Addition
of New Source Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
E. Requirements to Provide a Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water
Monitoring Results to Consumers Who Occupy Homes or Buildings That
Are Tested for Lead
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Consumer Notice of Lead Tap
Water Monitoring Results Revisions?
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Consumer
Notice of Lead Tap Water Monitoring Results Revisions and EPA's
Response to These Issues?
F. Public Education Requirements
1. Message Content
a. How Is EPA Revising the Message Content?
b. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Message Content Revisions?
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Message
Content Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
2. Delivery
a. How Is EPA Revising the Delivery Requirements?
b. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Delivery Requirements Revisions?
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Delivery
Requirements Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
3. Timing
a. How Is EPA Revising the Timing Provisions of the Rule?
b. What Is EPA's Rationale for Revising the Timing Provisions of
the Rule?
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Timing
Provisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
4. Consumer Confidence Reports
a. How Is EPA Revising CCR Requirements?
b. What Is EPA's Rationale for the CCR Revisions?
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the CCR
Requirements Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines Deemed Replaced Through Testing
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Reevaluation of Lead Service
Lines Revisions?
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters on the
Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines Revisions and EPA's Response to
These Issues?
H. Other Issues Related to the Lead and Copper Rule
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for Not Including Any of These Other
Issues in the Final Rule Revisions?
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on These Other
Issues and EPA's Response to These Issues?
I. Compliance Dates
1. What Are the New Compliance Dates for This Rule?
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Compliance Dates?
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the
Compliance Dates and EPA's Response to These Issues?
J. 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?
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
N. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the State
and System Burden Estimates (Economic Analysis) and EPA's Response
to These Issues?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Requirements
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
J. Congressional Review Act
VI. References
I. Background
A. What Is the Statutory Authority for the Lead and Copper Rule?
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.)
requires EPA to establish maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) for contaminants
that may have an adverse effect on the health of persons, may occur in
public water systems at a frequency and level of public concern, and in
the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of the contaminant
would present a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for
persons served by public water systems (section 1412(b)(1)(A)). The
1986 amendments to SDWA established a list of 83 contaminants for which
EPA is to develop MCLGs and NPDWRs, which included lead and copper. The
1991 NPDWR for Lead and Copper (56 FR 26460, U.S. EPA, 1991a) fulfilled
the requirements of the 1986 SDWA amendments with respect to lead and
copper.
B. What Is the Regulatory History of the Lead and Copper Rule?
EPA promulgated maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and NPDWRs
for lead and copper (LCR) on June 7, 1991. The goal of the LCR is to
provide maximum human health protection by reducing lead and copper
levels at consumers' taps to as close to the MCLGs as is feasible. To
accomplish this goal, the LCR establishes requirements for community
water systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-community water systems
(NTNCWSs) to optimize corrosion control and conduct periodic
monitoring. Systems are required to perform public education when there
are action level exceedances at more than 10 percent of the taps that
are sampled, treat source water if it contributes significantly to lead
and copper levels at the tap, and replace lead service lines in the
distribution system if the lead level at the tap continues to exceed
the action level after optimal corrosion control has been installed.
EPA proposed minor revisions to the LCR (LCRMR) in 1996 (60 FR 16348,
U.S. EPA 1996a) and finalized these minor revisions on January 12, 2000
(65 FR 1950, U.S. EPA 2000b). These minor revisions streamlined the
requirements of the LCR, promoted consistent national
[[Page 57784]]
implementation, and reduced the reporting burden to affected entities.
These minor revisions also addressed the areas of optimal corrosion
control demonstration, 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 level, MCLG, or the
rule's basic requirements.
C. Why Is EPA Promulgating the LCR Short-Term Regulatory Revisions?
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 associated with lead and copper. In 2004,
the District of Columbia experienced incidences of elevated drinking
water lead levels, which prompted EPA to initiate a comprehensive
national review of the LCR to evaluate the implementation and
effectiveness of the rule. The purpose of the review was to determine
whether elevated drinking water lead levels were a national problem; if
a large percentage of the population received water that exceeded the
lead action level; if a significant number of systems failed to meet
the action level; how well the existing LCR worked to reduce drinking
water lead levels; and if the regulation is currently being effectively
implemented, especially with respect to monitoring and public education
requirements. EPA's comprehensive review consisted of several elements,
including a series of workshops designed to solicit issues, comments,
and suggestions from stakeholders on particular issues; a review of
monitoring data to evaluate the effectiveness of the LCR; and a review
of the LCR implementation by States and water utilities. As a result of
this multi-part review, EPA identified seven targeted rule changes
intended to strengthen the implementation of the LCR in the areas of
monitoring, customer awareness, and lead service line replacement in
the short-term. The short-term changes finalized in this action are
expected to ensure and enhance protection of public health by reducing
exposure to lead in drinking water. This final rule 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.
II. What Do the LCR Short-Term Regulatory Revisions Require?
A. Minimum Number of Samples Required
1. Proposed Revision
The proposed LCR Short-Term Regulatory Revisions (71 FR 40828, July
18, 2006, U.S. EPA 2006a) clarified and maintained that five samples
per monitoring period is the minimum number of samples required for
systems serving 100 people or fewer.
2. Final Revision
EPA's final revision to the minimum number of samples requirement
adds a provision that gives States the discretion to allow water
systems with fewer than five taps for human consumption to collect one
sample per tap. Under this alternate sampling schedule, the sample with
the highest test result will be compared to the action level to
determine compliance. While fewer samples may be taken, comparing the
single highest level provides public health protection since it does
not allow water systems to ignore a potential problem by taking repeat
samples at taps that have low lead results when they get a high sample
result. See section III.A for more information on this regulatory
revision and also for EPA's response to significant public comments on
the proposal. A complete response to all comments on this rule is found
in the Lead and Copper Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
B. Definitions for Compliance and Monitoring Periods
1. Proposed Revision
EPA's proposed revision clarified the ``compliance period'' as the
three year calendar period as defined at Sec. 141.2 and the
``monitoring period'' as the specific period in which water systems
must conduct required monitoring. EPA also proposed to revise several
sections of the LCR to more precisely define when the ``start date''
for the compliance calendar begins. EPA also proposed to clarify that
systems on reduced monitoring schedules must monitor during four
consecutive months, and systems on triennial monitoring must monitor
once every 3 calendar years, with a similar requirement for small
systems with a monitoring waiver to ensure they monitor every 9 years.
2. Final Revision
EPA is maintaining the revision as proposed for defining the
compliance and monitoring periods. Based on commenter concerns with
implementing the clarified definition of the term ``monitoring
period,'' EPA is allowing States flexibility in extending the timeframe
to complete public education activities after an action level (AL)
exceedance. For more information and EPA's response to significant
public comments, see section III.B of this notice.
C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria
1. Proposed Revision
EPA proposed a revision that would disallow water systems that
exceeded 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 (WQP) monitoring. This proposed change
would modify the reduced monitoring provisions at Sec. 141.86(d)(4).
2. Final Revision
EPA is maintaining the revision as proposed for reduced monitoring
criteria. For more information and EPA's response to significant public
comments, see section III.C of this notice.
D. Advanced Notification and Approval Requirements for Water Systems
That Intend To Make Any Long-Term Change in Water Treatment or Add a
New Source of Water
1. Proposed Revision
EPA proposed to amend several sections of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) to require water systems to obtain prior approval by
the State to add a new source of water or change a treatment process
prior to implementation.
2. Final Revision
EPA is maintaining the revision as proposed for advanced
notification and approval requirements with a slight modification to
clarify EPA's intention. In finalizing this regulatory revision, EPA is
clarifying the requirements for advance notification and approval to
apply to those treatment changes that would have long-term impacts on
water quality. EPA has provided examples of long-term treatment changes
in Sec. 141.90(a)(3) of this final rule. EPA believes that this
clarification will prevent water systems from notifying the State and
requesting approval for changes that are operational in nature or made
on a daily basis. See section III.D of this notice for more information
regarding this regulatory revision and EPA's response to significant
public comments on this issue.
[[Page 57785]]
E. Requirements To Provide a Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water
Monitoring Results to Consumers Who Occupy Homes or Buildings That Are
Tested for Lead
1. Proposed Revision
EPA proposed revisions to require water systems to notify consumers
in homes or buildings tested for lead of their results. Specifically,
systems must provide written notification to household occupants within
30 days after the water system learns the results for samples collected
from that household and post or otherwise notify occupants of non-
residential buildings of the results of lead testing. EPA also
indicated that the consumer notification must contain an explanation of
lead health effects, list steps consumers can take to reduce lead
drinking water exposure, provide utility contact information, and
include the lead maximum contaminant level goal or MCLG, lead action
level, and definitions of each from Sec. 141.153(c)(1).
2. Final Revision
EPA is maintaining the revision as proposed to consumer
notification language. EPA is also adding language to Sec.
141.85(d)(4), which provides an example of an alternative mechanism of
consumer notification for NTNCWSs. For more information and EPA's
response to significant public comments, see section III.E of this notice.
F. Public Education Requirements
1. Proposed Revision
EPA proposed to revise the public education requirements of the LCR
in the areas of message content, delivery requirements, and the
Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). The proposed revisions would modify
the mandatory language in public education to make it shorter and
easier to understand; require water systems to deliver material to new
organizations, engage in new outreach activities, post lead information
on water bills, issue two press releases during periods of lead action
level exceedance; and modify the CCR such that all CWSs with lead
detects above the method detection limit (MDL) of 0.001 mg/L would have
to include information about the risks of lead in drinking water in the
CCR on a regular basis.
2. Final Revision
EPA is maintaining the proposed revisions to the public education
requirements, but is adding a provision that water systems must submit
public education language for State review and approval at the option
of the State. Generally, EPA is retaining the delivery requirements as
proposed, but has made modifications to address challenges with water
system jurisdiction and delivery of materials. EPA is now requiring
that all systems have a simple informational statement about lead in
their CCR because the actual level of lead exposure for drinking water
varies between individual homes and levels detected by the system for
compliance and would not necessarily reflect the risk faced by
consumers. EPA also realizes there are situations where the most
vulnerable populations may be exposed to elevated levels of lead for
many months before being notified. In addition, this simplifies
compliance tracking and enforcement of this requirement. See section
III.F of this notice for more information on the final public education
requirements and for EPA's responses to significant public comments.
G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines Deemed Replaced Through Testing
1. Proposed Revision
EPA proposed to require water systems to reevaluate lead service
lines classified as ``replaced'' through testing if they resume lead
service line replacement programs.
2. Final Revision
EPA is maintaining the revision as proposed for reevaluation of
lead service line replacement, but is adding a provision to allow an
alternative time schedule for systems that have completed a 15-year
replacement program before re-exceeding the lead action level. For more
information and EPA's response to significant public comments, see
section III.G of this notice.
III. Discussion of the Lead and Copper Rule Short-Term Regulatory
Revisions and Clarifications
A. Minimum Number of Samples Required
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
EPA is clarifying the minimum sampling requirement for small water
systems that have fewer than five taps by making revisions to Sec.
141.86(c). These revisions include a clarification that the term
``taps'' means ``taps that can be used for human consumption,'' as
opposed to outlets such as hose bibs or taps at utility sinks. In
addition, the revisions clarify what a system must do to meet the
minimum five number of samples requirement when the system physically
has fewer than five taps. In this situation, the water system must
sample all taps at least once and then take repeat samples on different
days until a total of five samples are obtained.
EPA is, however, adding a provision to Sec. 141.86(c) that gives
States the discretion to allow water systems that have fewer than five
taps, to collect one sample per tap that can be used for human
consumption. To qualify for this provision, the water system must make
a request to the State in writing and the State must approve the
request in writing or by onsite verification. Under this alternate
sampling schedule for all water systems collecting fewer than five
samples, the sample with the highest test result will be compared to
the lead action level to determine compliance. If any sample result is
above the action level, the system is deemed to be exceeding the action
level and must complete compliance actions (e.g., public education,
corrosion control treatment, and lead service line replacement). EPA is
adding regulatory text to Sec. 141.80 to describe this new compliance
determination. The alternate sampling schedule may also be applicable
for water systems that are on reduced monitoring and EPA is adding a
provision to Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(i) for those systems. The provision
allows the water system to reduce sampling frequency to once per year,
but in no case can the number of samples required be reduced below the
minimum of one sample per tap that can be used for human consumption.
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Minimum Number of Samples Required
Revisions?
In the original Lead and Copper Rule of 1991, the term ``site'' is
used to refer to the number of samples collected, and there has been
confusion as to whether ``site'' refers to taps or physical locations.
EPA is clarifying that sampling ``sites'' refer to ``taps that can be
used for human consumption.'' The phrase ``that can be used for human
consumption,'' is being added to the regulations to ensure that samples
are taken from taps which would pose the highest risk for exposure to
lead, rather than from taps that are not typically used for human
consumption.
EPA is also making clarifications for water systems that have fewer
than five taps that can be used for human consumption. In the proposal
for this rule, EPA maintained that systems must take a minimum of five
samples in order to adequately capture the variability of lead levels
and that it was more cost effective for small systems to take more
samples than install corrosion control or
[[Page 57786]]
source treatment based on a small pool of samples taken (71 FR 40828 at
40831, U.S. EPA, 2006a). EPA is maintaining that systems must take a
minimum of five samples as part of this rule. However, EPA is also
giving States the discretion to offer an alternative requirement, on
which it requested comment in the proposed rule, described as follows.
EPA requested comment on an alternative sampling requirement for
NTNCWS with fewer than five taps that can be used for human
consumption. The water systems would be required to sample 100 percent
of the taps that can be used for human consumption. Under the
alternative sampling provision, systems collecting fewer than five
samples will compare the sample with the highest result to the action
level to determine if they must complete compliance actions such as
public education, corrosion control treatment installation, and/or lead
service line replacement. EPA believes that requiring systems to use
the highest sample result to determine compliance is health protective
because it does not allow water systems to take repeat samples at taps
that have low levels of lead when they get a high sample result. In
addition, the alternative sampling schedule alleviates the cost burden
associated with taking repeat samples. After evaluating comments, EPA
has determined that the alternative sampling provision will also be
made available to CWS with fewer than five taps for human consumption,
such as washeterias in Alaska and Navajo hauling points.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Minimum Number
of Samples Required Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
The majority of commenters did not agree with EPA's proposal to
require water systems with fewer than five taps to collect repeat
samples from the same taps and they supported the idea of allowing
small water systems to sample 100 percent of taps available for human
consumption. Commenters stated that repeat sampling would be a cost
burden imposed on the smallest sized systems. Some commenters also
stated that repeat sampling was an unfair requirement for small systems
since large systems are not required to take repeat samples or sample
all of their available taps for compliance. To address these concerns,
EPA is giving discretion to the States to allow small systems with
fewer than five taps to take fewer than five samples. EPA stresses,
however, that the requirement is not less stringent, since systems
collecting fewer than 5 samples must compare the sample with the
highest concentration to the action level. By taking fewer than 5
samples, systems with fewer than 5 taps are giving up the opportunity
to take repeat samples at taps with low lead results.
Two States supported not changing the minimum number of samples
requirement because of the administrative burden of verifying available
taps. Although other commenters believed that there was no better
statistical representation than sampling 100 percent of taps in a
system, one of the States stated that it is statistically ``risky'' to
base compliance on a single sample since lead levels vary greatly even
with corrosion control treatment in place. The other State that did not
favor the alternative suggested that EPA offer States discretion to
allow the alternative of sampling 100 percent of taps. EPA agrees with
the State and has made changes in this rule to reflect this suggestion.
Because the alternative is not mandatory, those States which do not
agree with the provision are not required to allow water systems to
utilize the alternative sampling schedule.
In their comments, a few States indicated that small systems with
fewer than 5 taps are ``primarily'' NTNCWSs, thus indicating that some
are CWSs. The commenters who supported this approach did not provide
any reason for limiting this to NTNCWSs and in fact, the reasons for
supporting the alternative would apply equally well to any small system
with fewer than 5 taps. As a result, States can approve the alternative
monitoring for both CWSs and NTNCWSs with fewer than five taps. In
expanding this alternative monitoring to CWSs, EPA emphasizes that this
is only allowed for systems such as washeterias in Alaska and Navajo
hauling points, where there are physically fewer than five taps within
the system. Small CWSs with more than five taps cannot use this
alternative monitoring to take fewer than the required number of
samples pursuant to the table in Sec. 141.86(c).
B. Definitions for Compliance and Monitoring Periods
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
EPA is making a number of clarifications throughout the LCR to
clearly explain when compliance and monitoring periods begin and end.
In addition, the Agency is also clarifying the timing of actions
following a lead or copper action level exceedance and the timing of
monitoring activities with regard to reduced monitoring schedules.
EPA is clarifying that the term ``compliance period'' is a three-
year calendar year period within a nine-year compliance cycle, which is
consistent with the definition in Sec. 141.2. EPA is also defining the
term ``monitoring period'' as the specific time period during which a
water system must perform the required monitoring (e.g., June-September).
In this case and consistent with these definitions, systems will be
deemed to be exceeding the action level as of the date on which the
monitoring period ended (i.e., on September 30). EPA is modifying
several sections of the LCR that describe the timing of actions after
an action level exceedance, including corrosion control treatment steps
in Sec. 141.81(e), source water monitoring and treatment
recommendations to the State in Sec. 141.83(a), lead service line
replacement in Sec. 141.84(b)(1), public education for community water
systems in Sec. 141.85(b)(2) and for non-transient non-community water
systems in Sec. 141.85(b)(4), source water monitoring requirements in
Sec. 141.88(b) and (d), and the reporting requirements in Sec.
141.90(a) and (e).
Also, for systems on reduced monitoring, the monitoring period is
from June to September or some other consecutive four-month period
during normal operation when the highest lead levels are most likely to
occur. EPA has modified the reduced monitoring provisions in Sec.
141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A) to reflect this requirement. In addition, the
Agency is clarifying when a system may begin reduced monitoring in
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(i) and (ii), as well as when a system on reduced
monitoring must resume standard monitoring according to Sec.
141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B). In addition, the timing for water quality parameter
monitoring is now more clearly defined in Sec. 141.87(d) and (e).
Lastly, systems on triennial monitoring must conduct their
monitoring during a four-month consecutive period every three years and
are therefore not allowed to monitor during Year 1 of the first
compliance period and during Year 3 of the second compliance period.
The Agency is modifying the reduced monitoring provisions for lead and
copper sampling in Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(iii), for water quality parameter
sampling in Sec. 141.87(e)(2)(ii), and for triennial source water
monitoring in Sec. 141.88(d)(1)(i). EPA is making a similar change for
small systems with monitoring waivers to ensure that they monitor every
nine years, which modifies Sec. Sec. 141.86(g)(4)(i) and 141.88(e).
[[Page 57787]]
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Compliance and Monitoring Period
Definition Revisions?
EPA is making revisions regarding monitoring and compliance periods
in order to clarify the meaning of these terms, to address the issues
associated with the timing of actions following a lead or copper action
level exceedance, and to address the timing of samples that should be
taken under reduced monitoring schedules.
Under the previous regulations, there was uncertainty about when a
system was 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). The
changes made in this final rule clarify that a system is deemed to be
exceeding the action level on the last day of the monitoring period in
which the exceedance occurred.
The clarified timing of actions following a lead or copper action
level exceedance is also intended to ensure that the system and the
State begin actions to reduce exposure (e.g., corrosion control, public
education, and lead service line replacement) as soon as possible. The
deadlines for completing these follow-up activities will be calculated
from the date the system is determined to be exceeding the action level
(i.e., end of the monitoring period), with some discretion for States
to extend the deadline for completing public education activities on a
case-by-case basis.
The timing of samples that should be taken for systems on reduced
monitoring schedules ensures that States and systems have an accurate
assessment of the effectiveness of corrosion control. This relates to
both the duration and frequency of monitoring. Under this requirement,
samples must be taken during four consecutive months. 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 4-month period, all samples must be taken
during that 4-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 will collecting the same number of
samples over a 3-year period. In addition, systems on triennial
monitoring are also not allowed to monitor during Year 1 of the first
compliance period and during Year 3 of the second compliance period
because that would allow five years to pass between monitoring rounds.
Similarly, systems on nine-year monitoring waivers are not allowed to
monitor during Year 1 of the first nine-year period and Year 9 of the
second nine-year period.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Compliance and
Monitoring Period Definition Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
Most commenters agreed with the definitions of monitoring and
compliance periods in the proposed revisions, but some had
implementation concerns. Two commenters agreed that four months is
reasonable for monitoring activities, including distribution,
collection, and initiation of lab processing. However, several
expressed concern that the clock for compliance actions should not
start until compliance has been determined after the end of the
monitoring period or that States should be given flexibility to alter
compliance action schedules. In response to these commenters, EPA is
modifying Sec. 141.85(b)(3)(iv) to allow States flexibility in
extending the timeframe on a case-by-case basis to complete public
education activities after an action level exceedance. However, systems
must start these activities and States must approve in writing any
deadline extension within 60 days of the end of the monitoring period
in which the exceedance occurred. This ensures that the system and the
State begin public education actions to reduce exposure as soon as
possible, but allows these actions to continue past the 60-day
timeframe as needed for effective implementation. States should still
make every effort to get public water systems to complete their public
education activities within 60 days after the end of the monitoring period.
In addition, one commenter indicated that under the current version
of the LCR, small and medium systems exceeding the action level must
perform water quality parameter monitoring within the same monitoring
period. The commenter then stated that the systems may not obtain their
sample results and identify that they have exceeded the action level
until after the monitoring period has ended. As a result, this
requirement effectively sets systems up for water quality parameter
monitoring violations. In the 1991 LCR, EPA recognized that many
factors influence water corrosivity and because of this, decided to
require small and medium water systems detecting lead and/or copper
above the action levels to measure for water quality parameters (56 FR
26460 at 26526, U.S. EPA, 1991a). However, EPA recognizes that under
the monitoring period clarifications made in this final rule, systems
on reduced monitoring that exceed the action level will most likely not
be taking water quality parameters and would have automatically
incurred a violation based on the requirement in Sec. 141.87(d). The
end of the 6-month period in which small and medium water systems must
sample for water quality parameters would have corresponded to the end
of the 4-month monitoring period in which they must sample for lead and
copper under Sec. 141.86(d)(4). For example, a system that takes lead
and copper tap samples between June and September and exceeds the
action level, would only have until the end of September to take all of
their water quality parameters. The system would most likely not be
aware of the exceedance until the end or after the end of the
monitoring period and would incur a violation for not having already
completed water quality parameter monitoring. Therefore, EPA is
revising the requirement in Sec. 141.87(d) to require the start of the
6-month period in which the system must take water quality parameters
to correspond with the start of the 4-month monitoring period in which
they must sample for lead and copper under Sec. 141.86(d)(4). This
revision will allow small and medium systems on reduced monitoring that
exceed the action level two months to take water quality parameter
samples after the end of the 4-month monitoring period in which they
had to take lead and copper tap samples. For example, a system that
takes lead and copper tap samples between June and September and
exceeds the action level, would have until the end of November to take
water quality parameter samples. This provision is intended primarily
for systems that are not aware of the exceedance until the end of the
lead and copper monitoring period. Those systems that are aware of the
action level exceedance earlier in the 4-month lead and copper
monitoring period should conduct their monitoring once they become
aware of the exceedance to better capture the water quality conditions
at the time of the exceedance.
C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
EPA is no longer allowing water systems that exceed the lead action
level to initiate or remain on a reduced lead and copper monitoring
schedule based solely on the results of their water
[[Page 57788]]
quality parameter monitoring. This change modifies 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. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Reduced Monitoring Revisions?
EPA is making this change because the Agency believes that reduced
monitoring should only be permitted where it has been demonstrated that
corrosion control 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. First, it will
assist systems in evaluating the effectiveness of corrosion control
treatment. The rule previously allowed 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 knowledge of this continued
exceedance may result in the system implementing an alternative and
more effective corrosion control treatment strategy. 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.
Second, continued monitoring will allow primacy agencies to gain a
more accurate picture of lead levels in drinking water 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 is exceeding the
action level will allow States and systems to better inform consumers
and, thereby, create greater confidence in their efforts to reduce lead
levels.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters on the Reduced
Monitoring Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
The majority of commenters agreed with EPA that a system must
remain under the action level to continue operating on reduced
monitoring. States and others supported the current requirement to
allow systems that exceed the copper action level to continue on
reduced monitoring if water quality parameters are met. Therefore, the
Agency is not making any changes that differ from the proposal with
regard to this provision.
Some commenters did feel that systems that exceed the copper action
level should not be allowed to reduce their monitoring requirements. As
stated in the proposal, 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 due to their source water (e.g., 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 Sec. Sec.
141.86(d)(4)(ii) and 141.86(d)(4)(iii), 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. Therefore, the Agency is not requiring that systems that
meet the lead action level and water quality parameter requirements
must also meet the copper action level to be eligible for reduced lead
and copper monitoring.
Other commenters stated that systems which make treatment changes
or add new sources of water should also be required to monitor for lead
and copper for two consecutive 6-month periods. Currently, Sec.
141.86(d)(4)(vii) provides States authority to require systems that
either add a new source of water or change any water treatment to
resume standard monitoring. In addition, Sec. Sec. 141.81(b)(3)(iii)
and 141.86(g)(4)(iii) allows the State to require any system adding a
new source of water or changing any water treatment to conduct
additional monitoring. EPA is not changing these requirements as part
of this rule. EPA believes States should continue to have the
flexibility to require systems to resume standard monitoring after
making a treatment change or adding a new source of water that could
impact corrosion control.
D. Advanced Notification and Approval Requirement for Water Systems
That Intend To Make Any Long-term Change in Water Treatment or Add a
New Source of Water
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
This final rule amends Sec. Sec. 141.81(b)(3)(iii),
141.86(d)(4)(vii), 141.86(g)(4)(iii), and 141.90(a)(3) to require water
systems to obtain prior approval by the State to add a new source of
water or make any long-term change in water treatment process prior to
implementation. The final regulatory language allows as much time as
needed for water systems and States to consult before making these
changes. To assist the State in making its determinations, EPA
published a March 2007 Simultaneous Compliance Guidance Manual for the
Long Term 2 and Stage 2 DBP Rules (US EPA, 2007b). This document will
be an aid to the State in identifying those situations where optimal
corrosion control can be affected by long-term changes in treatment or
source water.
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for Advanced Notification and Approval of
Long-Term Treatment Changes or Addition of New Source Revisions?
Previously, the rule required that systems notify the State within
60 days of making a change in treatment or adding a new source. EPA
proposed that systems be required to provide advance notification of
any change in treatment or addition of a new source and receive
approval from the State prior to making the change. The final rule
requires systems to provide advanced notification of any long-term
change in treatment or addition of a new source and receive approval
from the State before implementing the change. When a water system
makes long-term changes to its treatment process or adds a new source
of water, it can unintentionally affect the system's optimal corrosion
control. EPA believes that State review
[[Page 57789]]
and approval of changes in long-term treatment or addition of a new
source will provide an opportunity to minimize any potential impacts on
optimal corrosion control.
For this final rule, EPA has clarified the intent of this provision
by stating that it applies to long-term changes in treatment. Examples
of long-term treatment changes include the addition of a new treatment
process or modification of an existing treatment process. Examples of
modifications include switching secondary disinfectants (e.g., chlorine
to chloramines), switching coagulants (e.g., alum to ferric chloride),
and switching corrosion inhibitor products (e.g., orthophosphate to
blended phosphate). Long-term changes can include dose changes to
existing chemicals if the system is planning long-term changes to its
finished water pH or residual inhibitor concentration. Long-term
treatment changes would not include chemical dose fluctuations
associated with daily raw water quality changes.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Advance
Notification and Approval of Long-Term Treatment Changes or Addition of
New Source Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
Many commenters supported the concept of advance notification and
approval of treatment changes that could affect optimal corrosion
control, but were concerned that the rule language as proposed was too
broad and could include daily operational changes. Commenters were
concerned that review and approval of daily changes that are dictated
by the raw water quality could not be done in a timely manner and could
be detrimental to public health if they were covered by the advance
notification and approval requirement. It was not EPA's intention to
include these daily operational activities. In response, EPA has
revised the final rule to require advance notification and State
approval of long-term treatment changes or addition of new source.
Daily dose fluctuations due to changes in raw water quality would not
be considered a long-term treatment change and would not require
advance notification and State approval.
EPA requested comment on whether it should revise the existing rule
language on ``addition of new source'' to ``source change,'' but did
not propose to make this change. Many commenters stated that revising
the rule to cover any source change would be too prescriptive and that
this could also include daily changes. Source changes occur on a daily
basis due to changes in demand and commenters expressed concern that
State review and approval of these changes could not be done in a
timely manner and therefore could be detrimental to public health. EPA
has retained the language of ``addition of new source'' in the final
rule rather than use the term ``source change.'' EPA believes that it
would be difficult to define a long-term source change because the
source mixture can constantly change due to demand or changes in
availability of sources. EPA discussed several scenarios in the
proposed rule, including switching from 100% surface water to 100%
ground water, switching from 100% surface water to 50% ground water and
50% surface water, and a change in proportion of moving from 75% ground
water and 25% surface water to 25% ground water and 75% surface water.
EPA believes that the existing language ``addition of new source''
covers the first two scenarios. Notification and approval would not be
necessary if the switch is repeated on an annual basis.
The optimal corrosion control treatment for systems with mixed
sources (ground water and surface water) should consider the impact of
changing the proportions. Section 141.87(a)(1)(i) states that the tap
samples shall be representative of water quality throughout the
distribution system taking into account the number of persons, the
different sources of water, the different treatment methods employed by
the system, and seasonal variability. Both water source and water
treatment methods can produce different finished water pH values or
other critical water quality parameters. For example, if the finished
water pH values from both the surface sources and ground water sources
are very similar, then this can mitigate the impact of changing the
proportions of the various sources. Systems with waters that have
different finished pH values should consider monitoring at the
representative sites in the distribution system after making a major
change in the proportions of the sources (75% ground water to 25%
ground water). EPA will provide guidance to help systems identify
source water changes (such as changing the mixture) that could impact
optimal corrosion control.
Some commenters stated that State approval of the treatment change
or addition of a new source is not necessary and would delay changes
needed by the system. EPA disagrees with these commenters. EPA believes
that clarifying the revision to focus on long-term treatment changes
will address concerns that this requirement would affect a system's
ability to address daily water quality treatment changes. State
notification and approval of long-term treatment changes is important
because these changes could adversely impact optimal corrosion control.
As EPA noted in the proposed rule, this approach allows the State to
evaluate the change prior to implementation and, if needed, to design a
monitoring program to ensure that optimal corrosion control is
maintained after the change. EPA expects that States will review and
approve long-term treatment changes and additions of new sources
expeditiously and will avoid unnecessary delays to long-term changes
that are needed by the system.
E. Requirements To Provide a Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water
Monitoring Results to Consumers Who Occupy Homes or Buildings That Are
Tested for Lead
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
EPA is amending the public education requirements described in
Sec. 141.80(g) and is adding a new notification requirement to 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 the testing results when their drinking water is tested
for lead. EPA is also adding a reporting requirement to Sec. 141.90(f)
for systems to certify they have completed this new consumer
notification requirement.
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water
Monitoring Results Revisions?
Although some utilities may have provided customers with the
results of analyses conducted to meet requirements of the regulations,
utilities were not previously 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.
[[Page 57790]]
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Consumer Notice
of Lead Tap Water Monitoring Results Revisions and EPA's Response to
These Issues?
EPA received a range of comments regarding the inclusion of the
maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) and the action level for lead,
along with the definitions for these two terms from Sec. 141.153(c) in
the consumer notice of lead tap results. Some commenters stated that
listing the MCLG was unnecessary and would be confusing. However, other
commenters expressed that it was appropriate to include the MCLG and
many commenters stated that there should be some reference to the
action level. Some of these commenters stated that the consumer notice
should just indicate whether the result was above or below the action
level, while others stated that there should be an acknowledgment that
the action level is not health-based. Still others wanted EPA to
provide a level of lead that is a health concern along with information
on how to interpret results.
EPA disagrees that the MCLG is unnecessary and would cause
confusion, since the definition of the term in Sec. 141.153(c)(1)
clearly states that it is the level of a contaminant in drinking water
below which there is no known or expected risk to health, allowing for
a margin of safety. In 1991, EPA set the MCLG for lead as zero based on
the following considerations: (1) The occurrence of a variety of low
level health effects for which it is difficult to identify clear
threshold exposure levels below which there are no risks of adverse
health effects; (2) the Agency's policy goal that drinking water should
contribute minimal lead to total lead exposures because a portion of
the sensitive population already exceeds acceptable blood lead levels;
and (3) the classification of lead as a probably human carcinogen (56
FR 26460 at 26467, U.S. EPA 1991a). EPA believes that individuals who
have their homes tested for lead should be aware of the levels below
which there is no known or expected risk to health and should have the
knowledge that there are steps they can take to further reduce
exposure. Therefore, this final rule includes the provision to include
the MCLG along with its definition from Sec. 141.153(c)(1).
EPA agrees that there should be a reference to the lead action
level, since this is the level at which systems are required to take
actions (e.g., public education, corrosion control treatment, lead
service line replacement). This rule includes a requirement to include
the term ``action level'' and its definition from Sec. 141.153(c)(3).
EPA is not requiring that systems include an explicit sentence that the
level is not health based, but notes that this rule does not preclude a
system from adding such a statement to the notice.
In response to providing a level of lead that is a health concern,
EPA believes the current MCLG is the best estimate below which there is
no known or expected risk to health from lead in drinking water. EPA is
currently working toward better defining the correlation between
drinking water lead levels and adverse health effects. With regard to
how to interpret results, EPA believes that including the required
information in the consumer notice allows consumers to make informed
decisions regarding their lead levels and provides actions they might
take to reduce their lead exposure.
In addition, some commenters expressed confusion about who would
receive the result where testing occurred in buildings with many units,
such as apartment buildings. Many of these commenters cited landlord-
tenant issues that may arise by sending results to all residents. EPA's
intent in the proposal was that the sample results go to the individual
residence where the sample was taken and this final revision clarifies
the intent was not to extend notification of the result from one unit
to all units in a building.
A number of commenters were concerned with the burden on non-
transient non-community water systems which, they presumed, would have
to notify all users of a facility. It was not EPA's intent to have
these systems notify all of their users of the results of testing, but
to have them post results in a public place under an alternative
mechanism. In order to clarify this intent, EPA has added language to
Sec. 141.85(d)(4) that provides an example of an alternative mechanism
as follows: ``For example, upon approval by the State, a non-transient
non-community water system could post the results on a bulletin board
in the facility to allow users to review the information.''
Some states were concerned about the burden associated with
tracking and enforcement of this requirement. In response, EPA is
requiring in this final rule that systems certify to the State that
notification was sent consistent with the requirements in Sec.
141.85(d), as part of the reporting requirements for public education
in Sec. 141.90(f).
Lastly, one commenter stated that the consumer notice requirement
needed its own unique citation, because citing it under Sec. 141.85
implied that it only applied to the public education activities
triggered by a lead action level exceedance. The proposed revisions did
contain a reference to the consumer notice requirements in Sec.
141.80, which stated that all water systems must provide a consumer
notice to persons served at the sites that are tested. In addition,
there is a similar statement in Sec. 141.85. In order to clarify that
all systems must complete this requirement, EPA reordered the sentences
in Sec. 141.80 and Sec. 141.85 to state the consumer notification
requirements up front. The Agency feels that this adequately clarifies
that all systems must provide notification of tap results to consumers
at sites that are tested.
F. Public Education Requirements
EPA is changing the public education requirements of the Lead and
Copper Rule in Sec. 141.85. Water systems are still required to
deliver public education materials after a lead action level
exceedance. However, EPA is making significant modifications to the
content of the written public education materials (message content) and
adding a new set of delivery requirements. EPA is also making revisions
to Sec. 141.154 that will require all community water systems (CWSs)
to include an educational statement about lead in their Consumer
Confidence Reports.
1. Message Content
a. How Is EPA Revising the Message Content?
EPA is changing the required content of the message provided to
consumers after a lead action level exceedance by shortening and
simplifying the mandatory language. Previously, Sec. 141.85 required
written materials to include mandatory language consisting of over
1,800 words describing health effects, levels of lead in drinking
water, steps to reduce exposure, and how to obtain additional
information. In this revision, the mandatory language will consist of
an opening statement, health effects language and sources of further
information. The health effects language has been revised to provide
greater specificity on the health problems that can result from
exposure to lead (e.g., the original health effects language indicated
that lead can cause damage to the brain, while the new language
specifies that this damage is associated with lower IQ in children).
Although the new language includes mandatory language related to health
effects, water systems will have the flexibility to tailor some of the
topics of the public education message, as mentioned above, to fit
their community and situation. For
[[Page 57791]]
example, previous public education language required water systems to
instruct consumers to flush their faucet for 15-30 seconds or one
minute (if the home has a lead service line) before drinking the water.
This rule allows systems to tailor flushing directions to their
specific situations. Water systems will have to submit the public
education materials to the State for review and approval prior to the
delivery to consumers. However, the State has the flexibility to not
require this approval.
b. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Message Content Revisions?
During EPA's national review of the LCR, many stakeholders stated
that the public education requirements needed improvement. At the 2004
EPA Public Education Expert workshop, a number of concerns were raised
about the effectiveness of the existing public education language and
requirements. Workshop participants stated that the mandatory language
in the rule was too long, cumbersome, and complex. EPA is revising the
public education requirements to ensure that the delivered information
is meaningful and useful to consumers. In addition, by simplifying the
language, EPA hopes that systems can more effectively convey steps to
their customers that they can take to reduce their exposure to lead in
drinking water.
EPA also identified compliance as an issue in its review of LCR
implementation. Because many water utilities did not conduct the
required public education, at-risk populations did not get information
they needed to reduce their exposure from lead in drinking water (71 FR
40828 at 40835, U.S. EPA, 2006a). EPA is revising the public education
requirements of the LCR in an effort to improve compliance by
simplifying the mandatory language and to reduce potential adverse
health effects by ensuring that consumers, specifically at-risk
populations, receive the information they need in a timely manner to
limit their exposure to lead in drinking water.
With some modifications, EPA has included the public education
language developed by the National Drinking Water Advisory Council
(NDWAC) in this rule as a replacement of the existing public education
requirements of the LCR. The revised public education information is
more clear and concise and also encourages the public to take an
appropriate course of action to reduce their exposure to lead. The
health effects language section was revised by EPA to improve consumer
awareness and understanding of potential effects of exposure to lead.
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Message Content
Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
While most of the commenters supported the proposed flexibility in
the development of public education materials, one suggested that EPA
provide a template for small and medium-sized systems that may lack the
expertise to draft the public education materials. EPA is in the
process of developing guidance that will include templates for the
public education materials. Generally, commenters did support
shortening the mandatory language. While some commenters believed that
the revised language is clearer and easier to understand, most
commenters did not like the recommended health effects language,
stating that it was too alarming and complex. A few commenters
preferred the existing health effects language to what EPA proposed.
EPA believes the language should convey the need for consumers to pay
attention to the message and understand the risks of exposure. In
addition, the new health effects language is more specific about the
health effects of greatest concern than was the prior language.
However, EPA agrees that the complexity of the proposed mandatory
health effects language would limit its utility in conveying to the
general public an understanding of the risk posed by lead in drinking
water and an appropriate course of action. Therefore, the Agency
revised the health effects statement in this final rule to simplify the
language--to a reading level that is appropriate for the general
public--while retaining its specificity regarding the health effects of
greatest concern.
Some commenters believed that the health effects language should
promote awareness of the potential effects of lead in drinking water
and put them in context with respect to other sources of lead in the
environment. EPA believes exposure of humans to lead from any source is
a reason for concern and has added the following statement to the
mandatory health effects language: ``Lead can cause serious health
problems if too much enters your body from drinking water or other
sources.'' In addition, this rule contains a provision in Sec.
141.85(a)(iii) that provides for an explanation of other important
sources of lead exposure in the public education message.
A few commenters believed that EPA should provide scientific
support for the statements about health effects in the revision to
substantiate the changes to the health effects language. EPA's most
recent comprehensive analysis of lead health effects may be found in
the final document, Air Quality Criteria for Lead (US EPA, 2006b),
which provides a thorough discussion of lead health effects and
includes citations for the studies that support the statements made in
the public education language in this rule.
Some commenters wanted the public education materials to explain
that a 90th percentile result above the action level does not mean all
customers are exposed to water above the action level. EPA did not
include any additional mandatory language to this effect in the
revision, but believes that there is enough flexibility for a water
system to include this type of language if they believe it is important.
Most commenters thought it would be a burden to require States to
approve water systems' public education materials before distribution.
EPA recognizes that distribution of public education materials
following an action level exceedance should not be delayed if States
cannot review materials in an expedient manner. Therefore, this rule
allows States to determine if they will require State approval of a
water system's public education materials before distribution.
EPA requested comment on whether there should be a mandatory
requirement to include the contact information for the State drinking
water primacy agency. Although large systems most likely will have a
representative who can answer customer questions about lead in drinking
water, very small systems may not have the expertise to answer all
questions. In these cases it may be useful to have State contact
information included in the public education materials. Most commenters
did not support the addition of State contact information in the public
education materials, stating this would create a burden for the States.
Some commenters believed that the individual States should make the
decision whether to include their State contact information in the
public education materials. EPA has therefore not added a mandatory
requirement for State contact information as part of the public
education content, but believes there is enough flexibility in this
final rule for States to make the decision whether to include it.
Two commenters suggested that, rather than using the proposed
regulatory language with regard to communicating with customers in
their native tongue, EPA should use the existing language in the Public
Notification Rule (PNR), Sec. 141.205(c)(2)(i). For public water
[[Page 57792]]
systems serving a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers,
as determined by the State, the public education materials must contain
information in the appropriate language(s) regarding the importance of
the notice or contain a telephone number or address where persons
served may contact the water system to obtain a translated copy of the
public education materials or to request assistance in the appropriate
language. EPA agrees with this suggestion and has changed the rule
language accordingly.
2. Delivery
a. How Is EPA Revising the Delivery Requirements?
EPA is revising the delivery requirement associated with public
education materials. EPA is requiring water systems to deliver
materials to additional organizations (e.g., licensed childcare
facilities, obstetricians-gynecologists and midwives, and preschools)
and to include an informational notice with the public education
materials explaining the importance of sharing the information with
their customers or users. Water systems are required to contact the
local health agency via phone or in-person, rather than relying solely
on mailing, to request their assistance in distributing information on
lead in drinking water and how people can reduce their exposure to
lead. Systems must contact the local public health agency even if it is
located outside the service area of the water system. Furthermore, the
local public health agency may provide a water system with a specific
list of additional community-based organizations serving target
populations, which may include organizations outside the service area
of the water system. If such lists are provided, systems must deliver
materials to all organizations on the provided lists.
Under the previous regulation, systems serving less than 500 people
could limit their distribution to only those facilities and
organizations frequented by the most vulnerable population without
approval from the State, but systems serving 501-3,300 persons could
only do so if they received written approval from the State. This rule
allows all small systems serving 3,300 or fewer people to limit their
distribution to only those places frequented by the most vulnerable
populations without written approval from the State.
EPA is also requiring water systems to do additional outreach
activities, but offers a list of activities from which they may choose
in consultation with the State. Systems serving more than 3,300 people
are required to do three additional public education activities from
this list, while systems serving 3,300 or fewer people must do one
additional activity. Primacy agencies can choose to waive the mandatory
press release requirement if there are no media outlets that
specifically reach the target population.
In addition, this rule removes the requirement for medium and large
systems to provide two public service announcements (PSAs), which
differ from press releases, per year. Under this rule, all water
systems must post information on water bills (no less than quarterly)
and issue press releases throughout the period during which the system
is exceeding the lead action level. However, EPA did add a provision
which provides State discretion to allow systems to deliver the
information in a separate mailing if the informational statement cannot
be included on the water bill.
In addition, water systems will have to distribute two press
releases as opposed to the one required by the previous Lead and Copper
Rule. Larger systems (serving a population >100,000 persons) must also
post and keep information on their Web site until the system tests
below the action level.
b. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Delivery Requirements Revisions?
In recognition of the importance of distributing information to the
at-risk populations (e.g., pregnant women, infants, and young children)
on the hazards of lead and how one can protect themselves from exposure
to lead, EPA has added additional organizations (e.g., licensed
childcare facilities, obstetricians-gynecologists and midwives, and
preschools) to the list of organizations a water system must contact
when a lead action level exceedance occurs to ensure that the
information reaches all potential bill paying and non-bill paying
customers. This is based on NDWAC's recommendation.
EPA believes the informational notice water systems must include,
along with the public education materials explaining the importance of
sharing this information with their customers/patients, will encourage
the organizations that receive the information to share in the task of
promoting public awareness. EPA recognizes that local health agencies
play an important role in ensuring that consumers who are most
vulnerable receive critical information on how one can reduce their
exposure to lead. Therefore, EPA is requiring water systems to directly
contact the local health agencies via telephone or in person.
In addition, since EPA believes that communication with consumers
is important in promoting public awareness, this rule requires systems
to continually communicate with consumers as long as they continue to
exceed the lead action level. EPA believes the additional activities
required in the rule following a lead action level exceedance (e.g.,
including information on the water bill; two presses releases per year
as opposed to the current rule, which requires only one per year;
posting information on systems' Web sites) will appropriately bring the
seriousness of lead exposure to the attention of consumers.
To ensure that systems employ the appropriate delivery mechanism
and content in terms of developing the most effective way of reaching a
system's target population, water systems must work in consultation
with the State. 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. In order to make the public education as
effective as possible, EPA is giving 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 conducting
public meetings. Realizing that small systems may have difficulty in
completing these requirements, EPA offers States the option to waive
the press release requirement if there are no media outlets that target
the population served by the system. Furthermore, small systems
(serving 3,300 or less people) may limit their distribution to those
places frequented by the most vulnerable populations without written
approval from the State. EPA recognizes that small systems are
typically aware of the constituents in their community and often have
the capability to target specific populations through personal
relationships. By removing the requirement to obtain State approval,
this provision allows these systems to send public education materials
to their vulnerable populations as soon as
[[Page 57793]]
possible and reduces burden on both the system and the State.
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Delivery
Requirements Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
Many commenters expressed concern that it would be an
implementation burden to deliver public education materials and
maintain relationships with the new organizations (e.g., licensed child
care facilities, obstetricians-gynecologists and midwives, and
preschools). Some commenters believed that water systems should rely on
local health departments to provide contact information for the new
organizations. As stated in the proposal, 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. However, EPA cannot mandate that
health departments generate and provide contact information for the new
organizations and is not assuming that local health agencies will have
the contact information for these organizations readily available in
all cases. As discussed below, this rule has provisions for systems to
request that the local health department provide lists of the
additional organizations that may or may not only be those within the
water system's service area, or the system must make a good faith
effort by other means to contact those organizations within their
service area.
Some commenters expressed concerns with EPA's proposed regulatory
language, which indicated that water systems should make a good faith
effort to contact all customers who are most at risk by delivering
materials to specified organizations. The commenters stated that ``good
faith effort'' was too open-ended and difficult to enforce. EPA
employed the terminology ``good faith effort'' to cover the unforeseen
situations outside of the water system's control when they would not be
able to deliver public education materials to organizations (e.g., non-
cooperative organization, a new obstetrician-gynecologist office
opening up after or right before public education materials are
distributed by the water system, and no contact information is
available) and allows States the flexibility to address the public
education challenges a water system might face. Some commenters stated
that requiring water systems to contact their local health agencies and
rely on them to provide contact information for the new organizations
would constitute a good faith effort. EPA believes this may be
considered a good faith effort but suggests that a water system attempt
to find contact information for these organizations by some other means
if the local public health agency cannot provide the information.
Some commenters indicated that contacting the new organizations
should be in guidance and not a requirement. EPA disagrees. It is
important to alert the at-risk populations of how to reduce their
exposure to lead. EPA believes the addition of the new organizations to
the public education requirements accomplishes two goals: (1) It
increases the likelihood that information reaches the most vulnerable
populations (i.e., pregnant women, infants and young children) or their
caregivers; and (2) It ensures that critical information reaches not
only bill paying customers, but also non-bill paying consumers. The
non-bill paying consumers may be contacted through these organizations
if the organizations are provided with the necessary information and
encouraged to share the task of improving public awareness.
Some commenters stated that requiring distribution of material
outside of the water system's service area is a burden for the water
systems as well as being inconsistent with other drinking water rules.
However, EPA believes that if the local public health agency can
identify organizations that potentially serve target populations, then
a water system should deliver public education materials to this
organization even if it is not within the water system's service area.
EPA believes there could also be instances where an individual does not
reside within the system's service area but is served by the water
system in another capacity (e.g., a child lives in another county but
spends a large part of their day at a child care facility that is
served by a water system with a lead action level exceedance).
Some commenters were concerned that States do not have the means to
oversee or verify that systems are fulfilling the requirement to
contact the new organizations. Systems that are subject to public
education requirements are required as part of Sec. 141.90(f) of this
rule to send written documentation to the State that includes a
demonstration that the system has delivered the public education
materials that meet content requirements of Sec. 141.85(a) and the
delivery requirements in Sec. 141.85(b). EPA believes that systems may
provide a copy of the contact lists to the State as part of this
requirement.
EPA also proposed that systems include a cover letter with the
printed materials that they send to organizations to explain the
importance of sharing this information with their customers/patients.
Some commenters were concerned that this was too prescriptive. Other
commenters suggested that the Agency create a template. EPA has revised
this requirement to require that systems include an informational
notice instead of a cover letter, since this will give systems
flexibility in the exact format. In addition, EPA will provide
templates as part of separate guidance.
Some States commented that the proposed new requirements were
excessive, especially as compared to other rules. However, some
commenters supported the requirement that water systems have to conduct
the additional activities and believed that the flexibility in the
selection of the public education delivery activities would enhance the
effectiveness of communication with the public. EPA disagrees with
commenters who believe the requirements are excessive; EPA believes
these changes better ensure that at-risk populations receive
information to enable them to act to reduce their exposure. In
addition, the new requirements are based on recommendations from NDWAC,
which are modeled after the public education requirements in two
existing EPA rules: The Consumer Confidence Report Rule (63 FR 44526,
August 19, 1998, U.S. EPA, 1998) and the Public Notification Rule (65
FR 25982, May 4, 2000, U.S. EPA, 2000c).
Commenters supported the revision that provides small water systems
(serving 3,300 or less people) the authority to limit their public
education distribution to the organizations and places frequented by
the most vulnerable populations without State approval. Commenters also
supported the provision that would allow States to waive the press
release requirement for a small system if there were no media outlets
that would reach the target population.
Many commenters thought there were logistical challenges with
including an informational statement in water bills when a lead action
level exceedance occurs. Some systems do not have the ability to add
any information to their water bill especially where they bill using a
postcard. Accordingly, EPA added a provision to this final rule which
provides State discretion to allow systems to deliver the information
in a separate mailing if the informational statement cannot be included
on the water bill. Some commenters indicated that many systems do not
bill monthly,
[[Page 57794]]
so those consumers will not receive the same degree of notification as
customers of systems that do bill monthly. In response, EPA has added
text to the provision to indicate that when systems notify customers
via their water bill, they must do so no less than quarterly. While
some customers might receive more notification, EPA believes that no
less than quarterly is the maximum time a water system should allow to
elapse between notifications during a lead action level exceedance to
ensure that the issue still holds customers' attention.
3. Timing
a. How Is EPA Revising the Timing Provisions of the Rule?
EPA is requiring that water systems that exceed the lead action
level conduct public education within 60 days after the end of the
monitoring period in which the exceedance occurred. However, as
mentioned in section III.B of this notice, States may extend the
timeframe to complete the public education activities as long as a
water system has started the public education activities within the 60-
day period.
b. What Is EPA's Rationale for Revising the Timing Provisions of
the Rule?
NDWAC was concerned about the lag time between testing water
samples, receiving the results, calculating the 90th percentile, and
finally sending out public education materials. They were concerned
that an individual, particularly an infant or child, could be drinking
water with high lead levels for months before the individual or
caretaker knows 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 Consumer
Confidence Report Rule (40 CFR 141, Subpart O) and the Public
Notification Rule (40 CFR 141, Subpart Q). The NDWAC recommendations
form the basis for the changes to Sec. 141.85 in this final rule.
While the revision requires systems to complete public education
activities within 60 days of the end of the monitoring period in which
the exceedance occurred, there is flexibility for the State to allow
additional time for completion of these activities. However, systems
must receive State approval within the 60-day window for an extension.
This ensures that the system and the State begin public education
actions to reduce exposure as soon as possible, but allows these
actions to continue past the 60-day timeframe on a case-by-case basis
as needed for effective implementation.
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Timing
Provisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
Commenters indicated that the 60-day timeframe for a system to
complete public education requirements was sufficient for most but not
all systems. In response, EPA has added a provision to the final rule
providing that the State may extend the 60-day window under certain
conditions. However, EPA believes that systems should make every effort
to complete their public education activities within 60 days after the
end of the monitoring period.
4. Consumer Confidence Reports
a. How Is EPA Revising CCR Requirements?
EPA is revising requirements of the Consumer Confidence Report
(CCR) Rule. Previously, all community water systems (CWSs) that
detected lead above the action level in more than five percent of the
homes sampled and up to and including 10 percent of homes, had to
include an informational statement in their CCR about lead in drinking
water. EPA is now requiring that all CWSs include an informational
statement about lead in their CCRs. In addition, the proposed CCR
language that referred to ``home plumbing'' as the source of high lead
levels has been broadened to include service lines, and the National
Lead Information Center phone number has been replaced with the phone
number for the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline.
b. What Is EPA's Rationale for the CCR Revisions?
EPA believes that exposure to lead can be a localized phenomenon
and has revised the rule based on concerns that exposure to lead may be
taking place, even though the action level is not exceeded; consumers,
therefore, currently may not receive sufficient information on how to
reduce their exposure to lead. Furthermore, in the situation where
there has been a lead action level exceedance, NDWAC expressed concern
that public education materials may not be delivered immediately;
therefore, vulnerable populations may drink water with high levels of
lead for months before knowing of the risk.
Under the previous regulations and as stated above, all water
systems which detect lead above the action level in more than 5 percent
of the homes sampled had to include a short informational notice about
lead in their CCR. EPA is now requiring that all community water
systems provide information in their CCRs on lead in drinking water
regardless if a system did or did not detect lead. This short statement
will be educational in nature and help to ensure that all vulnerable
populations or their caregivers receive information (at least once a
year) on how to reduce their risk to lead in drinking water. In this
revision, EPA is incorporating NDWAC's recommended changes to the
informational notice, which would serve to clarify the risk of lead in
drinking water, including basic steps on how to reduce exposure to lead
in drinking water and where to go for more information. Additionally,
requiring all systems to have one statement simplifies compliance with
this provision of the rule for the systems and the States. The new
language is intended to help consumers understand the health effects
associated with lead, that lead levels can vary from home to home, that
they can take steps to reduce their exposure, and where to get more
information.
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the CCR
Requirements and EPA's Response to These Issues?
Most of the comments that EPA received were directed towards the
proposed detection limit threshold for requiring statements about lead
in the CCR. Some commenters agreed that the method detection limit for
lead of 0.001 mg/L should be used as the threshold for the inclusion of
the lead statement. Others suggested that requiring the lead statement
should be based on the practical quantitation limit for lead of 0.005
mg/L, a 90th percentile lead action level exceedance, or a lead
detection in drinking water at a level determined to have adverse
health effects. Some commenters even suggested that no changes be made
to the CCR requirements. EPA realizes, however, there are situations
where the most vulnerable populations may be exposed to elevated levels
of lead for many months before or without being notified, as can occur
in the case of a system that has elevated lead levels but only in less
than 10 percent of compliance samples. EPA believes, therefore, that
the CCR is a good mechanism to communicate with all customers the
health risks of lead in drinking water in the interest of being
proactive. EPA also believes the CCR is another opportunity to remind
customers that they share responsibility for reducing their exposure to
lead with their water system.
[[Page 57795]]
Some commenters thought there should be a different information
statement for water systems samples above the lead action level than
for systems below the lead action level and above the MDL. Other
commenters were concerned that multiple, varying notices would unduly
complicate compliance tracking and enforcement of this requirement.
Furthermore, a large percentage (>95%) of the water systems would have
detects above the MDL and therefore be required to have an
informational statement in their CCR. Because the actual level of lead
exposure for drinking water varies with individual homes, EPA concluded
that levels detected in the system would not necessarily reflect the
risk faced by consumers. As a result, and because of the concern over
the logistics of compliance and tracking multiple different lead
statements in CCRs, EPA concluded that all systems should have a simple
informational statement about lead in their CCR, which would be
educational in nature.
Some commenters indicated that the CCR is a good way to educate the
public about lead in drinking water. On the other hand, some viewed the
proposed CCR requirement as redundant with the other public education
requirements and not an effective way to reach populations before there
is a major problem with lead in the water system. Consistent with the
NDWAC recommendations, EPA believes that the combination of methods for
delivering this urgent message (through public education materials,
CCR, and consumer notice of tap water results) will provide a more
effective way to reach the customer in a timely and appropriate basis.
Some commenters thought that additional CCR language would pose an
undue burden on systems that are in compliance with the LCR and that
the required text would be too alarming. Some commenters believed that
the CCR requirement for lead was inconsistent with the public
notification regulations for other inorganic contaminants. However,
while a water system may be in full compliance with the LCR, a home
served by that water system may have elevated levels of lead in their
tap water. Lead is unlike many other contaminants in that it is
primarily introduced into drinking water as the water passes through
plumbing materials from the distribution main into the household. As a
result, and due to the particular concern that it is critically
important to reach vulnerable populations in a timely manner to avoid
as much lead exposure for those populations as possible, EPA believes a
special lead notice is appropriate.
Some commenters stated that the proposed language on the sources of
lead required to be included in the Consumer Confidence Report focused
too much on household plumbing materials as the source of lead exposure
in drinking water and did not consider the other sources of lead in the
distribution system. To address this concern, EPA has modified the text
by adding ``service lines'' to more fully characterize sources of lead
in drinking water.
G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines Deemed Replaced Through Testing
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
EPA is requiring water systems to reevaluate lead service lines
classified as ``replaced through testing'' if they resume lead service
line replacement programs. This will 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 will 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 change adds 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. Systems will
have to update the inventory of lead service lines to include those
that were classified as ``replaced through testing.'' 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 (seven percent lead service line
replacement is based on a 15-year replacement program so, for example,
systems resuming lead service line replacement after previously
conducting two years of replacement would divide the remaining
inventory by 13).
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines
Revisions?
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 elevated 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 requiring these systems to 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. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Reevaluation of
Lead Service Lines Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
Commenters generally agreed that all existing lead service lines
should be considered when resuming a lead service line replacement
program. However, there were some commenters who had concerns with the
timing and believed that the 15-year clock should be reset when
resuming a replacement program. In 1991, EPA established the maximum
replacement schedule of 15 years for all systems in order to ensure
that public health is adequately protected (56 FR 26460 at 26507-26508,
U.S. EPA, 1991a). The Agency continues to believe 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 original rule.
Sites that met the test-out provision would need to be re-evaluated or
replaced within the remaining timeframe. This approach provides an
incentive to physically replace the portion of the lead service line
under the control of the system. Many lead service lines are over 70
years old and may need to be replaced soon simply based on their age.
Some commenters also recommended that flexibility be given to the
State to determine when treatment or source changes are significant
enough to require reevaluation of lead service lines. This rule does
not change the requirements that trigger lead service line replacement.
Systems that have installed optimal corrosion control and that
subsequently exceed the lead action level must perform lead service
line replacement. If a system makes a treatment or source change that
does not affect the system's optimal corrosion control and the system
continues to comply with the LCR, then it is not necessary for the
system to perform lead service line replacement. If a system
[[Page 57796]]
makes a treatment or source change that does affect the optimal
corrosion control and the system subsequently exceeds the lead action
level, then the system must perform lead service line replacement. This
rule does not preclude any system currently meeting the lead action
level from optionally replacing lead service lines.
Some commenters expressed concern that a system could complete a
15-year lead service line replacement program and then meet the action
level only to re-exceed it and be triggered into lead service line
replacement. Under this scenario, there would be no time left to re-
evaluate or replace lead service lines. EPA has added the following
provision to address this specific situation. For those systems that
have completed a 15-year lead service line replacement program, the
State will determine a schedule for replacing or retesting lines that
were previously tested out under the replacement program when the
system re-exceeds the action level. However, once a system has been in
a lead service line replacement program for more than five years, the
system may want to consider physically replacing the portion of all
lead service lines under their control rather than continuing to use
the test-out provision. Replacing the line would eliminate the
possibility of having to go back and re-evaluate it or replace it if
the action level is re-exceeded. In addition, many systems currently
replace lead service lines when they find them regardless of their 90th
percentile.
H. Other Issues Related to the Lead and Copper Rule
1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
EPA has decided not to make any further rule changes at this time
to address the following issues that EPA requested comment on in
section III.H of the proposed rule (71 FR 40828 at 40839, U.S. EPA,
2006a): Plumbing component replacement; point-of-use (POU) and point-
of-entry (POE) treatment; site selection in areas with water softeners
and POU treatment units; and water quality parameter monitoring.
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for Not Including Any of These Other Issues
in the Final Rule Revisions?
EPA concluded that sufficient flexibility exists under the current
rule for small systems to utilize plumbing fixture replacement or
point-of-use/point-of-entry devices to meet the action level and be
deemed optimized under Sec. 141.81(b)(1). Under the current rule,
small non-transient, non-community water systems, where 100% of the
plumbing fixtures and components are directly controlled by the system,
may replace them and be optimized once the system has met the action
levels for two consecutive six-month monitoring periods. Small water
systems may also install point-of-use (POU) devices, if they meet the
SDWA requirements for their use, and be deemed optimized by meeting the
action levels for two consecutive six-month monitoring periods. In the
preamble to the proposed rule, EPA noted that where a State does not
require a corrosion control study, systems have 24 months after an
action level is exceeded before the State specifies optimal corrosion
control treatment (71 FR 40828 at 40840, U.S. EPA, 2006a). The fixture
replacement or POU installation would need to be completed within 12
months of exceeding the action level in order to complete two
consecutive six-month monitoring periods before the State specifies
optimal corrosion control. Additionally, systems will still need to
recommend optimal corrosion control treatment to the State within six
months of the action level exceedance. Plumbing fixture replacement may
not be successful in meeting the action level or the system may be
unable to secure participation from all sites under a POU approach, so
the system may need to install the optimal corrosion control treatment.
There is also additional flexibility under the existing rule.
States could require a corrosion control study for systems that have
made progress towards completing either a plumbing replacement or POU
approach. The study would need to be completed within 18 months or 30
months after the action level exceedance. This would provide an
additional six-month monitoring period to meet the optimization
requirement pursuant to Sec. 141.81(b)(1), while having the system
develop an optimal corrosion control recommendation if the plumbing
replacement is not successful or the POU approach cannot be
implemented. The State will designate optimal corrosion control six
months after the completion of the corrosion control study. When a
corrosion control study is required by the State, systems can have up
to three years after the action level exceedance to meet the action
level for two consecutive six-month monitoring periods before they
would need to install the optimal corrosion control specified by the
State.
EPA also requested comment on two monitoring issues. The first was
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 a high prevalence of water
softeners), and, if so, how high risk sites should be identified. The
second was whether the Lead and Copper Rule should be amended to
require systems to synchronize required water quality parameter
sampling with lead and copper tap sampling. Due to the complexity of
the issue, EPA has determined that rule changes on site selection and
synchronization should be addressed as part of the broader monitoring
revisions. For the POU/POE site selection issue, EPA notes that there
may be additional flexibility under Sec. 141.86(a)(5) which states:
``A community water system with insufficient tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3
sampling sites shall complete its sampling pool with representative
sites throughout the distribution system. For the purpose of this
paragraph, a representative site is a site in which the plumbing
materials used at that site would be commonly found at other sites
served by the water system.'' EPA believes that the current rule
provisions and guidance on this issue are sufficient at this time.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on These Other Issues
and EPA's Response to These Issues?
EPA received a range of comments on the issue about whether there
is enough flexibility under the existing rule to use plumbing
replacement without specifying it as optimal corrosion control. Some
commenters stated that the existing timeframes are sufficient for
systems to implement plumbing replacement and that the rule should not
be revised to call it an optimal corrosion control treatment. Other
commenters asserted that EPA should specify plumbing replacement as
optimal corrosion control treatment. As noted above, EPA believes that
there is sufficient flexibility under the existing rule for a small
system to pursue a fixture replacement strategy without listing it as
an optimal corrosion control treatment. Because fixture replacement may
not be successful in reducing lead below the action levels if some lead
sources remain in the plumbing system, systems will need to prepare an
optimal corrosion control treatment recommendation (either with or
without a corrosion control study) and be prepared to install it if the
action level is still exceeded. EPA noted in the preamble to the
proposed rule that plumbing fixture replacement is not a corrosion
control technique and would not have applicable water quality
[[Page 57797]]
parameters that could be set by the State if the system continued to
exceed the action level.
EPA also received a range of comments on the issue about whether
there is enough flexibility under the existing rule to use POU or POE
without specifying it as corrosion control. Some commenters stated that
the existing timeframes are sufficient for systems to implement a POU
strategy and that the rule should not be revised to call it an optimal
corrosion control treatment. Other commenters said that EPA should
specify POU/POE as an optimal corrosion control treatment. As noted
above, EPA believes that there is sufficient flexibility under the
current rule for a small system to pursue a POU strategy without
listing it as an optimal corrosion control treatment. Unless the POU
option was limited to only those systems that control 100% of the
distribution system (as was suggested by several commenters), the
system may not be able to secure participation from all sites and may
need to install corrosion control. Even if EPA limited the option to
only those systems that control 100% of the distribution system, EPA
does not believe that POU should be listed as an optimal corrosion
control treatment. Under the existing rule, the action levels serve as
screens for optimization, but systems can exceed the action levels and
still be in compliance with the LCR by meeting the optimal water
quality parameters specified by the State. Commenters who supported POU
as an optimal corrosion control treatment did not provide any
alternatives on how to demonstrate compliance with the treatment
technique when the action level is exceeded. Many commenters agreed
with EPA's concern that because there are lead-containing materials in
plumbing after POE devices, it may not be successful in meeting the
action level. EPA does not believe that POE should be listed as an
optimal corrosion control treatment because of these unaddressed lead
sources.
Most of the comments on the issue of sampling sites with POU and
POE devices indicated that a rule change was not necessary and that the
prohibition should remain in Sec. 141.86(a)(1). EPA agrees with those
commenters and does not plan to codify the guidance.
The final issue on which EPA requested comment was synchronization
of water quality parameter sampling with lead and copper tap sampling.
While many commenters supported the scientific rationale for this
proposed change, a number of comments received expressed concern over
which synchronization timeframe would be appropriate and the
feasibility of implementing a synchronized sampling approach. Several
large systems noted that homeowners are the ones who collect the lead
and copper tap samples and send them back to the utility. These
commenters expressed that since the utility does not know the exact
date that the samples will be taken by the homeowner, synchronizing
water quality parameter and lead and copper tap samples would be
difficult to coordinate. Some commenters noted that current water
quality parameter sampling requirements for systems on reduced
monitoring require these systems to take their water quality parameter
samples throughout the year in order to capture seasonal variability.
EPA also received input that in many States, water quality parameter
sampling for small and medium systems is not started until after all
tap samples are collected and the determination made that a water
system does not meet the 90th percentile action level, consistent with
the specific language of the LCR. Due to the complexity of issues,
challenges with implementation, and potential burden, EPA has decided
not to revise the LCR to require water quality parameter
synchronization at this time, but will revisit this issue in future
revisions to the rule.
I. Compliance Dates
1. What Are the New Compliance Dates for This Rule?
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 practical. EPA proposed that the revisions take effect for
purposes of compliance three years after the promulgation of the final
rule. EPA requested comment on the practicality of implementing the
following specific changes within 60 days of final rule promulgation:
Minimum Number of Samples Required (III.A), Definitions for Compliance
and Monitoring Periods (III.B), Consumer Notification of Lead Tap Water
Monitoring Results (III.E) and Public Education Requirements (III.F).
EPA also requested comment upon whether all of the proposed revisions
should have an effective date earlier than three years after
publication of the final rule. After reviewing comments, EPA is
adopting a compliance date for all of the final rule provisions, of 180
days after publication in the Federal Register or the effective date of
any State program changes needed to implement the rule, whichever is
later. However, EPA is also requiring an outside compliance date of two
years after promulgation, which coincides with the date by which States
are required to adopt and submit revised programs adopting this rule
under 40 CFR 142.12. For States that adopt this rule after six months
but before two years, this rule will become effective on the date that
the State rule is effective, as long as it is before the date two years
after promulgation of this rule.
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Compliance Dates?
There were several considerations behind this compliance date.
First, EPA believes that States and systems will not need three years
to implement any of the rule changes. These rule changes are all
modifications of existing requirements and procedures under the LCR or
CCR. EPA believes States and systems will not need extensive training
or program development to implement these revisions. Additionally, none
of the revisions require systems to undertake new capital improvements
prior to implementation. Second, many of these changes are important
improvements to the LCR, which should help improve critical consumer
information about lead and reduce lead exposure, so they should be
established as quickly as possible. Third, EPA is also aware that
because many of these requirements are procedural in nature, having
dual Federal and State requirements at the same time is confusing to
systems, the public, and the regulators. As a result, it is important
to try to make the Federal changes and State changes coincide as much
as possible. Finally, EPA received helpful comments from the public
urging that the requirements should take effect no earlier than six
months after promulgation.
EPA therefore decided to adopt a compliance date structure that is
similar to the one used for the public notification rule revisions in
2000. This rule, therefore, provides a minimum compliance date of 180
days after promulgation, after which the rule will be in effect where
EPA has primacy (Wyoming, DC, and most Indian territories) and where
States incorporate EPA's drinking water regulations by reference. EPA
is also providing a maximum compliance date of two years after
promulgation, which coincides with the date by which States are
required to adopt and submit revised programs adopting this rule under
40 CFR 142.12. For States that adopt this rule after six months but
before two
[[Page 57798]]
years, this rule will become effective on the date that the State rule
is effective, as long as it is before the date two years after
promulgation of this rule. This gives States the flexibility of
choosing early implementation, enabling the water systems to take
advantage of the efficiencies in the new regulations in less than two
years, or provides States two years to accomplish the preparatory
activities needed to implement the revisions.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Compliance
Dates and EPA's Response to These Issues?
Some commenters indicated that an early compliance date would
impose additional burden on the States and utilities (e.g., conduct
staff training, inform water systems, revise rules and submit primacy
revisions) and suggested the compliance date be three years after final
rule promulgation. Some commenters had concerns about the feasibility
of a 60-day effective date and proposed an effective date within 180
days of final rule promulgation. EPA agrees that 60 days may not offer
States enough time to conduct training, review guidance and distribute
information to water systems about the new requirements; therefore, EPA
has revised the compliance date to 180 days after final rule
promulgation. EPA believes there are a number of improvements in this
rule that States will want to utilize and that 180 days is a feasible
timeframe for the States to conduct the necessary preparatory actions.
One commenter noted that EPA should not make the requirements effective
before the State has time to adopt the change to avoid complications in
meeting both State and Federal requirements. EPA agrees and is revising
the date to give a broad timeframe during which the State may adopt the
rule (180 days to 2 years).
J. 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 lists all the provisions that States
must adopt to retain primacy. Table III.1 summarizes the rule
revisions.
Table III.1.--Final Rule Revisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the
CFR citation requirement more Revision
stringent?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 141.80(a)(2)........... No............... Technical correction
that deletes
effective dates of
the LCR which no
longer apply.
Sec. 141.80(c)(3)(v)........ No............... PWS allowed by the
State to collect
fewer than five
samples must compare
the highest sample
result to the action
level.
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), Sec. Yes.............. States must approve
141.86(d)(4)(vii), Sec. new sources or long-
141.86(g)(4)(iii), Sec. term changes in
141.90(a)(3). water 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 for PWS
to provide a notice
to consumers who are
part of the
utility's lead
testing program with
sampling results.
New content and
delivery
requirements for
public education
materials. New
requirement for PWS
to target specific
audiences for
increased awareness.
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 PWS to
collect a specified
number of samples.
Allows State
discretion to allow
PWS to sample 100
percent of taps if
there are fewer than
five taps that can
be used for human
consumption in the
system.
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.
141.88(e)(1), Sec.
141.88(e)(2).
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(ii) and Yes.............. Requires all systems
(iii), Sec. must meet the lead
141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B). action level as a
condition for
reduced monitoring.
Sec. 141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A).... Yes.............. Specifies time period
to resume standard
tap water
monitoring.
[[Page 57799]]
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. 141.87(d), Sec. Yes.............. Clarifies time period
141.87(e)(2)(i). for water quality
parameter
monitoring.
Sec. 141.90 (f)(1), Sec. Yes.............. Revised public
141.90 (f)(1)(i), Sec. education program
141.90 (f)(3). reporting
requirements based
on amendments to
Sec. 141.85.
Sec. 141.154 (d)(1) and (2). Yes.............. All CWSs must include
a statement about
lead, health effects
language and ways to
reduce exposure in
every CCR released
to the public.
Flexibility is given
to CWSs to write its
own educational
statement, but only
in consultation with
the Primacy Agency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How Do These Regulatory Revisions Affect a State's Primacy Program?
States must revise their programs to adopt any part of this final
rule 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, 40 CFR 142.12 requires States to
submit, among other things, any additional materials that are listed in
40 CFR 142.16 of this part for a specific EPA regulation, as
appropriate 40 CFR 142.12(c)(1)(ii). For the final 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 information as necessary for a specific State submittal on
a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the Agency is waiving the Attorney
General's statement required in Sec. 142.12(c)(1)(iii), as allowed by
Sec. 141.12(c)(2).
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 final rule. 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.
IV. Economic Analysis
This section describes the estimates of annual costs for the seven
regulatory changes to utilities' and States' requirements, including
costs associated with administrative, monitoring, sampling, reporting,
and notification activities for this final rule. 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. Indirect costs 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 notice and in Chapter 5 of the
Economic and Supporting Analyses: Short-Term Regulatory Changes to the
Lead and Copper Rule (U.S. EPA, 2007a). 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
Rule change Direct cost health risk
implications implications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Change III.A (Number Yes............... Yes.
of samples).
Regulatory Change III.B Unquantified...... None.
(Monitoring Period).
Regulatory Change III.C (Reduced Yes............... Yes.
Monitoring Criteria).
Regulatory Change III.D Yes............... Yes.
(Advanced Notification and
Approval).
Regulatory Change III.E Yes............... Yes.
(Consumer Notice of Lead
Results).
Regulatory Change III.F (Public Yes............... Yes.
Education).
Regulatory Change III.G Yes............... Yes.
(Reevaluation of Lead Service
Lines).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57800]]
A. Direct Costs
The revisions in this final rule will result in direct costs to
utilities and States from activities that are specified by rule
changes, 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 Disinfection Byproducts,
Chemical, and Radionuclides Rules, U.S. EPA, 2004a). 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: Monitor 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 lead service line (LSL) monitoring, notification,
and replacement. In the 2004 ICR, the average annual cost to CWSs and
NTNCWSs for the LCR requirements was estimated to be $57.9 million
(2006$) 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 LCR 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
has been used in estimating the incremental costs of this rule. 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 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
(Final Regulatory Impact Analysis of National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper, U.S. EPA 1991b), the 1996 RIA Addendum
(Regulatory Impact Analysis Addendum, U.S. EPA 1996b), and the various
Information Collection Requests were all used as sources of information
and assumptions.
For the rule revisions that clarify the existing LCR 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
five samples must be taken when conducting compliance monitoring. If a
system has fewer than the minimum number of taps required for sampling,
then those systems will have to collect multiple samples on different
days from the same tap so that the total number of samples per
monitoring period is five. States, however, have the discretion to
allow water systems with fewer than five taps for human consumption to
collect one sample per tap. Under this alternate sampling schedule, the
sample with the highest test result will be compared to the action
level to determine compliance.
Although some systems may change the number of samples taken in
response to these provisions, 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 annual direct costs or savings associated with
Regulatory Change III.A. EPA has quantified the one-time implementation
costs for water systems with fewer than five taps to request permission
to collect one sample per available tap and for States to review and
decide upon these requests to collect one sample per available tap.
Those costs are given in section IV.K.
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 reduced monitoring schedules. Based on the rule change,
if a system exceeds the lead 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 this rule change, activities triggered by an action
level exceedance could begin three months earlier (e.g., 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
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 the existing rule, 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. In addition, systems on triennial
monitoring must monitor no later than every third calendar year.
Similarly, systems on nine-year monitoring schedules must monitor no
later than every ninth calendar year. 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 negligible.
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 $2.7 million annually including $2.5 million in labor
costs and $0.2 million in materials costs. Detailed estimates are
provided in the Economic Analysis, Appendix C.
[[Page 57801]]
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 994 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 3,300 people. For purposes of this analysis, EPA used
this data to estimate that 1.4 percent of systems (including system
serving fewer than 3,300 people) will exceed the action level each year.
Table IV.2.--Systems Exceeding the Action Level Since 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 3,300
\1\ 3,300<50,000 >50,000 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of systems above action level since 2003................ 884 96 14 994
Total number of systems.................................... 64,382 7,388 819 72,589
Percent of systems with monitoring results since 2003 over AL.. 1.4% 1.3% 1.7% 1.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 State Implementation of the Lead and Copper
Rule survey (State Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule, U.S. EPA
2004b). 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 lead action level, and are on reduced
monitoring, are likely to exceed at the same rate as all systems.
Therefore, EPA assumes that 1.4 percent of the 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. EPA notes that this assumption likely over-estimates the number
of systems that will be affected by this regulatory change because
systems that are likely to have exceedances are generally 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 five 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, an 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 five monitoring
events over a three year period (six monitoring events in three years
under regular monitoring instead of one 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 five 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 States to review utility
monitoring reports as a result of resuming standard monitoring
schedules. The direct costs to States is estimated to be $82,000
annually including $81,000 in labor costs and $1,000 in materials
costs, as summarized in Table IV.3. Detailed estimates are included in
the Economic Analysis, Appendix C.
Table IV.3.--Summary of Estimated Direct Costs to Systems and States Associated With Regulatory Change III.C
(2006 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
Annual labor materials Total annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Systems:
Reporting................................................... $60,000 $1,000 $61,000
Tap Monitoring.............................................. 2,442,000 193,000 2,635,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total System Costs...................................... 2,502,000 194,000 2,696,000
Costs to State/Primacy Agencies:
Review Costs................................................ 81,000 1,000 82,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total State Costs....................................... 81,000 1,000 82,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57802]]
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 to add a new source of water or to make a long-
term treatment change prior to implementation. New system activities
will include an assessment of the implications of long-term treatment
or source changes on corrosion control prior to the change and a letter
to the state. New State activities will include the review of the
system data on the implications of a long-term treatment or source
change on corrosion control prior to a change, preparation of
conclusions, and coordination with utilities. The estimated costs to
the affected systems and States are summarized in Table IV.4.
2. Costs to Utilities
EPA estimates that the direct costs to utilities range from
$506,000 to $765,000 annually. These direct costs are strictly labor
costs; materials costs are expected to be negligible. Detailed
estimates are provided in Appendix D (Table 6.1) of the Economic Analysis.
In order to estimate the annual cost of this provision to
utilities, information is needed on the number of systems that would
likely implement a long-term treatment change or add a source each
year, 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.
As determined during EPA's review of the implementation of LCR
requirements by States, many States already have a review and approval
process for treatment or source changes. For the purposes of this
analysis, two estimates were used for the number of States that already
have a review and approval process that would include information on
corrosion control 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 based on 4th quarter 2004
SDWIS/FED) 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 was also needed of the number of systems projected to
undertake a long-term treatment change or add a source annually in
order to estimate the cost of this provision to utilities. Long-term
treatment changes over the next several years are likely as systems
will be faced with new regulatory requirements, including changes to
comply with the promulgated Arsenic Rule, the Long Term 2 Surface Water
Treatment Rule (LT2) and the Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 D/DBP). 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 Rule Economic Analysis, pp. 6-25, 6-27, U.S. EPA, 2000a);
• LT2--2,882 systems (Data source: Economic Analysis for the
Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, Exhibit 6-1,
page 6-3, U.S. EPA, 2005a);
• Stage 2 D/DBP--2,261 systems (Data source: Economic
Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule, Exhibit ES-7a, page ES-17, U.S. EPA, 2005b).
Together, these regulatory requirements are estimated to cause
9,243 systems to institute a treatment change, although not all of
these treatment changes will affect corrosion control. Additionally,
the compliance periods for these regulations varies. For example, the
Stage 2 D/DBP and LT2 treatment changes are projected to take place
within a six year compliance period for large systems (with the
possibility of two-year extension) and eight years for small systems
(with the possibility of two-year extension). To account for these
expected treatment changes, and to account for treatment changes
unrelated to the Arsenic, LT2, and Stage 2 D/DBP rules, EPA assumed
(based on the projected rule-related treatment changes and expert
judgment) that approximately 20 percent of the systems affected by the
LCR will institute a treatment change in the next 10 years. For
purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that these changes will occur
uniformly over that 10-year period, so that approximately one-tenth of
these systems (or two percent of the total) institute a treatment
change each year.
Using the two percent estimate, 1,067 (53,372 x .02) systems each
year will report a treatment change or source addition. However,
systems in States that already have a permitting or plan approval
process in place will not incur additional costs to report the
treatment change or source addition, since their States already require
them to report treatment changes or source additions through these
processes. The annual estimate of the number of systems in States that
currently do not have a permitting or plan approval process in place
and that will, therefore, incur costs is 552.
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. In
the absence of information on the current prevalence of these
activities, EPA has used 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 coordinating 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 $231
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 States are estimated to range from $163,000 to
$348,000 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 letters to systems, and
coordination with utilities. Because the level of effort associated
with these
[[Page 57803]]
activities is expected to vary based on the complexity of the change
and the type of submittal (amount and type of information), EPA
included a range of State review time from four to eight hours.
Those States incurring additional costs due to Regulatory Change
III.D are those that do not already have a review and approval process
that considers the corrosion control implications of treatment changes.
For the States that will incur new costs as they review and approve
changes before they are made, rather than simple review after the
change has been made, which is the existing requirement, new State
activities will include review of the system data on the corrosion
control implications of a long-term 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 (2006 Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual cost-- Annual cost--
low estimate high estimate
\1\ \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Systems:
Reporting........................... $506,000 $765,000
-------------------------------
Total System Costs.............. 506,000 765,000
Costs to State/Primacy Agencies:
Review Costs........................ 163,000 348,000
-------------------------------
Total State Costs............... 163,000 348,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: 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 requires 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. Systems must also
prepare a letter that self-certifies that they have distributed the
sampling results as appropriate and submit it to the State. While
States 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. States will be required to review, track, and store the self-
certification letters. Supporting calculations and information
regarding costs to utilities and States associated with this regulatory
change are included in the Economic Analysis, Appendix E.
2. Costs to Utilities
The direct costs to utilities for compliance with Regulatory Change
III.E are summarized in Table IV.5 and estimated to be $1,248,000
annually including $1,098,000 in labor costs and $150,000 in materials
costs for envelopes and postage. This is based on an estimated 310,510
notices being provided to customers each year, with associated labor.
Detailed estimates are provided in the Economic Analysis, Appendix E-2.
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 regulatory change. Of 72,213
CWSs and NTNCWSs (per 4th quarter 2004 SDWIS/FED) subject to the LCR,
EPA estimates that 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
The direct costs to States to comply with Regulatory Change III.E
are presented in Table IV.5. States are required to review, track, and
store the self-certification letters.
Table IV.5--Summary of Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.E (2006 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
Annual labor materials Total annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Systems:
Customer Notice of Lead Results Costs and self-certification $1,098,000 $150,000 $1,248,000
letters....................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total System Costs...................................... 1,098,000 150,000 1,248,000
Costs to States:
Review, track and store self-certification letters.......... 163,000 .............. 163,000
Total State Costs....................................... 163,000 .............. 163,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 57804]]
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. Table IV.6 presents a summary of
the additional activities for reaching at-risk populations and the
associated annual costs per system.
In addition to the changes to Sec. 141.85 of the LCR, EPA is also
revising Sec. 141.154(d) of the CCR rule (40 CFR 141, Subpart O),
which requires all 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.
Table IV.6.--Annual Cost Per System Estimate for Additional Activities To Better Reach At-Risk Populations (2006 Dollars)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
viii.
iii. vi. Materials
i. Public ii. Paid Display in iv. Internet v. Public Delivery vii. directly to Average per
System size category service advertisements public notification meetings to every Targeted multi-family system all
announcements areas household contact & activities
institutions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25-100......................... $98 $105 $24 $24 $48 $7 $34 $12 $44
101-500........................ 101 105 26 26 51 30 35 15 49
501-3,300...................... 105 180 111 28 55 166 37 27 89
3.3K-10K....................... 118 180 137 420 900 435 44 81 289
10K-50K........................ 1,400 850 696 596 2,400 1,114 66 303 928
50K-100K....................... 1,400 5,000 1,392 596 3,000 2,448 138 945 1,865
>100K.......................... 1,400 5,000 3,943 1,035 5,000 3,874 563 5,035 3,231
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Details of how these unit costs were calculated are provided in
Appendices H-6 through H-20 of the Economic Analysis for this final rule.
States are required to review the language in the utility's notice
to consumers to make sure the utility is including the required
information. States are also required to 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.
2. Costs to Utilities
The annual direct costs to utilities resulting from Regulatory
Change III.F are estimated to be $859,200. The annual system labor cost
is estimated to be $837,900 and the annual system materials are
estimated to cost $21,200. Estimates of costs associated with each
activity are presented in Table IV.7. Detailed estimates of costs to
utilities are provided in the Economic Analysis, Appendix F.
The requirement to provide information about lead in the CCR is new
only for systems that currently do not detect lead above the action
level in 95 percent 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 percent 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. 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 an additional associated labor of
0.25 hours per system per year.
Table IV.7.--Summary of Costs to Systems Due to LCR Public Education Changes (2006 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Annual Total
Activity Requirement labor materials system cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Changes to the Mandatory Text of the Written Materials:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F(a)(1)............................... Customer Notification........ $91,400 $0 $91,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Changes to Better Reach At-Risk Populations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F(b)(1)............................... Notify Additional 21,900 21,400 43,300
Organizations.
III.F(b)(2)............................... Additional Activities i-viii. 292,700 0 292,700
III.F(b)(2)............................... Consult with State on 33,500 300 33,700
Activities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Changes to Help Systems Maintain Communication with Consumers Throughout the Exceedance:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F(c)(1)............................... Customer Bills............... 47,400 0 47,400
III.F(c)(2)............................... Post on Website.............. 100 0 100
III.F(c)(3).............................. PSAs and Press Releases...... -3,700 -500 -4,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Changes to the Required Timing:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57805]]
No cost impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Changes to Consumer Confidence Report:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F(e)(1)............................... CCR Statement................ 354,600 0 354,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs to Systems for PE Requirements (III.F):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... ............................. 837,900 21,200 859,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $63,000. These costs are the annual State labor
costs; no materials cost is expected. These costs are presented in
Table IV.8. Detailed estimates of costs to States are provided in the
Economic Analysis, Appendix F.
Table IV.8.--Summary of Costs to States Due to LCR Public Education
Changes (2006 dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Annual Total
labor materials annual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F Costs to States:
Review and consultation.......... $63,000 $0 $63,000
--------------------------------------
III.F Total State Costs...... 63,000 0 63,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.G
1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory Change
Under this regulatory 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. These utilities will 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 $110,000 annually, which includes $101,000 in
labor costs and $9,000 in materials costs. Detailed estimates of costs
to utilities are provided in the Economic Analysis, Appendix F.
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
(U.S. EPA, 2004b), which is available in the public docket for this
rulemaking, 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 the 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, for purposes of this analysis, EPA
assumes 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 insufficient information to determine how many of
the 54 systems suspended their lead replacement programs, and later
restarted the programs due to an exceedance, EPA 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, EPA assumed that 1.4 percent of the 54 systems or one system will
exceed the action level and will therefore 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 likely overestimates the number of affected systems, 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 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 regulatory change. Please see the Economic Analysis for
the final rule, Appendix F, for additional details on the assumptions
EPA made to derive the estimated costs for this provision.
[[Page 57806]]
3. Costs to States
No direct costs are projected for States as a result of Regulatory
Change III.G. Although the States will review utility LSL replacement
program annual reports, these costs are attributed to the 1991 LCR
rather than this rule.
J. Summary of National Average Annual Direct Costs
The estimates of annual direct costs for the final regulatory
changes are presented in Table IV.9.
Table IV.9.--Summary of Annual Direct Costs to Systems and States From All Regulatory Changes (2006 Dollars) \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual direct costs to systems Annual Total
---------------------------------------------------- direct annual
Regulatory change Consumer costs to direct
Reporting Monitoring notice Total states costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.A............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
III.B............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
III.C............................. $61,000 $2,635,000 ........... $2,696,000 $82,000 $2,778,000
III.D Low......................... 506,000 ........... ........... 506,000 163,000 669,000
III.D High........................ 765,000 ........... ........... 765,000 348,000 1,113,000
III.E............................. 136,000 ........... 1,112,000 1,248,000 163,000 1,411,000
III.F............................. 34,000 ........... 825,000 859,000 63,000 922,000
III.G............................. ........... 110,000 ........... 110,000 ........... 110,000
------------- --------------------------------------
Total Low..................... 736,000 ........... ........... 5,418,000 471,000 5,890,000
--------------------------
........... 2,745,000 1,938,000 ........... ........... ...........
Total High.................... 995,000 ........... ........... 5,677,000 657,000 6,335,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: 1. Totals may not add due to independent rounding.
K. Total Upfront Costs To Review and Implement Regulatory Changes
1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory Change
Systems and States will incur one-time upfront costs associated
with reviewing and implementing this rule. For systems, activities
include reviewing the rule changes, training staff, and verification
costs associated with Regulatory Change III.A. 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 approximately $11
million, as summarized in Table IV.10. Detailed estimates of costs to
utilities are provided in the Economic Analysis Appendix G. 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 $1,650,000 as
summarized in Table IV.10 and detailed in Appendix G of the Economic
Analysis. Similar to the one-time costs for utilities, these direct
costs are based solely on upfront labor costs. Fifty-seven States will
review and implement these LCR revisions.
Table IV.10.--Summary of One-Time Direct Costs Associated With Rule
Review and Implementation (2006 dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One time labor
costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Systems:
Review & Communication................................ $10,971,000
Verification (III.A).................................. 104,000
---------------
Total System Costs:................................. 11,075,000
Costs to State/Primacy Agencies:
Regulation Adoption................................... 1,488,000
Verification (III.A).................................. 162,000
---------------
Total State Costs................................... 1,650,000
---------------
Total Rule Implementation Costs..................... 12,725,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
L. Indirect Costs
Previous sections focused on the direct costs of this 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
information-gathering activities not required by the rule.
The 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 this 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
[[Page 57807]]
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
this final rule.
M. Benefits
The intent of this 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. These revisions do not affect the action levels,
corrosion control requirements, lead service 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 generate 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 long-term treatment changes be approved by
the State 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 revisions on the behavior of
individuals and systems is not known, EPA has not quantified the
changes in associated health benefits. However, EPA does expect that
overall benefits from the LCR will increase as a result of the indirect
effects of the revisions on the actions of individual consumers and systems.
N. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the State and
System Burden Estimates (Economic Analysis) and EPA's Response to These
Issues?
Many commenters stated that EPA underestimated the overall burden
of the proposed rule, both for systems and for States. Many commenters
thought, for example, that both systems and States would need more time
to read and understand the rule. EPA agrees with these commenters and
has revised the burden and cost estimates for some sections of the
rule, and for the implementation activities. In particular, EPA made an
upward revision to the burden estimate for the larger systems,
estimating that it would take them an average of 40 hours to read,
understand, and communicate the rule's significance to required
personnel. EPA also reviewed and revised the State implementation
burden and cost, significantly increasing these estimates (from 312
hours to 600 hours).
One commenter stated that some NTNCWSs (e.g., schools, child care
centers, and small businesses) do not have staff to satisfactorily
implement new drinking water rules and respond to public inquiries
regarding lead in drinking water. EPA agrees with this comment and has
increased the state burden assumptions for this final rule. EPA
recognizes that ``operators'' at NTNCWSs typically have many other job
functions and are often not professional water system managers, and
that States, therefore, must continually educate, assist, and enforce
regulations to ensure compliance. Commenters also stated that EPA
underestimated the impact to States regarding the requirement to
provide a consumer notice of lead tap water monitoring results. EPA
agrees with this comment and has revised the consumer notice estimates
to indicate that additional funding will be required for this activity.
Some commenters asserted that EPA did not address the implications
for a regulatory program assigned to ``approve'' rather than simply
``review'' treatment changes, and specifically that EPA underestimated
the costs of requiring advanced State approval. Commenters also thought
that every PWS would need to have additional and more intensive
interaction with the State prior to making any change in water
treatment or source water. While the Agency agrees with this comment,
EPA has narrowed the scope of this provision in the final rule to only
long-term changes in treatment. Since this will considerably reduce the
potential burden of the requirement by removing the daily water quality
treatment changes from consideration, EPA is not revising the cost
estimate for this change from the proposal.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
In addition, EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs
and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in
the Economic and Supporting Analyses: Short-Term Regulatory Changes to
the Lead and Copper Rule (U.S. EPA, 2007a). A copy of the analysis is
available in the docket for this action and the analysis is briefly
summarized in section IV of this notice.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this 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 requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
EPA requires comprehensive and current information on lead and
copper contamination and associated enforcement activities to implement
its program oversight and enforcement responsibilities mandated by the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). 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 ensure and enhance
protection of public health through reduction in lead exposure. EPA
will use the information collected as a result of the short-term
revisions to the LCR to support the responsibilities outlined in SDWA
by strengthening the implementation of the LCR in the areas of
monitoring, customer awareness, and lead service line replacement. The
rule revisions described in section III of this notice 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 SDWA requires that there must be ``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 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
[[Page 57808]]
reasonably require by regulation to assist the Administrator in
establishing regulations * * * in determining whether such person has
acted or is acting in compliance'' with this title. In addition,
section 1413(a)(3) of SDWA requires States to ``keep such records and
make such reports * * * as the Administrator may require by regulation.''
Section 1412(b) of SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires the Agency to
publish maximum contaminant level goals and promulgate NPDWRs for
contaminants that may have an adverse effect on the health of persons,
are known to or anticipated to occur in PWSs, or, 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 as
appropriate, revise existing drinking water standards. Promulgation of
the LCR complies with these statutory requirements.
1. Burden Estimate
The universe of respondents for this ICR is comprised of 52,838
CWSs and 19,375 NTNCWSs, for a total of 72,213 systems (4th Quarter
2004 SDWIS/FED), and 57 States. The activities that take place during
the 3-year period covered by the ICR will vary based on the timing of
State implementation of the final rule. The rule is structured to allow
for early implementation by States within 180 days of rule publication.
Alternatively, States have up to 2 years to implement rule provisions
as described in section III.I of this notice. Because there is some
uncertainty in predicting which States will adopt early implementation
versus those that will take 2 years, EPA estimates an upper and lower
bound on ICR burden and cost estimates. The upper bound estimate
assumes all States will adopt early implementation while the lower
bound estimate assumes States will take 2 years to implement the rule.
The total annual average respondent burden associated with this ICR
is estimated to be 206,997-297,122 burden hours. The corresponding total
annual average respondent costs are estimated to be $6.4 to $9.5 million.
EPA estimates the annual respondent burden for PWSs to be 189,369-
271,997 hours. Annual respondent costs for PWSs are estimated to be
$5.6 to $8.4 million. The Agency estimates that the annual respondent
burden for States is 17,628-25,125 hours. The corresponding annual
average respondent costs for States are estimated to be $0.8 to $1.1
million. Table V.1 presents a summary of total burden and costs for
this ICR.
Table V.1.--Bottom Line Average Annual Burden and Costs Upper and Lower Bound Estimates (2006 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower bound Upper bound
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Respondents............. 72,270 = 72,213 + 57 72,270 = 72,213 + 57 Public water
systems.
States.
Total Annual Responses............ 186,524 = 171,849 + 14,675 426,483 = 391,671 + 34,812 Public water system
responses.
State responses.
Number of Responses per PWS....... 2.4 = 171,849/72,213 5.4 = 391,671/72,213 Total annual PWS
responses from
above.
Total public water
systems from above.
Number of Responses per State..... 257 = 14,675/57 611 = 34,812/57 Total annual State
responses from
above.
Total States from
above.
Total Annual Respondent Burden 206,997 = 189,369 + 17,628 297,122 = 271,997 + 25,125 Public water system
Hours. hours.
State hours.
Hours per System for Public Water 2.6 = 189,369/72,213 3.8 = 271,997/72,213 Total PWS annual
Systems. hours from above.
Total PWS from
above.
Hours per State for States........ 309 = 17,628/57 441 = 25,125/57 Total State annual
hours from above.
Total States from
above.
Annual O&M Costs.................. $118,717 = $117,886 + $831 $295,205 = $293,920 + Public water system
$1,284 O&M costs.
State OM costs.
Total Annual Respondent Cost...... $6,353,532 = $5,584,289 + $9,520,866 = $8,423,108 + Public water system
$769,243 $1,097,758 costs.
State costs.
Cost Per Response................. $32 $21 Public water system
cost.
$52 $32 State cost.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Hours (respondent 206,997 = 206,997 + 0 297,122 = 297,122 + 0 Total respondent
plus Agency). hours.
Total EPA hours.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Cost (respondent $6,353,532 = $6,353,532 + $9,520,866 = $9,520,866 + Total respondent
plus Agency). $0 $0 cost.
Total EPA cost.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding. EPA burden and cost estimated under PWSS
program.
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.
[[Page 57809]]
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.
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 under the RFA 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 rule on small
entities, EPA defined small entities as 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 7606,
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). EPA stated in that Final Rule that it would apply the
alternative definition to future drinking water regulations (including
this one) as well.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
certification is based on EPA's established definition of small
entities as public water systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons. The
small entities directly regulated by this final rule are small public
water systems serving 10,000 or fewer people on an annual basis. We
have determined that 68,286 small systems may be affected by the
changes to the LCR. Table V.2 provides a summary of these small
systems, by size category and system type.
Table V.2.--The Number of Small Systems Affected by the Final Rule
Changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Size CWS NTNCWS 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 incur direct costs
for all of the final regulatory changes. In many cases, only a
relatively small subset of these systems will have to change practices
to comply with the regulatory changes. Table V.3 provides an estimate
of the number of small systems that will incur direct costs for each of
the regulatory changes.
Table V.3.--The Number of Small Systems Affected by Each Regulatory
Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small systems
Regulatory change impacted per
year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Change III.A................................ 3,692
Regulatory Change III.B................................ (\1\)
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\ None--Clarifications of definitions with no direct cost impact.
Activities and Costs Associated With Rule Changes for Small Systems
EPA has estimated the burden and costs associated with the
regulatory changes, as described in the Economic Analysis for this
final rule. 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.
1. One-Time Activities
All small systems subject to the Lead and Copper Rule will be
expected to incur some costs to read the rule changes and communicate
requirements as necessary. The level of effort associated with these
activities could range from 5-8 hours for each small system. The
average cost per system for these activities is estimated at $138, for
a total cost of $9,404,000 for all 68,286 small systems. This assumes
an hourly fully loaded labor cost for small system employees ranging
from $23.86 to $33.96 (see Appendix B of the Economic Analysis).
2. Activities for Regulatory Change III.A
Under Regulatory Change III.A, small systems with fewer than 5 taps
in States that allow 1 sample per tap will prepare and submit to the
State a one-time letter verifying the applicable number of taps and
requesting the use of the alternative sampling. Eleven States supported
the alternative sampling in their comments on the proposed rule.
However, two States did not support the alternative sampling. For
purposes of estimating costs, EPA assumed that the States that did not
support the alternative and States that did not comment on the rule
provision would not allow systems to implement the alternative since
the default requirement in the rule is that systems take a minimum of 5
samples. Based on data from SDWIS/FED on these 11 States, EPA estimates
that there are 3,692 systems with fewer than 5 taps. Preparing the one-
time request letter results in a one time cost of $28
[[Page 57810]]
per system. Total costs for all small systems likely to be affected by
Regulatory Change III.A are estimated at $104,000 per year.
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 lead action level each year. Changing from
reduced tap monitoring to regularly scheduled tap monitoring would
result in an average cost increase of $2,258 per year per system. Total
costs for all small systems likely to be affected by Regulatory Change
III.C are estimated at $1,929,000 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 treatment changes or source addition, to submit the data to
the State for review, and to 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 $196. The total cost for all small systems likely to be
affected by Regulatory Change III.D is estimated at $198,000 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 and include the
effort to prepare a self-certification letter to the State. The average
cost for small systems to notify customers is estimated at
approximately $17 annually. This estimate assumes one labor hour to
prepare a customer notification letter per system, 0.12 hours to
prepare the self-certification letter, and $0.43 in material costs per
sample for CWSs. EPA assumed one labor hour plus 0.12 hours 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 all small systems likely to be affected by Regulatory Change
III.E is estimated at $1,060,000.
6. Activities for Regulatory Change III.F
Different provisions of Regulatory Change III.F apply to different
subsets of systems. All small community water systems will incur costs
to include a statement on lead in the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR),
at an average cost of $7 per system, based on the assumption of 0.25
hours to add an informational statement on lead to the CCR. 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 $265. The total cost for all small systems likely to be
affected by Regulatory Change III.F is estimated at $569,000.
7. Activities for Regulatory Change III.G
Regulatory Change III.G applies to systems that had ``tested out''
lead service lines as part of a lead service line replacement program
and then re-exceeded 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 1 system per year. This analysis assumes that
the 1 system is not a small system. There is no evidence that small
systems would be triggered into this regulatory change cost any more
frequently than other systems.
8. Total Small System Costs
Table V.4 summarizes the estimated annual costs associated with all
regulatory changes. Table V.5 summarizes the one-time costs to small
systems.
Table V.4.--Total Estimated Annual Small System Costs (2006 Dollars) All
Systems Serving Less Than 10,000 People
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Annual Total
labor materials annual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Change III.A.......... 0 0 0
Regulatory Change III.B.......... 0 0 0
Regulatory Change III.C.......... 1,783,000 146,000 1,929,000
Regulatory Change III.D.......... 198,000 0 198,000
Regulatory Change III.E.......... 946,000 114,000 1,060,000
Regulatory Change III.F.......... 566,000 4,000 569,000
Regulatory Change III.G.......... 0 0 0
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 3,492,000 264,000 3,755,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding.
Because this table represents annual costs, some fields include zero
values. While there are regulatory costs associated with Regulatory
Change III.A, these costs are one-time in nature and thus do not
include any annual costs.
Table V.5.--Total Estimated One-Time Small System Costs (2006 Dollars)
All Systems Serving Less Than 10,000 People
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-time
costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Change III.A.................................... $104,000
Implementation............................................. 9,404,000
------------
Total.................................................. 9,508,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Average Costs Per Small System
The estimated average compliance cost for all small systems covered
by the LCR for the final rule changes is minimal: $55 per system in
annual costs. However, there is a fairly wide range in the costs that a
system could face. EPA expects that all systems will incur the $138
one-time implementation cost. The additional annual costs could
[[Page 57811]]
be as low as $0 for small NTNCWSs that already notify customers of tap
monitoring results. Systems that do not already notify customers of
results could incur $17 per year. EPA estimates that small CWSs will
incur $7 per year to include a statement on the CCR. The roughly 2
percent of systems that are making a treatment change or source
addition are estimated to incur an additional $196 in the year they
make the change.
At the high end, if a system incurred all estimated annual costs,
the total would be $2,743 per year. As EPA estimates that only 854
small systems will exceed the lead action level, at most only 854 small
systems or 1.3 percent of all small systems could potentially incur all
estimated annual costs. Those systems that do not exceed the lead
action level face a maximum potential annual cost of $220.
10. Measuring Significant Economic Impact of Rule Costs
The costs to small systems are 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. The revenue estimate used for assessing impacts to
small systems in this rule is derived from two sources: (1) EPA's 2000
Community Water System Survey (CWSS) and (2) the 2002 Census of
Governments. Data from these two sources are used to calculate an
average revenue estimate for all small systems serving less than 10,000
customers and for each of 3 size categories: Those serving 25-500
customers, those serving 501-3300 customers, and those serving 3301-
10,000 customers. Analyzing impacts separately for these 3 categories
of small systems allows EPA to better identify potential impacts to the
smallest systems, which tend to have the lowest revenues. Estimates of
total revenue are shown in Table V.6 and reflect updates to EPA's
revenue analysis in the proposed rule. For more information on EPA's
revenue estimates for the small system size subcategories, please see
the Economic Analysis for the final rule.
Using average revenues and the average cost of the regulatory
changes for all small systems, the one-time costs represent roughly
0.006 percent of annual revenues from all revenue sources. The
estimated $55 average annual compliance costs per system represent
0.003 percent of average annual revenues from all revenue sources. EPA
estimates that roughly 1.3 percent of the systems serving 10,000 or
less customers would incur all annual costs of $2,743, which is
approximately 0.127 percent of annual revenues from all sources.
Costs as a percentage of revenues for the 3 size categories
separately are shown in Table V.6. This table compares the average
costs of the regulatory changes to the average revenues. As shown in
Table V.6, average economic impacts to small systems from these
regulatory revisions are all less than one percent of average revenue
for each of the small system size subcategories. However, as discussed
in section V.C.1 of this notice, substantial data limitations exist in
our revenue data which may limit our ability to accurately describe the
revenues available to small water systems.
Table V.6.--Average Costs per System and Percentage of Revenue
[All revenue sources (2006$)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Average annual cost
System size Number of annual cost Revenues as
systems per system per system* percentage
of revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25-500...................................................... 46,551 $41 **$550,000 0.007
501-3,300................................................... 16,932 67 1,448,000 0.005
3,301-10K................................................... 4,803 153 12,643,000 0.001
Aggregate: 25-10K........................................... 68,286 55 2,167,000 0.003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: *Includes water revenues and non-water related revenues (e.g., revenues related to the primary business
for private entities that operate a water system to support their business or municipal general revenue for
publicly owned and operated systems). **Estimated Total Average Revenue per system for systems serving 25-100
is $220,000.
In summary, the average costs for each of the small size
subcategories below 10,000 represent less than 1 percent of average
revenue from all sources. To provide additional information on the
potential economic impacts of the LCR on small entities, EPA also
examined the range of potential costs relative to revenues for the
smallest system size category (those serving 25-500 people). Average
total annual revenue for this system size is estimated to be $550,000.
As stated above, the maximum number of small systems (serving less than
10,000 people) that could possibly incur all annual total costs of
$2,743 is 854, those that exceed the lead action level. This maximum
cost represents approximately 0.5 percent of average revenues from all
sources for systems in the smallest size subcategory. However, because
of our limited data on small system revenues, we do not have the
ability to develop a distribution of revenues in this subcategory for
comparison. For those systems that do not exceed the lead action level,
the maximum potential cost that could be incurred by systems in the
smallest size category is $220, or 0.04 percent of revenue from all
sources. This analysis further supports our conclusion that this final
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. For
Regulatory Change III.A, EPA added a provision that gives States the
discretion to allow water systems with fewer than 5 taps for human
consumption to collect one sample per tap. Under this alternative
sampling schedule, the sample with the highest test result will be
compared to the action level to determine compliance. Taking fewer than
5 samples for each monitoring event will reduce the monitoring burden
for small systems while still being protective of public health.
Comparing the single highest sample value does not allow water systems
to ignore a potential problem by taking repeat samples at taps that
have low lead results when they get a high sample result.
Regulatory Change III.C requires systems that exceed the lead
action level to resume tap monitoring for lead on a regular basis,
rather than on a reduced schedule. Originally EPA considered extending
this requirement to both lead
[[Page 57812]]
and copper monitoring. Based on guidance from the work group on
minimizing impacts to small systems, EPA limited the requirement to
only include lead action level exceedances.
Regulatory Change III.E requires systems to provide lead monitoring
results to consumers. The regulatory development work group considered
including copper monitoring results in the consumer notice, but decided
to defer that suggestion for consideration in future regulatory
revisions, thereby limiting the increase in burden to small systems.
11. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis and EPA's Response to These Issues?
EPA received one comment on its Regulatory Flexibility analysis
supporting the proposed rule. The commenter agreed with EPA's
certification that the LCR will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, but recommended that EPA
provide more detailed information concerning the economic impacts of
these regulatory changes to subcategories of small entities. In
response to this commenter, EPA provided additional information in the
final rule on the potential impacts to systems in the three smallest
size subcategories (those serving 25-500, 501-3,300, and 3,301 to
10,000 people) and has considered this information in evaluating
impacts to small systems.
In certifying that these regulatory changes will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
EPA assessed the economic impacts of this final rule on small water
systems by calculating an average revenue estimate for systems serving
less than 10,000 customers and comparing it to an average cost estimate
for systems serving less than 10,000. EPA then evaluated data on the
costs and revenues per system for three small size subcategories as
defined in the SDWA for affordability determinations for small systems.
EPA believes that for this rule this is a reasonable way to stratify
the small system universe by size for purposes of its RFA screening
analysis as well. EPA is continuing to examine issues associated with
the significant variety of entities that operate small water systems
and how best to analyze them under the RFA, and may further refine its
analytical approach for future rule makings.
EPA is also working to improve its estimation of small system
revenues. The new CWSS, estimated for completion in early 2009, is
expected to better enable EPA to assess the impacts of future
regulatory actions on small systems. In the new CWSS, we are taking
steps to improve response rate, particularly with respect to water
system revenue estimates. Examples of these steps include linking
municipal government revenues to the system surveyed in that
municipality, rather than reliance on the Census of Governments data;
decreasing item non-response on revenue source through system site
visits; and gaining a better understanding of how a water system pays
for its system operations in systems that report no revenue, through an
additional survey question. These improvements to the new CWSS will
help EPA to gain a better understanding of the revenue sources
available to small water systems and improve our ability to accurately
understand the revenue streams available to these systems.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 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 UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. The total upfront costs of this action to
States and public water systems are estimated at $12.7 million, with
estimated annual costs to States and public water systems ranging from
$5.9 to $6.3 million. Systems and State/Primacy agencies 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 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 rule 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 rule is consistent with, and only makes revisions to,
the requirements under the current NPDWR for lead and copper. The
existing rule imposes requirements on PWSs to ensure that water
delivered to users is minimally corrosive; the rule requires removal of
lead service lines and the provision of public education where
necessary to ensure public health protection. This final 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 rule requirements.
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
[[Page 57813]]
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 final rule.
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'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule is consistent with, and
only makes revisions to, the requirements under the current NPDWR for
lead and copper. The existing rule imposes requirements on PWSs to
ensure that water delivered to users is minimally corrosive; the rule
requires removal of lead service lines and the provision of public
education where necessary to ensure public health protection. This
final 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 rule requirements.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
Nevertheless, EPA did consult with State and local officials in
developing this final rule as described in Section V.D, Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the
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 final 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 this final rule apply to all
community and non-transient non-community water systems. Tribal
governments may be owners or operators of such systems; however,
nothing in this rule's provisions uniquely affects them. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
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.
While this final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
we nonetheless have reason to believe that the environmental health or
safety risk addressed by this action has a disproportionate effect on
children. This final 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, these changes improve the implementation of
these provisions. Moreover, EPA believes that this final rule is
consistent with Executive Order 13045 because it further strengthens
the protection to children from exposure to lead via drinking water as
it enhances the implementation of the LCR in the areas of monitoring,
customer awareness, and lead service line replacement. This final rule
also clarifies the intent of some 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
requirements only.
This final rule does not affect the supply of energy as it does not
regulate power generation. The public and private utilities that are
affected by this final regulation do not, as a rule, generate power.
The 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
As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law
No. 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 final rule may involve voluntary consensus standards in that it
requires
[[Page 57814]]
additional monitoring for lead and copper in certain situations, and
monitoring and sample analysis methodologies are often based on
voluntary consensus standards. However, the final 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.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective December 10, 2007.
VI. References
U.S. EPA, 1991a. 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, 1991b. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis of National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. Prepared by
Wade Miller Associates, Inc. (April 1991).
U.S. EPA, 1996a. Federal Register. Vol. 60, No. 72. Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule (Friday, April 12,
1996), 16348-16371. (60 FR 16348).
U.S. EPA, 1996b. Regulatory Impact Analysis Addendum. EPA 812-B-96-
002, January 1996.
U.S. EPA, 1998. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 160. Consumer
Confidence Reports (August 19, 1998) (63 FR 44526).
U.S. EPA, 2000a. Arsenic in Drinking Water Rule Economic Analysis.
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, EPA 815-R-00-026,
December 2000.
U.S. EPA, 2000b. Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 8. National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Rule. (Wed,
January 12, 2000), 1950-2015 (65 FR 1950).
U.S. EPA, 2000c. Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 87. Public
Notification of Drinking Water Violations (May 4, 2000) (65 FR 26035).
U.S. EPA, 2004a. 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, 2004b. State Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule.
July, 2004.
U.S. EPA, 2005a. Economic Analysis for the Final Long Term 2
Enhances Surface Water Treatment Rule. Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, EPA 815-R-06-001, December 2005.
U.S. EPA, 2005b. Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule. Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water, EPA 815-R-05-010, December 2005.
U.S. EPA, 2006a. Federal Register. Vol. 71, No. 137. National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Short-term
Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications; Proposed Rule (July 18,
2006), 40828-40863 (71 FR 40828).
U.S. EPA, 2006b. EPA Air Quality Criteria for Lead (Final). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-05/144aF-
bF, October, 2006.
U.S. EPA, 2007a. Economic and Supporting Analyses: Short-Term
Regulatory Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule. Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water, EPA-815-R0-7022, September 2007.
U.S. EPA, 2007b. Simultaneous Compliance Guidance Manual for the
Long Term 2 and Stage 2 DBP Rules. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA 815-R-07-017, March 2007.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indians--lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
Dated: September 25, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
• For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
• 1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4,
300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
• 2. Section 141.80 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(2), by adding paragraph (c)(3)(v), and by revising paragraph (g) to
read as follows:
Sec. 141.80 General requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(v) For a public water system that has been allowed by the State to
collect fewer than five samples in accordance with Sec. 141.86(c), the
sample result with the highest concentration is considered the 90th
percentile value.
* * * * *
(g) 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 (taps) that are
tested. Any system exceeding the lead action level shall implement the
public education requirements.
* * * * *
• 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) introductory text;
• 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 long-term change in treatment or
addition of a new source as described in that section. The State must
review and approve the addition of a new source or long-term 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
[[Page 57815]]
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 180 days 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 ``paragraph (b)'' to read ``paragraph
(b)(2)''.
Sec. 141.84 Lead service line replacement requirements.
* * * * *
(b)(1) * * * The first year of lead service line replacement shall
begin on the first day following the end of 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 after the cessation of its lead service line replacement
program as allowed by paragraph (f) of this section 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 lead service line replacement is
based on a 15-year replacement program, so, for example, systems
resuming lead service line replacement after previously conducting two
years of replacement would divide the updated inventory by 13). For
those systems that have completed a 15-year lead service line
replacement program, the State will determine a schedule for replacing
or retesting lines that were previously tested out under the
replacement program when the system re-exceeds the action level.
* * * * *
• 6. Section 141.85 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 141.85 Public education and supplemental monitoring requirements.
All water systems must deliver 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 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.
(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 (e.g.,
brochures and pamphlets) in the same order as listed below. In
addition, language in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (ii) and (a)(1)(vi)
of this section must be included in the materials, 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
the general public. Water systems must submit all written public
education materials to the State prior to delivery. The State may
require the system to obtain approval of the content of written public
materials prior to delivery.
(i) IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT LEAD IN YOUR DRINKING WATER.
[INSERT NAME OF WATER SYSTEM] found elevated levels of lead in drinking
water in some homes/buildings. Lead can cause serious health problems,
especially for pregnant women and young children. Please read this
information 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 from drinking water or other sources. It
can cause damage to the brain and kidneys, and can interfere with the
production of red blood cells that carry oxygen to all parts of your
body. The greatest risk of lead exposure is to infants, young children,
and pregnant women. Scientists have linked the effects of lead on the
brain with lowered IQ in children. Adults with kidney problems and high
blood pressure can be affected by low levels of lead more than healthy
adults. Lead is stored in the bones, and it can be released later in
life. During pregnancy, the child receives lead from the mother's
bones, which may affect brain development.
(iii) Sources of Lead.
(A) Explain what lead is.
(B) Explain possible sources of lead in drinking water and how lead
enters drinking water. Include information on home/building plumbing
materials and service lines that may contain lead.
(C) Discuss other important sources of lead exposure in addition to
drinking water (e.g., paint).
(iv) Discuss the steps the consumer can take to reduce their
exposure to lead in drinking water.
(A) Encourage running the water to flush out the lead.
(B) Explain concerns with using hot water from the tap and
specifically caution against the use of hot water for preparing 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.
(E) Suggest that parents have their child's blood tested for lead.
(v) Explain why there are elevated levels of lead in the system's
drinking water (if known) and 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] [(IF
APPLICABLE), or visit our Web site at [INSERT YOUR WEB SITE HERE]]. 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 or contact your health care provider.
[[Page 57816]]
(2) Community water systems. In addition to including the elements
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, community water systems
must:
(i) Tell consumers how to get their water tested.
(ii) Discuss lead in plumbing components and the difference between
low lead and lead free.
(b) Delivery of public education materials. (1) For public water
systems serving a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers,
as determined by the State, the public education materials must contain
information in the appropriate language(s) regarding the importance of
the notice or contain a telephone number or address where persons
served may contact the water system to obtain a translated copy of the
public education materials or to request assistance in the appropriate
language.
(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 conduct the public education tasks under this
section 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)(A) Contact customers who are most at risk by delivering
education materials that meet the content requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section to local public health agencies even if they are not
located within the water system's service area, along with an
informational notice that encourages distribution to all the
organization's potentially affected customers or community water
system's users. The water system must contact the local public health
agencies directly by phone or in person. The local public health
agencies may provide a specific list of additional community based
organizations serving target populations, which may include
organizations outside the service area of the water system. If such
lists are provided, systems must deliver education materials that meet
the content requirements of paragraph (a) of this section to all
organizations on the provided lists.
(B) Contact customers who are most at risk by delivering materials
that meet the content requirements of paragraph (a) of this section to
the following organizations listed in 1 through 6 that are located
within the water system's service area, along with an informational
notice that encourages distribution to all the organization's
potentially affected customers or community water system's users:
(1) Public and private schools or school boards.
(2) Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and Head Start programs.
(3) Public and private hospitals and medical clinics.
(4) Pediatricians.
(5) Family planning clinics.
(6) Local welfare agencies.
(C) Make a good faith effort to locate the following organizations
within the service area and deliver materials that meet the content
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section to them, along with an
informational notice that encourages distribution to all potentially
affected customers or users. The good faith effort to contact at-risk
customers may include requesting a specific contact list of these
organizations from the local public health agencies, even if the
agencies are not located within the water system's service area:
(1) Licensed childcare centers
(2) Public and private preschools.
(3) Obstetricians-Gynecologists and Midwives.
(iii) No less often than quarterly, 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 except for the text in brackets for which
the water system must include system-specific information: [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; specifically, the State may allow a
separate mailing of public education materials to customers if the
water system cannot place the information on water bills.
(iv) Post material meeting the content requirements of paragraph
(a) of this section on the water system's Web site if the system serves
a population greater than 100,000.
(v) Submit a press release to newspaper, television and radio
stations.
(vi) In addition to paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (v) of this
section, systems must implement at least three activities from one or
more categories listed below. The educational content and selection of
these activities must be determined in consultation with the State.
(A) Public Service Announcements.
(B) Paid advertisements.
(C) Public Area Information Displays.
(D) E-mails to customers.
(E) Public Meetings.
(F) Household Deliveries.
(G) Targeted Individual Customer Contact.
(H) Direct material distribution 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 community water system exceeds the action level,
it must repeat the activities pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this
section as described in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (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 and retain material on a publicly accessible Web
site pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section.
(iv) The community water system shall repeat the task in paragraph
(b)(2)(v) of this section twice every 12 months on a schedule agreed
upon with the State. The State can allow activities in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section to extend beyond the 60-day requirement if needed for
implementation purposes on a case-by-case basis; 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
[[Page 57817]]
the non-transient non-community water system. The State may allow the
system to utilize electronic transmission in lieu of or combined with
printed materials as long as it achieves at least the same coverage.
(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. The State can allow activities in (b)(4) of this section to
extend beyond the 60-day requirement if needed for implementation
purposes on a case-by-case basis; however, this extension must be
approved in writing by the State in advance of the 60-day deadline.
(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 3,300 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 3,300 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
3,300 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 notice of the individual tap results from lead
tap water monitoring carried out under the requirements of Sec. 141.86
to the persons served by the water system at the specific sampling site
from which the sample was taken (e.g., the occupants of the residence
where the tap was tested).
(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).
(4) Delivery. The consumer notice must be provided to persons
served at the tap that was tested, either by mail or by another method
approved by the State. For example, upon approval by the State, a non-
transient non-community water system could post the results on a
bulletin board in the facility to allow users to review the
information. The system must provide the notice to customers at sample
taps tested, including consumers who do not receive water bills.
• 7. Section 141.86 is amended as follows:
• a. In paragraph (b)(5) remove the citation ``Sec. Sec.
141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii)'' and add in its place ``Sec. 141.85(b)(7)'';
• b. In paragraph (c) introductory text by adding three sentences after
the third sentence;
• c. In paragraph (d)(4)(i) add three sentences after the last sentence;
• d. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(ii);
• e. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iii);
• f. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A);
• g. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(vi)(B) introductory text;
• h. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (d)(4)(vi)(B)(1);
• i. Removing the first sentence in paragraph (d)(4)(vii), and adding in
its place the following two sentences;
• j. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (g)(4)(i); and
• k. Removing the first sentence in paragraph (g)(4)(iii) and adding in
its place two new sentences:
Sec. 141.86 Monitoring requirements for lead and copper in tap water.
* * * * *
(c) * * * A public water system that has fewer than five drinking
water taps, that can be used for human consumption meeting the sample
site criteria of paragraph (a) of this section to reach the required
number of sample sites listed in paragraph (c) of this section, 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. Alternatively
the State may allow these public water systems to collect a number of
samples less than the number of sites specified in paragraph (c) of
this section, provided that 100 percent of all taps that can be used
for human consumption are sampled. The State must approve this
reduction of the minimum number of samples in writing based on a
request from the system or onsite verification by the State. * * *
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * * A small or medium water system collecting fewer than five
samples as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, that meets the
lead and copper action levels during each of two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods may reduce the frequency of sampling to once per
year. In no case can the system reduce the number of samples required
below the minimum of one sample per available tap. 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
[[Page 57818]]
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 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 a different period
for conducting the lead and copper tap sampling for systems collecting
a reduced number of samples. Such a period shall be no longer than four
consecutive months and must represent a time of normal operation where
the highest levels of lead are most likely to occur. For a non-
transient non-community water system that does not operate during the
months of June through September, and for which the period of normal
operation where the highest levels of lead are most likely to occur is
not known, the State shall designate a period that represents a time of
normal operation for the system. This sampling shall begin during the
period approved or designated by the State in the calendar year
immediately following the end of the second consecutive six-month
monitoring period for systems initiating annual monitoring and during
the three-year period following the end of the third consecutive
calendar year of annual monitoring for systems initiating triennial
monitoring.
* * * * *
(vi) * * *
(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, collect the number of samples
specified for standard monitoring under paragraph (c) of this section,
and shall resume monitoring for water quality parameters within the
distribution system in accordance with Sec. 141.87(d). This standard
tap water sampling shall begin no later than the six-month period
beginning January 1 of the calendar year following the lead action
level exceedance or 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 a 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 long-term
change in treatment or addition of a new source as described in that
section. The State must review and approve the addition of a new source
or long-term 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 long-term change in treatment or addition of a new source, as
described in that section. The State must review and approve the
addition of a new source or long-term change in water treatment before
it is implemented by the water system.* * *
* * * * *
• 8. Section 141.87 is amended as follows by:
• a. Revising paragraph (d);
• b. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(i); and
• c. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (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). Any small or medium-size system shall conduct such
monitoring during each six-month period specified in this paragraph in
which the system exceeds the lead or copper action level. For any such
small and medium-size system that is subject to a reduced monitoring
frequency pursuant to Sec. 141.86(d)(4) at the time of the action
level exceedance, the start of the applicable six-month monitoring
period under this paragraph shall coincide with the start of the
applicable monitoring period under Sec. 141.86(d)(4). Compliance with
State-designated optimal water quality parameter values shall be
determined as specified under Sec. 141.82(g).
(e) * * *
(2)(i) Any water system that maintains the range of values for the
water quality
[[Page 57819]]
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 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 ground water) 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:
* * * * *
Sec. 141.89 [Amended]
• 10. Section 141.89 is amended as follows by:
• a. In paragraph (a)(1)(iii) remove the citation ``Sec.
141.88(a)(1)(iii)'' and add in its place ``Sec. 141.88(a)(1)(iv)'';
• b. In paragraph (a)(1)(iv) remove the citation ``(a)(2)'' and add in
its place ``(a)(1)''.
• 11. Section 141.90 is amended as follows by:
• a. Removing the colon and adding a period in its place at the end of
paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
• b. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
• c. In paragraph (a)(2) introductory text remove the citation
``Sec. Sec. 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii)'' and add in its place ``Sec.
141.85(b)(7)'';
• d. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
• e. Revising paragraph (e)(1);
• f. Revising paragraph (e)(2) introductory text;
• g. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (e)(2)(ii);
• h. Revising paragraph (f)(1) introductory text;
• i. Revising paragraph (f)(1)(i); and
• j. Adding paragraph (f)(3).
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 long-term 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 submit written documentation to the
State describing the change or addition. The State must review and
approve the addition of a new source or long-term change in treatment
before it is implemented by the water system. Examples of long-term
treatment changes include the addition of a new treatment process or
modification of an existing treatment process. Examples of
modifications include switching secondary disinfectants, switching
coagulants (e.g., alum to ferric chloride), and switching corrosion
inhibitor products (e.g., orthophosphate to blended phosphate). Long-
term changes can include dose changes to existing chemicals if the
system is planning long-term changes to its finished water pH or
residual inhibitor concentration. Long-term treatment changes would not
include chemical dose fluctuations associated with daily raw water
quality changes.
* * * * *
(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:
* * * * *
(ii) * * * In such cases, the total number of lines replaced and/or
which meet the criteria in Sec. 141.84(c) shall
[[Page 57820]]
equal at least 7 percent of the initial number of lead lines identified
under paragraph (e)(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
* * * * *
(3) No later than 3 months following the end of the monitoring
period, each system must mail a sample copy of the consumer
notification of tap results to the State along with a certification
that the notification has been distributed in a manner consistent with
the requirements of Sec. 141.85(d).
* * * * *
• 12. Section 141.154 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 141.154 Required additional health information.
* * * * *
(d) Every report must include the following lead-specific information:
(1) A short informational statement about lead in drinking water
and its effects on children. The statement must include the following
information:
If present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health
problems, especially for pregnant women and young children. Lead in
drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated
with service lines and home plumbing. [NAME OF UTILITY] is responsible
for providing high quality drinking water, but cannot control the
variety of materials used in plumbing components. When your water has
been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead
exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using
water for drinking or cooking. If you are concerned about lead in your
water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in
drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize
exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline or at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead.
(2) A system may write its own educational statement, but only in
consultation with the State.
* * * * *
PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTATION
• 13. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
• 14. Section 142.14 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(8)(xi) to read
as follows:
Sec. 142.14 Records kept by States.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(8) * * *
(xi) Section 141.86(b)(5)--system-specific determinations regarding
use of non-first-draw samples at non-transient non-community water
systems, and community water systems meeting the criteria of Sec.
141.85(b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this chapter, that operate 24 hours a day;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-19432 Filed 10-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081011052814im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}